Discussion:
Report: Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans
(too old to reply)
r.g.
2005-12-16 18:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Report: Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – High-level administration figures, reacting to a report
that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on
people inside the United States, asserted Friday that President Bush
has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American
people.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in
every step that he has taken." His top spokesman, Scott McClellan,
said that Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our
Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people.
And he has done both." But neither Rice nor McClellan would confirm or
deny a New York Times report saying the super-secret NSA had spied on
as many as 500 people inside the United States at any given time since
2002.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to
monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of
hundreds – perhaps thousands – of people inside the United States, the
Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic
surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court
orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people
suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time...

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former
administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity
because of the classified nature of the program. Some NSA officials
were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused
to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the
program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and
impose new restrictions.

Asked about this Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm
not going to comment on intelligence matters." McClellan, too,
declined to comment directly on the report, saying only that the
administration upholds and respects the civil liberties of all
Americans.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of
the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction
to the NSA disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so
far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems
to be a violation of federal law." Asked about the administration's
contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks,
Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some
evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way
for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any
oversight."

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a
classified database of information about suspicious people and
activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the
database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security
threat to Pentagon property or personnel. Pentagon spokesmen declined
to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement
Wednesday evening that implied – but did not explicitly acknowledge –
that some information had been handled improperly...

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because
the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and
alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times
said it omitted information from the story that administration
officials argued could be useful to terrorists.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-12-17 01:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Bush's Secret War at Home

We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back
of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United
States.

The secret presidential edict, revealed.. in the New York Times (see
link below) allowed massive spying, surveillance of phone calls and
peoples' homes without any evidence of criminal activity, and without
court order. This complete violation of the Bill of Rights was ordered
without congressional debate or judicial scrutiny and oversight. It was
Bush's secret, a hidden and criminal violation of peoples
constitutional rights.

Bush's secret action is a violation of federal wiretapping law, the
Privacy Act and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What remedy exists
when the President violates federal law and trashes the Bill of Rights?
The remedy provided by the Constitution is impeachment.

This latest bombshell follows a pattern well known by all those who are
demanding that Congress defend the Constitution through impeachment.
Bush cynically used September 11 to violate the most important tenets
of the US Constitution and international law. The war of aggression in
Iraq, the establishment of a global network of secret prisons and
torture centers, the unleashing of secret police spying on citizens and
non-citizens alike, the evisceration of due process rights and the
systematic lying to Congress and to the people about the reasons for
the launch of the Iraq war - these constitute the essential case for
impeachment.

The American people are demanding in ever greater numbers that the
constitutional mechanism that holds high officials accountable for
criminal activity be immediately applied. The idea promoted by some
that Bush is too strong to be impeached is sheer nonsense and it defies
the historical record. Richard Nixon was on the verge of being
impeached in the last half of his second term and not long after, he
won a landslide majority in the 1972 election. Clinton too was
impeached in the second half of his second term, on the allegation of
perjury, when he had an approval rating of 60%.

Today Bush's approval rating is hovering around 40%, the majority of
the people believe Congress should vote to impeach if Bush lied about
the reasons for going to war, and now millions more are shocked that
Bush secretly authorized the most powerful spy agency to spy on anyone
it wanted too without court order or evidence of criminal wrong doing.

The Bush White House, in its very essence, is the negation of
democracy. The people must not stand by and let cherished freedoms
protected by the Constitution, be stripped away in secret.

This is a copy of what the ImpeachBush.org group sent out today to
their email list:
http://www.impeachbush.org

The NY Times article mentioned above is here:
http://snipurl.com/kupw
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5094&en=c7596fe0d4798785&hp=&ex=1134795600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

-------------------------------

This is a big deal, but like everything it depends on how the bastards
that control the news media decide to handle it.

So here we have another clear indication that Bush is the worst
disaster to ever try to act like the president of our nation. The lies
of his regime have already caused tens of thousands of good people -
including many children and women, to be killed and tens of thousands
more to be crippled for life. Please visit impeachbush.org and write
or call your congressional representative and tell them the get the
horror story characters the hell out of the white house, before they
wreck the whole world.

Those who back Bush have much in common with the good Germans who
backed Hitler - unaware of how bad he was, because the top newsmedia
controllers fed them regular doses of hogwash.

Max

=================

"Man must change or die. There is no other course."
The World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-17 08:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's secret action is a violation of federal wiretapping law, the
Privacy Act and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What remedy exists
when the President violates federal law and trashes the Bill of Rights?
The remedy provided by the Constitution is impeachment.
As long as Bush and his Republican conspirators breathe, our Constitutional
is void.
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
Clave
2005-12-17 09:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's secret action is a violation of federal wiretapping law, the
Privacy Act and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What remedy exists
when the President violates federal law and trashes the Bill of Rights?
The remedy provided by the Constitution is impeachment.
As long as Bush and his Republican conspirators breathe, our
Constitutional is void.
Mine certainly wound up that way. I felt much better.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
The soldiers' jobs were done years ago. They've been paying for the
politicians' failures since.

Jim
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-17 10:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
The soldiers' jobs were done years ago. They've been paying for the
politicians' failures since.
Yeah - the way Hitler's SS paid for Hitler's failures.
It's called "justice".

People are not brainless automatons - they're living, breathing individuals
capable of independent thought and blessed by God with free will.
Or in the case of the US torture brigades and death squads - damned by free
will.

Here's a rule of thumb for judging the soldiers - if they facilitate the
killing of innocent people, they're the bad guys.
--
That's why all those soldiers are just gonna have to die tonight.
Clave
2005-12-17 10:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
The soldiers' jobs were done years ago. They've been paying for the
politicians' failures since.
Yeah - the way Hitler's SS paid for Hitler's failures.
It's called "justice".
People are not brainless automatons - they're living, breathing
individuals capable of independent thought and blessed by God with free
will.
Or in the case of the US torture brigades and death squads - damned by
free will.
Here's a rule of thumb for judging the soldiers - if they facilitate the
killing of innocent people, they're the bad guys.
Travis?

Jim
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-17 11:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Here's a rule of thumb for judging the soldiers - if they facilitate the
killing of innocent people, they're the bad guys.
Travis?
Does it matter?
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
Clave
2005-12-17 11:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Here's a rule of thumb for judging the soldiers - if they facilitate the
killing of innocent people, they're the bad guys.
Travis?
Does it matter?
Absent the context you snecked, no. But do go on with your wank fantasy.

Jim
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-17 12:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Clave
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Here's a rule of thumb for judging the soldiers - if they facilitate
the killing of innocent people, they're the bad guys.
Travis?
Does it matter?
Absent the context you snecked, no. But do go on with your wank fantasy.
There is no context in which I am Travis.
... except maybe in your wank fantasy - whatever the fuck that is.
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
Paul Mitchum
2005-12-17 19:21:42 UTC
Permalink
our Constitutional is void.
<chortle>
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Thoughts
2005-12-18 00:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Sanders Kaufman
As long as Bush and his Republican conspirators breathe, our Constitutional
is void.
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
You Traitors to America have NO rights to Constitutional protection.

GO Bush Go!
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 00:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Sanders Kaufman
As long as Bush and his Republican conspirators breathe, our Constitutional
is void.
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
You Traitors to America have NO rights to Constitutional protection.
Evidently no one who disagrees with THE Party does.
That's what makes today's GOP so clearly fascist.
Post by Thoughts
GO Bush Go!
That you can cheer the shredding of the constitution amazes me.




- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 01:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
You Traitors to America have NO rights to Constitutional protection.
Actually every American has the right to Constitutional protection. That's
how it works here.

Why do you disagree, traitor?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-18 06:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It's senseless to send lawyers in to do a soldier's job.
You Traitors to America have NO rights to Constitutional protection.
You wish that were so, but it's not.
And the best part is - you're too cowardly to ever do anything about it.
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
Thoughts
2005-12-18 00:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back
of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United
States.
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.

The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be
Hung!

The Bush Haters would destroy our country and themselves .

The New York Times Editors need to be tried for treason!
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 00:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back
of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United
States.
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be
Hung!
The Bush Haters would destroy our country and themselves .
The New York Times Editors need to be tried for treason!
No Bush and company merely need to follow the Constitution and the
law. Funny now how pointing out violations of the Constitution by ours
leaders is now grounds for treason.

What is the Constitution to you that you can throw it aside so easily
for partisan excuses?

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Thoughts
2005-12-18 00:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Thoughts
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back
of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United
States.
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be
Hung!
The Bush Haters would destroy our country and themselves .
The New York Times Editors need to be tried for treason!
No Bush and company merely need to follow the Constitution and the
law. Funny now how pointing out violations of the Constitution by ours
leaders is now grounds for treason.
What is the Constitution to you that you can throw it aside so easily
for partisan excuses?
- - - -
It Is Obvious You Bush Haters don't give a Damn about the Constitution
Just want to Bash Bush!
Thoughts
2005-12-18 00:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
Sen. Feingold, why should these wiretaps send a shiver down our spine
if they were approved by a FISA judge just months after 9/11? Shouldn't
the presence of sleeper cells in the U.S. scare the daylights out of
us? I remember back then that every American believed that we'd be
attacked again by al-Qaida and sooner rather than later.
The same pompous jackasses that are braying that President Bush initiated
and the FISA judge approved the wiretaps are the same pompous jackasses that
whined about the fact that we "didn't connect the dots" prior to 9/11.
Kennedy, Feingold and the other idiots calling for a full Senate
investigation should be run out of the Senate at the next election because
they care more about civil liberties, which to date haven't killed anyone,
than they care about stopping and catching terrorists, which have killed
3,000 people just a few short years ago.

These idiots deserve to be ridiculed but, of course, they'll be applauded
wherever they go as being great heros to protect our civil rights.
Everywhere in the Agenda Media, that is. On the blogosphere, however, and on
Rush's and Sean's and Hugh's shows, they'll get ridiculed as they should be.

At the same time that these senators are whining about the Bush
administration's 'secretive' spying on Americans, they're totally willing to
let the Patriot Act expire.
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 01:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
The same pompous jackasses that are braying that President Bush initiated
and the FISA judge approved the wiretaps
Flag on the play - the issue is the FISA court was not even asked to
okay the taps. That's what made it illegal. And that's what you're
lying about.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 01:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Kennedy, Feingold and the other idiots calling for a full Senate
investigation should be run out of the Senate at the next election because
they care more about civil liberties, which to date haven't killed anyone,
than they care about stopping and catching terrorists, which have killed
3,000 people just a few short years ago.
Wow.

My nomination for the stupidest statement on the internet this month.
can I get a second?

Hey cigarettes, alcohol or even cars kill many many times more than
that. Can we throw out civil rights to battle them too?

What sad lunacy.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Paul Mitchum
2005-12-18 01:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Thoughts
Kennedy, Feingold and the other idiots calling for a full Senate
investigation should be run out of the Senate at the next election because
they care more about civil liberties, which to date haven't killed anyone,
than they care about stopping and catching terrorists, which have killed
3,000 people just a few short years ago.
Wow.
My nomination for the stupidest statement on the internet this month.
can I get a second?
As long as its the nomination and not the actual vote, you gottit. :-)

Speaking of which: Merry Kipmas!
<http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/12/17/get-your-vote-on-2/>
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 01:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
These idiots deserve to be ridiculed but, of course, they'll be applauded
wherever they go as being great heros to protect our civil rights.
Because some people understand that that's what makes our nation
different - civil rights. That you would toss them aside so lightly
saddens and disgusts me.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 01:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by r***@comcast.net
Post by Thoughts
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
We have now learned: Two years ago, George W. Bush went behind the back
of the American people and secretly authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to carry out surveillance of people throughout the United
States.
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be
Hung!
The Bush Haters would destroy our country and themselves .
The New York Times Editors need to be tried for treason!
No Bush and company merely need to follow the Constitution and the
law. Funny now how pointing out violations of the Constitution by ours
leaders is now grounds for treason.
What is the Constitution to you that you can throw it aside so easily
for partisan excuses?
- - - -
It Is Obvious You Bush Haters don't give a Damn about the Constitution
Just want to Bash Bush!
Chuckle. It seems the plural in your nym is an overstatement.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 01:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@comcast.net
It Is Obvious You Bush Haters don't give a Damn about the Constitution
Just want to Bash Bush!
Itg is obvious that Bush doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and
needs to be bashed.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 01:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.
Why?

Why do you feel that the United States Constitution is null and void,
traitor?
Post by Thoughts
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be Hung!
It is not treason but patriotism when someone reveals the crimes of an
administration.

Why do you disagree, traitor?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Thoughts
2005-12-18 01:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
I hope he continues to monitor calls to suspect overseas Destinations.
Why?
Why do you feel that the United States Constitution is null and void,
traitor?
Post by Thoughts
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be Hung!
It is not treason but patriotism when someone reveals the crimes of an
administratio
Revealing Secrets is not Patrotism you stupid idiot!
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-18 02:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
It is not treason but patriotism when someone reveals the crimes of an
administration
Revealing Secrets is not Patrotism you stupid idiot!
When it's secret crimes it is.

It doesn't bother you in the least they've ignored the Constitution
does it? As long as they belong to the Right Party you'r okay with it.

what a shallow hypocrite you are.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 03:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
It is not treason but patriotism when someone reveals the crimes of an
administratio
Revealing Secrets is not Patrotism you stupid idiot!
When those "secrets" are administration violations of U.S. law and the
United States Constitution - they damn well are you ignorant America-hating
fuckwit.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Paul Mitchum
2005-12-18 03:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Revealing Secrets is not Patrotism you stupid idiot!
What *is* patriotism to you? Give me an essay of 100 words or more.
--
It's often hard to tell: <http://tinyurl.com/9vqpa>
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 20:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mitchum
Post by Thoughts
Revealing Secrets is not Patrotism you stupid idiot!
What *is* patriotism to you? Give me an essay of 100 words or more.
Probably something along the lines of "Patriotism: Supporting the President
of the United States in any and all things (especially military) - so long
as the President is a Republican."
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-18 06:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
The sorry Bastard who revealed the American secrets to the New York
Treasonist Times should be
Hung!
Yeah- Karl Rove should be hung.
--
That's why all those soldiers are just gonna have to die tonight.
Thoughts
2005-12-18 17:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Bush's Secret War at Home
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 20:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.

