Way OT Political - anti Republican

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 27 Sep 2006 02:50:35
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Way OT Political - anti Republican

I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and his
cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I could list a
bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a single thing they did
right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what are they?

Date: 27 Sep 2006 21:20:58
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

>
> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is there?
> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
> plank in their platform.

I think firing at Rumsfeld is a better plan. Where's Dick Cheney when
we need him?

Date: 28 Sep 2006 13:12:08
From: R.J.
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159417258.222957.126290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
>> there?
>> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
>> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
>> plank in their platform.
>
> I think firing at Rumsfeld is a better plan. Where's Dick Cheney when
> we need him?
>

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JS0GrcFWcz0

Date: 28 Sep 2006 08:58:02
From: larry
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:12:08 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net > wrote:

>
>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1159417258.222957.126290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
>>> there?
>>> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
>>> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
>>> plank in their platform.
>>
>> I think firing at Rumsfeld is a better plan. Where's Dick Cheney when
>> we need him?
>>
>
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=JS0GrcFWcz0

What is not stressed is that Bush's assumption of power was
late--thanks to the delay in the Florida recount.

When the Republicans assumed power they were obliged to rely upon a
badly broken intelligence community. The CIA had been decimated by
liberals who philosophically distrust espionage, the military, and
secret arrangements to obtain intelligence. The Clinton years were a
reprise of the disastrous Carter-Stansfield Turner fiasco. The CIA
had been infiltrated by key people who were reluctant to be spies.
Consequently these organizations were almost useless in gathering and
formulating "actionable" reports for the new president. There were
reports, of course, but no aggressive consensus got to the president
or congress. Our government was effectively "blind" for many months.
It has taken Bush these years to rebuild what Clinton broke--and
obviously that process is on-going and still far from complete.

This November remember which party wants a strong military and strong
intelligence community-- and which one wants the opposite.

Larry

Date: 29 Sep 2006 01:19:02
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:58:02 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>This November remember which party wants a strong military and strong
>intelligence community-- and which one wants the opposite.

And the opposite is one with Liberty and Justice for All?

Or one where the U.S. is respected and not the creator of terrorist
hatred?

Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:29:25
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:virnh212no2nlg3jlja14j52fki0rhfqch@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:12:08 GMT, "R.J." <roleksy11@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1159417258.222957.126290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
>>>> there?
>>>> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing
>>>> Rumsfield
>>>> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good
>>>> first
>>>> plank in their platform.
>>>
>>> I think firing at Rumsfeld is a better plan. Where's Dick Cheney when
>>> we need him?
>>>
>>
>>http://youtube.com/watch?v=JS0GrcFWcz0
>
> What is not stressed is that Bush's assumption of power was
> late--thanks to the delay in the Florida recount.
>
> When the Republicans assumed power they were obliged to rely upon a
> badly broken intelligence community. The CIA had been decimated by
> liberals who philosophically distrust espionage, the military, and
> secret arrangements to obtain intelligence. The Clinton years were a
> reprise of the disastrous Carter-Stansfield Turner fiasco. The CIA
> had been infiltrated by key people who were reluctant to be spies.
> Consequently these organizations were almost useless in gathering and
> formulating "actionable" reports for the new president. There were
> reports, of course, but no aggressive consensus got to the president
> or congress. Our government was effectively "blind" for many months.
> It has taken Bush these years to rebuild what Clinton broke--and
> obviously that process is on-going and still far from complete.
>
> This November remember which party wants a strong military and strong
> intelligence community-- and which one wants the opposite.
>
> Larry

Maybe you make some good and important points but the question is still
"What has the Bush administration done right to deserve the idea that they
are better at a 'war on terror'? Do you believe that Bush made an
intelligent assessment of the data that he did have? Do you think the
linking of Iraq to 911 was a good assessment? You know ... the list goes on
and on. The idea of putting unarmored trucks and men into battle with poorly
designed flak jackets is especially disturbing to me.

But aside from the excuses, some better than others, what has Bush done to
earn a reputation as being someone mentally and tempermentally equipped to
conduct a war on terror ... what has he done right?

Date: 27 Sep 2006 19:25:41
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and
> his cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I
> could list a bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a
> single thing they did right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what
> are they?

