Jim Yanik wrote:
Norminn wrote in
ink.net:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war?

No.

Russia did.France did.

So.... when Rumsfeld visited Iraq in the 80s and was photoed and
videoed shaking hands with Tariq Azia and they were issuing statements
about how pleased they were with their mutual cooperation..... he was
French at the time?

Norminn wrote:


Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.

Well, that's the deal. Bush's "base" go to church every week and hear
about how the Devil is a deceiver who speaks to you with honeyed words,
then they turn on the tube and listen to Bush telling them they are
good and ______ (fill in the blanks) is Evil therefore it is their job
to destroy Evil and they will win because God is with them, and they
swallow it hook line and sinker. So much for their commitment to their
religious faith, I guess.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.

Bob F wrote:

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?

MRS. CLEAN wrote:

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack 8 countries.

We haven't got enough military to attack 8 provinces of Iraq, mind you,
and we didn't have contingency plans of what to do if we get Saddam out
of office, but still....

In article .net,
Norminn wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article .net,
Norminn wrote:



Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.


But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Let's expel from public office all the serial womanizers and everyone
who ever smoked pot.

Works for me. That would probably mean we would have to start over
from scratch. Good idea.

All of the presidents who are known reliably to
have cheated on their wives are still, by order of magnitude, so much
better in every respect than little george. I'm still trying to find
out what gwb ever accomplished without his daddy's help/money. He
doesn't do diplomacy because he can't possibly relate to heads of state
on that level.

I'm still trying to find out what Clinton did at level without someone
else's money. He had spent virtually no time in the real world of having
to actual do something or make a payroll or sell a product. It had all
been government service.

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.

Does the word Mogodishu ring a bell? How about the Cole or the
African Embassies or the need to pulverize the Aspirin Factories in
Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:18:30 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.

Does the word Mogodishu ring a bell? How about the Cole or the
African Embassies or the need to pulverize the Aspirin Factories in
Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

"deal with NK" actually WAS working its way to a face-to-face meeting,
which is basically what the NK nutcase wanted -- recognition! But
the minute Bush got in, his main imperative was to nullify ANYTHING
his predecessor had accomplished, no matter whether it was good for
the country. So he cut off the link that had been established, and
allowed that idiot David Frum to put out the "axis of evil" line, and
its been downhill ever since.

Doesn't ANYBODY realize that these morons are operating on
the level of schoolboys on a playground trying to one-up each other?

With the blood of our sons and fathers and brothers and husbands...

Aspasia

In article , aspasia
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:18:30 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.

Does the word Mogodishu ring a bell? How about the Cole or the
African Embassies or the need to pulverize the Aspirin Factories in
Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

"deal with NK" actually WAS working its way to a face-to-face meeting,
which is basically what the NK nutcase wanted -- recognition! But
the minute Bush got in, his main imperative was to nullify ANYTHING
his predecessor had accomplished, no matter whether it was good for
the country. So he cut off the link that had been established, and
allowed that idiot David Frum to put out the "axis of evil" line, and
its been downhill ever since.
Nonsense. The program never had a hiccup even when he was playing
Clinton for reactors and oil (sorta interesting irony as things worked
out, although I admit that they were light water reactors). By the time
Clinton left office around 6 years later, he had not been able to
deliver on the reactors because of incompetence and graft.

Doesn't ANYBODY realize that these morons are operating on
the level of schoolboys on a playground trying to one-up each other?

aspasia wrote:

Hemp cannot be used to get high, like its cousin, marijuana.

Damn, I knew there had to be a catch.

Yeah; the one posts on the Internet suggesting that millions of people
be nuked because some of them **** him off and he is too lazy to draw
any finer distinctions; then when they complain he feels justified
because they obviously hate "us" for no reason. And the other posts
here about what an asshole the first one is and he and bin Laden should
go to Hell together and slug it out between themselves. Or I guess I'm
supposed to be happy that the first guy isn't ****ed enough at ME yet
to want to nuke ME. Yet.

