Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:25:56
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

No further explanation needed.

Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:32:26
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com...
> >
> > The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
> > very irritating Democrats.
>
> Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
> than real Democrats.

What is your experience, exactly?

Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:12:11
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:49:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 6 Nov 2006 21:25:56 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:

>No further explanation needed.
>

The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
very irritating Democrats.

Maybe Larry is a Democrat, trying to make Republicans look bad.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 02:27:33
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com...
>
> The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
> very irritating Democrats.

Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
than real Democrats.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 02:59:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 02:27:33 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

>> The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
>> very irritating Democrats.
>
>Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
>than real Democrats.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/43955/

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2006/10/robo-calls-tied-to-nrcc-in-id-01.html

Every party has a percentage of scum which will do anything to get
elected. In this case, Republicans got caught first.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 01:55:19
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:tatvk2hlfr6g8en89emv6b62kg3ac61816@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/43955/
>
> http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2006/10/robo-calls-tied-to-nrcc-in-id-01.html
>

Two left wing blogs are your source. Not really a surprise.

> Every party has a percentage of scum which will do anything to get
> elected.

I would never disagree with this point!

Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:06:01
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:55:19 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

>Two left wing blogs are your source. Not really a surprise.

Actually, they were what I found Googling after you asked. My source
was on radio - the Drudge Report.

>> Every party has a percentage of scum which will do anything to get
>> elected.
>
>I would never disagree with this point!

Date: 07 Nov 2006 07:59:15
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote in message
news:paS3h.3413$0r.2838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com...
>>
>> The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
>> very irritating Democrats.
>
> Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
> than real Democrats.
>
In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
sent to die over a bunch of lies.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:23:37
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <paS3h.3413$0r.2838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >
"Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net > wrote:

In my experience, nothing is more irritating than someone who refuses to
recognize the truth or worse yet, seeing it and not admitting to it.

Date: 09 Nov 2006 14:23:26
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Don Kirkman wrote:

> When was the last large attack in the US by non-Americans *prior* to
> 9/11? If conservatives are going to take credit for five years without
> a major attack, someone deserves get credit for the eight years between
> the 1993 Trade Center attack (minor by comparison) and 9/11 in which
> there was no attack. The policies of previous administrations held off
> major attacks for eight years, and Bush will have to keep us untouched
> until the end of his term to match that record.
> --
> Don Kirkman

Hmmm....American embassies in Africa don't count? How about a warship
in Sudan? There was plenty of evidence that Bin Laden was waging a war
against us. Trouble is....Clinton wasn't responding, unless you count
a missile attack against an empty terrorist base as a suitable
response, curiously timed when he was "outed" for having "sex with that
woman."

If Bubba had chased after Bin Laden like he chases skirts, 9/11
wouldn't have happened.

As for Bush's record, terrorist attacks are occuring often against
American targets....the volunteer military, who are equipped and able
to hand out more losses than they are incurring.

-Greg

-Greg

Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:23:14
From: Don Kirkman
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dene wrote in article
<1163111006.848978.27200@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >:

>Don Kirkman wrote:

>> When was the last large attack in the US by non-Americans *prior* to
>> 9/11? If conservatives are going to take credit for five years without
>> a major attack, someone deserves get credit for the eight years between
>> the 1993 Trade Center attack (minor by comparison) and 9/11 in which
>> there was no attack. The policies of previous administrations held off
>> major attacks for eight years, and Bush will have to keep us untouched
>> until the end of his term to match that record.

>Hmmm....American embassies in Africa don't count?

Apparently Larry doesn't think so; you need to respond to what was
written, not to what you wish were written:

"There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
total focus on Iraq." I see he also overlooked what he wrote.
--
Don Kirkman

Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:03:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:49:48 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On 6 Nov 2006 21:25:56 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header>
>wrote:
>
>>No further explanation needed.
>>
>
>The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
>very irritating Democrats.
>
>Maybe Larry is a Democrat, trying to make Republicans look bad.

If so, he's doing a damn fine job.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:23:37
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com >
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

He could have made Mother Theresa look bad.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:18:45
From:
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

larry wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 08:15:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
> >> >forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
> >> >administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
> >> >that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
> >> >et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
> >> >happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
> >> >does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
> >> >unforgivable, it's criminal.
> >>
> >> What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
> >> either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
> >> other country, had better ideas. Did you?
> >
> >Yes. Don't invade Iraq.
> >
> >Bush made the decision to
> >> prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
> >> their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and defend."
> >> He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
> >> might keep them from attacking here, for a while.
> >
> >Really? Who told him that?
> >
> >But no responsible
> >> person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
> >> NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
> >> horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same, and
> >> so would you.
> >
> >No I wouldn't. Certainly al qaeda and other groups would love to attack
> >the US again. But as is clear to every human being on earth but you,
> >"winning" in Iraq will not prevent them from doing that.
>
> There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
> total focus on Iraq. As Bush knew, Radical Islam could not allow that
> Arab country to become a thriving democracy-- thus they concentrated
> there from all over the world. They have limited resources (so far)
> and thus cannot support both a total war against our troops in Iraq
> and Afghanistan and also big attacks on Infidel countries. As long as
> we can keep them distracted there-- they will not be able to bring
> down skysrapers and bridges in America.
>
> You really should do some reading about Islam. There can be no
> "winning" in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter-- but the President
> can't tell you that-- because you like most Americans have a
> notoriously short attention span. You literally "can't handle the
> truth" that we can only continue to hold them there-- to prevent them
> coming here. We will never "win" against Radical Islam in our
> lifetime-- there are 1.3 BILLION of them and millions are hopelessly
> radicalized--they have been brainwashed to believe they are in a "1000
> year war" against Infidels--and that their only purpose on Earth is to
> kill you--because you are NOT a Muslim. We cannot change that. So we
> must hold them off for at least a generation of theirs--20+ years.
>
> Add our continuing interception of their communications, their money
> transfers, and our interrogation of those captured to understand why
> we have escaped another large attack here.
>
> But liberal democrats want us out of Iraq-- and they voted against
> those vital tools being used to stop their attacks. If liberals had
> their way Al Queda would be free to attack and soon New York and LA
> (and hopefully San Francisco) would look like Baghdad. I wonder where
> Nancy would go when it became too dangerous to drive there?
>
> Larry

You think it is a good thing to kill 100,000 people as a DISTRACTION?

