| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:44:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
A. Because he's full of shit!
Tony Snow, that is. Here is what the Whitehouse spokesman said at
today's press briefing:
------------------------
Q Yes, that there is an acceptance within the American public to send
more troops.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I will refer you to the data that may be -- in
fact, I think it's from your own poll.
Q CBS poll?
MR. SNOW: Yes, the CBS News poll. What happens is, there is a fairly --
I apologize, because I'm going through -- just 32 percent thinks the
U.S. should pull out significant numbers of troops in the next six
months, 64 percent believes the U.S. should keep troops there longer.
You put that together with 58 percent say that it's extremely or very
important that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, and 60 percent believe that
the U.S. can still win the war -- that's actually the Gallup Poll, but
in any event, the point here is, when you're dealing with a situation
like this, if you want to build public confidence you explain what's
going on and explain how you intend to go forward. And that's what the
President is going to do.
===================================
Sounds like most Americans are in favor of us staying in Iraq, right?
Well here is what the polls really showed:
--------------------------------------------
December 12, 2006
Two major polling organizations -- USA Today/Gallup and CBS News --
came out with big polls dissecting public opinion on the war in Iraq in
the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, and the results could be a
sobering wake-up call for the Bush administration. We say "could be"
because the public holds so much distrust and angst about the war in
Iraq that it may simply be too late for the Bush admin to turn things
around.
Some of the polls', well, low-lights:
A majority of Americans think neither side is winning the war (64% in
Gallup's, 63% in the CBS poll), though a slightly greater percentage
choose the Iraqi insurgency (17% and 18%, respectively) than the U.S.
and its allies (16% and 15%).
A majority thinks the U.S. should keep a significant number of troops
in Iraq for less than a year (55% in the Gallup survey), while in CBS's
poll, 59% say the U.S. should either decrease troop levels or remove
troops altogether.
The war, say majorities, was a mistake. That's nothing new - a majority
has agreed that the war was a mistake in most Gallup polls since early
May 2005, with few exceptions. 53% continue to agree, while 62% called
sending troops to Iraq a mistake in the CBS poll.
It's not getting any easier, either. Just 8% say the situation in Iraq
is getting better, while 52% say it's getting worse, according to CBS.
The same poll shows 71% believe U.S. efforts in the country are going
somewhat or very badly.
Is it worth it? The big number today is 64, the percent of Americans
who say the costs of succeeding in Iraq outweigh the benefits to the
U.S. Just 33% of the Gallup sample feel the opposite way. 53% in the
CBS poll say the U.S. is not likely to succeed. In a smaller Washington
Post/ABC News poll, only 36% say the war was worth it, as 61% say it
wasn't.
And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
(53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
It doesn't get any better in Gallup. 46% say they trust Bush "a great
deal" or "a fair amount" to recommend the right thing to do in Iraq,
far below the aggregates for Congressional Democrats (58%), the Iraq
Study Group (66%) and even Sen. John McCain (63%).
If the ISG report serves as a warning and a call for change, as Bush
has signaled - news reports today suggest a new strategy in Iraq will
be announced early next month - it is doubtful any action will be
sufficient to reverse these dismal numbers.
As Americans perceive everything in Iraq as going so poorly, Pres.
Bush's approval rating has actually sunk from last quarter (31% in the
CBS poll, 36% in the Washington Post/ABC poll and 38% in the USA
Today/Gallup poll), breaking a string of years in which, going into the
holiday season, his numbers have risen. It remains to be seen if
January's State of the Union -- typically a boost for presidential poll
numbers -- will provide Bush an opportunity to come back.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/the_big_number_22.html
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
Well, that just about says it all about the American
public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:15:37
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article
<1165979495.672947.217880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> > war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> > just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> > all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> > according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> > (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> > CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> > make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
> Well, that just about says it all about the American
> public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
> they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
> about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
>
> In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> their inability to understand the concept of democracy.
Those stupid people. How dare they not embrace a government
foisted on them by an occupying miltary power?
> They deserve to
> live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
That certainly was the US viewpoint while Saddam committed the
worst of his atrocities - with US support.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:34:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>
>> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
>> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
>> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
>> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
>> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
>> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
>> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
>> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
>Well, that just about says it all about the American
>public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
>they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
>about Iraq. <clip>
>
That's not what the poll said. It said that "Americans trust
Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1...over Bush in making the right
decisions about Iraq", not that they would be right.