List them over in alt.politics. People will show more interest there.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 27 Sep 2006 16:54:23
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:GLDSg.9926$zF5.5532@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and
>> his cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I
>> could list a bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a
>> single thing they did right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what
>> are they?
>
>
> List them over in alt.politics. People will show more interest there.
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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

I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is there?
As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
plank in their platform.

Date: 27 Sep 2006 21:05:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote in message
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and
>>> his cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I
>>> could list a bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a
>>> single thing they did right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what
>>> are they?
>>
>>
>> List them over in alt.politics. People will show more interest
>> there.
>
> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
> there? As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think
> firing Rumsfield and actually analyzing the intelligence information
> might be a good first plank in their platform.

That was a polite hint that this is a golf group. If I have interest in
politics; I would go there to discuss this; so please don't ask me my
thoughts on politics here. If you want to lure me into a discussion; do it
by telling me where I can get some used +1.5" to +2" left handed Pings
at a great price.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 02:35:00
From: David Laville
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:12 -0400, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

>That was a polite hint that this is a golf group. If I have interest in
>politics; I would go there to discuss this; so please don't ask me my
>thoughts on politics here. If you want to lure me into a discussion; do it
>by telling me where I can get some used +1.5" to +2" left handed Pings
>at a great price.

Bravo!

David Laville, G.S.E.M.
The Golfing Machine Authorized Instructor
TB-8982

Date: 27 Sep 2006 21:43:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:35:00 GMT, David Laville
<dlaville@worldnet.att.net > wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:12 -0400, "Head Shot"
><HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>>That was a polite hint that this is a golf group. If I have interest in
>>politics; I would go there to discuss this; so please don't ask me my
>>thoughts on politics here. If you want to lure me into a discussion; do it
>>by telling me where I can get some used +1.5" to +2" left handed Pings
>>at a great price.
>
>Bravo!

>David Laville, G.S.E.M.

Bravo? Is that a national golf chain that sells left-handed Pings? :-)

Date: 27 Sep 2006 22:52:26
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

Eddie Bravo steals whatever you want.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:0kdmh2pf6180ndkhj5cueee55anefn68b0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:35:00 GMT, David Laville
> <dlaville@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:05:12 -0400, "Head Shot"
>><HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>>
>>>That was a polite hint that this is a golf group. If I have interest in
>>>politics; I would go there to discuss this; so please don't ask me my
>>>thoughts on politics here. If you want to lure me into a discussion; do
>>>it
>>>by telling me where I can get some used +1.5" to +2" left handed
>>>Pings
>>>at a great price.
>>
>>Bravo!
>
>>David Laville, G.S.E.M.
>
> Bravo? Is that a national golf chain that sells left-handed Pings? :-)

Date: 30 Sep 2006 02:07:44
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On 27-Sep-2006, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:

> Eddie Bravo steals whatever you want.

but Johnny Bravo fits the Suit........

me

Date: 28 Sep 2006 10:23:54
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and his
> cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I could list a
> bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a single thing they did
> right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what are they?

All you need to know is that Republicans are trying hard to protect
us--with a stronger military, with a stronger intelligence service, and
to keep our economy strong with less regulation and lower taxes, etc.

All you need to know is that Democrats want the opposite, a weak
military, an intelligence service that is basically "blind" as it was
when Bush took office-- and higher taxes to pay for a socialist
society. If we trust Democrats to protect us, Radical islam will
attack and the entire Western economy will crash-- as foreign investors
pull their capital. 9/11 caused a major recession that lasted over a
year-- another big attack will cause a depression that could last
years, weakening us as they continue to attack. As long as we are
Infidels, they will attack.

Vote Republican if you want America to have a future.

Larry

Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:44:32
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:1159464234.670136.36580@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and his
>> cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I could list
>> a
>> bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a single thing they did
>> right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what are they?
>
> All you need to know is that Republicans are trying hard to protect
> us--with a stronger military, with a stronger intelligence service, and
> to keep our economy strong with less regulation and lower taxes, etc.
>
>
> All you need to know is that Democrats want the opposite, a weak
> military, an intelligence service that is basically "blind" as it was
> when Bush took office-- and higher taxes to pay for a socialist
> society. If we trust Democrats to protect us, Radical islam will
> attack and the entire Western economy will crash-- as foreign investors
> pull their capital. 9/11 caused a major recession that lasted over a
> year-- another big attack will cause a depression that could last
> years, weakening us as they continue to attack. As long as we are
> Infidels, they will attack.
>
> Vote Republican if you want America to have a future.
>
> Larry

Do you think that putting too few troops into Iraq was the indication of a
strong military? Do you think the reorganization of the Homeland Security is
a move to make security better? Didn't Katrina reveal the stupidity of
moving FEMA into Homeland Security?