Fuck.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:18:41
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

<frisbieinstein@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163006325.333419.78830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> larry wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 08:15:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >larry wrote:
>> >> On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
>> >> >forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
>> >> >administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
>> >> >that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of
>> >> >Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
>> >> >et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what
>> >> >might
>> >> >happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had
>> >> >WMD
>> >> >does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
>> >> >unforgivable, it's criminal.
>> >>
>> >> What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
>> >> either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
>> >> other country, had better ideas. Did you?
>> >
>> >Yes. Don't invade Iraq.
>> >
>> >Bush made the decision to
>> >> prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
>> >> their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and
>> >> defend."
>> >> He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
>> >> might keep them from attacking here, for a while.
>> >
>> >Really? Who told him that?
>> >
>> >But no responsible
>> >> person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
>> >> NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
>> >> horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same,
>> >> and
>> >> so would you.
>> >
>> >No I wouldn't. Certainly al qaeda and other groups would love to attack
>> >the US again. But as is clear to every human being on earth but you,
>> >"winning" in Iraq will not prevent them from doing that.
>>
>> There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
>> total focus on Iraq. As Bush knew, Radical Islam could not allow that
>> Arab country to become a thriving democracy-- thus they concentrated
>> there from all over the world. They have limited resources (so far)
>> and thus cannot support both a total war against our troops in Iraq
>> and Afghanistan and also big attacks on Infidel countries. As long as
>> we can keep them distracted there-- they will not be able to bring
>> down skysrapers and bridges in America.
>>
>> You really should do some reading about Islam. There can be no
>> "winning" in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter-- but the President
>> can't tell you that-- because you like most Americans have a
>> notoriously short attention span. You literally "can't handle the
>> truth" that we can only continue to hold them there-- to prevent them
>> coming here. We will never "win" against Radical Islam in our
>> lifetime-- there are 1.3 BILLION of them and millions are hopelessly
>> radicalized--they have been brainwashed to believe they are in a "1000
>> year war" against Infidels--and that their only purpose on Earth is to
>> kill you--because you are NOT a Muslim. We cannot change that. So we
>> must hold them off for at least a generation of theirs--20+ years.
>>
>> Add our continuing interception of their communications, their money
>> transfers, and our interrogation of those captured to understand why
>> we have escaped another large attack here.
>>
>> But liberal democrats want us out of Iraq-- and they voted against
>> those vital tools being used to stop their attacks. If liberals had
>> their way Al Queda would be free to attack and soon New York and LA
>> (and hopefully San Francisco) would look like Baghdad. I wonder where
>> Nancy would go when it became too dangerous to drive there?
>>
>> Larry
>
> You think it is a good thing to kill 100,000 people as a DISTRACTION?
>
> Fuck.
>
Correction. 600,000.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:13:35
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 8, 5:10 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 20:53:36 -0800, "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
> >> >people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy.They should listen to you and realize that they should be grateful for
> >> working at Wal*Mart for less money than they were making a decade ago
> >> - because "the economy" is good. Individuals aren't allowed to look
> >> at their personal conditions.
>
> >I don't know about you, but I'm making a heck more money now that
> >during the Clinton years. As does everyone I know. So stop with the
> >leftist propaganda.I'm making about the same - but my son and his friends are in the
> Wal*Mart income level.
>
> It's very easy to assume the country is full of people just like
> "everyone I know". We all are somewhat guilty of this. But we
> are wrong.

I guess you are assuming they would be living in palaces if someone
like Clinton was in the Whitehouse. If they are living on a "Walmart"
income it is their own fault.

JJVP

Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:06:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 8 Nov 2006 20:13:35 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

>> It's very easy to assume the country is full of people just like
>> "everyone I know". We all are somewhat guilty of this. But we
>> are wrong.
>
>I guess you are assuming they would be living in palaces if someone
>like Clinton was in the Whitehouse. If they are living on a "Walmart"
>income it is their own fault.

You guess wrong. I was pointing out that those people tend to vote
against incumbents who talk about how good the economy is.

Whose party is incumbent doesn't matter.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:12:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Larry Bud wrote:
> > > In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
> > sent to die over a bunch of lies.
>
> In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
> believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
> you're allowed to be a kook.

Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:23:20
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 7 Nov 2006 08:12:51 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
>having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.

Oh, we are fighting in the war on terror there - the question is - on
which side?

Date: 07 Nov 2006 10:57:25
From: larry
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:23:20 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On 7 Nov 2006 08:12:51 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
>>having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.
>
>Oh, we are fighting in the war on terror there - the question is - on
>which side?

It is rather sickening to read comments like that from people who were
certainly 100% for every action Bush took after 9/11. You and I made
him 90% popular when he told America and the world he would take
strong action to avenge that attack or America--and that he would
endeavor to do whatever is necessary to prevent a repeat. You were
among those telling pollsters that you strongly supported his actions
to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq--because the world knew they would
gather there next to regroup for further attacks.