They can't be any more wrong than Dubya has been.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:45:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:h1tun210khj9don1gcagjkf20827i9lbq4@4ax.com...
>
> They can't be any more wrong than Dubya has been.
>
Sure they can, time will tell.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:24:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
> vote.
I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty. It
would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:44:06
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:2oKfh.248$_z6.94@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
>> vote.
>
> I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty.
> It would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
I've voted every year since I could and have never been called for JD. Of
course now that I said that I'll be getting a letter in the mail next week.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:54:42
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article <4uale7F1774h8U1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:2oKfh.248$_z6.94@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
> >> vote.
> >
> > I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty.
> > It would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
> I've voted every year since I could and have never been called for JD. Of
> course now that I said that I'll be getting a letter in the mail next week.
IMO, voting is not only a right, it is an obligation of citizenship.
When someone tells me they don't vote, regardless of reason, their
political opinions are just hot air with no impact.
Kind of like Limbaugh before '95. All talk, no vote!
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:16:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
>their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
>live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
than an American failure.
I was encouraged today the Saudi's said that if the US withdraws and
the Shia attack the Sunnis that the Saudi's would protect the Sunni. I
doubt that the US would really object to the Saudi's taking control of
Iraq.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:51:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> A. Because he's full of shit!
>
> Tony Snow, that is. Here is what the Whitehouse spokesman said at
> today's press briefing:
> ------------------------
> Q Yes, that there is an acceptance within the American public to send
> more troops.
>
> MR. SNOW: Well, again, I will refer you to the data that may be -- in
> fact, I think it's from your own poll.
>
> Q CBS poll?
>
> MR. SNOW: Yes, the CBS News poll. What happens is, there is a fairly --
> I apologize, because I'm going through -- just 32 percent thinks the
> U.S. should pull out significant numbers of troops in the next six
> months, 64 percent believes the U.S. should keep troops there longer.
> You put that together with 58 percent say that it's extremely or very
> important that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, and 60 percent believe that
> the U.S. can still win the war -- that's actually the Gallup Poll, but
> in any event, the point here is, when you're dealing with a situation
> like this, if you want to build public confidence you explain what's
> going on and explain how you intend to go forward. And that's what the
> President is going to do.
> ===================================
>
> Sounds like most Americans are in favor of us staying in Iraq, right?
> Well here is what the polls really showed:
>
> --------------------------------------------
> December 12, 2006
> Two major polling organizations -- USA Today/Gallup and CBS News --
> came out with big polls dissecting public opinion on the war in Iraq in
> the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, and the results could be a
> sobering wake-up call for the Bush administration. We say "could be"
> because the public holds so much distrust and angst about the war in
> Iraq that it may simply be too late for the Bush admin to turn things
> around.
>
> Some of the polls', well, low-lights:
>
> A majority of Americans think neither side is winning the war (64% in
> Gallup's, 63% in the CBS poll), though a slightly greater percentage
> choose the Iraqi insurgency (17% and 18%, respectively) than the U.S.
> and its allies (16% and 15%).
>
> A majority thinks the U.S. should keep a significant number of troops
> in Iraq for less than a year (55% in the Gallup survey), while in CBS's
> poll, 59% say the U.S. should either decrease troop levels or remove
> troops altogether.
>
> The war, say majorities, was a mistake. That's nothing new - a majority
> has agreed that the war was a mistake in most Gallup polls since early
> May 2005, with few exceptions. 53% continue to agree, while 62% called
> sending troops to Iraq a mistake in the CBS poll.
>
> It's not getting any easier, either. Just 8% say the situation in Iraq
> is getting better, while 52% say it's getting worse, according to CBS.
> The same poll shows 71% believe U.S. efforts in the country are going
> somewhat or very badly.
>
> Is it worth it? The big number today is 64, the percent of Americans
> who say the costs of succeeding in Iraq outweigh the benefits to the
> U.S. Just 33% of the Gallup sample feel the opposite way. 53% in the
> CBS poll say the U.S. is not likely to succeed. In a smaller Washington
> Post/ABC News poll, only 36% say the war was worth it, as 61% say it
> wasn't.
