Democrats want us to lose

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21
From: larry
Subject: Democrats want us to lose

Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.

The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
President's lines about winning.

The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
from the US reversals in Iraq.

The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
to point to.

Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:26:55
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

10:35am and Larry is shit faced drunk already.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:39:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Jan 24, 5:26 pm, "William A. T. Clark" <clark...@osu.edu > wrote:
> Dubya's approval rating soared to a
> Presidential record before Christmas. Didn't you know that? I do,
> because Larry told me that it was going to happen some time last Summer.

Personally, I don't put much stock into those 28% approval ratings for
Bush.
You can't tell me that almost one-third of the people in the US are as
stupid as Larry and honestly think Bush is doing a good job. Don't
believe me? Go out on the street tomorrow and ask 9 strangers what
they think. No way 3 of them will say, "He's doing great!"

Here's what I think should happen.
Bush and his gang should all be impeached.
Anyone who voted for Bush the last time should not be allowed to vote
again for 10 years. And if you've still got a "W" sticker on your car,
make that 20 years.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:33:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com > wrote:
> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>
> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
> President's lines about winning.

Define "winning."
Let's see if your definition is similar to your Presidents definition,
which seems to be "not losing." Bush says if we leave we lose, so we
can never leave.
I say, "Fuck it, pick that one up. It's good."

Date: 25 Jan 2007 06:55:24
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169692395.141867.157030@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com> wrote:
>> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>>
>> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
>> President's lines about winning.
>
> Define "winning."
> Let's see if your definition is similar to your Presidents definition,
> which seems to be "not losing." Bush says if we leave we lose, so we
> can never leave.
> I say, "Fuck it, pick that one up. It's good."
>

Good luck with that one -- larry won't even tell us what defeat looks like
over there.

I suspect it would look like a civil war with the US in between them like a
lamb staked out for bait.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:12:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

Not only the Dems. You might want to hear what Chuck Hagel has been
saying. Check the video at this site. It's pretty strong for a
Republican senator to be saying to his President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16785663/
--
___,
\o

Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:34:07
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:12:20 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>wrote:
>
>Not only the Dems. You might want to hear what Chuck Hagel has been
>saying. Check the video at this site. It's pretty strong for a
>Republican senator to be saying to his President.

He is a moron--thinking this posture will get him more votes for
president--the liberal media loves him--like they did McCane when he
was a renegade. I have heard just a tiny fraction of what the
Nebraska Republican Party is saying to him-- and he will be VERY lucky
to get the Republican Party nomination next time he runs for office
there--if he tries to run as a Republican. He has squandered his
career. Notice that McCane got the word--stopped that stuff-- and is
no longer the sweeheart of the liberal media.

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 06:53:15
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:epcfr2pbahao0rhflfforkur4sij4sarcu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:12:20 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Not only the Dems. You might want to hear what Chuck Hagel has been
>>saying. Check the video at this site. It's pretty strong for a
>>Republican senator to be saying to his President.
>
> He is a moron--thinking this posture will get him more votes for
> president--the liberal media loves him--like they did McCane when he
> was a renegade. I have heard just a tiny fraction of what the
> Nebraska Republican Party is saying to him-- and he will be VERY lucky
> to get the Republican Party nomination next time he runs for office
> there--if he tries to run as a Republican. He has squandered his
> career. Notice that McCane got the word--stopped that stuff-- and is
> no longer the sweeheart of the liberal media.
>
> Larry

More predictions from the side that is 0 for the last 6 years.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:21:57
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <epcfr2pbahao0rhflfforkur4sij4sarcu@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:12:20 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >Not only the Dems. You might want to hear what Chuck Hagel has been
> >saying. Check the video at this site. It's pretty strong for a
> >Republican senator to be saying to his President.
>
> He is a moron--thinking this posture will get him more votes for
> president--the liberal media loves him--like they did McCane when he
> was a renegade. I have heard just a tiny fraction of what the
> Nebraska Republican Party is saying to him-- and he will be VERY lucky
> to get the Republican Party nomination next time he runs for office
> there--if he tries to run as a Republican. He has squandered his
> career. Notice that McCane got the word--stopped that stuff-- and is
> no longer the sweeheart of the liberal media.
>
> Larry

Excuse me, oh arbiter of all things to do with the English language, but
it's "McCain", not McCane. Twice.

Do try harder, please.

William Clark

Date: 24 Jan 2007 13:49:19
From: frankross
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

larry wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:12:20 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:35:21 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Not only the Dems. You might want to hear what Chuck Hagel has been
>> saying. Check the video at this site. It's pretty strong for a
>> Republican senator to be saying to his President.
>
> He is a moron--thinking this posture will get him more votes for
> president--the liberal media loves him--like they did McCane when he
> was a renegade. I have heard just a tiny fraction of what the
> Nebraska Republican Party is saying to him-- and he will be VERY lucky
> to get the Republican Party nomination next time he runs for office
> there--if he tries to run as a Republican. He has squandered his
> career. Notice that McCane got the word--stopped that stuff-- and is
> no longer the sweeheart of the liberal media.
>
> Larry

Surely a good Repub like you knows that it is McCain, not McCane!
Frank

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:05:15
From: temp
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <ak9fr2hbnuoidknduutj0rnmncbj82g081@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>
> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
> President's lines about winning.
>
> The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
> US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
> from the US reversals in Iraq.
>
> The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
> recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
> elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
> ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
> to point to.
>
> Larry

Accidentally, you have admitted why the U.S. is in Iraq: so that George
W. Bush could have a success to point to...
--
Alan Baker

Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:27:26
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:05:15 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com > wrote:

>In article <ak9fr2hbnuoidknduutj0rnmncbj82g081@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>>
>> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
>> President's lines about winning.
>>
>> The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
>> US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
>> from the US reversals in Iraq.
>>
>> The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
>> recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
>> elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
>> ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
>> to point to.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Accidentally, you have admitted why the U.S. is in Iraq: so that George
>W. Bush could have a success to point to...

Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"

Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:04:14
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:2ncfr2hvn8thu8v2rtng3ijpq5nratg4ue@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:05:15 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <ak9fr2hbnuoidknduutj0rnmncbj82g081@4ax.com>,
>> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>>>
>>> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
>>> President's lines about winning.
>>>
>>> The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
>>> US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
>>> from the US reversals in Iraq.
>>>
>>> The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
>>> recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
>>> elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
>>> ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
>>> to point to.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>Accidentally, you have admitted why the U.S. is in Iraq: so that George
>>W. Bush could have a success to point to...
>
> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>

Why do idiots like yourself post about anything at all?

Can't you see how stupid you are when you look in the mirror? -- or are you
so stupid that you do not recognize your own reflection?

> Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:23:22
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Date: 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <2ncfr2hvn8thu8v2rtng3ijpq5nratg4ue@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:05:15 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ak9fr2hbnuoidknduutj0rnmncbj82g081@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
> >>
> >> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
> >> President's lines about winning.
> >>
> >> The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
> >> US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
> >> from the US reversals in Iraq.
> >>
> >> The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
> >> recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
> >> elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
> >> ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
> >> to point to.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Accidentally, you have admitted why the U.S. is in Iraq: so that George
> >W. Bush could have a success to point to...
>
> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>
> Larry

Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
to respond to that.

But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.

Our choices really are :

1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.

2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
favorite.

3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
be all Democrats all the time.

BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
said that was 'mercenaries'?

It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:12:39
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
>
> Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
> to respond to that.
>
> But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>
> Our choices really are :
>
> 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>
> 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> favorite.
>
> 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> be all Democrats all the time.
>
> BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> said that was 'mercenaries'?
>
> It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.

Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
they have no business deciding tactical strategies.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:30:05
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:12:39 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>
>"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
>>
>> Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
>> to respond to that.
>>
>> But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>> war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>> it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>> well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
>> done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>>
>> Our choices really are :
>>
>> 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>> over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>> troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>>
>> 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>> security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>> favorite.
>>
>> 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
>> won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>> be all Democrats all the time.
>>
>> BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>> Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
>> said that was 'mercenaries'?
>>
>> It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>> then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>
>Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
>decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
>they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
>they have no business deciding tactical strategies.

It is reprehensible. Our congressmen are fully aware that our enemies
are listening to their words-- and taking encouragement from the
dissident voices. They really don't care-- because different from
WWII and Korea, these loyal leaders WANT US TO LOSE so they can
continue to win elections like 2006.

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 08:05:58
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:30:05 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>It is reprehensible. Our congressmen are fully aware that our enemies
>are listening to their words-- and taking encouragement from the
>dissident voices. They really don't care-- because different from
>WWII and Korea, these loyal leaders WANT US TO LOSE so they can
>continue to win elections like 2006.

It appears that some Republicans are already campaigning based upon
losing the war. Their future depends on us losing, as they will
blame the party in power.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 08:57:08
From: temp
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <9cufr213qj5f7o394lkutt4phfj6s7hrd6@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> >> BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> >> Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> >> said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >>
> >> It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> >> then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
> >
> >Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
> >decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> >they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
> >they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
>
> It is reprehensible. Our congressmen are fully aware that our enemies
> are listening to their words-- and taking encouragement from the
> dissident voices. They really don't care-- because different from
> WWII and Korea, these loyal leaders WANT US TO LOSE so they can
> continue to win elections like 2006.

You mean the election you absolutely guaranteed they were going to
lose...
--
Alan Baker

Date: 25 Jan 2007 02:53:45
From: Jim Barrett
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote in
news:9cufr213qj5f7o394lkutt4phfj6s7hrd6@4ax.com:

>
> It is reprehensible. Our congressmen are fully aware that our enemies
> are listening to their words-- and taking encouragement from the
> dissident voices. They really don't care-- because different from
> WWII and Korea, these loyal leaders WANT US TO LOSE so they can
> continue to win elections like 2006.
>
> Larry

OK... What, specifically, do you mean by "victory" (in Iraq)? What,
specifically, would be the outcome (or outcomes) which would lead you to
declare that we have been victorious?

Most importantly - HOW would these outcomes be arrived at?

This isn't WWII, when there were over 8 million men and women in uniform
just in the U.S. Army alone, to say nothing of millions more soldiers in
the combined armies of all the rest of the allied forces... a time when the
entire industrial output of this country was almost totally devoted to
supporting the war effort... a time when almost every American man and
woman not on active duty supported the war effort by doing without
luxuries, buying war bonds, volunteering their time and talents in
thousands of ways...

I could go on and on.

How, in 2007, with our present force structure, can we turn the current
situation in Iraq around, decisively defeat all groups hostile to our
presence in Iraq, and bring piece and stability?

Surely a retired career Naval Officer, (which you claim to be,) must have
some clear idea of how we should proceed?

Jim Barrett

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:28:02
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <9cufr213qj5f7o394lkutt4phfj6s7hrd6@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:12:39 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
> >>
> >> Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
> >> to respond to that.
> >>
> >> But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> >> war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> >> it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> >> well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> >> done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
> >>
> >> Our choices really are :
> >>
> >> 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> >> over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> >> troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> >>
> >> 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> >> security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> >> favorite.
> >>
> >> 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> >> won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> >> be all Democrats all the time.
> >>
> >> BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> >> Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> >> said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >>
> >> It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> >> then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
> >
> >Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
> >decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> >they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
> >they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
>
> It is reprehensible. Our congressmen are fully aware that our enemies
> are listening to their words-- and taking encouragement from the
> dissident voices. They really don't care-- because different from
> WWII and Korea, these loyal leaders WANT US TO LOSE so they can
> continue to win elections like 2006.
>
> Larry

You may be right in some of that. Our politicians as a group leave a
lot to be desired, but so do we voters. We keep voting in these corrupt
politicians time and again and see them screw it up, then we reelect
them thinking that if we don't change, they will. And that covers both
parties.