So he did what he said he would. He did what the American people told
him they wanted -- he acted because your support was so strong--and
now you're gone! It is like a battlefield commander yelling "charge"
and looking back to see his troops staying in their foxholes--afraid
to lift their heads--and allowing your leader to be shot down.

Nothing has changed since 9/11-- if anything we know more now than
then that Al Queda was in a long-term plan to destroy the West-- and
we have since seen attacks in Iraq and around the world that confirm
their continuing effort to do that-- with increasingly more capable
weapons as they can get them. Nothing has changed-- except that you
have lost your resolve. Your brave and resolute leader is still doing
what you told him to do--and now you hate and undermine him.

If you were for him right after 9/11 and against him and Iraq now--
you are a scumbag and a dishonest coward beneath contempt. You are
one of those that Ben Ladin said would weaken America from within--
and you are one of those who make America a "paper tiger." You are
not a brave American, one of those who made this country great.

Larry

Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:26:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:57:25 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>It is rather sickening to read comments like that from people who were
>certainly 100% for every action Bush took after 9/11. You and I made
>him 90% popular when he told America and the world he would take
>strong action to avenge that attack or America--and that he would
>endeavor to do whatever is necessary to prevent a repeat. You were
>among those telling pollsters that you strongly supported his actions
>to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq--because the world knew they would
>gather there next to regroup for further attacks.

It's fascinating to learn all these things about myself.

>If you were for him right after 9/11 and against him and Iraq now--
>you are a scumbag and a dishonest coward beneath contempt.

If I trusted the President to be telling the truth, but kept my eyes
and ears open as the facts came out, then I am a scumbag and a
dishonest coward beneath contempt?

We don't have any choice - we've *GOT* to give the President the
benefit of the doubt so that he can act quickly when necessary. But
if we don't follow up by checking that he was correct later - then we
are betraying our country and the principles which it stands for.

I'd much rather be considered a scumbag and a dishonest coward beneath
contempt by you than betray my country.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:29:41
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <nuk1l2tj409mktloovj6q8q54s909ole39@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

See, that's your problem lar oh boy. You haven't gone past 911 into the
present. It's like those folks that still don't recognize the New
Testament. I bet people walk into your house and turn back their watches
about a hundred years.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 05:33:58
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

aeiouy wrote:
> "Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote in message
> news:paS3h.3413$0r.2838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> > news:eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
> >> very irritating Democrats.
> >
> > Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
> > than real Democrats.
> >
> In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
> sent to die over a bunch of lies.

In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
you're allowed to be a kook.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:29:42
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1162906438.218357.50130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:

Actually, a consipracy is something that hasn't been proven yet. History
has already done that and of course, the US allows not only kooks, but
ignorance too.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:23:37
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1162906438.218357.50130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote:

People with two first names is irritating too. Usually a sign of a red
stater.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:54:22
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:37:19 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
> >people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy.
>
> They should listen to you and realize that they should be grateful for
> working at Wal*Mart for less money than they were making a decade ago
> - because "the economy" is good. Individuals aren't allowed to look
> at their personal conditions.

Damn right. They should stop blowing their money on groceries and
start investing in Exxon/Mobil, like Tex says.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:53:36
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 7, 8:04 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:37:19 -0800, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
> >people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy.They should listen to you and realize that they should be grateful for
> working at Wal*Mart for less money than they were making a decade ago
> - because "the economy" is good. Individuals aren't allowed to look
> at their personal conditions.

I don't know about you, but I'm making a heck more money now that
during the Clinton years. As does everyone I know. So stop with the
leftist propaganda.

JJVP

Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:10:09
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 7 Nov 2006 20:53:36 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

>> >So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
>> >people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy.They should listen to you and realize that they should be grateful for
>> working at Wal*Mart for less money than they were making a decade ago
>> - because "the economy" is good. Individuals aren't allowed to look
>> at their personal conditions.
>
>I don't know about you, but I'm making a heck more money now that
>during the Clinton years. As does everyone I know. So stop with the
>leftist propaganda.

I'm making about the same - but my son and his friends are in the
Wal*Mart income level.

It's very easy to assume the country is full of people just like
"everyone I know". We all are somewhat guilty of this. But we
are wrong.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 20:49:51
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 7, 5:35 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <1162940375.261437.168...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Of course, you quoted no sources. But that aside, remind me again of how
> many of those WMD were found? OK, since they weren't, remind me that if
> that was the reason for going there, which you have just spent more time
> adn space than is ever needed, along with getting rid of saddam, why are
> we still there? OK...OK. Now remind me again of that exit strategy and
> just how close we are to seeing an end to this?

Do you remember the first gulf war? The one we kicked Sadaam back into
Iraq. At the end of that war, Sadaam gave a list of WMD as part of his
surrender. A great part of those weapons were never found by the UN
inspectors. So what happened to them? When the inspectors returned to
Iraq after being thrown out of Iraq for 5 years, Sadaam told the
inspectors that he had destroyed the remainder WMD. Did you believe
him? If they didn't exist on the first place, why did he said he had
them? If they didn't exist in the first place, what did he launched
against Israel and our troops in Quait, rocks? He had them and just
because we have not found them doesn't mean they didn't exist. They are
probably in Siria or Iran, hidden somewhere.

JJVP

Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:05:10
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1162961391.000144.210930@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

Actually, he never left iraq and yes I remember a war that didn't go the
extra 50 miles and end the despot's life right there. If he was such a
big threat, why let him off the hook.....unless you wanted to keep him on
ice for the future, which came and as we have seen, has sunken the
repuglican ship. Stormin' Norman's still pissed that he was called off
before the job was done. Read his book.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 19:18:38
From:
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

larry wrote:
> You were
> among those telling pollsters that you strongly supported his actions
> to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq--because the world knew they would
> gather there next to regroup for further attacks.
>

I was one of those who possess a book written in the 1980's entitled
"War Without End." This work alerts the world to the coming terrorist
threat and praises Saddam for his tough stance against fundamentalists.
Would you like to have me provide some quotations?

Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:59:41
From:
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:59:35
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 7, 10:12 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
> > > sent to die over a bunch of lies.
>
> > In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
> > believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
> > you're allowed to be a kook.Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
> having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.

1. The President said:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

2. The Secretary of State said:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face.

3. The National Security Adviser:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983.

4. Member of the House Intelligence Committee

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries
in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process.

5. Group of Senators:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies.

6. Senator:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is
building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.

7. Senator:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and
biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.

8. Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction.

9. Vice President:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country.

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power.

10. Senator:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because
I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

11. Senator:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
12. Senator:
"The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

1. Bill Clinton
2. Madeline Albright
3. Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser
4. Nancy Pelosi
5. group of senators led by Bob Graham
6. Carl Levin
7. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
8. Senator Jay Rockefeller
9. Al Gore
10. John Kerry
11. Ted Kennedy
12. Robert Byrd

Not to mention the resolution after resolution by the UN for Iraq to
get rid or the WMD and the UN inspectors sent to Iraq.

But you libs think that Bush invented the WMD's, right?

Let me ask you, did you complain when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to
get rid of Milosevic? After all Bosnia had not attacked any of their
neighbors or nor was accused by anyone of having WMD. And by the way,
he did not have UN approval either.

JJVP

JJVP

Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:37:19
From: larry
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 7 Nov 2006 14:59:35 -0800, "JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>
>On Nov 7, 10:12 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Larry Bud wrote:
>> > > > In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
>> > > sent to die over a bunch of lies.
>>
>> > In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
>> > believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
>> > you're allowed to be a kook.Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
>> having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.
>
>1. The President said:
>
>If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
>We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
>weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
>
>2. The Secretary of State said:
>
>Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
>great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will
>use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies
>is the greatest security threat we face.
>
>3. The National Security Adviser:
>
>He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
>times since 1983.
>
>4. Member of the House Intelligence Committee
>
>Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
>weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries
>in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
>process.
>
>5. Group of Senators:
>
>There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
>programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear
>programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In
>addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
>doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
>longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
>allies.
>
>6. Senator:
>
>Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
>the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is
>building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
>
>7. Senator:
>
>In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and
>biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his
>nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
>terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
>
>8. Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
>
>There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
>weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we
>have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
>of weapons of mass destruction.
>
>
>9. Vice President:
>We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and
>chemical weapons throughout his country.
>
>Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
>is in power.
>
>10. Senator:
>
>I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
>authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because
>I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
>hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
>
>11. Senator:
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>developing weapons of mass destruction."
>12. Senator:
>"The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
>confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
>biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
>build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities.
>Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
>
>
>1. Bill Clinton
>2. Madeline Albright
>3. Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser
>4. Nancy Pelosi
>5. group of senators led by Bob Graham
>6. Carl Levin
>7. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
>8. Senator Jay Rockefeller
>9. Al Gore
>10. John Kerry
>11. Ted Kennedy
>12. Robert Byrd
>
>Not to mention the resolution after resolution by the UN for Iraq to
>get rid or the WMD and the UN inspectors sent to Iraq.
>
>But you libs think that Bush invented the WMD's, right?
>
>Let me ask you, did you complain when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to
>get rid of Milosevic? After all Bosnia had not attacked any of their
>neighbors or nor was accused by anyone of having WMD. And by the way,
>he did not have UN approval either.
>
>JJVP

The difference is that Clinton was a liberal-- and loved by the
liberal media. The newspapers and CNN, et. al. ignored the glaring
inconsistencies of Clinton's "action" and transparent attempts to
divert attention away from his trysts and traitorous trades of US
secrets for campaign funds from foreign nationals.

What is actually sickening is the easy way the liberal media has
created the opinions of the lazy. People who hardly read a newspaper
and never read anything objective about world and US current events --
are totally at the mercy of the liberal media. They tell the
gullible anything and it is lapped up without question. Then when a
pollster asks what they think-- they regurgitate what they were fed.
Duh

Since 9/11 the media has been on an intense campaign to paint the
events in Iraq in a light that reflects poorly on the administration.
And their "teaching" about Iraq is totally false, 180 degrees
wong--EVERY soldier, marine, and Navy man who returns from Iraq says
the reality is WILDLY different than what the US population is being
told-- they are amazed.

So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy. So
look in the mirror-- if you hate Bush and want us out of the war in
Iraq-- you have that opinion because you have been duped-- your
opinion was implanted in your brain by the Liberal media--your
"controller." You are a stupid fish. There is no rational reason
for any American to hate GW Bush-- Compared to Clinton or Lyndon
Johnson or many other leaders who actually did intentionally deceive
the populace, Bush is a good, honest, and capable man doing his best--
and who did his best with the available information when he made the
Iraq decisions. In his place you would have done EXACTLY what he did
if you are a responsible person. But you were fed hateful information
so long and so repeatedly that now you hate and you really can't
explain why... you were hypnotized.

you should hate the liberal media for patronizing you.

Larry

Larry

Date: 08 Nov 2006 02:04:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:37:19 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>So today, even with an economy better than EVER in the Clinton years,
>people are telling pollsters they "disapprove" of the economy.

They should listen to you and realize that they should be grateful for
working at Wal*Mart for less money than they were making a decade ago
- because "the economy" is good. Individuals aren't allowed to look
at their personal conditions.