You're getting kind of desperate when you say "All you need to know is ... "
and can't list one single thing that Bush has done that can be called an
intelligent move to win "the war on terror". One single thing. He
misinterpreted the intelligence, attacked the wrong country, failed to
secure the country after attacking, ignored the inspectors that said there
were no WMDs, let rioters destroy some of the most ancient art works in the
world (while Rumsfield justified it), has, is it hundreds of billions of
dollars unaccounted for; ie stolen, from funds that should have gone to
rebuild Iraq, ... and all of this while the President thinks that he is
hearing from God. He did say that didn't he?

Ignore all of that and the other things we have all heard. I just want to
see one thing Bush did right. Maybe the one thing he did right was to say
that "this will be a comma in history". Something inside of him knows how
disastorous his tenure has been, and he's subconsciously trying to sabatoge
himself for the good of the country ... but no one has picked up on it. What
does he have to do? Look at the way he fumbles his words. He's fighting with
himself inside because he knows how bad he is and if we don't see that then
it is our fault.

Just one thing he has done to deserve being thought of as good at the 'war
on terror'.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:51:48
From: rcoy27
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"AKA Gray Asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:guXSg.673$v43.308@fed1read02...
>
> "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
> news:1159464234.670136.36580@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>> I forget what it is that makes anyone think that President Bush and his
>>> cabinet are good at national defense in the "War on Terror". I could
>>> list a
>>> bunch of 'alleged' mistakes, but I can't think of a single thing they
>>> did
>>> right. I'm sure there are, but ... well what are they?
>>
>> All you need to know is that Republicans are trying hard to protect
>> us--with a stronger military, with a stronger intelligence service, and
>> to keep our economy strong with less regulation and lower taxes, etc.
>>
>>
>> All you need to know is that Democrats want the opposite, a weak
>> military, an intelligence service that is basically "blind" as it was
>> when Bush took office-- and higher taxes to pay for a socialist
>> society. If we trust Democrats to protect us, Radical islam will
>> attack and the entire Western economy will crash-- as foreign investors
>> pull their capital. 9/11 caused a major recession that lasted over a
>> year-- another big attack will cause a depression that could last
>> years, weakening us as they continue to attack. As long as we are
>> Infidels, they will attack.
>>
>> Vote Republican if you want America to have a future.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Do you think that putting too few troops into Iraq was the indication of a
> strong military? Do you think the reorganization of the Homeland Security
> is a move to make security better? Didn't Katrina reveal the stupidity of
> moving FEMA into Homeland Security?
>
> You're getting kind of desperate when you say "All you need to know is ...
> " and can't list one single thing that Bush has done that can be called an
> intelligent move to win "the war on terror". One single thing. He
> misinterpreted the intelligence, attacked the wrong country, failed to
> secure the country after attacking, ignored the inspectors that said there
> were no WMDs, let rioters destroy some of the most ancient art works in
> the world (while Rumsfield justified it), has, is it hundreds of billions
> of dollars unaccounted for; ie stolen, from funds that should have gone to
> rebuild Iraq, ... and all of this while the President thinks that he is
> hearing from God. He did say that didn't he?
>
> Ignore all of that and the other things we have all heard. I just want to
> see one thing Bush did right. Maybe the one thing he did right was to say
> that "this will be a comma in history". Something inside of him knows how
> disastorous his tenure has been, and he's subconsciously trying to
> sabatoge himself for the good of the country ... but no one has picked up
> on it. What does he have to do? Look at the way he fumbles his words. He's
> fighting with himself inside because he knows how bad he is and if we
> don't see that then it is our fault.
>
> Just one thing he has done to deserve being thought of as good at the 'war
> on terror'.
>
> I am amazed that a dor of your caliber who can read subconcious
> thoughts has time to post articles on a golf newsgroup. You should be
> helping more people get a grip on their subconcious thoughts rather than
> wasting your time here.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 28 Sep 2006 06:47:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

>
> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is there?
> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
> plank in their platform.

They can't fire Rumsfeld. He doesn't work for them.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 10:42:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On 28 Sep 2006 06:47:37 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>They can't fire Rumsfeld. He doesn't work for them.