It is long past time that we cause a sea change in Washington and dump
ALL incumbents and keep dumping them until they get the message that it
is all about 'we the people' not 'they the politicians'!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:25:18
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <o4Cdnc8OyZtVVirYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
> >
> > Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
> > to respond to that.
> >
> > But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> > war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> > it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> > well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> > done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
> >
> > Our choices really are :
> >
> > 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> > over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> > troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> >
> > 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> > security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> > favorite.
> >
> > 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> > won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> > be all Democrats all the time.
> >
> > BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> > Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> > said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >
> > It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> > then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>
> Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
> decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
> they have no business deciding tactical strategies.

Because the number of troops is the most important of the two, imo.
Shinsecki was correct in his assessment and he was rewarded for his
candor and long, honorable service with forced retirement.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 11:20:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Jan 25, 11:22 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote in messagenews:lloydparsons-075247.17205324012007@individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <29282-45B7D4CF-...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
> > > Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
> > > announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.

Shinseki had made his concerns known to the administration before he
testified. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz all wanted to kill him.

>
> > > He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
> > > and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
> > > attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
> > > a long and honorable serving officer.
>
> > I stand corrected.
>
> > BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
> > noticed...
>
> > It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
> > they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
> > should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
> > want, it is out the door...Where do you come up with this stuff? I thought everything the Iraq study
> group recommended was what we were supposed to do. Now that the
> Administration is doing that you cry foul.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Date: 25 Jan 2007 10:19:46
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-9D5DE6.15251824012007@individual.net...
> In article <o4Cdnc8OyZtVVirYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned?
The
> > decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> > they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they
know
> > they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
>
> Because the number of troops is the most important of the two, imo.
> Shinsecki was correct in his assessment and he was rewarded for his
> candor and long, honorable service with forced retirement.

So you just have a feeling for what is important?

Date: 25 Jan 2007 10:26:55
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <qeWdnaDD0aw-RSXYnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-9D5DE6.15251824012007@individual.net...
> > In article <o4Cdnc8OyZtVVirYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned?
> The
> > > decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> > > they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they
> know
> > > they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
> >
> > Because the number of troops is the most important of the two, imo.
> > Shinsecki was correct in his assessment and he was rewarded for his
> > candor and long, honorable service with forced retirement.
>
> So you just have a feeling for what is important?

To an extent, yes.

But looking at what we have been doing in Iraq, with the troop levels we
have, changing tactics might improve some things, but increasing the
troop levels is still required.

Listen to what they keep saying, it is like only Baghdad exists and is
the problem, but it isn't. It is throughout Iraq. And so far, every
time we've moved troops around out of Baghdad, then it erupts. Back to
Baghdad, then the other parts erupt. It is a vicious cycle that only
increasing the troop count will cure.

I have little confidence that our current Administration can make good
decisions when it comes to Iraq, recent history says no.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:34:12
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:25:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <o4Cdnc8OyZtVVirYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
>> >
>> > Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
>> > to respond to that.
>> >
>> > But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>> > war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>> > it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>> > well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
>> > done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>> >
>> > Our choices really are :
>> >
>> > 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>> > over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>> > troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>> >
>> > 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>> > security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>> > favorite.
>> >
>> > 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
>> > won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>> > be all Democrats all the time.
>> >
>> > BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>> > Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
>> > said that was 'mercenaries'?
>> >
>> > It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>> > then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>>
>> Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned? The
>> decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
>> they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they know
>> they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
>
>Because the number of troops is the most important of the two, imo.
>Shinsecki was correct in his assessment and he was rewarded for his
>candor and long, honorable service with forced retirement.

Possibly he was retired because he identified himself as one of those
who wants us to lose-- so the Democrats can gain power and keep it.
Army Generals can also be politicians.

Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:25:28
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <qlufr216gda2flihu40pahvdeb13edjdpi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:25:18 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <o4Cdnc8OyZtVVirYnZ2dnUVZ_vupnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> > "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:lloydparsons-8E3EE8.13445424012007@individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > Maybe he did it 'cause you keep posting BS, and it is always appropriate
> >> > to respond to that.
> >> >
> >> > But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> >> > war at the moment. Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> >> > it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> >> > well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> >> > done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
> >> >
> >> > Our choices really are :
> >> >
> >> > 1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> >> > over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> >> > troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> >> > security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> >> > favorite.
> >> >
> >> > 3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> >> > won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> >> > be all Democrats all the time.
> >> >
> >> > BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> >> > Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> >> > said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >> >
> >> > It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> >> > then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
> >>
> >> Why is the changing the troop level the only thing that gets mentioned?
> >> The
> >> decision was to make a change in tactical strategy. In order to do that
> >> they need additional troops. Congress is blustering for politics, they
> >> know
> >> they have no business deciding tactical strategies.
> >
> >Because the number of troops is the most important of the two, imo.
> >Shinsecki was correct in his assessment and he was rewarded for his
> >candor and long, honorable service with forced retirement.
>
> Possibly he was retired because he identified himself as one of those
> who wants us to lose-- so the Democrats can gain power and keep it.
> Army Generals can also be politicians.
>
> Larry

Nice try Larry. Shinsecki was put out to pasture because he said to do
it took many more troops than Bush with the encouragement of Rumsfeld
wanted to put in there. Simple as that. Didn't have anything to do
with win or lose as a goal, only the practicality of winning
requirements.

You really need to pull your nose out of all those retired Admirals
asses and look and read for yourself now and then.

Frankly you should be incensed that our politicians have again taken our
young men and women to fight a war and then done a poor job of giving
them the numbers and tools they need to get it done.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:51:11
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.