Date: 07 Nov 2006 23:35:52
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1162940375.261437.168850@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

Of course, you quoted no sources. But that aside, remind me again of how
many of those WMD were found? OK, since they weren't, remind me that if
that was the reason for going there, which you have just spent more time
adn space than is ever needed, along with getting rid of saddam, why are
we still there? OK...OK. Now remind me again of that exit strategy and
just how close we are to seeing an end to this?

Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:36:30
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Larry Bud wrote:
> aeiouy wrote:
> > "Frank Ketchum" <fketchum@earthlinknospaam.net> wrote in message
> > news:paS3h.3413$0r.2838@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> > > news:eepvk2hqch80vslk0ql6459hf37i4olgaq@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >> The Republicans have admitted to calling up people, pretending to be
> > >> very irritating Democrats.
> > >
> > > Please cite your reference. In my experience, nothing is more irritaing
> > > than real Democrats.
> > >
> > In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
> > sent to die over a bunch of lies.
>
> In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
> believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
> you're allowed to be a kook.

I guess you're OK with Republican consiracy theories, though. Like how
all our marriages will be threatened if we let gay people get married.
Or that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, all the terrorists will
come stampeding into the U.S. wreaking murder and mayhem. You're OK
with those, right?

Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:29:05
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 7 Nov 2006 11:36:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>I guess you're OK with Republican consiracy theories, though. Like how
>all our marriages will be threatened if we let gay people get married.

Marriages and families were terribly threatened when divorce was
allowed. But not many straight couples will divorce so they become
gay.

I'd much rather have gays stay loyal to each other than to pretend to
be straight and marry my grandkids.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 10:46:25
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 7, 11:05 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <1162961391.000144.210...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Actually, he never left iraq and yes I remember a war that didn't go the
> extra 50 miles and end the despot's life right there. If he was such a
> big threat, why let him off the hook.....unless you wanted to keep him on
> ice for the future, which came and as we have seen, has sunken the
> repuglican ship. Stormin' Norman's still pissed that he was called off
> before the job was done. Read his book.

I agree we should have continue on to Baghdad the first time and
dispose on Sadaam then. But, if we had, would it be any different? You
think we could just have gone in, killed him and then go home and that
would have been the end of it? Iran and the radial muslims would have
move in and taken over Iraq. Then you would have an even larger
sanctuary for the terrorist. 9/11 would be happening on a regular
basis. The place to fight the terrorist is in Iraq and Afganistan, not
the US. God help us if the dems remove the troops from Iraq before the
job is finished.

JJVP

Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:44:49
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1163011585.158980.157020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

Yes I do think we could have gone right in and killed him. His guard
troops were gone, the present day insurgents weren't there and the entire
coalition (remember when we had that) would have been there to help. Then
again, bush jr could not have brought him off the shelf, dusted him off,
and pronounced that "iraq is a threat." Ironic that the very war these
stooges made up to get them reelected, showed everyone their true colors
and is responsible for the groundswell we today call the Democratic
Tsunami. I guess we owe it to peole like you then for not making just the
first mistake, but the second one too. This bud's for you.

Date: 08 Nov 2006 19:26:30
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1163011585.158980.157020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Nov 7, 11:05 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > In article <1162961391.000144.210...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Actually, he never left iraq and yes I
> > remember a war that didn't go the
> > extra 50 miles and end the despot's life right there. If he was such a
> > big threat, why let him off the hook.....unless you wanted to keep him on
> > ice for the future, which came and as we have seen, has sunken the
> > repuglican ship. Stormin' Norman's still pissed that he was called off
> > before the job was done. Read his book.
>
> I agree we should have continue on to Baghdad the first time and
> dispose on Sadaam then. But, if we had, would it be any different? You
> think we could just have gone in, killed him and then go home and that
> would have been the end of it? Iran and the radial muslims would have
> move in and taken over Iraq. Then you would have an even larger
> sanctuary for the terrorist. 9/11 would be happening on a regular
> basis. The place to fight the terrorist is in Iraq and Afganistan, not
> the US. God help us if the dems remove the troops from Iraq before the
> job is finished.
>
> JJVP

Two things:

I know why the U.S. would prefer to fight the terrorists in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but why would the *terrorists* prefer to? And since they
obviously wouldn't, why would the terrorists just up the ante within the
U.S.?

Second, I thought you didn't like OT posts. Or was that just when you'd
rather not apologize for something stupid that you've said?

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)

'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)

Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:15:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

larry wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
> >forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
> >administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
> >that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
> >et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
> >happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
> >does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
> >unforgivable, it's criminal.
>
> What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
> either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
> other country, had better ideas. Did you?

Yes. Don't invade Iraq.

Bush made the decision to
> prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
> their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and defend."
> He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
> might keep them from attacking here, for a while.

Really? Who told him that?

But no responsible
> person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
> NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
> horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same, and
> so would you.

No I wouldn't. Certainly al qaeda and other groups would love to attack
the US again. But as is clear to every human being on earth but you,
"winning" in Iraq will not prevent them from doing that.

>
> Larry

Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:08:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 8 Nov 2006 08:15:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>larry wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
>> >forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
>> >administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
>> >that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
>> >et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
>> >happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
>> >does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
>> >unforgivable, it's criminal.
>>
>> What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
>> either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
>> other country, had better ideas. Did you?
>
>Yes. Don't invade Iraq.
>
>Bush made the decision to
>> prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
>> their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and defend."
>> He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
>> might keep them from attacking here, for a while.
>
>Really? Who told him that?
>
>But no responsible
>> person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
>> NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
>> horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same, and
>> so would you.
>
>No I wouldn't. Certainly al qaeda and other groups would love to attack
>the US again. But as is clear to every human being on earth but you,
>"winning" in Iraq will not prevent them from doing that.