He works for us.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 13:37:35
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

No. You might pay his salary, but Secretary Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure
of the President on the United States. If you can't fire him, then he
doesn't work for you.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:erunh2pb3u368iqhc1de9knh8r5uomn7cc@4ax.com...
> On 28 Sep 2006 06:47:37 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>They can't fire Rumsfeld. He doesn't work for them.
>
> He works for us.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 14:30:34
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159451257.264210.58310@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
>> there?
>> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
>> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
>> plank in their platform.
>
> They can't fire Rumsfeld. He doesn't work for them.

I'm pretty sure he won't be asked to stay on as Secretary of Defense.

Date: 28 Sep 2006 11:26:25
From: Frankenshank
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

John B. wrote:

>
> They can't fire Rumsfeld. He doesn't work for them.

They ALL work for Z.O.G.

Wake up and smell the acrid, nasty REALITY.

BTW... maybe try googling: "nafta superhighway" and "mexico, US,
canada"
or maybe even "Chinese slave labor goods"

FrankenShank

Date: 29 Sep 2006 08:46:16
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

X-No-Archive: yes

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is there?
> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
> plank in their platform.

I dunno. I think ole Billy Rumsfeld has been a great caddy for many
years. Conservative golf worked well for Nicklaus for many years, and
when Tiger Woods goes to it, it works well. You can try to pre analyze
things all you want, but at the ends of the day you have to actually
make the shots with the game you got that day, a day where it mught be
really hot and drty, or maybe cold and wet, or maybe hot and wet; who
knows? You may have the flu, or pull a muscle getting out of the
bathtub; who knows? All you can do is the best you got with what you
got that day, and you really don't know what you got until you actually
get out there and play.

So at the end of the day, a conservative strategy reduces the cost of
the bad holes, but really doesn't take away the good holes. Knock an
approach shot stiff, and it really doesn't matter if you were going for
the center of the green!. Making a 45 footer from time to time on top
of that, and you have a winning strategy...at least for Nicklaus and
Woods! They seem like good role models to me!!

Date: 29 Sep 2006 11:43:09
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

Just curious ... when you see OT politics ... does that draw you in because
... ?

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1159544776.179996.41090@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
>> there?
>> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
>> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
>> plank in their platform.
>
> I dunno. I think ole Billy Rumsfeld has been a great caddy for many
> years. Conservative golf worked well for Nicklaus for many years, and
> when Tiger Woods goes to it, it works well. You can try to pre analyze
> things all you want, but at the ends of the day you have to actually
> make the shots with the game you got that day, a day where it mught be
> really hot and drty, or maybe cold and wet, or maybe hot and wet; who
> knows? You may have the flu, or pull a muscle getting out of the
> bathtub; who knows? All you can do is the best you got with what you
> got that day, and you really don't know what you got until you actually
> get out there and play.
>
> So at the end of the day, a conservative strategy reduces the cost of
> the bad holes, but really doesn't take away the good holes. Knock an
> approach shot stiff, and it really doesn't matter if you were going for
> the center of the green!. Making a 45 footer from time to time on top
> of that, and you have a winning strategy...at least for Nicklaus and
> Woods! They seem like good role models to me!!
>

Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:03:55
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:

> Just curious ... when you see OT politics ... does that draw you in because
> ... ?

That's hilarious! You make some meaningless BS poltical rant on a golf
newsgroup, and then whine that someone makes a golf related response to it! Top
posting to boot! What a man!!!

>
>
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1159544776.179996.41090@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> >
> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think it's a lack of interest. There just isn't an answer, is
> >> there?
> >> As far as the democrats having a better plan ... I think firing Rumsfield
> >> and actually analyzing the intelligence information might be a good first
> >> plank in their platform.
> >
> > I dunno. I think ole Billy Rumsfeld has been a great caddy for many
> > years. Conservative golf worked well for Nicklaus for many years, and
> > when Tiger Woods goes to it, it works well. You can try to pre analyze
> > things all you want, but at the ends of the day you have to actually
> > make the shots with the game you got that day, a day where it mught be
> > really hot and drty, or maybe cold and wet, or maybe hot and wet; who
> > knows? You may have the flu, or pull a muscle getting out of the
> > bathtub; who knows? All you can do is the best you got with what you
> > got that day, and you really don't know what you got until you actually
> > get out there and play.
> >
> > So at the end of the day, a conservative strategy reduces the cost of
> > the bad holes, but really doesn't take away the good holes. Knock an
> > approach shot stiff, and it really doesn't matter if you were going for
> > the center of the green!. Making a 45 footer from time to time on top
> > of that, and you have a winning strategy...at least for Nicklaus and
> > Woods! They seem like good role models to me!!
> >