I am looking forawrd to the movie about bush being assinated.........

wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.

thats mature
Racquetmaster88 u532321

Games that I like to play


a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/Multiplayer Online Games/a a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/Strategy Games/abra
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/Unification Wars/a - a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/Massive Multiplayer Online
Games/abra href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/Galactic Conquest/a -
a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/Strategy Games/abra
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htmRunescape/abra
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htmKings of chaos/abr

z wrote:
Wonder how it
would have gone if Saddam really did have WMD, eh?

Why don't you tell us, little stevie/ztard?

While you're at it, tell us how wonderful the world would be if only
John Fraud Kerry would have been elected.

z wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . net,
Norminn wrote:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war? Our record of installing
governments and/or removing dictators isn't great since WWII. And if
Iraq sent their military over here to install the RIGHT government, we'd
be out in the street throwing roses at them ..
Heck it sucked pretty much since at least WWI, thus the stuff that
lead to WWII. Actually we pretty much armed Iraq to the point where we
could ensure stalemate. We weren't all that thrilled about the
possibility of Iraq taking over, either.


News channels have a bunch of retired generals offering expertise in
what is wrong and how we are doing in Iraq. I'd rather hear from
historians and anthropologists about how the west has mucked things up
for the past few hundred years. We COULD let them get a democracy the
same way we did .. at least someday the Iraqi dollar bill will have a
likeness of George Bush with his "deer-in-the-headlights" expression.
Instead of "In God We Trust", it will say "We're Gonna Get 'Em". Yep.

Thousands of years. Of course the Arabs screwed things up for
themselves long before anyone from West got there. That whole area has
been a basket case from the dawn of recorded history.

So has Europe. You're not forgetting WWI and WWII? People suck at
government above anything other than a tribal level.

Yet, you look to government to solve all the worlds problems, little
stevie/zturd.
That IS your socialist demonkrap M/O.

The only reason
North America has been immune until recently is remoteness,
underpopulation, and not having a long history.

You poor ignorant anti-American sack of socialist ****.
America is great because of capitalism and freedom (limited government).

"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob F wrote:

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.

Bob

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:14:30 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob F wrote:

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.

Bob

Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?

On balance and on principle -- and in tribute to our children murdered
and mutilated in Iraq/Afghanistan -- Yes, if it can get done before
the '08 presidential elections.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:53:01 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , aspasia
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:18:30 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Yeah, who can forget the disastrous foreign policy and series of wars
of the Clinton administration, eh? Let's not forget: blowjobs lead to
wars.

Does the word Mogodishu ring a bell? How about the Cole or the
African Embassies or the need to pulverize the Aspirin Factories in
Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

"deal with NK" actually WAS working its way to a face-to-face meeting,
which is basically what the NK nutcase wanted -- recognition! But
the minute Bush got in, his main imperative was to nullify ANYTHING
his predecessor had accomplished, no matter whether it was good for
the country. So he cut off the link that had been established, and
allowed that idiot David Frum to put out the "axis of evil" line, and
its been downhill ever since.

Nonsense. The program never had a hiccup even when he was playing
Clinton for reactors and oil (sorta interesting irony as things worked
out, although I admit that they were light water reactors). By the time
Clinton left office around 6 years later, he had not been able to
deliver on the reactors because of incompetence and graft.

Nothing to do, of course, with his persecution by what Hillary
felicitously called the "vast right wing conspiracy". The
Republicrats (dern, I'm slipping into the kind of vituperative
language wielded by Certain Posters on this thread), knew they could
never get Bill impeached, but they could tie him up so badly defending
himself that he could not give adequate attention to his agenda.
Worked like gang busters!

Doesn't ANYBODY realize that these morons are operating on
the level of schoolboys on a playground trying to one-up each other?

Thousands of years. Of course the Arabs screwed things up for
themselves long before anyone from West got there. That whole area has
been a basket case from the dawn of recorded history.

Hmmm, uh, Kurt, that whole area WAS the dawn of recorded history.
And a thousand years ago was pretty advanced compared to the rest of
the world.

wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

My mouse only has 3 buttons on it- which one does that?