There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
total focus on Iraq. As Bush knew, Radical Islam could not allow that
Arab country to become a thriving democracy-- thus they concentrated
there from all over the world. They have limited resources (so far)
and thus cannot support both a total war against our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan and also big attacks on Infidel countries. As long as
we can keep them distracted there-- they will not be able to bring
down skysrapers and bridges in America.

You really should do some reading about Islam. There can be no
"winning" in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter-- but the President
can't tell you that-- because you like most Americans have a
notoriously short attention span. You literally "can't handle the
truth" that we can only continue to hold them there-- to prevent them
coming here. We will never "win" against Radical Islam in our
lifetime-- there are 1.3 BILLION of them and millions are hopelessly
radicalized--they have been brainwashed to believe they are in a "1000
year war" against Infidels--and that their only purpose on Earth is to
kill you--because you are NOT a Muslim. We cannot change that. So we
must hold them off for at least a generation of theirs--20+ years.

Add our continuing interception of their communications, their money
transfers, and our interrogation of those captured to understand why
we have escaped another large attack here.

But liberal democrats want us out of Iraq-- and they voted against
those vital tools being used to stop their attacks. If liberals had
their way Al Queda would be free to attack and soon New York and LA
(and hopefully San Francisco) would look like Baghdad. I wonder where
Nancy would go when it became too dangerous to drive there?

Larry

Date: 08 Nov 2006 23:12:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:08:17 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
>total focus on Iraq.

So you're saying that the war needs to last as long as there are
terrorists - so that they focus in Iraq instead of elsewhere?

The forever war?

Date: 08 Nov 2006 15:44:04
From: larry
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:12:39 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:08:17 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
>>total focus on Iraq.
>
>So you're saying that the war needs to last as long as there are
>terrorists - so that they focus in Iraq instead of elsewhere?
>
>The forever war?

Howard, read something! There must be a dozen good books about
Radical Islam. Read and see what we are facing-- this force has been
rising since the 70s-- and consists now of MILLIONS of graduates of
those "madrassa" schools in which kids are indoctrinated from age 3 to
age 20 with nothing but the Koran and hatred for non-believers,
Infidels, YOU. They will not be allowed to marry or have any sort of
normal life-- so their only possible happiness is in heaven-- AFTER
they sacrufice their life killing Infidels. There are MILLIONS of
them and they are increasingly backed with serious money. When they
get something like Iraq oil, they will buy nuclear weapons and won't
mind a bit being at ground zero in NYC when they explode the bomb.

Wise up, please.

Larry

Date: 09 Nov 2006 03:54:20
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:44:04 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Howard, read something! There must be a dozen good books about
>Radical Islam.

The big trouble with Islam is that it is a religion which stresses
being Righteous. It is easy and comfortable to prefer being
Righteous to being good. The Religious Right in this country, appear
to forgotten that Jesus Christ was on the side of good while the
Pharisees were on the side of Righteousness.

We can't fight Righteousness with Righteousness. Let's try being
good instead.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 09 Nov 2006 03:50:50
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

Top posting: Please note that your "answer" was a complete change of
subject. My question still stands.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:44:04 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:12:39 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:08:17 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
>>>total focus on Iraq.
>>
>>So you're saying that the war needs to last as long as there are
>>terrorists - so that they focus in Iraq instead of elsewhere?
>>
>>The forever war?
>
>Howard, read something! There must be a dozen good books about
>Radical Islam. Read and see what we are facing-- this force has been
>rising since the 70s-- and consists now of MILLIONS of graduates of
>those "madrassa" schools in which kids are indoctrinated from age 3 to
>age 20 with nothing but the Koran and hatred for non-believers,
>Infidels, YOU. They will not be allowed to marry or have any sort of
>normal life-- so their only possible happiness is in heaven-- AFTER
>they sacrufice their life killing Infidels. There are MILLIONS of
>them and they are increasingly backed with serious money. When they
>get something like Iraq oil, they will buy nuclear weapons and won't
>mind a bit being at ground zero in NYC when they explode the bomb.
>
>Wise up, please.
>
>Larry

Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:01:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <9mq4l21g7uii85gncdo8vnesa7t4daomit@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:12:39 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:08:17 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
> >>total focus on Iraq.
> >
> >So you're saying that the war needs to last as long as there are
> >terrorists - so that they focus in Iraq instead of elsewhere?
> >
> >The forever war?
>
> Howard, read something! There must be a dozen good books about
> Radical Islam. Read and see what we are facing-- this force has been
> rising since the 70s-- and consists now of MILLIONS of graduates of
> those "madrassa" schools in which kids are indoctrinated from age 3 to
> age 20 with nothing but the Koran and hatred for non-believers,
> Infidels, YOU. They will not be allowed to marry or have any sort of
> normal life-- so their only possible happiness is in heaven-- AFTER
> they sacrufice their life killing Infidels. There are MILLIONS of
> them and they are increasingly backed with serious money. When they
> get something like Iraq oil, they will buy nuclear weapons and won't
> mind a bit being at ground zero in NYC when they explode the bomb.
>
> Wise up, please.
>
> Larry

I tell you what, let him read the same books that you did leading to
your prediction that the GoP was going to wallop the Dems yesterday.

That ought to set him back about 10 years.