>
> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
> It doesn't get any better in Gallup. 46% say they trust Bush "a great
> deal" or "a fair amount" to recommend the right thing to do in Iraq,
> far below the aggregates for Congressional Democrats (58%), the Iraq
> Study Group (66%) and even Sen. John McCain (63%).
>
> If the ISG report serves as a warning and a call for change, as Bush
> has signaled - news reports today suggest a new strategy in Iraq will
> be announced early next month - it is doubtful any action will be
> sufficient to reverse these dismal numbers.
>
> As Americans perceive everything in Iraq as going so poorly, Pres.
> Bush's approval rating has actually sunk from last quarter (31% in the
> CBS poll, 36% in the Washington Post/ABC poll and 38% in the USA
> Today/Gallup poll), breaking a string of years in which, going into the
> holiday season, his numbers have risen. It remains to be seen if
> January's State of the Union -- typically a boost for presidential poll
> numbers -- will provide Bush an opportunity to come back.
>
> http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/the_big_number_22.html
Tony Snow is just a trained seal, paid to cast his boss in a positive
light, no matter what the extenuating circumstances are. When he leaves
the White House, he'll probably go to work for Exxon or Philip Morris
or some other corp. known for its good works and altruism.
A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
massages that one.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:12:51
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article
> <1165979495.672947.217880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> > > war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> > > just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> > > all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> > > according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> > > (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> > > CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> > > make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
> >
> > Well, that just about says it all about the American
> > public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
> > they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
> > about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
> >
> > In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > their inability to understand the concept of democracy.
>
> Those stupid people. How dare they not embrace a government
> foisted on them by an occupying miltary power?
>
> > They deserve to
> > live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
>
> That certainly was the US viewpoint while Saddam committed the
> worst of his atrocities - with US support.
So your think that the neanderthals (also known as Iraqi's) are going
to be able to form some type of organized central government on their
own? LOL Occupying military power? Let's ask Kuwait how they were
treated by the Iraqi's occupying military power. Did the neanderthals
build schools, establish elections, promote democracy, feed the people
or did they pillage, loot, and rape?
Let's just sit back and see what the Dems do now that they control the
purse strings. They had all the answers before the elections, now they
get to make decisions.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:00:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > You're the neanderthal, pal.
>
> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
> with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
what all Christians do?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 00:33:19
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>
>>> You're the neanderthal, pal.
>>
>> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at
>> it with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>
> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> what all Christians do?
That is what people do after the FBI kills unarmed women and children - they
blow up an FBI building. Don't agree with the idea - but it doesn't seem
that out of whack. Eye for an eye; and all that.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:17:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:33:19 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>That is what people do after the FBI kills unarmed women and children - they
>blow up an FBI building. Don't agree with the idea - but it doesn't seem
>that out of whack. Eye for an eye; and all that.
I agree with Gandhi that everybody would end up blind. People don't
agree when they are even and can stop killing.
Especially when their attacks hit something other than the target they
were trying to get even with.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 20:46:44
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> You're the neanderthal, pal.
I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 00:32:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> You're the neanderthal, pal.
>
> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at
> it with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
There is a reason Iraqi women are virgins - they are frugly.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:04:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:44 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
>with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
With the exception of the part about the virgins.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> >rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> >that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> >came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> >might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> >as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> >freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> >there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
> In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
> of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
> true for the US.
The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
game?"
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 22:14:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
>And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
>game?"
To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 19:30:53
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article <2ag1o29l09d2el2hh4g6o2kg7ma4fnta9m@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> >game?"
>
> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
Or a first thought.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 23:27:56
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article <2ag1o29l09d2el2hh4g6o2kg7ma4fnta9m@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young
>>> men. And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead
>>> of the game?"
>>
>> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
>
> Or a first thought.
Saddam has "been out of the game" for quite some time. USA does not know
how to "mop up" and I suspect that history bears out that there may not be
an elegant way.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:34:05
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
> "Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
> fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
> Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
> especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
> creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
> asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
> They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
> controlling them.
If that is so obvious to you, why do you think George Bush was unable
to recognize it?