Do we ever reflect on why we Americans are prone to this kind of
intemperate thinking? We are an impatient lot, but how many repair
jobs are helped by an outbreak of violent temper? I expect most of us
have tried it at least once, rarely with helpful results- just that one
or two times that make us, like gamblers, occasionally consider it.


Regarding Carter and the hostages, I've always considered his approach
basically a success, by this simple measu THEY ALL CAME HOME ALIVE
a minor point for some people, I realize. And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately had
release delayed through secret dealings.

I'm still trying to find out what Clinton did at level without someone
else's money. He had spent virtually no time in the real world of having
to actual do something or make a payroll or sell a product. It had all
been government service.


True, but the Presidency is .....government service

wrote:
Yeah; the one posts on the Internet suggesting that millions of people
be nuked because some of them **** him off and he is too lazy to draw
any finer distinctions; then when they complain he feels justified
because they obviously hate "us" for no reason. And the other posts
here about what an asshole the first one is and he and bin Laden should
go to Hell together and slug it out between themselves. Or I guess I'm
supposed to be happy that the first guy isn't ****ed enough at ME yet
to want to nuke ME. Yet.

I am looking forawrd to the movie about bush being assinated.........


Assinated? Is a proctologist by any chance a consultant on this
movie?
Actually, after 9/11 I had fantasies of bin Laden being dropped into a
very large, deep latrine, or the NYC sewer system,.but I think we're
both just ****ing in our beer.
There are some things I'd be careful about saying here, even in jest,
unless you are looking forward to a visit from the Secret Service. You
can't get them from your door by buying a couple copies of Watchtower,
you know.

Bawana wrote:


Yet, you look to government to solve all the worlds problems, little
stevie/zturd.
That IS your socialist demonkrap M/O.



You poor ignorant anti-American sack of socialist ****.
America is great because of capitalism and freedom (limited government).

Are no-bid contracts capitalism?

Is over the top deficit spending, repeal of habeas corpus, cohabitation
of church and state limited government?

In a few weeks, quite a few anti-Americans may be going to the polls...

Bob F wrote:
"z" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob F wrote:

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.

Bob

This was why that paranoid Nixon selected Agnew.

On 19 Oct 2006 21:02:54 -0700, "Sev" wrote:


wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

My mouse only has 3 buttons on it- which one does that?

Do we ever reflect on why we Americans are prone to this kind of
intemperate thinking? We are an impatient lot, but how many repair
jobs are helped by an outbreak of violent temper? I expect most of us
have tried it at least once, rarely with helpful results- just that one
or two times that make us, like gamblers, occasionally consider it.


Regarding Carter and the hostages, I've always considered his approach
basically a success, by this simple measu THEY ALL CAME HOME ALIVE
a minor point for some people, I realize. And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately had
release delayed through secret dealings.

You got that right! It's well documented. Coordinated with the
Iranians via Paris.

Wonder how different the lives of the middle and lower classes would
have been had Carter been re-elected. For one thing, the deliberate
destruction of the American labor movement might not have begun (you
DO remember Reagan firing the air controllers?) and your stereotype
honest working union member might have continued to earn a respectable
living to support a family and a middle-class way of life...

And please don't bother coming on with union corruption, the
Teamsters-Mafia-Nixon axis, etc. Union bosses can be as corrupt
(well, almost) as Members of Congress.

Before reciting THAT lesson, go back and study the history of the
labor movement in the U.S. It makes horrific reading.

But ah, those 21% interest rates under Carter, if you had a few
bux to invest...

clipped

Before reciting THAT lesson, go back and study the history of the
labor movement in the U.S. It makes horrific reading.

I found some really interesting associations doing genealogy research
that relate to early labor bosses. And another where someone in the
family was killed during the Haymarket riots in Chicago. Too bad that
Chicago is going soft and letting Walmart build a store there. Thought
they still had some brass. 'Bet the day after 9/11 Mayor Daley got some
cops up atop the John Hancock with rocket launchers .. probably pays
real well, too. ) "Not in my town" )

Chicago didn't wait for FEMA to rebuild after the fire or the flood.
Chicago was a swamp, like most of the oldest cities, and had to put in
8' of dirt to raise it up.