Date: 29 Sep 2006 20:42:02
From:
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:

> Just one thing he has done to deserve being thought of as good at the 'war
> on terror'.

he hit back at an attacking person from a gang, might of hit the wrong
gang member, but you don't know which member attacked when they run
back into the gang, he didn't go up to them and asked who did it, he
swung back at the gang and hit who he could hit. people don't care too
much about the other gang members feelings or families or anyone
associated with the gang, directly or indirectly, for obvious reasons.
The gang hasn't hit back. It ain't rocket science you know. Too
simplistic, maybe, but you asked why some people like him and I believe
that is basically it.

Date: 29 Sep 2006 20:51:47
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

<bungalow_steve@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1159587722.570438.61180@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>
>> Just one thing he has done to deserve being thought of as good at the
>> 'war
>> on terror'.
>
> he hit back at an attacking person from a gang, might of hit the wrong
> gang member, but you don't know which member attacked when they run
> back into the gang, he didn't go up to them and asked who did it, he
> swung back at the gang and hit who he could hit. people don't care too
> much about the other gang members feelings or families or anyone
> associated with the gang, directly or indirectly, for obvious reasons.
> The gang hasn't hit back. It ain't rocket science you know. Too
> simplistic, maybe, but you asked why some people like him and I believe
> that is basically it.

They weren't members of the same gang. One was a country and the other was a
religious, so called, group. They hated each other, as far as I can see. I'm
a little confused about all of this (maybe I should get educated) but not as
confused as President Bush, apparently was. If you don't respond I won't
start up again.

Date: 30 Sep 2006 08:01:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

Just pointing out that I've stayed out of these threads lately.
If *I* can do it, so can you! :)

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

Date: 29 Sep 2006 22:52:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

bungalow_steve@yahoo.com wrote:
> The gang hasn't hit back. It ain't rocket science you know.

I'm sure those 38 people who were blown up in the terrorist bombings in
London last year are glad to hear that. Same goes for the folks in
Madrid, Bali, Jakarta, etc.

Here's the bottom line:
The US invasion of Iraq is not part of the "War on Terror."
It is, in fact, a diversion from the true war on terror.

Date: 01 Oct 2006 18:43:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Top posted and OT political and way to long: skip if you're here for golf

S McFarlane wrote:
>
> And so on. I'm sure there are thousands of scenarios, but I can't think of
> any realistic ones that come out even OK. Thank you Republicans for getting
> us here. Thank you Democrats for being so spineless when it really counted
> (your bravery in speaking truth to power is about 3 years too late, so maybe
> you should tone it down a bit).

I agree with everything you wrote.
I'll give the Repubs credit for one thing .... they did a marvelous job
of spinning the war effort to where if you came out against the war in
Iraq, that meant you were soft on terror.
And the stupid American people heard the words "Iraq," "Terrorists,"
"Saddam," and "Al Qaeda" linked together so much that they actually
bought into it. Some of them still think Saddam was training Al Qaeda
and harboring WMDs.

The Democrats have stood silent while Bush has crapped all over the
Constitution.
If I had a bumper sticker it would read "RE-ELECT NOBODY!"

Date: 01 Oct 2006 21:57:26
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Top posted and OT political and way to long: skip if you're here for golf

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159753397.810876.232860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> S McFarlane wrote:
>>
>> And so on. I'm sure there are thousands of scenarios, but I can't think
>> of
>> any realistic ones that come out even OK. Thank you Republicans for
>> getting
>> us here. Thank you Democrats for being so spineless when it really
>> counted
>> (your bravery in speaking truth to power is about 3 years too late, so
>> maybe
>> you should tone it down a bit).

That's about dead center in the fairway against the wind which is plenty in
DC. Too bad the gallery isn't paying attention.