How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Thoughts
2005-12-18 20:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask. Your problem, Charlie
Brown, is that "You don't know that you don't know"

Like the other Left Wing Nuts in here.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-18 21:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask.
I have to ask because I need to know YOUR thoughts on the matter. I don't
read minds, and if I did I'm sure I'd still need some sort of amplification
device for yours.

So explain it, Professor: how will this information harm all Americans?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Tim Crowley
2005-12-18 22:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask. Your problem, Charlie
Brown, is that "You don't know that you don't know"
translation: shit, I've been busted in a lie, I'll have to try the
Bonzo dance.
Post by Thoughts
Like the other Left Wing Nuts in here.
Can't answer the question, eh?
\
Heh. I'll give this nym 2 weeks, tops.
Jim Lovejoy
2005-12-18 23:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG,
released SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a
year. They could have (should have) released it prior to the last
election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask. Your problem,
Charlie Brown, is that "You don't know that you don't know"
translation: shit, I've been busted in a lie, I'll have to try the
Bonzo dance.
I think your translation softwear needs adjustment.

I'd translate it as: "Bush said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Thoughts
Like the other Left Wing Nuts in here.
Can't answer the question, eh?
\
Heh. I'll give this nym 2 weeks, tops.
Thoughts
2005-12-19 02:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask. Your problem, Charlie
Brown, is that "You don't know that you don't know"
translation: shit, I've been busted in a lie, I'll have to try the
Bonzo dance.
Post by Thoughts
Like the other Left Wing Nuts in here.
Can't answer the question, eh?
\
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored,
that tool for the US to protect the American people ( even you Bush Haters
and Insurgent pimps) will vanish.
No, I don't expect you to understand. I expect you to attack like the dogs
you are.
That's why you have lost 3 elections in a row and well on the way to the
fourth. LOL!
Joseph Welch
2005-12-19 02:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.

And you helped them, traitor.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Al Smith
2005-12-19 15:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
Post by Joseph Welch
And you helped them, traitor.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-19 16:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
Which terrorists - al Quaeda or the Christian Coalition?
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
c***@my-deja.com
2005-12-19 18:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
Which terrorists - al Quaeda or the Christian Coalition?
The one that you think is less of a threat.
Obwon
2005-12-20 15:13:19 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Dec 2005 10:11:09 -0800,
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
Which terrorists - al Quaeda or the Christian Coalition?
The one that you think is less of a threat.
Well... al Quaeda can't seem to get their remotely
guided Intercontinental ballistic Ox Carts over here!
But the Christian Coalition has certainly done a pretty
good job of corrupting our gov't! Which would you say
presents the greatest danger?

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Mitchell Holman
2005-12-20 15:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 10:11:09 -0800,
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the
United States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the
terrorists have already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
Which terrorists - al Quaeda or the Christian Coalition?
The one that you think is less of a threat.
Well... al Quaeda can't seem to get their remotely
guided Intercontinental ballistic Ox Carts over here!
But the Christian Coalition has certainly done a pretty
good job of corrupting our gov't! Which would you say
presents the greatest danger?
Why should we worry about terrorists "attacking
our freedoms" when Bush is busy doing it for them?
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-21 01:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why should we worry about terrorists "attacking
our freedoms" when Bush is busy doing it for them?
Because Bush is a terrorist, of course.
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-19 16:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally

-to turn the world against the United States

-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources

-to expand their numbers

-to undermine our freedoms through fear

Bush and his supporters (you) have helped the terrorists succeed beyond
their wildest dreams.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
SteveR
2005-12-19 18:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)

I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
Post by Joseph Welch
-to turn the world against the United States
They're failing in that endevour, if global polling is to be believed -
it appears respect for the US is headed up, not down according to the
data - while, oddly enough, Al Qaida and OBL is experiencing their
lowest polling numbers ever.

Some are ahead of the curve:

http://tinyurl.com/8y7qj
Post by Joseph Welch
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
Failing there as well. Regardless of 9/11 and the Iraq war, our economic
growth is very strong. GDP is consistently strong. Stock market back to
4-year high, military is as strong as ever with great re-enlistment
figures. Unemployment down, investment up.
Post by Joseph Welch
-to expand their numbers
By getting them killed in great numbers.

Unfortunately, pesky polling data indicates an increasing
dis-satisfaction with the methods and aims of Islamists. They're
certainly not welcome back in Afghanistan, they're certainly being
spurned in Iraq. The incidents of Iraqis ratting them out are growing
steadily. Tis is all based on empirical data, not a wish-list parading
as fact.
Post by Joseph Welch
-to undermine our freedoms through fear
What freedoms have we lost?
Post by Joseph Welch
Bush and his supporters (you) have helped the terrorists succeed beyond
their wildest dreams.
OBL's wildest dream was the decimation of the Taliban and an Afghani
constitution and elections?

Saddam and the Baathist regime's wildest dream was him in jail, an Iraqi
constitution and democratic elections?

There must be some hidden strategy I'm not seeing - achieving victory
trough a steady stream of defeats doesn't seem to be working all that
well.

However, if by "achieving their wildest dreams" means "driving the
western infadel leftists to work for the Islamist cause" or "snookering
the usual useful idiots", then yes, it's working.

Unfortunately, they're finding the left is not quite as all powerful as
they were lead to believe. OBL got some bad intel, evidently.

Again and again and again, I offer the figures from research
institutions that prove your hilarious contention of AQ victory/American
defeat as provably false. All you offer are your opinions, and what pray
tell do you base them on? Constant repitition?

Do you still believe Bush served "plastic turkey" during his visit to
Iraq? :)

I'll answer the question for you: You base your "reality" on the
predictions of our actions that have in time been proved to be wrong. No
amount of data that proves you wrong will sway you. "It's my story and
I'm sticking to it" is not empirical data, it is sophomoric presentation
of debunked CW as fact.

IOW, a form of propoganda.

Is it meant as such, to deter and engineer defeat when the momentum is
provably with us, not against us? I wouldn't venture to go that far,
that would be like calling you a "traitor", when in fact I believe
you're just a slave to your ideology, which causes you to lie even to
yourself.

But that's your problem. If you want to believe AQ is wining in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Indonesia and elsewhere, you just snuggle up with that warm
teddy bear - but you're going to have to deny the hard reality of hard
numbers to maintain your delusions.
Joseph Welch
2005-12-19 18:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Post by SteveR
I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
What is the left "losing" exactly? As to "hopping mad" - civil libertarians
and fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle are "hopping mad" at
this administration - and rightfully so.
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to turn the world against the United States
They're failing in that endevour, if global polling is to be believed
Really? Let's see your "global poll".

Here's a few:

"Anti-Americanism in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, which surged as a
result of the U.S. war in Iraq, shows modest signs of abating. But the
United States remains broadly disliked in most countries surveyed, and the
opinion of the American people is not as positive as it once was. The
magnitude of America's image problem is such that even popular U.S. policies
have done little to repair it. President George W. Bush's calls for greater
democracy in the Middle East and U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Asia have
been well-received in many countries, but only in Indonesia, India and
Russia has there been significant improvement in overall opinions of the
U.S. "
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

"Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft
power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies
and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to
Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that
Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United
States."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html

"The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq
invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed
more favorably than the U.S. in many countries, an international poll
found."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-world-poll_x.htm
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
Failing there as well.
Wow. You really are completely out of touch with reality. I mean you're
seriously mentally ill and living in la-la land.

I think I'll just sit back and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself from
here on out.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
SteveR
2005-12-20 17:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?

The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.

They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.

That's why Republicans, who for the most part represent conservative and
pragmatic ideals, have gained such power over the past 15 years or so.
Look at the numbers.

It all has to do with availability of information. The more conduits
available, the weaker the left becomes. First, talk radio, then cable
TV, then the 'net.

The old guards of MSM cann o longer set the story, people are too
sophisticated now to fall for it.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
What is the left "losing" exactly?
The South used to be solidly democrat. Look at Texas for instance. Look
at the south now.

Look at governorships, look at Congress, the White House. The democrats
have sen a steady decline, numbers don't lie.
Post by Joseph Welch
As to "hopping mad" - civil libertarians
and fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle are "hopping mad" at
this administration - and rightfully so.
Some are. I can't think of any president who was able to keep everyone
satisfied all the time on every issue.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to turn the world against the United States
They're failing in that endevour, if global polling is to be believed
Really? Let's see your "global poll".
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
June of 2005.
Post by Joseph Welch
"Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft
power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies
and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to
Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that
Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United
States."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decli
ne-of-america-s-soft-power.html
June of 2004
Post by Joseph Welch
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-world-poll_x.htm
June/2005

Contained in research by PEW and Brookings conducted in this time frame
also indicate growing respect for the US (though still a negative
number, trends are upward - that's called momentum)

Now, let's fast-forward to the present:

--Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any
time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped
to its lowest level since then.--

--A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of
Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of
American relief to the victims of last December's tsunami.---

http://tinyurl.com/8y3b6
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
Failing there as well.
Wow. You really are completely out of touch with reality. I mean you're
seriously mentally ill and living in la-la land.
The notion that the US military is "broken" is an urban myth. It is
active, and in a position of great demand, but were hardly drained.
Ditto the economy. They've failed to put us into the
recession/depression they had hoped.

If you want to look at an organization in retreat, try AQ. Finances are
seriously disrupted, bases of operation are drying up, public support is
dropping dramatically, they are slowly reaching the point of beig
shunned in their own lands.

IOW, all the indicators you use to paint the US as headed for defeat qnd
quagmire are really more aptly applied to al Qaida. Our military is
still quite capable, still superior, still wining all military battles.
Post by Joseph Welch
I think I'll just sit back and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself from
here on out.
You illustrate the methods employed by the left for so long - to take a
positive and describe it as a negative (this is common in liberal
reporting on the economy and the war).

Look at he figures available, Iraq is not descending,it is cleary
ascending. Try as you might, you cannot describe Iraq as without
electricity when output is above pre-war levels. You cannot describe a
"growing insurgency" when info from civilians against the "insurgents"
is rising dramatically.

And when you see news reports like this:

--Dec. 18, 2005 - Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq's violent Anbar province
say they are ready to cooperate with the United States...---

It's hard to scream "Defeat and quagmire!"

Taken on the whole, it is clear to anyone that facts point to a eakening
AQ, a weakening "insurgency", and a growing resignation among the
anti-democratic forces that they cannot win, because they simply do not
have the public support needed to sustain.

IOW, we're winning, not losing. That is factually indisputable.
Obwon
2005-12-21 15:20:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
Post by SteveR
The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.
K-Street perhaps?
Post by SteveR
They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.
Like Ralph Reed perhaps?
Or Roy Blunt?
Post by SteveR
That's why Republicans, who for the most part represent conservative and
pragmatic ideals, have gained such power over the past 15 years or so.
Look at the numbers.
Numbers? Like 92 million in lobbying fees collected
by Abramoff, who didn't tell his boss what he was
charging?

Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.

Or the 60 Million dollar loan that the boys didn't pay
Gus Boulis?

Or the several millions of dollars that became Ralph
"700 Club" Reed's share of the gambling money, stolen
from the Indian Casinos, by Reed's scare anti gambling
campaign, that he stopped his followers from persuing
once he pocketed the Indians gambling money?
Post by SteveR
It all has to do with availability of information. The more conduits
available, the weaker the left becomes. First, talk radio, then cable
TV, then the 'net.
Yeah, that way they won't know about Tom Noy? You
know, the fella who failed at "rare coins 101", lost
his money, declared bankruptcy, then was given
control of the states retirement funds for investing
in... You guessed it, rare coins, and he "lost"
every red cent. (The State Prosecutor is trying to
track down the money now, and has traced it to the
GOP, eh?) Yeah, we really need to hear about
Intelligent Design, Gay Marriages and the scam
diversions, so we won't focus on the CIA outing.
ETC!!!
Post by SteveR
The old guards of MSM cann o longer set the story, people are too
sophisticated now to fall for it.
Or did you mean MZM?
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
Or is it Bush violating the Constitution by spying on
American Citizens illegally?
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
What is the left "losing" exactly?
The South used to be solidly democrat. Look at Texas for instance. Look
at the south now.
Oh? You're proud that we lost New Orleans?
Post by SteveR
Look at governorships, look at Congress, the White House. The democrats
have sen a steady decline, numbers don't lie.
Nor do Red State budgets, either! There's theft,
coruption and buget scams, overspending in all of them.
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
As to "hopping mad" - civil libertarians
and fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle are "hopping mad" at
this administration - and rightfully so.
Some are. I can't think of any president who was able to keep everyone
satisfied all the time on every issue.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to turn the world against the United States
They're failing in that endevour, if global polling is to be believed
Really? Let's see your "global poll".
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
June of 2005.
Post by Joseph Welch
"Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft
power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies
and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to
Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that
Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United
States."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decli
ne-of-america-s-soft-power.html
June of 2004
Post by Joseph Welch
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-world-poll_x.htm
June/2005
Contained in research by PEW and Brookings conducted in this time frame
also indicate growing respect for the US (though still a negative
number, trends are upward - that's called momentum)
--Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any
time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped
to its lowest level since then.--
--A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of
Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of
American relief to the victims of last December's tsunami.---
http://tinyurl.com/8y3b6
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
Failing there as well.
Wow. You really are completely out of touch with reality. I mean you're
seriously mentally ill and living in la-la land.
The notion that the US military is "broken" is an urban myth. It is
active, and in a position of great demand, but were hardly drained.
Ditto the economy. They've failed to put us into the
recession/depression they had hoped.
If you want to look at an organization in retreat, try AQ. Finances are
seriously disrupted, bases of operation are drying up, public support is
dropping dramatically, they are slowly reaching the point of beig
shunned in their own lands.
IOW, all the indicators you use to paint the US as headed for defeat qnd
quagmire are really more aptly applied to al Qaida. Our military is
still quite capable, still superior, still wining all military battles.
Post by Joseph Welch
I think I'll just sit back and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself from
here on out.
You illustrate the methods employed by the left for so long - to take a
positive and describe it as a negative (this is common in liberal
reporting on the economy and the war).
Look at he figures available, Iraq is not descending,it is cleary
ascending. Try as you might, you cannot describe Iraq as without
electricity when output is above pre-war levels. You cannot describe a
"growing insurgency" when info from civilians against the "insurgents"
is rising dramatically.
--Dec. 18, 2005 - Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq's violent Anbar province
say they are ready to cooperate with the United States...---
It's hard to scream "Defeat and quagmire!"
Taken on the whole, it is clear to anyone that facts point to a eakening
AQ, a weakening "insurgency", and a growing resignation among the
anti-democratic forces that they cannot win, because they simply do not
have the public support needed to sustain.
IOW, we're winning, not losing. That is factually indisputable.
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-21 20:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.
K-Street perhaps?
Most likely because they see their power ebbing away due to the new
structure, new conduits of information, etc. The left is a dinosaur, and
the democrat party has catered to the left, and the left is the cause of
their present problems.