But ah, those 21% interest rates under Carter, if you had a few
bux to invest...



Oh, gosh. My parents were putting every nickel in the bank so they
could (finally) build their retirement home. I couldn't afford to buy a
gallon of milk.

"MRS. CLEAN" wrote in message
ps.com...

jeffc wrote:
wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed.

Unlike, for example, you.

I guess you lack discernment.

You can't tell the difference between someone who wants you DEAD and a
regular Joe?

I guess you lack inference. I was referring to "useless people" who "need
to be destroyed".

wrote in message
ups.com...

Yeah; the one posts on the Internet suggesting that millions of people
be nuked because some of them **** him off and he is too lazy to draw
any finer distinctions; then when they complain he feels justified
because they obviously hate "us" for no reason. And the other posts
here about what an asshole the first one is and he and bin Laden should
go to Hell together and slug it out between themselves. Or I guess I'm
supposed to be happy that the first guy isn't ****ed enough at ME yet
to want to nuke ME. Yet.

I am looking forawrd to the movie about bush being assinated.........

He was apparently "assinated" long ago. I'd look forward to the movie too
though.

"Sev" wrote in message
ups.com...
And there was some
evidence, which I found credible, that Reagan's people deliberately had
release delayed through secret dealings.

Gee, YA THINK??? lol

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I'm still trying to find out what Clinton did at level without someone
else's money. He had spent virtually no time in the real world of having
to actual do something or make a payroll or sell a product. It had all
been government service.

Well, apparently he learned to balance a budget. Something I guess they
don't teach children of Bushes at Harvard Business School.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

The deal that kept NK from even unsealing the reactor cores, never mind
extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel and making functional
nuclear bombs, until the Bushies decided no deals with Evil? You prefer
to let NK have nuclear weapons, because it's beneath you to deal with
Evil? That's the same attitude that the Arab states have towards
Israel, and it's just as dumbass there.

aspasia wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:14:30 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:


"z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob F wrote:

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.

Bob

Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?

On balance and on principle -- and in tribute to our children murdered
and mutilated in Iraq/Afghanistan -- Yes, if it can get done before
the '08 presidential elections.

Maybe we can impeach Bush, postdated till after 08.

In article .com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I'm still trying to find out what Clinton did at level without someone
else's money. He had spent virtually no time in the real world of having
to actual do something or make a payroll or sell a product. It had all
been government service.

Well, apparently he learned to balance a budget. Something I guess they
don't teach children of Bushes at Harvard Business School.

Of course he didn't come close .The budget is Congress's area, if you
read the constitution. Besides I would argue that NOBODY balanced the
budget since almost all of the "surplus" was extra Soc. Sec. money that
was then immediately and by law put into non-marketable government
bonds. Only in Washington can you take a long-term liability (the bonds)
and make it into a short term asset.
In fairness to Clinton, he was beneficiary of this scheme and not
the perpetrator.
Also, during the years of "surplus", spending actually went up at a
higher rate than before. much to the chagrin of many of the budget hawks
(myself included). What really happened was that there was a brief,
shining moment when the American economy was so breathtakingly
overheated that money came in faster than the concerted, best efforts of
BOTH parties could shove it back out the door.

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Africa or the great deal with NK that worked so well.

The deal that kept NK from even unsealing the reactor cores, never mind
extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel and making functional
nuclear bombs, until the Bushies decided no deals with Evil? You prefer
to let NK have nuclear weapons, because it's beneath you to deal with
Evil? That's the same attitude that the Arab states have towards
Israel, and it's just as dumbass there.
There is ample evidence that they kept going without looking back.
Also much of the original deal was in tatters because Clinton (and
others) couldn't stop fighting amongst themselves over the spoils of the
reactors to actually get them built. They were years behind on their
promises long before Clinton left.

aspasia wrote:


Wonder how different the lives of the middle and lower classes would
have been had Carter been re-elected. For one thing, the deliberate
destruction of the American labor movement might not have begun (you
DO remember Reagan firing the air controllers?) and your stereotype
honest working union member might have continued to earn a respectable
living to support a family and a middle-class way of life...