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:28:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> > > On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > > >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> > > >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> > > than an American failure.
> >
> > This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> > rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> > that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> > came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> > might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> > as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> > freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> > there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
>
> So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
> "Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
> fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
> Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
> especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
> creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
> asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
> They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
> controlling them.
You're the neanderthal, pal.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:02:11
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> > >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
> >
> > Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> > than an American failure.
>
> This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
"Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
controlling them.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
>
> Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> than an American failure.
This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
> I was encouraged today the Saudi's said that if the US withdraws and
> the Shia attack the Sunnis that the Saudi's would protect the Sunni. I
> doubt that the US would really object to the Saudi's taking control of
> Iraq.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 20:45:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
>rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
>that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
>came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
>might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
>as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
>freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
>there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
true for the US.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:45:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
>true for the US.
Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
cost of keeping him.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 13:47:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
>>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
>>true for the US.
>
>Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
>cost of keeping him.
The problem is that you never know what would have happened if Saddam
was left in power.
Suppose that Britain, France and the Soviet Union immediately declared
war on Germany in 1938 when Hitler took the Rhineland and the US
joined the fight right away. Obviously this would have meant war
rather than the policy of appeasement that actually occurred to try to
avoid war.
If an immediate response resulted in a war that killed 30 million
people, I'm sure that the appeasers would say that the policies of the
hawks led to a war that could have been avoided and thus caused the
death of 30 million people. Of course, we now know that the actual
war that resulted cost 60 million lives.
Ultimately, history has shown that whenever a nation solves one
problem, it is replaced by another problem. You can only hope that
the new problem is smaller than the old one.
Right now, the worst case scenario for the US is the threat of nuclear
weapons in the hands of terrorists or a rogue nation. Saddam was a
long term threat to develop nuclear weapons and that threat has been
removed. An Iraq in chaos poses no direct threat to the US. The
primary objective of the war was regime change and that has been
achieved.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:10:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Record for Most Bunker Shots in a Round
|
Carbon wrote:
> I haven't seen 30+ but I've seen 10-12 at least a couple of times.
> Maybe it's embarrassment, but the times I've seen it people start
> going faster and faster, until finally they're giving it a whack
> every second or two. Often the bursts of sand are interspersed with
> colorful profanity. The strokes add up pretty fast.
I put somewhere close to a dozen balls in a pond a month or so ago. Some
of the things I said to some of the balls could make a sailor blush; and
the guy who wanted to play through decided to just keep driving his cart to
the next hole instead.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:37:19
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
> massages that one.
...........and 72% cant find Iraq on a map. Opinion polls by the Wash.
Post? LOL
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 10:20:46
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:37:19 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
>> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
>> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
>> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
>> massages that one.
>
>
>...........and 72% cant find Iraq on a map. Opinion polls by the Wash.
>Post? LOL
You don't have to know where a country is to want to stay away from
it. :-)
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:36:08
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
> There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
> You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
> Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
> Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
> stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
> last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
> day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
> coincidence that we have not been attacked?
I don't know, Do you think it was just a coincidence that we weren't
attacked by foreign terrorists on American from the 1993 WTC bombing
until Sept. 11, 2001?
I remember after the USS Cole bombing, people were talking about what a
failure Clinton was in fighting the terrorists. Maybe by the standards
we now apply to Bush, he was a colossal success.
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:27:25
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> > >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> > >game?"
> >
> > To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
>
>
> OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
> invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
> better off than it is now?
OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
coincidence that we have not been attacked?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:55:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:27:25 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
>> invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
>> better off than it is now?
>
>OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
>There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
>You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
>Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
>Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
>stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
>last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
>day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
>coincidence that we have not been attacked?
Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries. Osama was not
going to find refuge under Saddam. But maybe if our forces weren't
fighting two wars, they could have captured him by now.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:17:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> > explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> > what all Christians do?
>
> ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
> a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
> better than that.
Oh, I get it now. You are saying that we shouldn't judge or condemn a
whole large group of people (or religion) for the actions of a few.
Sounds rational to me.
So I guess this will put and end to your rants against Muslims and
Islam?
Do you think Muhammad Ali joined the Muslims because he wanted to blow
up cars and cut off heads? No, he joined them because they are peace
lovers. But they will fight back.