He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
a long and honorable serving officer.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:20:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net >,
grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:

> Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
> announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
>
> He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
> and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
> attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
> a long and honorable serving officer.

I stand corrected.

BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
noticed...

It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
want, it is out the door...

Date: 25 Jan 2007 10:22:06
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-075247.17205324012007@individual.net...
> In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
> > Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
> > announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
> >
> > He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
> > and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
> > attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
> > a long and honorable serving officer.
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
> noticed...
>
> It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
> they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
> should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
> want, it is out the door...

Where do you come up with this stuff? I thought everything the Iraq study
group recommended was what we were supposed to do. Now that the
Administration is doing that you cry foul.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 10:29:10
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <4vSdnZB0X4ayRCXYnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-075247.17205324012007@individual.net...
> > In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
> >
> > > Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
> > > announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
> > >
> > > He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
> > > and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
> > > attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
> > > a long and honorable serving officer.
> >
> > I stand corrected.
> >
> > BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
> > noticed...
> >
> > It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
> > they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
> > should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
> > want, it is out the door...
>
> Where do you come up with this stuff? I thought everything the Iraq study
> group recommended was what we were supposed to do. Now that the
> Administration is doing that you cry foul.

I'm not crying foul because of that study, but because of what they do
to the Generals that disagree.

And did the study group recommend only increasing the number of troops
to the same level it was a year ago, when we didn't get the job done?
Or did they say only worry about Baghdad?

I don't remember it saying those things. But feel free to enlighten me.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:31:20
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

General Shinseki served the full normal four year term as Army Chief of
Staff so there was no "out the door" for unwanted advice.

General Abizaid is retiring because the Senate probably won't confirm him
for another job because of Abu Gbraib which happened on his watch.
.
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-075247.17205324012007@individual.net...
> In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
>> Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
>> announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
>>
>> He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
>> and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
>> attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
>> a long and honorable serving officer.
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
> noticed...
>
> It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
> they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
> should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
> want, it is out the door...

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:37:00
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:20:53 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
>> Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
>> announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
>>
>> He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
>> and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
>> attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
>> a long and honorable serving officer.
>
>I stand corrected.
>
>BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
>noticed...

Yeah, being promote to a top Pentagon command job is pretty bad
punishment!. He is back from Iraq because his rotation had been
scheduled. His recent pronouncements are almost exactly what Bush
says.

Larry
>
>It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
>they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
>should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
>want, it is out the door...

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:32:08
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <2qufr2pgh3u74cftjhhn850rjaat1bcbgv@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:20:53 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <29282-45B7D4CF-122@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
> >
> >> Small correction, Lloyd. General Shinseki had made his retirement
> >> announcement before he testified so he wasn't "forced" to retire.
> >>
> >> He was, however, shunted to the shadows for the remainder of his tenure
> >> and not one single senior representative of the Bush administration
> >> attended his formal retirement ceremony, an almost unheard of insult to
> >> a long and honorable serving officer.
> >
> >I stand corrected.
> >
> >BTW, they are also doing the same thing to Abizaid in case you hadn't
> >noticed...
>
> Yeah, being promote to a top Pentagon command job is pretty bad
> punishment!. He is back from Iraq because his rotation had been
> scheduled. His recent pronouncements are almost exactly what Bush
> says.
>
> Larry
> >
> >It has been a real sign from this Admin. They always talk about how
> >they ask the Generals for advice and troop strengths and such, as they
> >should. But it seems if the Generals don't provide the answer they
> >want, it is out the door...

Larry, he was in charge of the US Central Command in Tampa, FL. Thought
I'd keep you from looking dumber than usual, but I wasn't quick enough I
guess.

And BTW, he is retiring...

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:56:51
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

I usually stay out of the political threads - my politics are mine,
yours are yours and never the twain shall meet. I got into this one
because of the abolute idiocy of Larry's subject title.

On the rare occasion on which I indulge, however, I have noticed that if
you ask Larry to think outside of the far right wing box you are asking
the tides to flow back. In a couple of earlier posts I have challenges
Larry's assertions and challenged his "logic" and he has yet to respond.

In reality I wasn't challenging his assertions, I was making fun of
them. they aren't worthy of challenge.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 06:50:16
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"Kenn Smith" <grizzledbear@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:26862-45B80E63-175@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
>I usually stay out of the political threads - my politics are mine,
> yours are yours and never the twain shall meet. I got into this one
> because of the abolute idiocy of Larry's subject title.
>
> On the rare occasion on which I indulge, however, I have noticed that if
> you ask Larry to think outside of the far right wing box you are asking
> the tides to flow back. In a couple of earlier posts I have challenges
> Larry's assertions and challenged his "logic" and he has yet to respond.
>
> In reality I wasn't challenging his assertions, I was making fun of
> them. they aren't worthy of challenge.
>

If you want funny -- you should view his golf swing ---

I'm sorry about the golf content.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:54:30
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

the atmosphere at DoD has changed some with the departure of Rumsfeld.
When Gneral Abizaid does retire I suspect that there will be more than
one high level administration official in attendance. Although
Secretary Gates is a Cheney protige and crony I think he has better
sense than to repeat such an insult.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:30:48
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <11940-45B7F1B6-84@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net >,
grizzledbear@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:

> the atmosphere at DoD has changed some with the departure of Rumsfeld.
> When Gneral Abizaid does retire I suspect that there will be more than
> one high level administration official in attendance. Although
> Secretary Gates is a Cheney protige and crony I think he has better
> sense than to repeat such an insult.

I sincerely hope so. Regardless of whether you agree with the Generals
and Admirals, they did provide long, loyal service and deserve a proper
sendoff. As do the lower ranks.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:01:14
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>
>But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>war at the moment.

Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
Infidels.

>Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
>done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.

The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
protecting his country.