True, but I wondered at the time if Carter was so wounded by the
hostage crisis that he would be as/ more dangerous than Reagan.
The Patco leader was not too bright. He crossed AFL-CIO by
endorsing Reagan, then led illegal strike against him- when Reagan was
just looking for a chance to establish his toughness. Still, AFL-CIO
were jerks, too- they let PATCO hang as payback, forgetting the maxim
that 'in union is our strength.' If they'd stood by PATCO after giving
them a good scolding, things might have turned out differently.
Remember the Hormel strike? I thought union made big mistake by
bringing in Corporate Campaign people and holding out for a fantasy,
instead of reasonable settlement. Look where the situation is now- no
union, underpaid undocumented workers, sped up, dangerous lines.

i don't want to take sides in this. it is an important discussion,
although it does not belong here.

i believe people are basically on average good. anytime you see one
group of people hate or cause harm to another you need to start looking
beneath the surface. that means reading from ALL points of view. know
the history, understand who your sources are and what they stand to
gain by influencing your opinion.

as far as i can tell most populations can't be told the real reasons
for war. the real reasons are usually not in the populations interest.

if you get all you information from mass media generated inside one of
the waring nations you will only get one narrow, biased, and
incomplete, side of the story: what the interests behind the war need
you to believe.

the truth isn't always easy to come by or pleasant to uncover.

i understand the anger in this country. i just don't understand where
its directed.

Why don't you just say that muslims are rats that need extermination?

It is much clearer.


jeffc wrote:
"MRS. CLEAN" wrote in message
ps.com...

jeffc wrote:
wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed.

Unlike, for example, you.

I guess you lack discernment.

You can't tell the difference between someone who wants you DEAD and a
regular Joe?

I guess you lack inference. I was referring to "useless people" who "need
to be destroyed".

Sev wrote:
Bawana wrote:


Yet, you look to government to solve all the worlds problems, little
stevie/zturd.
That IS your socialist demonkrap M/O.



You poor ignorant anti-American sack of socialist ****.
America is great because of capitalism and freedom (limited government).

Are no-bid contracts capitalism?

You poor petty ignorant anti-American sack of socialist ****.

Is over the top deficit spending, repeal of habeas corpus, cohabitation
of church and state limited government?

In a few weeks, quite a few anti-Americans may be going to the polls...

"May be going to the polls"?

"Quite a few" ain't going to cut it, you poor petty ignorant
anti-American sack of socialist ****.

aspasia wrote in message
...

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.


Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?


That would be President Pelosi. The probable speaker
of the house after the next election.

Bob

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

aspasia wrote in message
...

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.


Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?


That would be President Pelosi. The probable speaker
of the house after the next election.

Bob

Err. Cheney is next in line..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

aspasia wrote in message
...

But he can be impeached.

And make Cheney president?
Why?


Cheney first or simultaneously.


Now let's think this through, campers.

Picture the scenario if Bush is successfully removed from office
(I'd - almost - die happy!)

Cheney's heart (? he has one?) finally gives out.

Hastert, next in line of succession, has been removed as Speaker via
Foley-gate and replaced by Boehner, who is, even as we speak, gunning
for his job.

So now we have Pres. Boehner, than whom no one in this whorehouse
called the U.S. Congress is deeper in the pockets of K Street.
Here is just a sliver of his record:

http://tinyurl.com/7uef5

Plenty more by Googling boehner + corruption, e.g.:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/09/...western-union/

This is the guy, campers, who was openly handing out checks from the
tobacco lobby ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!!!!

So do we still want to impeach Bush?


That would be President Pelosi. The probable speaker
of the house after the next election.

Bob

Err. Cheney is next in line..

" Cheney first or simultaneously"