Solution for dem's? Go further left!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.
Like Ralph Reed perhaps?
Or Roy Blunt?
Bit players. I blame that KKK dude, Byrd.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
That's why Republicans, who for the most part represent conservative and
pragmatic ideals, have gained such power over the past 15 years or so.
Look at the numbers.
Numbers? Like 92 million in lobbying fees collected
by Abramoff, who didn't tell his boss what he was
charging?
No, governorships, senate seats, presidencies and the like. You seem
hung up on rather small issues in order to avoid the greater picture.
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
Didn't he drive a Honda?
Post by Obwon
Or the 60 Million dollar loan that the boys didn't pay
Gus Boulis?
Is that why they attacked the WTC?
Post by Obwon
Or the several millions of dollars that became Ralph
"700 Club" Reed's share of the gambling money, stolen
from the Indian Casinos, by Reed's scare anti gambling
campaign, that he stopped his followers from persuing
once he pocketed the Indians gambling money?
I can understand why your geopolitical views are so vaccuous - your main
concern is corrupt practices by lobbyists.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
It all has to do with availability of information. The more conduits
available, the weaker the left becomes. First, talk radio, then cable
TV, then the 'net.
Yeah, that way they won't know about Tom Noy? You
know, the fella who failed at "rare coins 101", lost
his money, declared bankruptcy, then was given
control of the states retirement funds for investing
in... You guessed it, rare coins, and he "lost"
every red cent. (The State Prosecutor is trying to
track down the money now, and has traced it to the
GOP, eh?) Yeah, we really need to hear about
Intelligent Design, Gay Marriages and the scam
diversions, so we won't focus on the CIA outing.
ETC!!!
Gt back to us when the jail door slams on Cheney :)
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old guards of MSM cann o longer set the story, people are too
sophisticated now to fall for it.
Or did you mean MZM?
I think you and I are talking about different issues.

Youre catalouging certain instances of percieved corruption by one
political party, while I'm pointing out that the democrats have steadily
lost power.

I suppose you're trying to drraw a correlation, or more accurately,
causation.

Why have you left out Diebold?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
Or is it Bush violating the Constitution by spying on
American Citizens illegally?
Having looked at analysis from legal scholars on the net, I'm not sure
you can make that statement.

And no, Barbra Boxer is not a legal analyst.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
What is the left "losing" exactly?
The South used to be solidly democrat. Look at Texas for instance. Look
at the south now.
Oh? You're proud that we lost New Orleans?
That's cute!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at governorships, look at Congress, the White House. The democrats
have sen a steady decline, numbers don't lie.
Nor do Red State budgets, either! There's theft,
coruption and buget scams, overspending in all of them.
If you actually look at cities and states with liberal democrat
leadership and socialist policies, you'll find they're the most
expensive and crime-ridden, with the highest taxes.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
As to "hopping mad" - civil libertarians
and fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle are "hopping mad" at
this administration - and rightfully so.
Some are. I can't think of any president who was able to keep everyone
satisfied all the time on every issue.
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to turn the world against the United States
They're failing in that endevour, if global polling is to be believed
Really? Let's see your "global poll".
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
June of 2005.
Post by Joseph Welch
"Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft
power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies
and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to
Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that
Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United
States."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-de
cli
ne-of-america-s-soft-power.html
June of 2004
Post by Joseph Welch
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-world-poll_x.htm
June/2005
Contained in research by PEW and Brookings conducted in this time frame
also indicate growing respect for the US (though still a negative
number, trends are upward - that's called momentum)
--Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any
time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped
to its lowest level since then.--
--A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of
Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of
American relief to the victims of last December's tsunami.---
http://tinyurl.com/8y3b6
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
Failing there as well.
Wow. You really are completely out of touch with reality. I mean you're
seriously mentally ill and living in la-la land.
The notion that the US military is "broken" is an urban myth. It is
active, and in a position of great demand, but were hardly drained.
Ditto the economy. They've failed to put us into the
recession/depression they had hoped.
If you want to look at an organization in retreat, try AQ. Finances are
seriously disrupted, bases of operation are drying up, public support is
dropping dramatically, they are slowly reaching the point of beig
shunned in their own lands.
IOW, all the indicators you use to paint the US as headed for defeat qnd
quagmire are really more aptly applied to al Qaida. Our military is
still quite capable, still superior, still wining all military battles.
Post by Joseph Welch
I think I'll just sit back and watch you make a bigger fool of yourself from
here on out.
You illustrate the methods employed by the left for so long - to take a
positive and describe it as a negative (this is common in liberal
reporting on the economy and the war).
Look at he figures available, Iraq is not descending,it is cleary
ascending. Try as you might, you cannot describe Iraq as without
electricity when output is above pre-war levels. You cannot describe a
"growing insurgency" when info from civilians against the "insurgents"
is rising dramatically.
--Dec. 18, 2005 - Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq's violent Anbar province
say they are ready to cooperate with the United States...---
It's hard to scream "Defeat and quagmire!"
Taken on the whole, it is clear to anyone that facts point to a eakening
AQ, a weakening "insurgency", and a growing resignation among the
anti-democratic forces that they cannot win, because they simply do not
have the public support needed to sustain.
IOW, we're winning, not losing. That is factually indisputable.
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
--
"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
- Bill Clinton, 1995
Obwon
2005-12-22 15:41:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.

Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.
K-Street perhaps?
Most likely because they see their power ebbing away due to the new
structure, new conduits of information, etc. The left is a dinosaur, and
the democrat party has catered to the left, and the left is the cause of
their present problems.
Solution for dem's? Go further left!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.
Like Ralph Reed perhaps?
Or Roy Blunt?
Bit players. I blame that KKK dude, Byrd.
But then, there you go again! Even the detriments
to our society, that racism brings, pales in
comparison to what's been going on in Congress. Too
bad you can't see it, because you don't read, or
perhaps, if you do read, you aren't able to
comprehend what it takes to sustain a democratic gov't.
In which case you should stop posting. Because,
weather you know it or not, you are advocating against
our very own Constitutional form of gov't.

I don't think you're doing that because you are a
traitor. I don't think you're doing that because you
actually want America to become a
dictatorship/authoritarian police state. I think you
are doing that because you simply don't understand what
you're doing. You should really try to read more and
learn about what you speak so loosly.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
That's why Republicans, who for the most part represent conservative and
pragmatic ideals, have gained such power over the past 15 years or so.
Look at the numbers.
Numbers? Like 92 million in lobbying fees collected
by Abramoff, who didn't tell his boss what he was
charging?
No, governorships, senate seats, presidencies and the like. You seem
hung up on rather small issues in order to avoid the greater picture.
Wow, you don't know what the "greater picture", is!
This demonstrates it adequately.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
Didn't he drive a Honda?
Nice of you to be so "courageous" that you can treat
the 9-11 victims, and the consequences of having so
many domestic artifacts associated with it, so
lightly. But that's what you've done, even if you
didn't really mean to.

The implications of what I said, for your
information is: Mohammad Atta [a "religious
fundamentalist fanatic"] should not have been aboard a
gambling ship at all! Let alone a gaming ship owned by
a prominent "Super Lobbyist", who happens to be host
to our nations Speaker of The House of Representatives,
and who is influencing the outcome of critical national
legislation with money raised by illegal contrivance.

Or, didn't you know any of this?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the 60 Million dollar loan that the boys didn't pay
Gus Boulis?
Is that why they attacked the WTC?
Well, since you asked, the answer is we don't
really know, with any degree of certainty, who
actually attacked the WTC. Not only do none of the
accused skyjackers show up on airport videos, boarding
their supposed flights, 6 of them have been found
alive and well overseas. Not to mention that none of
the names they were using, are on any of the passenger
lists. You know, the lists made up of the names of
people who purchase tickets for a flight, who actually
show up at the gate to board.

Can I ask you a question, now that I have your
attention? If a fighter jet is capable of flying 1800
mph, and it happens to be flying at 477 mph, would
you consider a characterization of the fighter jets
speed as: "Flying like a scalded ape"?

Please put your answer here___>
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the several millions of dollars that became Ralph
"700 Club" Reed's share of the gambling money, stolen
from the Indian Casinos, by Reed's scare anti gambling
campaign, that he stopped his followers from persuing
once he pocketed the Indians gambling money?
I can understand why your geopolitical views are so vaccuous - your main
concern is corrupt practices by lobbyists.
I see, you consider a gov't that is making very bad
decisions. Decisions that will not perform the tasks
you are being told they are meant to, as being OKAY?
You don't see any connection between "Swiftboating",
paid for by lobbyist money, and what is driving bad
decisions made by ideologues dragging our entire gov't
along on misguided missions?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
It all has to do with availability of information. The more conduits
available, the weaker the left becomes. First, talk radio, then cable
TV, then the 'net.
Yeah, that way they won't know about Tom Noy? You
know, the fella who failed at "rare coins 101", lost
his money, declared bankruptcy, then was given
control of the states retirement funds for investing
in... You guessed it, rare coins, and he "lost"
every red cent. (The State Prosecutor is trying to
track down the money now, and has traced it to the
GOP, eh?) Yeah, we really need to hear about
Intelligent Design, Gay Marriages and the scam
diversions, so we won't focus on the CIA outing.
ETC!!!
Gt back to us when the jail door slams on Cheney :)
Fortunately this liars day is coming! You'll need
to either clean up your act or stop posting entirely...
You see, there are actually more Americans who like
our Constitution and our American form of gov't, than
there are people who like the idea of living under a
dictator. All we are waiting for now, is for the
passage of enough time for them to inform themselves
sufficiently to know what is and has been actually
going on with our elected officials.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old guards of MSM cann o longer set the story, people are too
sophisticated now to fall for it.
Or did you mean MZM?
I think you and I are talking about different issues.
Well, they paid an American Congress man, and
decorated Viet Nam Veteran, 2 million dollars to
influence his vote on what company would supply our
troops with equiptment. He said "I have done nothing
wrong!" And now... He's pled guilty to accepting
bribes. Guess what segment of American Legislation
he's been sitting in judgement of? Can you put two
and two together?
Post by SteveR
Youre catalouging certain instances of percieved corruption by one
political party, while I'm pointing out that the democrats have steadily
lost power.
Not exactly... The point is, you can't see what the
inferences are! You can't see the dreadful, fearful
implications of that corruption taking place in high
places. Places that have been placed under the control
of ideologues whose ministrations are completely
unsupported by either reason, commonsenses, or
evidence. But, who continue to insist that they "Did
nothing wrong", even though they are constantly being
required to admit that they are mistaken.
Post by SteveR
I suppose you're trying to drraw a correlation, or more accurately,
causation.
Why have you left out Diebold?
Good Point! With all the corruption we're
discovering in congress and other legislatures around
the nation, you don't suppose that they'd not extend
to unfair voting practices, would you?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
I think what you mean by "divided internally" is "the left is losing,
and hopping mad"
Or is it Bush violating the Constitution by spying on
American Citizens illegally?
Having looked at analysis from legal scholars on the net, I'm not sure
you can make that statement.
I've had only to look at what Bush, himself said!
What he has said clearly demonstrates intent to set
aside the rule of law. For whatever reason he did so,
it is not sufficient! National Security does not
justify the persistent and long term violation of law.
It might be used in an emergency situation, but no
such emergency situation, sufficient to excuse the
cited violation of law, has been demonstrated.

Or, are you willing to believe that a bank robber, who
left the bank with thousands of dollars, made a
"regretable series of excusable mistakes", that led to
the successful bank robbery? Like I said, you need
to read more.
Post by SteveR
And no, Barbra Boxer is not a legal analyst.
Well, this isn't actually about the actual
interpretation of the law, for if it were, Bush would
already be "tarred and feathered", this is about
getting enough elected officials to vote for the
obvious truth. Which takes us back to the K-Street
Project, eh? You know, where, although only "most
of the money, illegally raised, was spent on
Republicans, a whole lot more of that same money, was
spent on Republican causes.

Only approx. 6 million dollars of the 82 millions
Abramoff raised, went to political campaign
contributions. That leaves some 78 million dollars
unaccounted for, save the few that were known to have
been spent on "Swiftboating" Kerry and others.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
What is the left "losing" exactly?
The South used to be solidly democrat. Look at Texas for instance. Look
at the south now.
Oh? You're proud that we lost New Orleans?
That's cute!
Sometimes truth is "cute", eh?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at governorships, look at Congress, the White House. The democrats
have sen a steady decline, numbers don't lie.
Nor do Red State budgets, either! There's theft,
coruption and buget scams, overspending in all of them.
If you actually look at cities and states with liberal democrat
leadership and socialist policies, you'll find they're the most
expensive and crime-ridden, with the highest taxes.
Perhaps, but that's crime by the people, hardly as
dangerous as having a criminally intended legislature.
And therein lay the terrible difference I point to.
Try doing a google for "Indicted Republicans", and
read a little, and lest you believe that it's a lefty
ploy, pay particular attention to those pleading
guilty. Or, don't you find guilty pleas convincing?