William Clark

Date: 08 Nov 2006 21:25:16
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:et24l2151g6062aomjognlhelrtfacp74o@4ax.com...
> On 8 Nov 2006 08:15:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>larry wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
>>> >forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
>>> >administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
>>> >that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of
>>> >Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
>>> >et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
>>> >happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
>>> >does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
>>> >unforgivable, it's criminal.
>>>
>>> What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
>>> either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
>>> other country, had better ideas. Did you?
>>
>>Yes. Don't invade Iraq.
>>
>>Bush made the decision to
>>> prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
>>> their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and defend."
>>> He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
>>> might keep them from attacking here, for a while.
>>
>>Really? Who told him that?
>>
>>But no responsible
>>> person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
>>> NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
>>> horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same, and
>>> so would you.
>>
>>No I wouldn't. Certainly al qaeda and other groups would love to attack
>>the US again. But as is clear to every human being on earth but you,
>>"winning" in Iraq will not prevent them from doing that.
>
> There have been no further large attacks here-- primarily due to their
> total focus on Iraq. As Bush knew, Radical Islam could not allow that
> Arab country to become a thriving democracy-- thus they concentrated
> there from all over the world. They have limited resources (so far)
> and thus cannot support both a total war against our troops in Iraq
> and Afghanistan and also big attacks on Infidel countries. As long as
> we can keep them distracted there-- they will not be able to bring
> down skysrapers and bridges in America.
>
> You really should do some reading about Islam. There can be no
> "winning" in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter-- but the President
> can't tell you that-- because you like most Americans have a
> notoriously short attention span. You literally "can't handle the
> truth" that we can only continue to hold them there-- to prevent them
> coming here. We will never "win" against Radical Islam in our
> lifetime-- there are 1.3 BILLION of them and millions are hopelessly
> radicalized--they have been brainwashed to believe they are in a "1000
> year war" against Infidels--and that their only purpose on Earth is to
> kill you--because you are NOT a Muslim. We cannot change that. So we
> must hold them off for at least a generation of theirs--20+ years.
>
> Add our continuing interception of their communications, their money
> transfers, and our interrogation of those captured to understand why
> we have escaped another large attack here.
>
> But liberal democrats want us out of Iraq-- and they voted against
> those vital tools being used to stop their attacks. If liberals had
> their way Al Queda would be free to attack and soon New York and LA
> (and hopefully San Francisco) would look like Baghdad. I wonder where
> Nancy would go when it became too dangerous to drive there?
>
> Larry

Hey Crazy Larry, why would they want to attack
the US mainland again when the first attack achieved
their objectives in spades. They lured Bush and the
neocons into a hopeless quagmire and have destroyed
America's credibility and reputation for a century or
more. China and Russia can't believe their luck, they
must be pissing their pants laughing.

Alan.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 08 Nov 2006 07:28:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

JJVP wrote:
> On Nov 7, 10:12 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Larry Bud wrote:
> > > > > In my experience, nothing is more irritating than American troops getting
> > > > sent to die over a bunch of lies.
> >
> > > In my experience, there's nothing more ridiculous than democrats
> > > believing conspiracy theories based on nothing. But hey, in America,
> > > you're allowed to be a kook.Dude, the only conspiracy theories in Iraq were the ones about Iraq
> > having WMDs and that we were somehow fighting the war on terror there.
>
> 1. The President said:
>
> If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
> We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
> weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
>
> 2. The Secretary of State said:
>
> Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
> great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will
> use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies
> is the greatest security threat we face.
>
> 3. The National Security Adviser:
>
> He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983.
>
> 4. Member of the House Intelligence Committee
>
> Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
> weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries
> in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
> process.
>
> 5. Group of Senators:
>
> There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
> programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear
> programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In
> addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
> doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
> longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
> allies.
>
> 6. Senator:
>
> Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
> the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is
> building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
>
> 7. Senator:
>
> In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
> that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and
> biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his
> nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
>
> 8. Vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
>
> There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we
> have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
> of weapons of mass destruction.
>
>
> 9. Vice President:
> We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and
> chemical weapons throughout his country.
>
> Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
> deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
> is in power.
>
> 10. Senator:
>
> I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because
> I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
> hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
>
> 11. Senator:
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
> developing weapons of mass destruction."
> 12. Senator:
> "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
> biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
> build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities.
> Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
>
>
> 1. Bill Clinton
> 2. Madeline Albright
> 3. Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser
> 4. Nancy Pelosi
> 5. group of senators led by Bob Graham
> 6. Carl Levin
> 7. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
> 8. Senator Jay Rockefeller
> 9. Al Gore
> 10. John Kerry
> 11. Ted Kennedy
> 12. Robert Byrd
>
> Not to mention the resolution after resolution by the UN for Iraq to
> get rid or the WMD and the UN inspectors sent to Iraq.
>
> But you libs think that Bush invented the WMD's, right?

They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
unforgivable, it's criminal.

>
> Let me ask you, did you complain when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to
> get rid of Milosevic? After all Bosnia had not attacked any of their
> neighbors or nor was accused by anyone of having WMD. And by the way,
> he did not have UN approval either.

> JJVP
>
> JJVP

Date: 08 Nov 2006 07:39:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On 8 Nov 2006 07:28:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>They all believed he had WMD and they were all wrong. That's
>forgivable. What is not forgivable is the horrific mess the
>administration has created in Iraq since deposing Hussein -- a mess
>that owes entirely to the arrogance and hubris of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld,
>et al, all of whom flatly refused to even think about what what might
>happen in Iraq after they had overthown SH. The belief that he had WMD
>does not excuse what has gone on there since 2003. It's not just
>unforgivable, it's criminal.

What it is is very difficult. The evidence of that is that NOBODY,
either party wearing a uniform or a suit, either American or from any
other country, had better ideas. Did you? Bush made the decision to
prevent another major attack on America on his watch by absorbing
their energy over there. His PRIMARY duty is to "protect and defend."
He was told after 9/11 that keeping them absorbed in the Middle East
might keep them from attacking here, for a while. But no responsible
person doubts that they are planning more 9/11 type attacks and will
NEVER stop planning them. Bush simply wants to ensure that the next
horrific attack is not on his watch. I would do exactly the same, and
so would you.