Date: 02 Oct 2006 02:18:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Top posted and OT political and way to long: skip if you're here for golf

On 1 2006 18:43:17 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

>And the stupid American people heard the words "Iraq," "Terrorists,"
>"Saddam," and "Al Qaeda" linked together so much that they actually
>bought into it. Some of them still think Saddam was training Al Qaeda
>and harboring WMDs.

At first, GW agreed with his Dad that we were better off with a
secular fascist in Iraq who was interested in keeping the religious
fascists out of power. I wonder what changed his mind.

Date: 01 Oct 2006 22:03:21
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Top posted and OT political and way to long: skip if you're here for golf

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:4kt0i2t3cqi0ookqbllvapfeahqj2ueb83@4ax.com...
> On 1 2006 18:43:17 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>And the stupid American people heard the words "Iraq," "Terrorists,"
>>"Saddam," and "Al Qaeda" linked together so much that they actually
>>bought into it. Some of them still think Saddam was training Al Qaeda
>>and harboring WMDs.
>
> At first, GW agreed with his Dad that we were better off with a
> secular fascist in Iraq who was interested in keeping the religious
> fascists out of power. I wonder what changed his mind.

Because Rove hadn't told him what to think yet. Personal loyalty is a dodge
when it means you ignore problems that cause so much pain and real
disasters. But if a person can't be sure of their own convictions then they
make a good puppet. And if Bush quit listening to Rove or whoever it is,
someone else would step in. It's not his fault. We elected him ... to what
stop partial birth abortions... ? I gues maybe the moron democrats who can't
seem to explain their position or change it to a moral one are pretty smug
now. Gay marriage and insisting on the absolute right of women (or is it men
and women) to terminate pregnancy, no matter how gruesome it is, or how late
term ... well I just think it should be explained or changed. And it's
probably too late. Most people don't think they understand international
politics but almost everyone thinks they understand partial birth abortion
...

I am a fine example of speaking truth to power ... posting on the golf ng.

Date: 02 Oct 2006 03:23:37
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Top posted and OT political and way to long: skip if you're here for golf

Date: 03 Oct 2006 14:25:40
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
pod when it comes to foreign policy!

Date: 03 Oct 2006 20:23:45
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
>that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
>something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
>pod when it comes to foreign policy!

I think the analogy fits with LBJ much more than JFK. Vietman became
an issue after JFK was killed.

Date: 04 Oct 2006 02:41:12
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
> >that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
> >something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
> >pod when it comes to foreign policy!
>
> I think the analogy fits with LBJ much more than JFK. Vietman became
> an issue after JFK was killed.

True, but the US escalation began with Kennedy, and what Johnson did was
simply a continuation of the JFK policy. It only became an issue when they
couldn't lie about US casualties any more.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 22:15:21
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45231D7A.DF855A1C@att.net...
>
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
>> >that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
>> >something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
>> >pod when it comes to foreign policy!
>>
>> I think the analogy fits with LBJ much more than JFK. Vietman became
>> an issue after JFK was killed.
>
> True, but the US escalation began with Kennedy, and what Johnson did was
> simply a continuation of the JFK policy. It only became an issue when they
> couldn't lie about US casualties any more.

If ignorance is bliss, then I'm a happy dude.

Date: 03 Oct 2006 20:12:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On Tue, 03 2006 20:23:45 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
>>that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
>>something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
>>pod when it comes to foreign policy!
>
>I think the analogy fits with LBJ much more than JFK. Vietman became
>an issue after JFK was killed.

Hell, the U.S. was covertly involved in dien bien phu in '54.
--
___,
\o

Date: 04 Oct 2006 02:43:11
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

Bobby Knight wrote:

> On Tue, 03 2006 20:23:45 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
> >>that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
> >>something to gain by winning in Iraq! JFK and GWB, like two peas in a
> >>pod when it comes to foreign policy!
> >
> >I think the analogy fits with LBJ much more than JFK. Vietman became
> >an issue after JFK was killed.
>
> Hell, the U.S. was covertly involved in dien bien phu in '54.
>

Probably true also, but nobody comes up with brilliant military strategy
like the French! ..or was that an example of US/French strategy?
;^)

Date: 03 Oct 2006 21:55:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Way OT Political - anti Republican

On 3 2006 14:25:40 -0700, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

>IMHO, Bush is just copy catting Kennedy with the Vietnam war, except
>that US casualties are a lot less in Iraq, and there is actually
>something to gain by winning in Iraq!

And there's also something to lose by occupying Iraq.