Obwon

<remainder sniped for lack of relavence>
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-22 18:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.
Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
The electorate gets to make the ultimate decision about one-party rule.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.
K-Street perhaps?
Most likely because they see their power ebbing away due to the new
structure, new conduits of information, etc. The left is a dinosaur, and
the democrat party has catered to the left, and the left is the cause of
their present problems.
Solution for dem's? Go further left!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.
Like Ralph Reed perhaps?
Or Roy Blunt?
Bit players. I blame that KKK dude, Byrd.
But then, there you go again! Even the detriments
to our society, that racism brings, pales in
comparison to what's been going on in Congress. Too
bad you can't see it, because you don't read, or
perhaps, if you do read, you aren't able to
comprehend what it takes to sustain a democratic gov't.
In which case you should stop posting. Because,
weather you know it or not, you are advocating against
our very own Constitutional form of gov't.
I'm unwilling to accept your contention that lobbying scandals (nothing
new there) are an indication our government has been somehow hijacked.
Corruption is a constant in any administration, in all governments in
place around the globe. When uncovered, it's dealt with, jst as last
decade, the decade before, and so on.
Post by Obwon
I don't think you're doing that because you are a
traitor. I don't think you're doing that because you
actually want America to become a
dictatorship/authoritarian police state. I think you
are doing that because you simply don't understand what
you're doing. You should really try to read more and
learn about what you speak so loosly.
IOW, if I were to "read more", I'd realize that America is becoming a
dictatorship/totalitarian police state.

Perhaps I should be reading the Socialist Worker's Daily or some other
tinfoil rag?

Abramoff + K Street + Bush = collapse of American democracy.

I'll give you the Paul Revere Award if in fact the 2008 elections are
cancelled.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
That's why Republicans, who for the most part represent conservative and
pragmatic ideals, have gained such power over the past 15 years or so.
Look at the numbers.
Numbers? Like 92 million in lobbying fees collected
by Abramoff, who didn't tell his boss what he was
charging?
No, governorships, senate seats, presidencies and the like. You seem
hung up on rather small issues in order to avoid the greater picture.
Wow, you don't know what the "greater picture", is!
This demonstrates it adequately.
The greater picture is the decline of the democrat party. Very few
people within this party seem to want to take the responsibility for
this measurable decline.

This is a common tact, used by "victim" groups, be they Arabs, US
blacks, or die-hard democrat liberals. Always anxious to find any reason
other than their own ineptness for their weaknesses.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
Didn't he drive a Honda?
Nice of you to be so "courageous" that you can treat
the 9-11 victims, and the consequences of having so
many domestic artifacts associated with it, so
lightly. But that's what you've done, even if you
didn't really mean to.
You're throwing together so many wide-ranging occurences and facts to
come up with... what?
Post by Obwon
The implications of what I said, for your
information is: Mohammad Atta [a "religious
fundamentalist fanatic"] should not have been aboard a
gambling ship at all! Let alone a gaming ship owned by
a prominent "Super Lobbyist", who happens to be host
to our nations Speaker of The House of Representatives,
and who is influencing the outcome of critical national
legislation with money raised by illegal contrivance.
Or, didn't you know any of this?
I'm beginning to see the connection. Atta went on a gambling ship owned
by a republican. So, Tom Delay was behind 9/11?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the 60 Million dollar loan that the boys didn't pay
Gus Boulis?
Is that why they attacked the WTC?
Well, since you asked, the answer is we don't
really know, with any degree of certainty, who
actually attacked the WTC. Not only do none of the
accused skyjackers show up on airport videos,
So, those airport videos showing Atta and others at the airports are
fakes?
Post by Obwon
boarding
their supposed flights, 6 of them have been found
alive and well overseas. Not to mention that none of
the names they were using, are on any of the passenger
lists. You know, the lists made up of the names of
people who purchase tickets for a flight, who actually
show up at the gate to board.
This is getting scary. Was it the Jews? Was it a secret squad of Texas
Republicans who flew the planes?
Post by Obwon
Can I ask you a question, now that I have your
attention? If a fighter jet is capable of flying 1800
mph, and it happens to be flying at 477 mph, would
you consider a characterization of the fighter jets
speed as: "Flying like a scalded ape"?
Please put your answer here___>
I see! Bush needed to have the towers taken out so he could invade Iraq!

Where have I heard this before?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Or the several millions of dollars that became Ralph
"700 Club" Reed's share of the gambling money, stolen
from the Indian Casinos, by Reed's scare anti gambling
campaign, that he stopped his followers from persuing
once he pocketed the Indians gambling money?
I can understand why your geopolitical views are so vaccuous - your main
concern is corrupt practices by lobbyists.
I see, you consider a gov't that is making very bad
decisions. Decisions that will not perform the tasks
you are being told they are meant to, as being OKAY?
There are no constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan? No elections there?

Do these countries "actually exist" or has the Bush Haliographic squad
fooled us?

Now, about that faked moon landing....
Post by Obwon
You don't see any connection between "Swiftboating",
paid for by lobbyist money, and what is driving bad
decisions made by ideologues dragging our entire gov't
along on misguided missions?
Only George Soros can save us now. Quisk, send more money to moveon, and
buy Mary Mapes book!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
It all has to do with availability of information. The more conduits
available, the weaker the left becomes. First, talk radio, then cable
TV, then the 'net.
Yeah, that way they won't know about Tom Noy? You
know, the fella who failed at "rare coins 101", lost
his money, declared bankruptcy, then was given
control of the states retirement funds for investing
in... You guessed it, rare coins, and he "lost"
every red cent. (The State Prosecutor is trying to
track down the money now, and has traced it to the
GOP, eh?) Yeah, we really need to hear about
Intelligent Design, Gay Marriages and the scam
diversions, so we won't focus on the CIA outing.
ETC!!!
Gt back to us when the jail door slams on Cheney :)
Fortunately this liars day is coming! You'll need
to either clean up your act or stop posting entirely...
You need to take some meds. I know you've got the proof which will
topple the empire and all that, but personally, I think you need to
connect dots in a more realistic manner or stop posting altogether.
Post by Obwon
You see, there are actually more Americans who like
our Constitution and our American form of gov't, than
there are people who like the idea of living under a
dictator.
That's a reasonable assumption.

That we live under a dictatorship is not a reasonable assumption, it is
the railings of a paranoid.
Post by Obwon
All we are waiting for now, is for the
passage of enough time for them to inform themselves
sufficiently to know what is and has been actually
going on with our elected officials.
As soon as the mothership contacts us, it will all come together?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old guards of MSM cann o longer set the story, people are too
sophisticated now to fall for it.
Or did you mean MZM?
I think you and I are talking about different issues.
Well, they paid an American Congress man, and
decorated Viet Nam Veteran, 2 million dollars to
influence his vote on what company would supply our
troops with equiptment. He said "I have done nothing
wrong!" And now... He's pled guilty to accepting
bribes. Guess what segment of American Legislation
he's been sitting in judgement of? Can you put two
and two together?
2 + 2 = totalitarian dictatorship.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Youre catalouging certain instances of percieved corruption by one
political party, while I'm pointing out that the democrats have steadily
lost power.
Not exactly... The point is, you can't see what the
inferences are! You can't see the dreadful, fearful
implications of that corruption taking place in high
places. Places that have been placed under the control
of ideologues whose ministrations are completely
unsupported by either reason, commonsenses, or
evidence. But, who continue to insist that they "Did
nothing wrong", even though they are constantly being
required to admit that they are mistaken.
Obwon, you're so deep into conspiracy mud, I'm beginning to think you
are actually an agent from the mothership sent to prepare us.


See you in the gulag, pal.
Obwon
2005-12-23 16:41:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized in a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.
Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
The electorate gets to make the ultimate decision about one-party rule.
I guess you see nothing wrong with one party rule
then?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
The old liberal/left power structure has its back against the wall,
their methods are outdated, their grip on the conduits of information is
no longer. As a result, they've become angry, and very vocal.
K-Street perhaps?
Most likely because they see their power ebbing away due to the new
structure, new conduits of information, etc. The left is a dinosaur, and
the democrat party has catered to the left, and the left is the cause of
their present problems.
Solution for dem's? Go further left!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
They've become "the man", or "the establishment" they railed against in
the 60's and on, now the "people" are doing to them exactly what they
demanded.
Like Ralph Reed perhaps?
Or Roy Blunt?
Bit players. I blame that KKK dude, Byrd.
But then, there you go again! Even the detriments
to our society, that racism brings, pales in
comparison to what's been going on in Congress. Too
bad you can't see it, because you don't read, or
perhaps, if you do read, you aren't able to
comprehend what it takes to sustain a democratic gov't.
In which case you should stop posting. Because,
weather you know it or not, you are advocating against
our very own Constitutional form of gov't.
I'm unwilling to accept your contention that lobbying scandals (nothing
new there) are an indication our government has been somehow hijacked.
Corruption is a constant in any administration, in all governments in
place around the globe. When uncovered, it's dealt with, jst as last
decade, the decade before, and so on.
You are not, as you are trying to make it appear,
"unwilling to accept... that lobbying scandals... are
nothing new... or any indication of gov't being
hijacked." In fact, you are merely ignorant of the
massive collection of data. Data that clearly
indicates that something more than just normal corrupt
lobbying is going on. [And no, don't take offense at
being called "ignorant of..." anything, there are
many reasons therefore, and we all; even Einstein,
were born into ignorance, so it's not the pejorative
it may seem, it merely describes a state of being. A
state that exists for many varied reasons, some good
ones as well as some bad ones.]

That said, here's just a wee bit of the data you
need to know to make a more informed decision.
You can then do your own research to find out more, to
more credibly argue that point you just made above.
I'll try to give it to you in small bites.

First there's the PNAC, and it's stated desire for a
"catalysing event", so worthy of note that they can
put into play their plans to dominate the middle east
[to put their objectives briefly].

Second. There's the appointment of PNAC members to
positions of high authority in our gov't.

Third. There's a huge debate over two elections,
which turned out to be very close, and vigorously
fought over, then decided by a U.S.S.C. that
intervenes without interviening [from the rhetoric
used] against it's own "States Rights" ideology.

Fourth. We learn of the "K-Street Project", whose
effects are to not just shut democrates out of the
lobbying offices, but is designed to "push back" and
directs the firms seeking favors, to donate their
money and lend support to various and ancilliary NeoCon
projects. [ Like the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth",
and other "Position" groups which decidedly aid
Republican/NeoCon issues.]

Fifth. We come to 9-11, which is substantially the
very kind of "Catalysing event" that the NeoCon PNAC
had hoped for.

Six. There is the uncanny use of 9-11 to invade a
country, without any real proof that it is either a
dangerous base of international terrorism, or in
possession of WMD's or even able to mfg. them, or
manage any program so to do. Not only was the
information false and highly questionable, a lie was
told to buttress it and instill fear.

Okay, are you still able to follow?

Seven. The "skyjackers" were Saudi.

Eight. They were declared to be religious
fundamentalists, but the evidence doesn't support that
view of them. For one thing, Mohammad Atta, the
ringleader, has an American Girlfriend. She is known
to have worked as a prostitute. Atta, she says, is
fond of flashing his huge rolls of money. She
relocates from Sarasota Fla., and Atta finds her
working in a Pizza shop in Venice Fla. She says he
frequents bars and clubs, drinks heavily, and dances.
Hardly the picture you'd have of a religious zealot,
eh?

Nine. Atta also visits gaming ships and gambles! He
visits only the gaming ships that were brought by:
1. Jack Abramoff, the GOP/NeoCon superlobbyist.
2. Adam Kidan, the failed "Dial-a-Matress" King and
law license loser, whose stepfather has made a fortune
in the Florida Porn Industry [ in case you might want
to guess where Atta's American girl friend might have
come from, pretty neat coincidence, eh?]
3. Wally Hillard, who has also just purchased the
flight school where Atta and friends are supposedly
training for the 9-11 attacks. Whose private jet is
searched at a Florida airport and 100k of cocaine are
found on it, but who isn't arrested.

[not enough coincidences for you? Wait, it gets
better.]

Ten. We come to 9-11 itself and, as if we haven't
seen enough "domestically connected artifacts", we
find even more. During 2001 we find that there were 67
successful questionable aircraft interdictions. [I'm
just using phrasology to keep things as brief as I
can]. Yet, on 9-11 itself, these tried-and-true
proceedures all fail, with four very large Commerical
aircraft, diverted from their flight plans for more
than half an hour, over highly populated and extremely
sensitive facilities, without being effectively
intercepted, even though they are detected and
trackable.

Eleven. We discover, several artifacts that the media
didn't pick up or relay to the public for our
discussion/inspection/debate. The puzzling crash of
the flight traveling over Pennsylvania, we discover,
actually had a fighter jet circling over it.

Twelve. We learn that, although the supposed
skyjackers, always used their own names while in the
U.S., traveling, renting vehicles, apartments, flight
school training, and flights, their names do not
appear on the passenger lists of the planes they were
supposed to have skyjacked.

Thirteen. We learn that there is no security video
footage of them at the airports or boarding gates where
they supposedly departed that final time.

Fourteen. There's an apparatus in the Pentagons War
Room, where all U.S. commercial flights are monitored.
This means, that where the Boston Tower says they knew
the planes were skyjacked the minute they saw them
depart from their flight plans and their transponders
turned off, the Pentagons own tracking system also
revealed that information to its operators.

Fifteen. There were interceptors available! Two
squadrons at Andrews Airforce Base, and several flying
training missions off the coast of New York City.
These planes, capable of speeds up to 1875 mph, were
never diverted to intercept the "wayward" commercial
aircraft, even inspite of the tremendous danger they
represented.

Sixteen. Didn't anyone, from Boston Tower, NORAD, to
the Pentagon War Room, know that Indian Point was in
the flight path of these skyjacked craft? Didn't any
of them consider what it might mean if New York City
and Long Island had to be evactuated? Or... Is it
possible that someone knew that there was no actual
threat that a nuclear power plant would be struck? It
couldn't be guessed, of course, that is something
that would have to be known, or any inattentivenesses
could be envisioned to have had very serious personal
conseqences for such failure. Where as, the actual
targets presented decidedly less in the way of
consequences for anyone, seeing as how they were all
merely dismissed as "regretable, but unavoidable",
mistakes. Eh?