If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
your ilk with the blame.
>
>Our choices really are :
>
>1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>
>2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>favorite.
>
>3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
>won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>be all Democrats all the time.
>
>BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
>said that was 'mercenaries'?
>
>It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.

Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
country as a base for attacks around the world.

Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.

Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:08:54
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>>war at the moment.
>
> Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
> Infidels.
>
>>Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>>it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>>well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
>>done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>
> The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
> Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
> that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
> protecting his country.
>

It is good to see you can make the Vietnam comparison in your own way ----
your own addled version of the domino theory...

> If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
> attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
> your ilk with the blame.
>>
>>Our choices really are :
>>
>>1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>>over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>>troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>>
>>2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>>security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>>favorite.
>>
>>3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
>>won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>>be all Democrats all the time.
>>
>>BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>>Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
>>said that was 'mercenaries'?
>>
>>It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>>then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>
> Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
> bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
> from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
> against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
> themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
> country as a base for attacks around the world.
>
> Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
>
> Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:20:31
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush doubles down-- or, In your face, appeasers

On Jan 24, 3:44 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:58:20 -0800, larry wrote:
> > I could give lots of references, but I really don't care whether anyone
> > believes anything about me- except that my handicap has gone from
> > beginner to 8.0 with a 7.7 trend in only 5 years--and that I started
> > golfing when I turned 60. Today I can drive it farther and straighter
> > than most-- and ALL who are my age.You lie so much that everyone naturally believes you're lying about your
> game too. You should go to a RSG event and prove all the doubters wrong.

So should you!

-Greg

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:07:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!

On Jan 24, 5:09 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 13:50:18 -0800, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I said in my original post that the Catholic schools generally charge
> >less than the private schools. Your refusal to admit error in the face
> >of proof is cowardly and pitiable. You remind me of my kids when they
> >were toddlers.Here's another 20 schoold under 10K in Montgomery County
>
> http://www.adw.org/education/edu.asp?region=2
>
> Here's another 25, almost all under 5K in Prince George's County
>
> http://www.adw.org/education/edu.asp?region=3
>
> Here's 16 in Southern yland all under 5K.
>
> http://www.adw.org/education/edu.asp?region=4
>
> That makes it close to 100.
>
> Give it up, you're wrong again.

They're all Catholic. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you. This
is all the result of an innocuous statement I made that DC area private
schools generally charge in the $25K range, although Cath. schools
generally charge less. You have done absolutely nothing to disprove
that. Yet you persist at this as if you had some personal stake in the
outcome. What is wrong with you?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 13:20:24
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:01:14 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
>Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
>that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
>protecting his country.

He's a politician. His success or failure will depend on who he
persuades to do what he wants back home. If we are safer during the
next 20 years, without giving up our essential freedoms - then he will
have succeeded. If we are not safer, or if we have lost our
essential freedoms - then he will have failed.

This applies even if his failure is a failure "to convince the
Democrats". Because he is not a soldier who convinces with weapons
- he is a statesman who fights verbal battles.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:50:46
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Jan 24, 3:57 pm, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
> The State of the Union address is more carefully choreographed than a
> Busby Berkley musical. The group follows the leader's cues. Did you
> happen to notice that during some of his early social program proposals
> the Democrats stood and applauded while the Republicans sat on their
> hands? Does this mean that the Republicans hate the middle and lower
> classes? Probably not but using your logic it does.

When Bush suggests sending in more troops, the Republicans stand and
applaud.

"My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two
decades -- because while the price of freedom and security is high, it
is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will
pay."

Then he continues...

"My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland
security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response,
airport and border security, and improved intelligence. We will
develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll
increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our
heroic police and firefighters."

(Applause.)

"We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at
our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology
to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States."

(Applause.)

"Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many
ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve
public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer
neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal
drugs."

(Applause.)

"Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security,
the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the
American people."

(Applause.)

But let a Democrat suggest raising the minimum wage or helping poor
people get health care and the Repugs all sit on their hands and ask,
"How do they propose to pay for all that?"

Date: 25 Jan 2007 10:32:57
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169693446.746300.140260@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> But let a Democrat suggest raising the minimum wage or helping poor
> people get health care and the Repugs all sit on their hands and ask,
> "How do they propose to pay for all that?"

Your consistent purposeful, twisting of the facts is so lame.

Also from the State of the Union....

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have
affordable and available healthcare. When it comes to healthcare, government
has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children.
We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health
insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot
afford a health insurance policy.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their
own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health
insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents.
Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on
$15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no
income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more
than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by
employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do
not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase
health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax
savings - $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the
millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this
deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their
reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making
healthcare affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative
ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance
available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them
provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal
funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would
give our Nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private
health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health
Savings Accounts ... help small businesses through Association Health Plans
... reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology ...
encourage price transparency ... and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits
by passing medical liability reform. And in all we do, we must remember that
the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance
companies, but by patients and their doctors.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 14:57:43
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Larry, your subject line is absurd. No one I know, Democrat,
Republican, Libertarian, Independent (of which I am one) or other wants
the United States to "lose" this war. Projecting the applause images to
an antinational mind set just doesn't fly.

The State of the Union address is more carefully choreographed than a
Busby Berkley musical. The group follows the leader's cues. Did you
happen to notice that during some of his early social program proposals
the Democrats stood and applauded while the Republicans sat on their
hands? Does this mean that the Republicans hate the middle and lower
classes? Probably not but using your logic it does.

You, sir, epitomize all that is wrong with US politics today; there is
no room for even trying to understand an opposite point of view and your
vitriol widens an already almost unspannable breach. You certainly
leave no room for compromise yet there is ample room for compomise on
many issues facing this nation today.

So far as a non US citizen entering into the discourse you again show
your less than attractive side. Whatever the United States does effects
just about every person in the world, the western world especially.
While not entitled to vote on the issue they certainly should have the
right to speak on the issue. I often discuss political issues with
friends in Great Britain and Australia and find that I benefit from
being exposed to their ideas. It's a shame that you won't allow
yourself the same learning experience.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:11:44
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Kenn Smith wrote:
> Larry, your subject line is absurd.