Larry

Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:13:36
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

tiggerspalewife wrote:
>
> Of course, you quoted no sources. But that aside, remind me again of how
> many of those WMD were found? OK, since they weren't, remind me that if
> that was the reason for going there, which you have just spent more time
> adn space than is ever needed, along with getting rid of saddam, why are
> we still there? OK...OK. Now remind me again of that exit strategy and
> just how close we are to seeing an end to this?

Here's a source:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
BUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY.
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for
publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Busted.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:10:57
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 8, 3:44 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header > wrote:
> In article <1163011585.158980.157...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Yes I do think we could have gone right in and killed him. His guard
> troops were gone, the present day insurgents weren't there and the entire
> coalition (remember when we had that) would have been there to help. Then
> again, bush jr could not have brought him off the shelf, dusted him off,
> and pronounced that "iraq is a threat." Ironic that the very war these
> stooges made up to get them reelected, showed everyone their true colors
> and is responsible for the groundswell we today call the Democratic
> Tsunami. I guess we owe it to peole like you then for not making just the
> first mistake, but the second one too. This bud's for you.

Enjoy it while you can. It won't last long.

JJVP

Date: 08 Nov 2006 20:05:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

JJVP wrote:
> > Let me ask you, did you complain when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to
> get rid of Milosevic? After all Bosnia had not attacked any of their
> neighbors or nor was accused by anyone of having WMD. And by the way,
> he did not have UN approval either.
>

How many US soldiers died in Bosnia?
How long were we there?
Did we have a plan to get out?

See any differences?

Date: 08 Nov 2006 13:09:45
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

On Nov 8, 1:26 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote:
> In article <1163011585.158980.157...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:05 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > > In article <1162961391.000144.210...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Actually, he never left iraq and yes I
> > > remember a war that didn't go the
> > > extra 50 miles and end the despot's life right there. If he was such a
> > > big threat, why let him off the hook.....unless you wanted to keep him on
> > > ice for the future, which came and as we have seen, has sunken the
> > > repuglican ship. Stormin' Norman's still pissed that he was called off
> > > before the job was done. Read his book.
>
> > I agree we should have continue on to Baghdad the first time and
> > dispose on Sadaam then. But, if we had, would it be any different? You
> > think we could just have gone in, killed him and then go home and that
> > would have been the end of it? Iran and the radial muslims would have
> > move in and taken over Iraq. Then you would have an even larger
> > sanctuary for the terrorist. 9/11 would be happening on a regular
> > basis. The place to fight the terrorist is in Iraq and Afganistan, not
> > the US. God help us if the dems remove the troops from Iraq before the
> > job is finished.
>
> > JJVPTwo things:
>
> I know why the U.S. would prefer to fight the terrorists in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, but why would the *terrorists* prefer to? And since they
> obviously wouldn't, why would the terrorists just up the ante within the
> U.S.?

Why don't you ask them. But that's where most of them are headed. Let's
see what happens in the next couple of years if the dems succeed in
retreating from Iraq before Iraq can take care of itself.

>
> Second, I thought you didn't like OT posts. Or was that just when you'd
> rather not apologize for something stupid that you've said?

I've never said I didn't like OT posts. You are confusing me with
someone else (I'm NOT John van der Pflum). The only stupid post is
yours. I have nothing to apologize for.

JJVP

>
> --
> 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
> "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
> (Edwin on Mac OS X)
>
> '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
> 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
> IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)

Date: 08 Nov 2006 22:28:02
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

In article <1163020185.777708.149450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"JJVP" <jjvp10@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Nov 8, 1:26 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <1163011585.158980.157...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 11:05 pm, tiggerspalewife <a...@comments.header> wrote:
> > > > In article <1162961391.000144.210...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > > "JJVP" <jjv...@gmail.com> wrote:Actually, he never left iraq and yes I
> > > > remember a war that didn't go the
> > > > extra 50 miles and end the despot's life right there. If he was such a
> > > > big threat, why let him off the hook.....unless you wanted to keep him
> > > > on
> > > > ice for the future, which came and as we have seen, has sunken the
> > > > repuglican ship. Stormin' Norman's still pissed that he was called off
> > > > before the job was done. Read his book.
> >
> > > I agree we should have continue on to Baghdad the first time and
> > > dispose on Sadaam then. But, if we had, would it be any different? You
> > > think we could just have gone in, killed him and then go home and that
> > > would have been the end of it? Iran and the radial muslims would have
> > > move in and taken over Iraq. Then you would have an even larger
> > > sanctuary for the terrorist. 9/11 would be happening on a regular
> > > basis. The place to fight the terrorist is in Iraq and Afganistan, not
> > > the US. God help us if the dems remove the troops from Iraq before the
> > > job is finished.
> >
> > > JJVPTwo things:
> >
> > I know why the U.S. would prefer to fight the terrorists in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan, but why would the *terrorists* prefer to? And since they
> > obviously wouldn't, why would the terrorists just up the ante within the
> > U.S.?
>
> Why don't you ask them. But that's where most of them are headed. Let's
> see what happens in the next couple of years if the dems succeed in
> retreating from Iraq before Iraq can take care of itself.

How do you know that that where most of them are headed? Have you taken
a poll... ...what?

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)

'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)

Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:37:01
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Larry-A Good Reason to Vote Democratic

JJVP wrote:
> I don't know about you, but I'm making a heck more money now that
> during the Clinton years. As does everyone I know. So stop with the
> leftist propaganda.
>
One would hope you're making more. That's just natural.
The point is that your money is worth a lot less today in real spending
power.

I used to could fill up my gas tank for $12 during the Clinton years.
Now it costs me $36.
Too bad I'm not making three times what I was making then.