That should be enough for you to conclude that there
was more to merely Lobbying for Pay-to-play politics
going on. If not, I can "tighten" things up for you
quite a bit more. But I'll leave it at this, to keep
things brief, but I'll tell you to have a closer look
at the WTC collapse and how it compares with the
collapse of "mechanically destroyed" buildings. Hint:
mechanical failure in a structure produces almost no
dust, while exlposively initiated destructions,
produces many easily discernable artifacts, including
dust aplenty, ejectiles, and the pulverizing
disintergration of building materials.

Hope this is of some help in getting you to start
thinking that this wave of widespread corruption in
gov't, is something more than mere money/power
grabbing of the type that normally ensues in Congress.

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-24 01:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't
possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized
in
a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.
Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
The electorate gets to make the ultimate decision about one-party rule.
I guess you see nothing wrong with one party rule
then?
I have every problem with the prospect, but the dem's seem driven to
create that which I fear, because they are inept.
Obwon
2005-12-26 17:33:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:50:05 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't
possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically polarized
in
a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.
Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
The electorate gets to make the ultimate decision about one-party rule.
I guess you see nothing wrong with one party rule
then?
I have every problem with the prospect, but the dem's seem driven to
create that which I fear, because they are inept.
Oh? While you're trying to construct some theory of
how the Dems might be trying to create one party rule,
you'll ignore the concrete steps the Republicans have
taken? You know, like using their control of both
houses and the WH to practically ordering the K-Street
lobbying firms not to employ Dems? Demanding that
corporations who want favorable treatment from
congress, disassociate themselves from Democrats and
fund Republican Candidates and fund only Republican
causes? Using stolen, extorted, bribes and laundered
money to further Republican causes, is hardly like
sitting alone in a corner and plotting or wishing for
control of congress. Which do you think is the more
immediate threat?

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-26 18:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:50:05 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:00:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:27:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:00:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by SteveR
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
Usually, the population agrees on everything :)
No, America is a diverse nation of many peoples. However you can't
possibly
be arguing that this nation isn't socially and politically
polarized
in
a
way that it hasn't been in decades.
Why is that a bad thing?
Abramoff, perhaps?
OMG, a crooked lobbyist. The end is nigh.
See? Like I told you, you need to read more.
"Abramoff", is merely a symbol for the whole K-Street
program and all the widespread corruption that went
with it; like Mob connections, Murder for hire,
swindling, lying, forgery, drug dealing, ties to
9-11, "Pay-to-Play" politics/legislating. Get the
idea? Obviously thought, these little go-alongs,
appear to be things you don't know about.
Why, you don't even know what makes it all so
dangerous to our democracy, do you? Well, how would
advocating a one party government strike you?
Do you think that elected officials, holding high
national office, should be avocating for one party
government? Do you think that that is dismissable
conduct? If so, pray tell us why?
The electorate gets to make the ultimate decision about one-party rule.
I guess you see nothing wrong with one party rule
then?
I have every problem with the prospect, but the dem's seem driven to
create that which I fear, because they are inept.
Oh? While you're trying to construct some theory of
how the Dems might be trying to create one party rule,
you'll ignore the concrete steps the Republicans have
taken?
Both parties try and win elections. When one party succeeds and the
other fails, it's a combination of winning strategy and losing strategy.
The democrats seem to want to place the blame for their own failings on
the other party.

Logically, the dem's platform ends up dependent on repub's - the
reactionary party, the opposition party, the party of NO and Gotchya!
Post by Obwon
You know, like using their control of both
houses and the WH to practically ordering the K-Street
lobbying firms not to employ Dems?
Again, I could care less about lobbying. If there's any impropriety,
identify it, persecute it - regardless of party. The corruption that
goes along with money, or lobbying, or any other issue inherent in the
process is neither new, nor confined to either party.
Post by Obwon
Demanding that
corporations who want favorable treatment from
congress, disassociate themselves from Democrats and
fund Republican Candidates and fund only Republican
causes?
So what?
Post by Obwon
Using stolen, extorted, bribes and laundered
money to further Republican causes, is hardly like
sitting alone in a corner and plotting or wishing for
control of congress. Which do you think is the more
immediate threat?
The most immediate threat is that some would like to believe in the
angelic purity of their own party.
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-22 02:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
Obwon
2005-12-22 15:45:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader, the stories
should still be on your server. Or... google search
string: "Suncruz atta", and read the results.
While you're at it, try "Wally Hillard flight school"
or "Atta American Girlfriend", all without quotes, of
course.

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-23 01:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader,
Actually I did - but you're right, I knew nothing about his girlfriend,
or that he was a psychopathic disembowler of cats. Interesting stuff - I
thought he was a just a good Muslim boy.

And Abramoff's connection with SunCruz, and the Atta connection, I
wonder if Atta ate at McDonald's as well?

Do the math, Americans eat meat, meat is transported to market by fossil
fuel vehicles. They're not after the oil, they want to control the
global economy by depriving us of hamburgers.

Bush has cattle on his ranch, connect the dots.

Oddly, a google search always brought this as the top hit:

http://www.madcowprod.com/
Obwon
2005-12-23 16:56:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:37:15 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader,
Actually I did - but you're right, I knew nothing about his girlfriend,
or that he was a psychopathic disembowler of cats. Interesting stuff - I
thought he was a just a good Muslim boy.
Hardly the poster boy for an Al Quida Fundamentalist
bent on destroying the blasphemously decadent West, eh?
Post by SteveR
And Abramoff's connection with SunCruz, and the Atta connection, I
wonder if Atta ate at McDonald's as well?
She makes no mention, that I know of, that he eats
pepperoni pizza. But he does meet her working in a
pizza parlour, and pizza, as we all know, is made
with lard. Seeing how fastidious Muslims/Islamic and
even Zionists are, you'd certainly expect him to know
that, unless he didn't bother to practice a religious
lifestyle at all.
Post by SteveR
Do the math, Americans eat meat, meat is transported to market by fossil
fuel vehicles. They're not after the oil, they want to control the
global economy by depriving us of hamburgers.
Very funny! Ho ho!
Post by SteveR
Bush has cattle on his ranch, connect the dots.
http://www.madcowprod.com/
I can easily understand you having missed a whole lot
about 9-11 and the connections to SunCruz, as well as
the names of the players. It's a very complex affair,
and not a bit painless, so I'm not surprised that most
people just don't go a-poking in there. Thus most
people are ignorant of the much wider scope of 9-11 and
the really screaming questions that are growing around
it all, and the critical need for answers, because of
the kinds of theories the available evidence allows one
to draw.

Don't get me wrong, I present some of the theories
that the evidence -- that I am aware of -- allows me to
create. Since I don't have all of the answers, or
even all of the materials I probably should have, if I
could get them [the most critical data being secret as
it were], all I can do then is; look at the various
kinds of theories that seem plausible, and wonder
"what if" this one or that one was true.

There is a whole slew of evidence and facts that
support some pretty scary theories, more so than not.
And one comes to wonder, the more one knows, why in
the world didn't they make damned sure that
investigations were thoroughly done, so as to cut off
the most frightening ones? Simply perplexing, eh?

Obwon


0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-24 01:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:37:15 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader,
Actually I did - but you're right, I knew nothing about his girlfriend,
or that he was a psychopathic disembowler of cats. Interesting stuff - I
thought he was a just a good Muslim boy.
Hardly the poster boy for an Al Quida Fundamentalist
bent on destroying the blasphemously decadent West, eh?
Islamists need a Rove.
Obwon
2005-12-26 16:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:52:38 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:37:15 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader,
Actually I did - but you're right, I knew nothing about his girlfriend,
or that he was a psychopathic disembowler of cats. Interesting stuff - I
thought he was a just a good Muslim boy.
Hardly the poster boy for an Al Quida Fundamentalist
bent on destroying the blasphemously decadent West, eh?
Islamists need a Rove.
Everybody ought to have a Rove!

__&__
/ \
| |
| (o)(o)
C .---_)
| |.___|
| \__/
/_____\
/_____/ \
/ \

0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-26 18:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:52:38 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:37:15 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:05:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Obwon
Or the 23 million dollar forgery used to by SunCruz
gambling ships so that Mohammad Atta would have a place
to play.
?!
Do tell.
You didn't know about this??? I posted the whole
story, you should reload your newsreader,
Actually I did - but you're right, I knew nothing about his girlfriend,
or that he was a psychopathic disembowler of cats. Interesting stuff - I
thought he was a just a good Muslim boy.
Hardly the poster boy for an Al Quida Fundamentalist
bent on destroying the blasphemously decadent West, eh?
Islamists need a Rove.
Everybody ought to have a Rove!
IOW, the most inept political party, the party with the least
comprehensible message, the party who's sole platform seems to be "the
other party sucks" should by logical deduction, win the election?

I'd take this seriously if Democrats complained about their power when
they were the majority. But then again, they're the party of purity,
goodness, sweetness and light.

How do we know this? They told us so!
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-26 18:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Islamists need a Rove.
Everybody ought to have a Rove!
When he goes to prison - everybody there *will* have Rove.
And riding the Scooter will be their number two pass-time.
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-26 18:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Islamists need a Rove.
Everybody ought to have a Rove!
Does it come with the Gannon accessories?

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep

Al Smith
2005-12-19 18:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
-to divide America internally
-to turn the world against the United States
-to drain the United States of it's financial and military resources
-to expand their numbers
-to undermine our freedoms through fear
Here we go again:

ul·ti·mate (lt-mt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Being last in a series, process, or progression: "As the ultimate
arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court occupies a central place
in our scheme of government" (Richard A. Epstein).
Fundamental; elemental: an ultimate truth.

Of the greatest possible size or significance; maximum: Has the
ultimate diamond been found?
Representing or exhibiting the greatest possible development or
sophistication: the ultimate bicycle.
Utmost; extreme: the ultimate insult.
Being most distant or remote; farthest. See Synonyms at last 1.
Eventual: hoped for ultimate victory.
Post by Joseph Welch
Bush and his supporters (you) have helped the terrorists succeed beyond
their wildest dreams.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Obwon
2005-12-20 15:10:54 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?

If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?

You expect stupid people to do stupid things! And
one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide, regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.

Obwon
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
And you helped them, traitor.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
c***@my-deja.com
2005-12-20 20:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?
If we are going to become just like Europe, the Moslems are still going
to have to invade us to destroy us.
Post by Obwon
If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.

We can still remain unified against if we have a common enemy.
Unfortunately, the Right is fighting against the greatest threat,
radical Islam and the Left is fighting against "Christmas" trees.
Post by Obwon
You expect stupid people to do stupid things! And
one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
WWII is a great example.
Post by Obwon
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide, regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.
Obwon
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
And you helped them, traitor.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-21 01:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians.
Your belief that we must be divided against each other is not very sensible.
It's a cowardly and self-defeating faith.
--
We Americans can never be safe from terrorism until we eliminate the
NeoChristian insurgency.
Mitchell Holman
2005-12-21 03:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
SteveR
2005-12-21 20:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.

If we don;t, we lose.

IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.

BTW, we were involved in three "far flung" wars in the past century, did
we topple like Rome as a result?
Mitchell Holman
2005-12-21 23:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?


Mitchell Holman

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq
today will last five days, five weeks or five
months, but it won't last any longer than that."
Donald Rumsfeld, Nov 15, 2002
SteveR
2005-12-22 17:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?

If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?

I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.

Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
Mitchell Holman
2005-12-22 19:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.

Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".

We were lied to, and you keep defending the liars.

The question is, why?






"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein
now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003



"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit
and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
r***@comcast.net
2005-12-22 20:19:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:51:51 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep
SteveR
2005-12-22 23:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
Post by Mitchell Holman
We were lied to, and you keep defending the liars.
Your knee-jerk absolute position that seemingly excludes *any other
possibility* concerning WMD stockpiles or programs is not only
intellectually insipid, it reveals that your conclusions are reached
merely to bolster your personal prejudices.

Therefore, you lack a certain intellectual credibility.


Here's some questions:

Do you believe it possible that there was intel that was correct at the
time it was presented, and that the sites, substances, etc that were
publicly revealed did exist, only to be compromised by Saddam's regime
after the knowledge of their existence was made public?

Do you believe that Saddam, after watching elements of his infractions
revealed, would leave this evidence where it stood?

Do you believe that Saddam followed the terms of dis-armament to the
letter, or even spirit, of the process?

Do you think it possible that Saddam was capable of playing a shell game
because he believed the French would effectively act as his counsel at
the UN, due to their extensive financial ties?

If you are unwilling to consider any other possibility that Bush
knowingly lied, knowing with absolute certainty his "lies" would be
proved as such, then you're not a very curious fellow, you're just a
partisan drone/propogandist.
Post by Mitchell Holman
The question is, why?
Because I am 100 percent certain that there was sufficient evidence,
sufficient warning, sufficient justification for the removal of Saddam,
and that regime change was inevitable - and that the time was right to
do so.

I do not accept, and there is plenty of evidence to support my position,
that he was effectively "contained", and that the sanctions - which like
all sanctions served only to further punish an oppressed people - were
"working" for anyone but Saddam and those (such as the UN) who were
profiting from the sanctions, both legally and otherwise.

I am not willing to assign a label of purity and righteousness on the
French, German, Russians, the UN, George Galloway, Scott Ritter, and
others who had *every* reason to weaken the case against Saddam.

I am willing to give my country the benefit of the doubt, espescially
given the cast of characters involved, and the obvious sea of corruption
surrounding *all* connected to Saddam.

I also believe that we have, at this point in time, completed the
initial invasion, pulled off the elections and constitution, and that
there is no way to turn back the clock, so we might as well give the
effort our support, which sends the right people the right message,
rather than to offer encouragement to totalitarians, islamist terrorists
and their operatives with the same message the left sent to the VC years
ago:

"Hang in there, we'll win the war at home for you"


And that is precisely what anti-American people like Cindy Sheehan, who
has *clearly* offered "aid and comfort" to the people who killed her son
are doing, and they make no bones about it. They have *clearly* taken
sides.