Larry is absurd; so the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 24 Jan 2007 14:16:55
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> >war at the moment.
>
> Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
> Infidels.
>
> >Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> >it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> >well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> >done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>
> The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
> Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
> that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
> protecting his country.
>
> If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
> attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
> your ilk with the blame.
> >
> >Our choices really are :
> >
> >1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> >over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> >troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> >
> >2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> >security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> >favorite.
> >
> >3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> >won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> >be all Democrats all the time.
> >
> >BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> >Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> >said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >
> >It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> >then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>
> Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
> bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
> from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
> against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
> themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
> country as a base for attacks around the world.
>
> Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
>
> Larry

Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.

So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
(which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:27:27
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:16:55 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>> >war at the moment.
>>
>> Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
>> Infidels.
>>
>> >Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>> >it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>> >well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
>> >done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>>
>> The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
>> Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
>> that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
>> protecting his country.
>>
>> If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
>> attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
>> your ilk with the blame.
>> >
>> >Our choices really are :
>> >
>> >1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>> >over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>> >troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>> >
>> >2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>> >security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>> >favorite.
>> >
>> >3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
>> >won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>> >be all Democrats all the time.
>> >
>> >BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>> >Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
>> >said that was 'mercenaries'?
>> >
>> >It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>> >then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
>>
>> Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
>> bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
>> from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
>> against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
>> themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
>> country as a base for attacks around the world.
>>
>> Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
>screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
>don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
>that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
>that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
>in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.
>
>So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
>(which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
>their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
>Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.

The democrats and the liberal media want the US to lose-- and leave
Iraq in a debacle like Vietnam--- AND they want to blame the Bush
Administratiion for the horrendous aftermath.

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 08:58:02
From: temp
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <i8ufr2tgjk9di1u7fhhj6l6kl7nqvddhr4@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> >Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
> >screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
> >don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
> >that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
> >that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
> >in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.
> >
> >So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
> >(which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
> >their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
> >Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.
>
> The democrats and the liberal media want the US to lose-- and leave
> Iraq in a debacle like Vietnam--- AND they want to blame the Bush
> Administratiion for the horrendous aftermath.

Who created the debacle in Iraq, Larry?
--
Alan Baker

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:11:53
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:i8ufr2tgjk9di1u7fhhj6l6kl7nqvddhr4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:16:55 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com>,
>> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
>>> >war at the moment.
>>>
>>> Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
>>> Infidels.
>>>
>>> >Our response is to increase the troop level to what
>>> >it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
>>> >well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get
>>> >it
>>> >done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
>>>
>>> The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
>>> Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
>>> that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
>>> protecting his country.
>>>
>>> If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
>>> attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
>>> your ilk with the blame.
>>> >
>>> >Our choices really are :
>>> >
>>> >1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
>>> >over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
>>> >troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
>>> >
>>> >2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
>>> >security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
>>> >favorite.
>>> >
>>> >3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war
>>> >we
>>> >won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
>>> >be all Democrats all the time.
>>> >
>>> >BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
>>> >Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when
>>> >he
>>> >said that was 'mercenaries'?
>>> >
>>> >It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
>>> >then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done
>>> >both.
>>>
>>> Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
>>> bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
>>> from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
>>> against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
>>> themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
>>> country as a base for attacks around the world.
>>>
>>> Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
>>screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
>>don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
>>that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
>>that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
>>in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.
>>
>>So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
>>(which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
>>their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
>>Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.
>
> The democrats and the liberal media want the US to lose-- and leave
> Iraq in a debacle like Vietnam--- AND they want to blame the Bush
> Administratiion for the horrendous aftermath.
>
> Larry

I would guess you don't "want" to die -- but I'll lay money that you will be
unable to avoid it.

Here's a hint for you -- wanting ain't making it happen.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:29:23
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <i8ufr2tgjk9di1u7fhhj6l6kl7nqvddhr4@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:16:55 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> >> >war at the moment.
> >>
> >> Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
> >> Infidels.
> >>
> >> >Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> >> >it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> >> >well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> >> >done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
> >>
> >> The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
> >> Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
> >> that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
> >> protecting his country.
> >>
> >> If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
> >> attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
> >> your ilk with the blame.
> >> >
> >> >Our choices really are :
> >> >
> >> >1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> >> >over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> >> >troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> >> >
> >> >2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> >> >security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> >> >favorite.
> >> >
> >> >3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> >> >won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> >> >be all Democrats all the time.
> >> >
> >> >BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> >> >Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> >> >said that was 'mercenaries'?
> >> >
> >> >It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> >> >then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
> >>
> >> Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
> >> bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
> >> from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
> >> against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
> >> themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
> >> country as a base for attacks around the world.
> >>
> >> Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
> >screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
> >don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
> >that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
> >that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
> >in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.
> >
> >So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
> >(which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
> >their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
> >Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.
>
> The democrats and the liberal media want the US to lose-- and leave
> Iraq in a debacle like Vietnam--- AND they want to blame the Bush
> Administratiion for the horrendous aftermath.
>
> Larry

Don't you ever get tired of that old saw? Neither side is willing to do
what it takes to get the job done, but both sides are perfectly willing
to blame the other side. Just as you are doing.

What a tool!

Date: 25 Jan 2007 00:49:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:27:27 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>The democrats and the liberal media want the US to lose-- and leave
>Iraq in a debacle like Vietnam--- AND they want to blame the Bush
>Administratiion for the horrendous aftermath.
>
>Larry

That's just plain silly LLLLarrry. No one wants to lose...but it's
inevitable. It's a no-win situation. Even if we had the manpower to
completely control Iraq, we going to have to go back into Afghanistan
now....and then there's Iran. Where do we get those troops...and
money? Neither party will take on the albatross of resuming the
draft.