"By any means necessary," as the great Malcolm X said. If someone
invades their country they'll fight to the death. Not unlike most
Americans in that regard, I suppose. That's why there will always be
increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
for peace is for us to leave.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:20:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:17:17 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
> That's why there will always be
>increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
>for peace is for us to leave.
I suppose that you could be more naive, but I can't imagine how.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 06:45:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> >game?"
>
> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
better off than it is now?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:18:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 06:45:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
>invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
>better off than it is now?
I think you mean worse off than it is now.
It would be worse off because Saddam was a madman who had the
potential to eventually develop nuclear weapons that could be used
against the USA. The Iraq that exists today can't even collect the
garbage, never talk about develop a nuclear weapon.
Saddam in power was an American problem. Sectarian violence in Iraq
is ultimately an Iraqi problem. The reason that the decision to go
into Iraq was so easy was that there was no outcome that was worse
than Saddam staying in power.
The same is true for Iran. There's no outcome that's worse than Iran
having nuclear weapons.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 06:28:33
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > You're the neanderthal, pal.
> >
> > I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> > drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> > innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
> > with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>
> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> what all Christians do?
ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
better than that.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:23:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166106513.707709.305200@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You're the neanderthal, pal.
>> >
>> > I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>> > drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>> > innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
>> > with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>>
>> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
>> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
>> what all Christians do?
>
> ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
> a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
> better than that.
>
No he can't.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:51:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 06:28:33 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
>> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
>> what all Christians do?
>
>ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
>a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
>better than that.
His debate tactic worked - the best way to win a debate is to get your
opponent to use your argument.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:37:10
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
American serviceman.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:05:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
>
> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
> massages that one.
He'll just say that when you combine the # of people who approve of
Bush's handling of the war (30%) with the people who think we're
winning (48%) as well as all those that think it's a war worth fighting
(38%), well, shit ...... that's 116% of the people that believe we
should stay the course!
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:53:03
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
> "By any means necessary," as the great Malcolm X said. If someone
> invades their country they'll fight to the death. Not unlike most
> Americans in that regard, I suppose. That's why there will always be
> increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
> for peace is for us to leave.
Let me say this slowly.............they are killing each other. If you
think it is bad now, the place would implode if we leave. Uh, come to
think of it, maybe we should let it implode.
Net gain for civilization.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:21:30
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
> >>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
> >>true for the US.
> >
> >Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
> >cost of keeping him.
>
>
> The problem is that you never know what would have happened if Saddam
> was left in power.
>
> Suppose that Britain, France and the Soviet Union immediately declared
> war on Germany in 1938 when Hitler took the Rhineland and the US
> joined the fight right away. Obviously this would have meant war
> rather than the policy of appeasement that actually occurred to try to
> avoid war.
>
> If an immediate response resulted in a war that killed 30 million
> people, I'm sure that the appeasers would say that the policies of the
> hawks led to a war that could have been avoided and thus caused the
> death of 30 million people. Of course, we now know that the actual
> war that resulted cost 60 million lives.
>
> Ultimately, history has shown that whenever a nation solves one
> problem, it is replaced by another problem. You can only hope that
> the new problem is smaller than the old one.
>
> Right now, the worst case scenario for the US is the threat of nuclear
> weapons in the hands of terrorists or a rogue nation. Saddam was a
> long term threat to develop nuclear weapons and that threat has been
> removed. An Iraq in chaos poses no direct threat to the US. The
> primary objective of the war was regime change and that has been
> achieved.
So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:08:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
>happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
>not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
>Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
>then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
>then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
>of that would have happened. Who knows?
Who knows? I know that now it wont happen. That's the point.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:53:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
>
> Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
> with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
> tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
> that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
> American serviceman.
YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
Americans is repulsive.
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:54:38
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> > > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> > > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> > > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> > > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> > > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> > > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> > > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> > > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
> >
> > Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
> > with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
> > tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
> > that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
> > American serviceman.
>
> YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
> stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
> horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
> theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
> Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
> Americans is repulsive.