On the bright side, the darker imperialist forces we are fighting
against are realizing the fact that the leftist machine is much, much
weaker now than during the Vietnam era. And, they've beased their
strategy on that misconception. Why? Because Osama told them that was
the case.

Well, it turns out Osama was wrong, which is why his popular support in
the Islamic world has plummeted. He is now the weak horse he claimed we
were.

And you can thank Bush for that, like it or not. He fully understands
that weakness is fuel for terrorism. Anyone with any knowledge of the
Arab world knows this.

Mohammed was a warrior, not a man of peace - that should clue you in.
Mitchell Holman
2005-12-23 01:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
The Bush camp cherry-picked info from
questionable and sometimes utterly discredited
sources to justify doing what they wanted done.

But tell us - how did Saddam go from being
no threat at all in 2001 to a dire threat to
millions of Americans in 2003?
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
Name one person in the "intel community"
chastised for the errors that got us into
the war. "We were misled" carries no weight
when no one gets punished for misleading us.
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
We were lied to, and you keep defending the liars.
Your knee-jerk absolute position that seemingly excludes *any other
possibility* concerning WMD stockpiles or programs is not only
intellectually insipid, it reveals that your conclusions are reached
merely to bolster your personal prejudices.
Therefore, you lack a certain intellectual credibility.
Just show us why Bush leaped on the "we
have to invade Iraq" bandwagon after barely
mentioning Iraq the year before.
Post by SteveR
Do you believe it possible that there was intel that was correct at the
time it was presented, and that the sites, substances, etc that were
publicly revealed did exist, only to be compromised by Saddam's regime
after the knowledge of their existence was made public?
Do you believe that Saddam, after watching elements of his infractions
revealed, would leave this evidence where it stood?
Do you believe that Saddam followed the terms of dis-armament to the
letter, or even spirit, of the process?
Do you think it possible that Saddam was capable of playing a shell game
because he believed the French would effectively act as his counsel at
the UN, due to their extensive financial ties?
If you are unwilling to consider any other possibility that Bush
knowingly lied, knowing with absolute certainty his "lies" would be
proved as such, then you're not a very curious fellow, you're just a
partisan drone/propogandist.
You abject devotion to all things Bush
has blinded you to the facts. There were no
WMD's. There never were. Team after team of
inspectors said so, but Bush ignored them in
favor of the ramblings of convicted criminal
Ahmed Chalabi and his self serving propoganda.
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
The question is, why?
Because I am 100 percent certain that there was sufficient evidence,
sufficient warning, sufficient justification for the removal of Saddam,
and that regime change was inevitable - and that the time was right to
do so.
Bullshit. We were comfortable with Saddam's
tyranny in the 1980's when Reagan was supporting
him, we were comfortable with Saddam's tyranny
in the 1990's when Cheney was doing business with
him, and Bush was comfortable with Saddam's tryanny
in 2001 and 2002 when Iraq was more a threat than
Iran or Cuba.

Then suddenly Bush discovers that Saddam is a
tyrant in 2003 and has to be replaced?

Why, all of the sudden?

What changed?
Post by SteveR
I do not accept, and there is plenty of evidence to support my position,
that he was effectively "contained", and that the sanctions - which like
all sanctions served only to further punish an oppressed people - were
"working" for anyone but Saddam and those (such as the UN) who were
profiting from the sanctions, both legally and otherwise.
I am not willing to assign a label of purity and righteousness on the
French, German, Russians, the UN, George Galloway, Scott Ritter, and
others who had *every* reason to weaken the case against Saddam.
I am willing to give my country the benefit of the doubt, espescially
given the cast of characters involved, and the obvious sea of corruption
surrounding *all* connected to Saddam.
You are giving the "benefit of the doubt" to
people who don't deserve it.
Post by SteveR
I also believe that we have, at this point in time, completed the
initial invasion, pulled off the elections and constitution, and that
there is no way to turn back the clock, so we might as well give the
effort our support, which sends the right people the right message,
rather than to offer encouragement to totalitarians, islamist terrorists
and their operatives with the same message the left sent to the VC years
Oh, stop with the "they have elections" BS. Iran
has an elected parliment and an elected president.
Post by SteveR
"Hang in there, we'll win the war at home for you"
And that is precisely what anti-American people like Cindy Sheehan, who
has *clearly* offered "aid and comfort" to the people who killed her son
are doing, and they make no bones about it. They have *clearly* taken
sides.
Fuck you. I have met Sheehan three times now,
and she has shown more grace and courage than you
armchair patriots ever did. If you want to see
"aid and comfort to the enemy" start with Fox News'
Geraldo Rivera broadcasting planned troop movements
to the enemy. Do you SERIOUSLY think that Sheehan
swatting mesquitos in a Crawford drainage ditch
can compare to Geraldo's treason?

That is the problem with you Bush Lickers. You
worship the ground this admitted liar walks on and
are incapable of admitting he was wrong.
SteveR
2005-12-23 02:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
The Bush camp cherry-picked info from
questionable and sometimes utterly discredited
sources to justify doing what they wanted done.
i.e., arguing the case for the prosecution.

Who's in jail?
Post by Mitchell Holman
But tell us - how did Saddam go from being
no threat at all in 2001 to a dire threat to
millions of Americans in 2003?
Because the events of 9/11 woke the sleeping elephant? They thought they
were screwing a donkey.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
Name one person in the "intel community"
chastised for the errors that got us into
the war. "We were misled" carries no weight
when no one gets punished for misleading us.
You wuz robbed.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
We were lied to, and you keep defending the liars.
Your knee-jerk absolute position that seemingly excludes *any other
possibility* concerning WMD stockpiles or programs is not only
intellectually insipid, it reveals that your conclusions are reached
merely to bolster your personal prejudices.
Therefore, you lack a certain intellectual credibility.
Just show us why Bush leaped on the "we
have to invade Iraq" bandwagon after barely
mentioning Iraq the year before.
You do realize fruit ripens?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Do you believe it possible that there was intel that was correct at the
time it was presented, and that the sites, substances, etc that were
publicly revealed did exist, only to be compromised by Saddam's regime
after the knowledge of their existence was made public?
Do you believe that Saddam, after watching elements of his infractions
revealed, would leave this evidence where it stood?
Do you believe that Saddam followed the terms of dis-armament to the
letter, or even spirit, of the process?
Do you think it possible that Saddam was capable of playing a shell game
because he believed the French would effectively act as his counsel at
the UN, due to their extensive financial ties?
If you are unwilling to consider any other possibility that Bush
knowingly lied, knowing with absolute certainty his "lies" would be
proved as such, then you're not a very curious fellow, you're just a
partisan drone/propogandist.
You abject devotion to all things Bush
has blinded you to the facts.
You failed to answer in line. Click.
Obwon
2005-12-23 17:23:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
Well... It certainly worked out that way didn't it?
Bush says he took it upon himself to issue that
statement in his SOU that Iraq was trying to procure
Uranium in violation of UN sanctions, eh? A statement
he made, based on information already known to be so
unreliable, that he was warned not to use it.

And... Just as you say, it hasn't had much, in the
way of effect, so far, beyond a few embarrassing
questions that the Whitehouse has had little trouble
deflecting and distracting the public/media away from.
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
And that was a lie, because the intel community
actually checked out the material and found it to be
"unreliable" and warned him not to use it. In fact, it
wasn't presented by the "intel community" at all, if
you heard the statement we're refering to, you'll no
doubt remember the phrase "The British have learned..."
Not that the CIA has stated.
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
We were lied to, and you keep defending the liars.
Your knee-jerk absolute position that seemingly excludes *any other
possibility* concerning WMD stockpiles or programs is not only
intellectually insipid, it reveals that your conclusions are reached
merely to bolster your personal prejudices.
Hmmm... He appears to have waited until our worst
fears were borne out and proven as fact, that the
wmd's didn't actually exist in Iraq, as many of us
"knee jerk" opponents of this war, were quite quick to
point out was most likely untrue. And you say that
that's a "knee jerk", reaction that's totally
partisan, intellectually insipid? Or "conclusions
reached merely to bolster personal prejudices"?
For that statement to stand, with any credibility,
you have to show that the wmd's actually had even a
small possibility of existing. There isn't even this
required "small possibility", because there's just no
evidence that anything along the lines stated was even
possible, let alone planned.
Post by SteveR
Therefore, you lack a certain intellectual credibility.
Uh Oh! Looks like you're going to have problems
forcing yourself to stay on this thread, eh? Why not
"extend and revise this remark"?

Obwon
Post by SteveR
Do you believe it possible that there was intel that was correct at the
time it was presented, and that the sites, substances, etc that were
publicly revealed did exist, only to be compromised by Saddam's regime
after the knowledge of their existence was made public?
Do you believe that Saddam, after watching elements of his infractions
revealed, would leave this evidence where it stood?
Do you believe that Saddam followed the terms of dis-armament to the
letter, or even spirit, of the process?
Do you think it possible that Saddam was capable of playing a shell game
because he believed the French would effectively act as his counsel at
the UN, due to their extensive financial ties?
If you are unwilling to consider any other possibility that Bush
knowingly lied, knowing with absolute certainty his "lies" would be
proved as such, then you're not a very curious fellow, you're just a
partisan drone/propogandist.
Post by Mitchell Holman
The question is, why?
Because I am 100 percent certain that there was sufficient evidence,
sufficient warning, sufficient justification for the removal of Saddam,
and that regime change was inevitable - and that the time was right to
do so.
I do not accept, and there is plenty of evidence to support my position,
that he was effectively "contained", and that the sanctions - which like
all sanctions served only to further punish an oppressed people - were
"working" for anyone but Saddam and those (such as the UN) who were
profiting from the sanctions, both legally and otherwise.
I am not willing to assign a label of purity and righteousness on the
French, German, Russians, the UN, George Galloway, Scott Ritter, and
others who had *every* reason to weaken the case against Saddam.
I am willing to give my country the benefit of the doubt, espescially
given the cast of characters involved, and the obvious sea of corruption
surrounding *all* connected to Saddam.
I also believe that we have, at this point in time, completed the
initial invasion, pulled off the elections and constitution, and that
there is no way to turn back the clock, so we might as well give the
effort our support, which sends the right people the right message,
rather than to offer encouragement to totalitarians, islamist terrorists
and their operatives with the same message the left sent to the VC years
"Hang in there, we'll win the war at home for you"
And that is precisely what anti-American people like Cindy Sheehan, who
has *clearly* offered "aid and comfort" to the people who killed her son
are doing, and they make no bones about it. They have *clearly* taken
sides.
On the bright side, the darker imperialist forces we are fighting
against are realizing the fact that the leftist machine is much, much
weaker now than during the Vietnam era. And, they've beased their
strategy on that misconception. Why? Because Osama told them that was
the case.
Well, it turns out Osama was wrong, which is why his popular support in
the Islamic world has plummeted. He is now the weak horse he claimed we
were.
And you can thank Bush for that, like it or not. He fully understands
that weakness is fuel for terrorism. Anyone with any knowledge of the
Arab world knows this.
Mohammed was a warrior, not a man of peace - that should clue you in.
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-24 01:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Were the country bankrupt, you'd have a point.

I saw the same arguments when Reagan stood hard against the Soviets. The
left was dead wrong then, they're wrong now.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
Well... It certainly worked out that way didn't it?
Not at all, but regardless, it seems rather stupid to lie when you are
certain to be caught.
Post by Obwon
Bush says he took it upon himself to issue that
statement in his SOU that Iraq was trying to procure
Uranium in violation of UN sanctions, eh? A statement
he made, based on information already known to be so
unreliable, that he was warned not to use it.
The Brit intel he referenced has been proved more reliable in the
ensuing years. Ask Joe Wilson. You totally mis-represent this issue.
There is every evidence to show Iraqis were in Niger (where they usually
purchased uranium).

Why would you find this unusual?
Post by Obwon
And... Just as you say, it hasn't had much, in the
way of effect, so far, beyond a few embarrassing
questions that the Whitehouse has had little trouble
deflecting and distracting the public/media away from.
The WH controls the media? Call george soros!
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
And that was a lie, because the intel community
actually checked out the material and found it to be
"unreliable" and warned him not to use it.
Some of it.
Post by Obwon
In fact, it
wasn't presented by the "intel community" at all,
To whom?

,snip>
Obwon
2005-12-26 17:28:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:45:34 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:27 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Were the country bankrupt, you'd have a point.
Well... I certainly can't blame you for not reading
Greenspans writings, they are incredibly dense
reading. But, he and other economists have pointed
out, "You cannot figure out when an economy will fail,
with any degree of certainty, you can only assess that
we're heading in that direction and warn that we need
to turn back." So far that warning hasn't been
heeded, so there's a cliff somewhere up ahead! Don't
try to tell us that, just because we haven't yet gone
over that cliff, everthing is okay! The point is we
know there's a cliff up ahead, so we've got to get off
of this road, not speed up and/or ignore it!
Post by SteveR
I saw the same arguments when Reagan stood hard against the Soviets. The
left was dead wrong then, they're wrong now.
Reagan was merely being opportunistic! He saw the
collapse coming, just as every "leftist" political
scholar and professional was warning it would. In
fact, it was your "left" that set up the very
conditions that led to the Soviet collapse!
Warmongering only fed the very beast we were fighting,
if it wasn't for the social work the left has long been
responsible for, the Soviet Union would have continued
to fight on, because the world would have no other
choices to offer them. Oh yeah, Star Wars didn't
work, and the Soviets knew it almost as soon as the
American Public did.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
An opinion? That's NOT the way the War Against Iraq
was sold to us. We were told over and over about how SURE
the government was that Iraq was brimming with WMD's about
to used on the US, complete with glossy pictures showing
right where they were.
Do you believe the administration knowingly created false documentation,
knowing full well that the intel assessments, or known falsities, would
absolutely, certainly be disproved?
Well... It certainly worked out that way didn't it?
Not at all, but regardless, it seems rather stupid to lie when you are
certain to be caught.
Hmmm... Then why do lies exist at all? You don't
suppose that people tell lies because they don't expect
to get caught? Well... How does one decide weather or
not they're likely to get caught telling a lie? They
must use their own judgement, eh? And if that
judgement is faulty, then they don't make very good
assessments about their chances of getting away with a
lie.