Stop the silliness of saying that anyone wants the US to lose. Most
reasonable people just don't want to see more of our youth killed for
nothing.

Bush will go down in history as a bumbler in any event.
--
___,
\o

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:21:38
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Another question for Larry.

Whenever the President mentioned anything about "supporting the troops",
whatever the hell that means in Bushologue, the Speaker was on her feet
applauding a full second before the Veep was.

Does that mean that the Veep is only lukewarm about supporting the
troops? Maybe just cool to the idea? "Screw it, let them make the best
of it?"

By your ridiculous interpretation of the applausometer it does.

You often suggest to others, "read." A suggestion for you - broaden
your horizons, the world isn't all black and white.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:26:14
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <lloydparsons-1A861A.14165524012007@individual.net >,
Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

> In article <m7efr2d5408ucjognkdos04jufe761gsv8@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:44:54 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >But let's come back to 'George W Bush's success'. Iraq is in a civil
> > >war at the moment.
> >
> > Iraq is a skirmish in the world cultural war between Radical Islam and
> > Infidels.
> >
> > >Our response is to increase the troop level to what
> > >it was a year ago, when we couldn't get the job done. But this time,
> > >well it isn't 'stay the course' but it is close enough. We won't get it
> > >done this time either because it isn't the way to do it.
> >
> > The president knows that we must persist in Iraq in order to hold
> > Radical Islam there-- and to keep Iran and Syria, et. al. from using
> > that base and exploiting that oil-- against the West. He is simply
> > protecting his country.
> >
> > If we leave Iraq and allow that to happen, they will be doing 9/11
> > attacks here monthly. But it will be too late to come to you and
> > your ilk with the blame.
> > >
> > >Our choices really are :
> > >
> > >1. Increase the troop levels to what Shinsecki recommended and get it
> > >over and controlled. Of course, since we don't have enough available
> > >troops to do this, I guess this isn't going to happen.
> > >
> > >2. Give the Iraqi gov't a firm timetable to take over their own
> > >security. If they don't, walk away waving wildly. This is my personal
> > >favorite.
> > >
> > >3. Keep on doing what we are doing. Killing our own troops in a war we
> > >won't commit to winning. This will ensure that the next election will
> > >be all Democrats all the time.
> > >
> > >BTW, did you notice his passing comment last night about a 'Civilian
> > >Volunteer Service'? Why did the first word that came to my mind when he
> > >said that was 'mercenaries'?
> > >
> > >It is bad enough to go to war for invalid reasons, it is even worse to
> > >then not pursue the action properly. This administration has done both.
> >
> > Possibly all true, but the details really don't matter much-- the
> > bottom line is that we must persist in Iraq to prevent the Middle East
> > from spiraling out of control. When threatened, Israel will respond
> > against Iran anda/or Syria with nukes, their only choice to protect
> > themselves if Iran and Syria take over Iraq and get that oil--use that
> > country as a base for attacks around the world.
> >
> > Too many such as yourself are being extremely short sighted.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Well according to current polls I'm among the 70% or so that think we
> screwed up and that the current Administration is still screwing up. I
> don't disagree that we should finish the job in Iraq, I just don't think
> that anything this Administration has so far proposed is leading us to
> that conclusion. This path they've chosen just continues the bloodbath
> in Iraq and emboldens the opposition in that country.
>
> So it is either increase the troops to a level necessary to get it done
> (which doesn't seem likely) or force the Iraqi gov't to take control of
> their own destiny with a timetable for changeover that is followed.
> Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to do neither.

Oh, no, that can't possibly be - Dubya's approval rating soared to a
Presidential record before Christmas. Didn't you know that? I do,
because Larry told me that it was going to happen some time last Summer.

William Clark

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58
From: temp
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:48:36
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com > wrote:
>> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
>> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>>
>> Larry
>
>Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?

But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
participate in their deal. Butt out!

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 13:19:47
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>>> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
>>> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>
> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
> taxes here thinks of our government.

That's quite obvious by the way this president and his foreign policy have
effectively squandered all the goodwill directed at America in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 and turned us into a target for just about everybody.

Randy

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:27:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>
> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>
> Larry

Kind of like the US "butting" into Iraq, I suppose? Sauce for the goose
. . .

William Clark

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:21:18
From: temp
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>
> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>
> Larry

I'm sorry, Larry, but "here" is rec.sport.golf, an entity known as a
newsgroup on the Internet, and the Internet is not (thank your god of
choice) a part of the United States.
--
Alan Baker

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:10:45
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

temp wrote:
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know
>>>> or care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say
>>>> "irrelevant?"
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>
>>> Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>>
>> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
>> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
>> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
>> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>>
>> Larry
>
> I'm sorry, Larry, but "here" is rec.sport.golf, an entity known as a
> newsgroup on the Internet, and the Internet is not (thank your god of
> choice) a part of the United States.

I thought Larry invented the internet to support his pyramid scheme.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 24 Jan 2007 13:14:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:48:36 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
>taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
>citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
>participate in their deal. Butt out!

Yeah, what goes around in Iraq has nothing to do with the rest of the
free world!!!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 14:01:00
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>
> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>
> Larry

By your logic, then why are we in the Middle East butting in on their
political issues? Or just pick another country where we are sticking
our noses into.

I know, you answer will be because we have an American interest in what
goes on there. You'd be right, but then so would they if they told us
to mind our own borders.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:24:25
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:00 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
>> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>>
>> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
>> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
>> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
>> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>>
>> Larry
>
>By your logic, then why are we in the Middle East butting in on their
>political issues? Or just pick another country where we are sticking
>our noses into.
>
>I know, you answer will be because we have an American interest in what
>goes on there. You'd be right, but then so would they if they told us
>to mind our own borders.