Your statements dont make sense. You were the one who brought up the
hypotheitical question, rigtht? So you get a hypothetical answer. Now
look at your response. You call someone nuts because he describes a
hypothetical threat that you dont happen to agree with. And your use of
the word sanguine makes me think you have been drinking.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:36:02
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166239557.989596.10150@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> John B. wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might
>> > > have
>> > > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
>> > > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
>> > > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
>> > > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
>> > > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe
>> > > none
>> > > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
>> > > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to
>> > > the
>> > > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
>> >
>> > Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
>> > with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
>> > tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
>> > that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
>> > American serviceman.
>>
>> YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
>> stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
>> horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
>> theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
>> Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
>> Americans is repulsive.
>
> Your statements dont make sense. You were the one who brought up the
> hypotheitical question, rigtht? So you get a hypothetical answer. Now
> look at your response. You call someone nuts because he describes a
> hypothetical threat that you dont happen to agree with. And your use of
> the word sanguine makes me think you have been drinking.
Having read over your posts on the subject, I'm not surprised that John's
statements don't make sense to you. I very often disagree with John's
posts, but they usually are much more than comprehensible. Sometimes they
are actually challenging. Once in a blue moon, he's even right about
something :-). I have found that his posts are always lucid and sensible,
even if he does sometimes prove to be fallible in his opinion.
On the other hand, you seem to have lost the thread of thought on this one.
For that reason I haven't snipped according to my usual practise, in the
hopes that you will catch the scent. I won't try to persuade you one way or
the other on the topic at hand; who am I to try to point the way for you?
I'm often a little lost myself.
However - and this is the point I wished to make - I will take the
opportunity to suggest you check your spelling a little more closely when
you decide to cast doubts on someone's sobriety, especially if your
aspersions are based solely on usage. Your typing appears to be a bit
affected, and in the present context this gives the impression of hypocrisy.
It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a fucking
clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a word
improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting from
being a little tipsy myself.
Anyway, just a thought.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:50:09
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a fucking
> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a word
> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting from
> being a little tipsy myself.
>
> Anyway, just a thought.
>
> Scott
Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi. Was that your thought for the day?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:54:10
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166280609.854591.80380@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a
>> fucking
>> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a
>> word
>> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
>> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting
>> from
>> being a little tipsy myself.
>>
>> Anyway, just a thought.
>>
>> Scott
>
> Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi.
Only when dealing with vocabulary nazis, and only then when they're full of
shit.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:11:58
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>
> >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >> crimes.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
"is an illegitimate fraud".
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 00:55:43
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
>>>>> illegitimate fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
>>>> crimes.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got
>> Saddam and came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may
>> not have been reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the
>> first place.
>
> Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> "is an illegitimate fraud".
Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
Bushtard the Wino?
--
___________________________________________________________
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: 16 Dec 2006 20:54:59
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166306178.481495.216790@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
> > get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
> > and nice try with "rigtht".
>
> Little slow on the uptake, aren't you? You need things spelled out for
> you, I guess. Not worth the time.
>
> As far as being twisted around, you flatter yourself. I could care less how
> badly educated you are. I do sometimes find it entertaining to call out a
> hypocritical busy body such as yourself, with your unsolicited vocabulary
> lessons. If you at least would have been right...
>
> The entertainment value is pretty much exhausted, so why don't you take the
> last shot. Please try not to say anything stupid this time. It's painful
> to watch.
>
> Scott
Busy body? The original post to which you took exception wasnt even
addressing you. So who butted in?
So you could care less or you couldn't care less about my education.
Please make yourself understood. High school kids get that one mixed up
all the time also. Thanks for all the lessons chief.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:56:18
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166304506.196058.318230@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >
> > Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
> > today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
>
> You're much too witty for me to spar with. I guess you win. But before I
> go, my advice to you concerned spelling, not punctuation. You understand
> the difference, rigtht?
>
> Scott
Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
and nice try with "rigtht".
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:20:45
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166306178.481495.216790@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
> get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
> and nice try with "rigtht".
Little slow on the uptake, aren't you? You need things spelled out for
you, I guess. Not worth the time.
As far as being twisted around, you flatter yourself. I could care less how
badly educated you are. I do sometimes find it entertaining to call out a
hypocritical busy body such as yourself, with your unsolicited vocabulary
lessons. If you at least would have been right...