OR, maybe, just maybe, one could tell a big fat lie,
if they felt that they'd never be held accountable for
it, even if they got caught.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Bush says he took it upon himself to issue that
statement in his SOU that Iraq was trying to procure
Uranium in violation of UN sanctions, eh? A statement
he made, based on information already known to be so
unreliable, that he was warned not to use it.
The Brit intel he referenced has been proved more reliable in the
ensuing years. Ask Joe Wilson. You totally mis-represent this issue.
There is every evidence to show Iraqis were in Niger (where they usually
purchased uranium).
The British intel he referenced was based on a forged
document found in Italy! Anything else is not at
issue! Anything else that was done by anyone
anywhere, cannot be used to prove that a false
statement made, based on untrue information, was or
might have been true. It just doesn't work that way!

The U market in Niger was tightly controlled by a
consortium of countries, that control was never in
danger of being breeched, nor was Saddam involved in
any effort to breach it, as the President claimed.
What happened years ago, when Bush I was fast and
friendly with Saddam, is all you can bring to the
table now, to argue that Bush II was "partially"
right, hahaha...
Post by SteveR
Why would you find this unusual?
Post by Obwon
And... Just as you say, it hasn't had much, in the
way of effect, so far, beyond a few embarrassing
questions that the Whitehouse has had little trouble
deflecting and distracting the public/media away from.
The WH controls the media? Call george soros!
Oh, now the ol' Hannity/Coulter denial, eh? They
only exist when it's expedient? Fox News let's you
decide???? Hahaha...
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Those were not "opinions", nor were they presented as
"opinions".
They were presented as the information that they had been presented by
by the intel community.
And that was a lie, because the intel community
actually checked out the material and found it to be
"unreliable" and warned him not to use it.
Some of it.
Well, you're right! They didn't tell him he
couldn't say "The British have learned", they only
told him not to use the claim that Iraq had sought to
purchase Uranium from Niger in violation of the UN
sanctions. I guess he could have used other parts of
the letter/missive, why do you think he only stuck to
using the parts they warned him not to use? Twice that
claim was stricken from his speeches. This time he
says he put it back in on his own.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
In fact, it
wasn't presented by the "intel community" at all,
To whom?
To the President, of course.

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Obwon
2005-12-23 17:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:35:28 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
Re-read what was said, the qualifier is "your heroes
promised?" While you may be merely offering your
opinion, therefore not lying, those "heroes", by
selectively using information to create the impressions
they wanted, were actually lying! To state
emphatically that there is no controversy about which
is, in fact, controversial, is lying.
Post by SteveR
If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?
I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.
The "trick" here is "unexpected resistance", but
that resistance was only "unexpected" if you only
absorbed highly controversial "evidence" that was
selectively choosen and presented as unequivocally
true. It wasn't, and resistance, even greater than
what we're actually seeing, was envisioned by experts
and professionals whose opinions were hidden from view.
Post by SteveR
Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
That "nothing runs on schedule", is a sword that
cuts both ways. Certainly that is something that
should have been taken into account by those planning a
war, that would be needless and illegal, if any of
the scathing critiques of it were true.

Obwon

0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-24 01:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:35:28 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
Re-read what was said, the qualifier is "your heroes
promised?" While you may be merely offering your
opinion, therefore not lying, those "heroes", by
selectively using information to create the impressions
they wanted, were actually lying! To state
emphatically that there is no controversy about which
is, in fact, controversial, is lying.
I hope you're not majoring in Law.

Firstly, Bush is not my Hero.

Secondly, your argument is not a new one, and your literary flourish has
not enhanced the argument. I'm in no way dismissing your arguments, but
I've had this same conversation approximately 27,356,874 times in the
past few years, it's wasteful to argue NO WMD, I prefer to live in this
time zone.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?
I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.
The "trick" here is "unexpected resistance", but
that resistance was only "unexpected" if you only
absorbed highly controversial "evidence" that was
selectively choosen and presented as unequivocally
true. It wasn't, and resistance, even greater than
what we're actually seeing, was envisioned by experts
and professionals whose opinions were hidden from view.
Regardless, the "resistance", by any quantifiable measure, is losing.
Look at the numbers. So, why would you bother wasting time arguing that
which is obviously on the wane? Not Progressive at all.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
That "nothing runs on schedule", is a sword that
cuts both ways. Certainly that is something that
should have been taken into account by those planning a
war, that would be needless and illegal, if any of
the scathing critiques of it were true.
We will not be able to gauge the strategies, tactics, etc for another
decade. It's not at all different from Russia or South Africa.

Ot the formation of this country. Wanna bail?
Obwon
2005-12-26 16:42:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:21 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:35:28 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
Re-read what was said, the qualifier is "your heroes
promised?" While you may be merely offering your
opinion, therefore not lying, those "heroes", by
selectively using information to create the impressions
they wanted, were actually lying! To state
emphatically that there is no controversy about which
is, in fact, controversial, is lying.
I hope you're not majoring in Law.
Why? You think that stating that something is
non-controverable fact, when it is controversial,
isn't lying? How so pray tell?
Post by SteveR
Firstly, Bush is not my Hero.
I don't guess that was really what was being said.
I think it was more like "extrapolative sarcasm".
Post by SteveR
Secondly, your argument is not a new one, and your literary flourish has
not enhanced the argument. I'm in no way dismissing your arguments, but
I've had this same conversation approximately 27,356,874 times in the
past few years, it's wasteful to argue NO WMD, I prefer to live in this
time zone.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?
I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.
The "trick" here is "unexpected resistance", but
that resistance was only "unexpected" if you only
absorbed highly controversial "evidence" that was
selectively choosen and presented as unequivocally
true. It wasn't, and resistance, even greater than
what we're actually seeing, was envisioned by experts
and professionals whose opinions were hidden from view.
Regardless, the "resistance", by any quantifiable measure, is losing.
Look at the numbers. So, why would you bother wasting time arguing that
which is obviously on the wane? Not Progressive at all.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
That "nothing runs on schedule", is a sword that
cuts both ways. Certainly that is something that
should have been taken into account by those planning a
war, that would be needless and illegal, if any of
Post by Obwon
the scathing critiques of it were true.
We will not be able to gauge the strategies, tactics, etc for another
decade. It's not at all different from Russia or South Africa.
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-26 18:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:21 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
I've had this same conversation approximately 27,356,874 times in the
past few years, it's wasteful to argue NO WMD, I prefer to live in this
time zone.
Well, yeah - it's a waste to argue no WMD.
Because freaks like you don't want to hear it.

Bush's second-rate propoganda worked *well* on you.
You totally bought into his spiel that the purpose of the War against the
People of Iraq was to get them to vote in American elections.
--
That's why all those soldiers are just gonna have to die tonight.
Obwon
2005-12-26 17:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:21 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:35:28 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
Re-read what was said, the qualifier is "your heroes
promised?" While you may be merely offering your
opinion, therefore not lying, those "heroes", by
selectively using information to create the impressions
they wanted, were actually lying! To state
emphatically that there is no controversy about which
is, in fact, controversial, is lying.
I hope you're not majoring in Law.
Firstly, Bush is not my Hero.
Secondly, your argument is not a new one, and your literary flourish has
not enhanced the argument. I'm in no way dismissing your arguments, but
I've had this same conversation approximately 27,356,874 times in the
past few years, it's wasteful to argue NO WMD, I prefer to live in this
time zone.
No, it isn't new, nor was it meant to be new.
What you're so casually dismissive of as "literary
flourishes", is actually an abbriveated way I have of
refering to the new context this information now
resides in. With it being controversial how the WTC
collapsed, weather or not the so-called skyjackers
were actually on those planes, weather or not they
were even "Islamic Fundamentalist", are just some of
the newer considerations under discussion.

Add to that the fact that the Pentagon War Room had
the same information that the Boston Tower had, and
then we need a good explaination of why these planes
weren't intercepted. Just like the 67 wayward planes
that were intercepted earlier that year. NOW, add
that to your memory of the fact that, this was the
major component upon which the "Case For War" was laid,
and the picture gets quite a bit more complex than what
we'd been previously using the lack of wmd's, to
prove.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?
I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.
The "trick" here is "unexpected resistance", but
that resistance was only "unexpected" if you only
absorbed highly controversial "evidence" that was
selectively choosen and presented as unequivocally
true. It wasn't, and resistance, even greater than
what we're actually seeing, was envisioned by experts
and professionals whose opinions were hidden from view.
Regardless, the "resistance", by any quantifiable measure, is losing.
Look at the numbers. So, why would you bother wasting time arguing that
which is obviously on the wane? Not Progressive at all.
Hmmm... So you think that "resistance" means that
the parties must be engaged in open combat or a least
attacking each other??? That's a rather
shallow/simplistic definition of resistance. Of
course, by measuring "resistance", by the number of
attacks, certainly gives the adm cover it needs to
"prove" that it's plans are on track. Of course, any
sane, responsible person knows better than that. But
Bush is neither sane nor responsible!

I wish we could have a better Iraq, a new bulkhead
for peace and freedom in the middle east.
Unfortunately, people seething with submerged fury,
biding their time and waiting their chance to take the
country in another direction, doesn't do it for me.
Nor will the good, if any, that comes of the
invasion, excuse our fearless leader of his crimes,
if it be determined he committed any. They are two
different matters.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
That "nothing runs on schedule", is a sword that
cuts both ways. Certainly that is something that
should have been taken into account by those planning a
war, that would be needless and illegal, if any of
the scathing critiques of it were true.
We will not be able to gauge the strategies, tactics, etc for another
decade. It's not at all different from Russia or South Africa.
Ot the formation of this country. Wanna bail?
Why? Not as long as we can see that there's
something fishy afoot in this country. I don't think
we can be happy with "negotiation compromises with our
values", because, if you're willing to accept that
for any reason, you go down the slippery slope of
"What other reasons are sufficient to compromise your
values?" The answer will be "anything that achieves a
desired end", meaning that in effect you haven't any
values at all. And that's a precursor to the end of
any civilization.

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-26 18:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:25:21 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:35:28 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
Yep, when you bankrupt the country in the process.
Post by SteveR
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
What happened to the quick victory your heroes promised?
Did they lie, or were they just as wrong as you are?
How can one be accused of lying by offering an opinion of how long any
endevour will take?
Re-read what was said, the qualifier is "your heroes
promised?" While you may be merely offering your
opinion, therefore not lying, those "heroes", by
selectively using information to create the impressions
they wanted, were actually lying! To state
emphatically that there is no controversy about which
is, in fact, controversial, is lying.
I hope you're not majoring in Law.
Firstly, Bush is not my Hero.
Secondly, your argument is not a new one, and your literary flourish has
not enhanced the argument. I'm in no way dismissing your arguments, but
I've had this same conversation approximately 27,356,874 times in the
past few years, it's wasteful to argue NO WMD, I prefer to live in this
time zone.
No, it isn't new, nor was it meant to be new.
What you're so casually dismissive of as "literary
flourishes", is actually an abbriveated way I have of
refering to the new context this information now
resides in. With it being controversial how the WTC
collapsed, weather or not the so-called skyjackers
were actually on those planes, weather or not they
were even "Islamic Fundamentalist", are just some of
the newer considerations under discussion.
I've read a good deal of the brilliantly-conceived "exposure" of 9/11.
I'm not sure whether to assume it was Mossad flying the planes or the
Bush twins, but by all accounts, it appears to have been just what it
was represented as - Islamist terrorism. And, to state there are no vids
of Atta or anyone else implicated actually boarding is simply untrue.
Post by Obwon
Add to that the fact that the Pentagon War Room had
the same information that the Boston Tower had, and
then we need a good explaination of why these planes
weren't intercepted. Just like the 67 wayward planes
that were intercepted earlier that year. NOW, add
that to your memory of the fact that, this was the
major component upon which the "Case For War" was laid,
and the picture gets quite a bit more complex than what
we'd been previously using the lack of wmd's, to
prove.
Ok, assuming it was to our advantage to be attacked - who said "let it
happen"?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
If you set out for Grandma's, promising to be there at three, and a
traffic jam delays your arrival, does Granny accuse you of lying?
I think your greater point is that since there was unexpected
resistance, the entire effort has to be scrapped, even though the
original intentions are being met.
The "trick" here is "unexpected resistance", but
that resistance was only "unexpected" if you only
absorbed highly controversial "evidence" that was
selectively choosen and presented as unequivocally
true. It wasn't, and resistance, even greater than
what we're actually seeing, was envisioned by experts
and professionals whose opinions were hidden from view.
Regardless, the "resistance", by any quantifiable measure, is losing.
Look at the numbers. So, why would you bother wasting time arguing that
which is obviously on the wane? Not Progressive at all.
Hmmm... So you think that "resistance" means that
the parties must be engaged in open combat or a least
attacking each other??? That's a rather
shallow/simplistic definition of resistance.
It's a quantifiable measure, not an absolute definition.

"Resistance" can also be referred to as "voting". Since here are more
Iraqi "voters" than there are "insurgents", I'd take that as an
indicator that "resistance" I this case means "rejecting totalitarian
police-state rule".
Post by Obwon
Of
course, by measuring "resistance", by the number of
attacks, certainly gives the adm cover it needs to
"prove" that it's plans are on track. Of course, any
sane, responsible person knows better than that.
Oh, yes, that's an absolute given. I feel I must agree with you lest I
be labeled irresponsible.
Post by Obwon
But
Bush is neither sane nor responsible!
So, by your math, elections, constitutions, etc are simply the most
insane and terrible outcome of a war effort to institute democratic
process.