They asked us for help. The dissidents inside Iraq were in
communication with the outside world and they begged us to come in and
help them-- they were being repressed by Saddam. There were other
reasons, but that was certainly one.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm

There is a very very good case that Iraqis were deeply involved in the
planning and execution of attacks on America since 1990 or possibly
before and likely 9/11. Iraqis were working with Osama Bin Ladin.

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 13:21:01
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:3utfr2h2vr015frfkicudiblg40mk3r17e@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:00 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com>,
>> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>>> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
>>> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>>> >>
>>> >> Larry
>>> >
>>> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>>>
>>> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
>>> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
>>> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
>>> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>By your logic, then why are we in the Middle East butting in on their
>>political issues? Or just pick another country where we are sticking
>>our noses into.
>>
>>I know, you answer will be because we have an American interest in what
>>goes on there. You'd be right, but then so would they if they told us
>>to mind our own borders.
>
> They asked us for help.

Darfur is asking us for help.

Why aren't we there?

Randy

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:05:27
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:3utfr2h2vr015frfkicudiblg40mk3r17e@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:00 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com>,
>> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
>>> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
>>> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
>>> >>
>>> >> Larry
>>> >
>>> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
>>>
>>> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
>>> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
>>> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
>>> participate in their deal. Butt out!
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>By your logic, then why are we in the Middle East butting in on their
>>political issues? Or just pick another country where we are sticking
>>our noses into.
>>
>>I know, you answer will be because we have an American interest in what
>>goes on there. You'd be right, but then so would they if they told us
>>to mind our own borders.
>
> They asked us for help. The dissidents inside Iraq were in
> communication with the outside world and they begged us to come in and
> help them-- they were being repressed by Saddam. There were other
> reasons, but that was certainly one.

You cannot be serious.

>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm
>
> There is a very very good case that Iraqis were deeply involved in the
> planning and execution of attacks on America since 1990 or possibly
> before and likely 9/11. Iraqis were working with Osama Bin Ladin.
>
> Larry

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:19:59
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <3utfr2h2vr015frfkicudiblg40mk3r17e@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:01:00 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <itdfr25rn293a2iolasle3eo5lnjupfqu7@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:35:58 GMT, temp <temp@temp.com> wrote:
> >> >> Why do Canadians post about American politics? We don't even know or
> >> >> care anything about Canadian politics-- can you say "irrelevant?"
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, Larry. Can you say "free speech"?
> >>
> >> But we don't care a wit what someone who doesn't live here or pay
> >> taxes here thinks of our government. Butt out! That is what the
> >> citizens of any country in the world would tell anyone who tried to
> >> participate in their deal. Butt out!
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >By your logic, then why are we in the Middle East butting in on their
> >political issues? Or just pick another country where we are sticking
> >our noses into.
> >
> >I know, you answer will be because we have an American interest in what
> >goes on there. You'd be right, but then so would they if they told us
> >to mind our own borders.
>
> They asked us for help. The dissidents inside Iraq were in
> communication with the outside world and they begged us to come in and
> help them-- they were being repressed by Saddam. There were other
> reasons, but that was certainly one.
>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm
>
> There is a very very good case that Iraqis were deeply involved in the
> planning and execution of attacks on America since 1990 or possibly
> before and likely 9/11. Iraqis were working with Osama Bin Ladin.
>
> Larry

So the dissidents were asking for help? So what? Saddam was an
internal problem, we had him contained.

As to the attacks on America, yes he probably was involved to some
extent, but he was contained at the time we chose to go to war with
Iraq. If we had really wanted to get to those close to the 9/11 attack,
then in addition to Afghanistan, we should have been going to Saudi
Arabia. That's where the terrorists were from and that is where lots of
the money came from.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:45:36
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

In article <ak9fr2hbnuoidknduutj0rnmncbj82g081@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> Their behavior during the State of the Union was very telling.
>
> The Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi refused to applaud at any of the
> President's lines about winning.
>
> The Democrats didn't applaud simply because they can't afford for the
> US to win --because their majority in House and Senate accrued ONLY
> from the US reversals in Iraq.
>
> The only possible conclusion is that Radical Islam has decided our
> recent congressional elections-- and may well decide our 2008
> elections. They attacked and attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan to
> ensure the US (and the US Commander-in-Chief) would not have a success
> to point to.
>
> Larry

I'm sorry Larry, but if you are going to push Rush's line, you must
start out with Pelosi's blinking. Get with the program!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:16:43
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

I thought we won already. Mission Accomplished and all that.
What happened?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:32:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:16:43 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>I thought we won already. Mission Accomplished and all that.
>What happened?

Al Queda from all over the world converged on Iraq. Actually a good
thing to have your enemy concentrate itself on one battlefield where
you can kill them with volunteer gladiators-- IF your entire country
were on the same page. But sadly, some in America want us to lose so
they can regain and retain political power.

Larry

Date: 25 Jan 2007 07:53:20
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:32:17 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>>I thought we won already. Mission Accomplished and all that.
>>What happened?
>
>Al Queda from all over the world converged on Iraq. Actually a good
>thing to have your enemy concentrate itself on one battlefield where
>you can kill them with volunteer gladiators-- IF your entire country
>were on the same page.

Iraq has supplied plenty of their own revolutionaries - there is a lot
of Al Queda and other right-wing Muslim activities elsewhere. In
fact, we haven't yet won in Afghanistan.

Since the invasion there have been multiple attacks on Western
Countries' soil.

>But sadly, some in America want us to lose so
>they can regain and retain political power.

You seem to be one of the few who smugly talks about losing. Then
you can say "I told you so" - so that the Republicans can regain and
retain political power.

Date: 25 Jan 2007 17:35:36
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Democrats want us to lose

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:32:17 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

: But sadly, some in America want us to lose so
: they can regain and retain political power.

Why is it that you reserve your venom for those who allegedly "want"
us to lose instead of those who are responsible for the actual losing?

Don't bother answering. It's already well understood by all.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/