The entertainment value is pretty much exhausted, so why don't you take the
last shot. Please try not to say anything stupid this time. It's painful
to watch.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:28:26
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166280609.854591.80380@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a
> >> fucking
> >> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a
> >> word
> >> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
> >> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting
> >> from
> >> being a little tipsy myself.
> >>
> >> Anyway, just a thought.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi.
>
> Only when dealing with vocabulary nazis, and only then when they're full of
> shit.
>
> Scott
Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:40:40
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166304506.196058.318230@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
> today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
You're much too witty for me to spar with. I guess you win. But before I
go, my advice to you concerned spelling, not punctuation. You understand
the difference, rigtht?
Scott
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:51:43
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >>> crimes.
> >> Why?
> >
> > Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> > came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> > reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
>
> I see you have an excellent grasp of how the world really works.
>
> Define WMD please? It aint just nukes.
Before the invasion, Bush and his cronies defined them as chemical and
biological munitions and the ordnance required to deliver and/or
detonate them. I was present when the Deputy Secretary of State,
Richard Armitage, made a speech saying time was running out for SH and
if he didn't disarm, we would invade. He read a long laundry list of
WMDs that SH supposedly had. It included VX gas, sarin gas, anthrax and
20,000 artillery shells loaded with chemical munitions. Let's also
point out that Bush said repeatedly that if SH would come clean, we
wouldn't invade Iraq. That means the statement he made a few months ago
-- that if he knew in 2003 what he knows now, he would have invaded
anyway -- was a lie.
>
> By your logic, if that's what you call it, you would have Clinton
> brought up on the same charges for his extra constitutional war in the
> Balkans?
Funny how no one criticized Clinton for intervening in the Balkans
until it became convenient to use that as a way of accusing Iraq War
opponents of hypocrisy. Clinton stopped a genocide in Kosovo and US
forces didn't sustain one casualty. The Balkan region is now relatively
peaceful and stable. Suppose Clinton had intevened in Rwanda to stop
the slaughter there (which I think he should have done and so does he)?
Would you say he should be brought up on charges for that?
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:18:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > > Head Shot wrote:
> > >> Carbon wrote:
> > >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> > >>> illegitimate fraud.
> > >>
> > >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> > >> crimes.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> > came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> > reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
>
> Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> "is an illegitimate fraud".
All polls show that a large majority of Americans are deeply unhappy
with the way the war is being run, and don't believe it should ever
have been started. If a pollster were to ask, "do you think the Iraq
war is an illegitmate fraud?" I expect a majority of respondents would
say yes.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 15:01:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 17 Dec 2006 06:18:28 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> If a pollster were to ask, "do you think the Iraq
>war is an illegitmate fraud?" I expect a majority of respondents would
>say yes.
I seriously doubt that. In any case, I'm happy that the US has a
President who doesn't get up every morning and decide policy according
to public opinion.
If Reagan would have done that during his presidency, the Soviet Union
would still be around.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:14:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:22:30 -0500, Head Shot wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >
> >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an illegitimate
> >>> fraud.
> >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war crimes.
> >
> > As the disaster deepens over the next couple of years there probably will
> > be some sort of movement against Bush. But it would be better to round up
> > Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the other architects of the failure in
> > Iraq. Bush is just the guy who tries to read the teleprompter.
>
> Why?
You're kidding, right?
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>>>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >>>> crimes.
> >>>
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got
> >> Saddam and came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may
> >> not have been reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the
> >> first place.
> >
>
> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
>
> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> Bushtard the Wino?
Read the thread you idiot.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:35:50
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> >> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> >> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
> >>
> >> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> >> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> >> Bushtard the Wino?
> >
> > Read the thread you idiot.
>
> Actually Head Shot is correct. Read the first spelling of illegitimate.
> Then read yours. You're the only person that said "illigitemate".
Actually, YOU need to go back and read it. I spelled it correctly and
he was the one who had it wrong. You are an idiot just like him.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:30:57
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> >> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> >> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
> >>
> >> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> >> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> >> Bushtard the Wino?
> >
> > Read the thread you idiot.
>
> Actually Head Shot is correct. Read the first spelling of illegitimate.
> Then read yours. You're the only person that said "illigitemate".
Real strong arguement. Anyone who bases their point on a typo is very,
very weak.
|
|