IOW, don't believe my lying eyes, look at the man behind the curtain!
Would that be you?
Post by Obwon
I wish we could have a better Iraq, a new bulkhead
for peace and freedom in the middle east.
Unfortunately, people seething with submerged fury,
biding their time and waiting their chance to take the
country in another direction, doesn't do it for me.
Nor will the good, if any, that comes of the
invasion, excuse our fearless leader of his crimes,
if it be determined he committed any. They are two
different matters.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Look at any historical effort, including the formation of our own
country, and you'll see that practically nothing runs on schedule. Hell,
look at South Africa - by your standards, you could have spent a decade
condemning the end of Apartheid as a huge strategic blunder.
That "nothing runs on schedule", is a sword that
cuts both ways. Certainly that is something that
should have been taken into account by those planning a
war, that would be needless and illegal, if any of
the scathing critiques of it were true.
We will not be able to gauge the strategies, tactics, etc for another
decade. It's not at all different from Russia or South Africa.
Ot the formation of this country. Wanna bail?
Why? Not as long as we can see that there's
something fishy afoot in this country. I don't think
we can be happy with "negotiation compromises with our
values", because, if you're willing to accept that
for any reason, you go down the slippery slope of
"What other reasons are sufficient to compromise your
values?" The answer will be "anything that achieves a
desired end", meaning that in effect you haven't any
values at all. And that's a precursor to the end of
any civilization.
Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
--
"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
- Bill Clinton, 1995
Obwon
2005-12-22 14:47:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:01:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
BTW, we were involved in three "far flung" wars in the past century, did
we topple like Rome as a result?
Well, you know how to concatenate words in a form
that appears much like writing... Unfortunately, you
now have to work on making sense. Clue: Read
something before you try to write answers to the
various materials being presented, so that you can
maintain some relevance to what's being discussed.

Carry on.
Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-22 17:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:01:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
BTW, we were involved in three "far flung" wars in the past century, did
we topple like Rome as a result?
Well, you know how to concatenate words in a form
that appears much like writing... Unfortunately, you
now have to work on making sense. Clue: Read
something before you try to write answers to the
various materials being presented, so that you can
maintain some relevance to what's being discussed.
You likened us to Rome, and I provided some historical perspective to
show that were your comparison valid, the results would have already
happened.

"Far flung" is a useless term - our military has been positioned all
around the globe for at least a century now, we don't seem to be on the
verge of collapse as a result.

The entity most visibly on the verge of collapse, as measured by popular
support, is radical Islam, not western governments.
Obwon
2005-12-23 17:01:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:28:24 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:01:16 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by c***@my-deja.com
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
And Rome failed to defend itself because it
overextended it's army in far-flung military
adventurism. Sound like any modern countries we
can think of.......?
So, basically, if we go after a declared enemy on their own turf in
order to get the "root causes", we lose.
If we don;t, we lose.
IOW, start studying that Koran now, dhimmis.
BTW, we were involved in three "far flung" wars in the past century, did
we topple like Rome as a result?
Well, you know how to concatenate words in a form
that appears much like writing... Unfortunately, you
now have to work on making sense. Clue: Read
something before you try to write answers to the
various materials being presented, so that you can
maintain some relevance to what's being discussed.
You likened us to Rome, and I provided some historical perspective to
show that were your comparison valid, the results would have already
happened.
"Far flung" is a useless term - our military has been positioned all
around the globe for at least a century now, we don't seem to be on the
verge of collapse as a result.
The entity most visibly on the verge of collapse, as measured by popular
support, is radical Islam, not western governments.
Disregard my little diatribe above, you're post,
previous to this clears that up.

But on this matter of "we'd already" have obtained the
fate of Rome, well... These things take time, there
are many similarities to Rome, but there are many
addtions that interfere with the speedy completion of
the process now. Hopefully they will also defeat the
processes, but that still remains to be seen. These
things take time.

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Obwon
2005-12-21 15:30:10 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Dec 2005 12:43:58 -0800,
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?
If we are going to become just like Europe, the Moslems are still going
to have to invade us to destroy us.
And why would they have to bother? If we become just
another third world wasteland/dictatorship, they can
simply turn their attention to the rest of the world,
eh?
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Obwon
If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?
I think we are a lot like Rome and Moslems are the modern day
barbarians. We will collapse when we fail to defend ourselves.
No, this is a modern world, the mechanics of which
are far different. Those who might like to possess
America, couldn't run it anywhere except into the
ground. Making it worthless to own, we've got to many
high tech weapons, that make us much to dangerous to
mess with, even after our economy fails. They reap
nothing from our failure but a chance to consolidate
their own power in their own world.

That's not a good thing for them, they haven't the
wherewithal to manage themselves, and they certainly
wouldn't want to cultivate freedom. But none of the
caveats will stop them. Because, just like Team
Bush, which wants to seize power of the strongest
nation on earth, he has no idea how to manage it,
thus he can't keep it strong. It's "To the victor
belong the spoils". Just plain dumb!
Post by c***@my-deja.com
We can still remain unified against if we have a common enemy.
Unfortunately, the Right is fighting against the greatest threat,
radical Islam and the Left is fighting against "Christmas" trees.
Why should we need an enemy to keep us unified? Huh?
That's just plain dumb!
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Obwon
You expect stupid people to do stupid things! And
one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
WWII is a great example.
Yeah, except that, in that case it was justified,
eh?
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Obwon
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide, regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.
Obwon
Obwon
Post by c***@my-deja.com
Post by Obwon
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
And you helped them, traitor.
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-21 01:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?
If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?
The sacrifice and "loss of freedoms" in this present war are nothing
compared to earlier wars, and our transgressions of then didn't seem to
have the effect that you suggests Islamists are achieving. You give them
too much credit.
Post by Obwon
You expect stupid people to do stupid things!
Like attack an Abrams tank with a Toyota pickup?
Post by Obwon
And one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
That's why the US is defending with aggression, to instill fear in a
certain group that needs a healthy reminder that they suck at military
strategy.

They do have a strong base though - nihilistic religious fanatics and
the western left. Were it not so dangerous a marriage, it would be
amusing.
Post by Obwon
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide,
It helps to have a weapon as well, to ward off those who who have a
courage to act towards your demise, and an imperialist mandate to boot.
Post by Obwon
regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.
That won't fly at an ANSWER anti-war march. Eight words or less per
placard, otherwise, people get confused.
Obwon
2005-12-21 15:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:49:32 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?
If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?
The sacrifice and "loss of freedoms" in this present war are nothing
compared to earlier wars, and our transgressions of then didn't seem to
have the effect that you suggests Islamists are achieving. You give them
too much credit.
The war has little to do with our loss of freedoms,
they are using the war as an excuse to take our
freedoms away. Not that we need to do that, to fight
terrorists. We've fought and won against much more
real and fearsome enemies without doing so.

But, if you think that I'm blaming them for our
losses of freedoms, then it is you who are giving them
too much credit. Our freedoms are being taken away by
our elected officials, not the terrorists.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
You expect stupid people to do stupid things!
Like attack an Abrams tank with a Toyota pickup?
No, more like telling us that Intelligent Design is
science!
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
And one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
That's why the US is defending with aggression, to instill fear in a
certain group that needs a healthy reminder that they suck at military
strategy.
No, because they didn't have a military strategy at
all! We are wasting our time and money and lives,
fighting with a people who did nothing and weren't even
prepared to fight, let alone attack, as we were told
they were. Are you suggesting that American's aren't
very good at thinking? Seems like you are.
Post by SteveR
They do have a strong base though - nihilistic religious fanatics and
the western left. Were it not so dangerous a marriage, it would be
amusing.
It certainly would be, if we hadn't wasted so much
in attacking them, helpless as they were. We could
have beaten them, as we've now learned, simply with
the aid of the worldwide goodwill we once had.
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide,
It helps to have a weapon as well, to ward off those who who have a
courage to act towards your demise, and an imperialist mandate to boot.
And who might those people be?
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.
That won't fly at an ANSWER anti-war march. Eight words or less per
placard, otherwise, people get confused.
Good thing this isn't an anti-war placard, eh?

Obwon
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
2005-12-21 20:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obwon
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:49:32 -0600, SteveR
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
On 19 Dec 2005 07:52:17 -0800, "Al Smith"
Post by Al Smith
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored, that tool for the US to protect the American people
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists learn that the President of the United
States is ignoring the United States Constitution - the terrorists have
already won.
What is the ultimate goal of the terrorists?
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is to destroy the
U.S., right? What better way could they achieve such a
purpose, than by having the U.S. abandon it's rule by
law, and thus fragment it self into mistrustful
factions, unable to work together in persuit of common
goals?
If we become so fearful of truth, so unconcerned
about justice, and fail to observe individual rights,
what better way is there to cause America to dissolve
into exactly the kind of dictatorship, that history
shows will meet the quickest demise?
The sacrifice and "loss of freedoms" in this present war are nothing
compared to earlier wars, and our transgressions of then didn't seem to
have the effect that you suggests Islamists are achieving. You give them
too much credit.
The war has little to do with our loss of freedoms,
they are using the war as an excuse to take our
freedoms away. Not that we need to do that, to fight
terrorists. We've fought and won against much more
real and fearsome enemies without doing so.
You evidently believe the restrictions and government powers present
today related to war are much greater than previous wars.

Even a 6th grader knows this isn't so. Look it up.
Post by Obwon
But, if you think that I'm blaming them for our
losses of freedoms, then it is you who are giving them
too much credit. Our freedoms are being taken away by
our elected officials, not the terrorists.
Can you tell me one freedom you have had taken away?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
You expect stupid people to do stupid things!
Like attack an Abrams tank with a Toyota pickup?
No, more like telling us that Intelligent Design is
science!
Or by telling me Bush is Hitler?
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
And one very stupid thing that stupid people do, is react
to fear and aggression with aggression and fear.
That's why the US is defending with aggression, to instill fear in a
certain group that needs a healthy reminder that they suck at military
strategy.
No, because they didn't have a military strategy at
all!
Yes they did. It was just a bad one.
Post by Obwon
We are wasting our time and money and lives,
fighting with a people who did nothing and weren't even
prepared to fight, let alone attack, as we were told
they were.
Are you suggesting that American's aren't
very good at thinking? Seems like you are.
Some Americans aren't very good at thinking, apparently. Look at the
decline of the democrat party for evidence.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
They do have a strong base though - nihilistic religious fanatics and
the western left. Were it not so dangerous a marriage, it would be
amusing.
It certainly would be, if we hadn't wasted so much
in attacking them, helpless as they were.
Poor helpless Baathists.

Kinda typical lefty take, defend that which is weak, not that which is
right. Even if by defending the weak, they become strong, then attack
you.

This is what is known as suicidal.
Post by Obwon
We could
have beaten them, as we've now learned, simply with
the aid of the worldwide goodwill we once had.
Uh-huh. If France had gotten those sanctions lifted, Saddam would have
instituted democratic process in Iraq, and joined us in the GWOT.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
Maintaining a democratic society where the people
control gov't, only works if people have the courage
to use logic, reason and commonsense to debate and
decide,
It helps to have a weapon as well, to ward off those who who have a
courage to act towards your demise, and an imperialist mandate to boot.
And who might those people be?
Gee, let me think now.... Islamists?

They are proudly imperialistic, totalitarian and determined - and not
secretive at all about their aims.
Post by Obwon
Post by SteveR
Post by Obwon
regardless of the consequences of possible
error. But cutting off debate by use of slogans,
patriotic devices, and other mystical fare, only
ensures that the wrong decisions will be made, and for
the wrong reasons besides.
That won't fly at an ANSWER anti-war march. Eight words or less per
placard, otherwise, people get confused.
Good thing this isn't an anti-war placard, eh?
It appears to be a wandering condemnation of something, but much like
the average "anti-war" demonstration, it's very hard to determine just
exactly what's being protested.
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-19 03:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored,
that tool for the US to protect the American people ( even you Bush Haters
and Insurgent pimps) will vanish.
Your tool doesn't work.
Americans are still being killed by "the terrorists" every single day.
t***@gmail.com
2005-12-19 07:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
Post by Tim Crowley
Post by Thoughts
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
That so-called "liberal rag" held on to that information for over a year.
They could have (should have) released it prior to the last election.
How will this information "harm all Americans"? Explain
If you could understand, you wouldn't have to ask. Your problem, Charlie
Brown, is that "You don't know that you don't know"
translation: shit, I've been busted in a lie, I'll have to try the
Bonzo dance.
Post by Thoughts
Like the other Left Wing Nuts in here.
Can't answer the question, eh?
\
Hello? Hello? If the terrorists are tipped off about their calls overseas
being monitored,
that tool for the US to protect the American people ( even you Bush Haters
and Insurgent pimps) will vanish.
No, I don't expect you to understand. I expect you to attack like the dogs
you are.
That's why you have lost 3 elections in a row and well on the way to the
fourth. LOL!
I think Jim Lovejoy was right. But, thanks for posting. It's much
appreciated.
Sanders Kaufman
2005-12-19 01:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thoughts
In order to boost book sales, The New York Times, A LIBERAL RAG, released
SECRET information that could harm all Americans!
What a cowardly way to look at it.
You fascists are afraid of *everything*.
k***@hotmail.com
2005-12-19 02:23:33 UTC
Permalink
The NYTimes cleared the arcticle with the white house before publishing
it. They waited for a whole year and even followed white house lawyers
advice on ommiting certain parts. It's theatre. Bush's indignation
was practiced thoroughly before he showed it.

Calling the NYT a liberal rag indicates a lack of knowledge and
understanding. The NYT is a mouth piece for the U.S. State department -
they feed the American people lots of hogwash. Some people say it
should be renamed to: "According to government officials".

Now is the time for all good people to stand for the rule of law, for
justice, and against genocidal warmongering, fools.
http://www.ImpeachBush.org

kb
SteveR
2005-12-19 15:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@hotmail.com
The NYTimes cleared the arcticle with the white house before publishing
it. They waited for a whole year and even followed white house lawyers
advice on ommiting certain parts. It's theatre. Bush's indignation
was practiced thoroughly before he showed it.
Calling the NYT a liberal rag indicates a lack of knowledge and
understanding. The NYT is a mouth piece for the U.S. State department -
they feed the American people lots of hogwash. Some people say it
should be renamed to: "According to government officials".
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Now is the time for all good people to stand for the rule of law, for
justice, and against genocidal warmongering, fools.
http://www.hangsaddam.org
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...