"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker. 2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could
pacify his critics.




I just love Monday-morning quarterbacks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

So, you wonder why so many wanted to spit in Bush's face when he
first said "We're going to Iraq to help the people"??? I know
two guys who consider themselves EXTREMELY conservative. If they
could give Rush Limbaugh a blowjob every day, they'd do it. But,
they both laughed when Bush began compiling his list of reasons.
They both said "Bull**** - of course it's the oil!"




Who cares if you know "two guys"?

And there's was more than one reason Bush cited for intervening
in Iraq.

The point is that actual conservatives (as opposed to little
robots) know Bush's true reasons. If you could get five minutes in
a room with the man who is ACTUALLY making policy, Karl Rove, he'd
tell you why we're in Iraq, and if you asked him about the initial
list of stupid reasons, he'd probably laugh in your face.

How do you think it would've gone over with the public if your
president had simply said "We're invading Iraq because we believe
it's an integral part of protecting the oil we get from Saudi
Arabia."?

Hmmm? Whattya think?



Ah,now we have people who profess to know the "true reasons"!!
My,are you gullible.

I don't KNOW them. I've done exactly what YOU have, and decided
which ones sound true to ME. You may also be functioning on faith,
but I cannot do that with politicians. Too dangerous.




I'm not faith-based. I read both what the MainStream Media(MSM) put
out,and
what conservative write,and I listen to what President Bush says in
his speeches,not what the MSM "explainers" and "experts" pick for
their sound bites. Then I see what Pres.Bush DOES. He's not 2-faced
like many Democrats,and not rabid as the Democrat leadership.

Whadda ya think of this?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20050712.shtml
"The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it."

The phrase "support our troops" was concocted for use by animals, with
the sole purpose of being divisive. Even Mark Twain knew it was an
obnoxious concept to base a debate on.




Did you even read the article?

Yes. Interesting and well written, but I stand by my statement, Jim. Catchy
slogans are of little value except to the people who create them. However,
they *do* make people feel like they're members of the "club du jour", which
some people need for some reason.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker. 2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could
pacify his critics.




I just love Monday-morning quarterbacks.

I'm asking YOU! I don't know the reason he wanted the weapons moved. Got any
theories? He sent Powell to the U.N. to show satellite images of their
locations, and said WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE. Do you remember that?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know??? But, imagine this: Your local cops have good
intelligence about someone doing huge business in drugs and stolen weapons
at a certain location. The police chief is interviewed on local TV & radio
news, every day for 14 days. Each time, he mentions the address, the
suspect's name, and the fact that they have a warrant. Of course, when the
cops arrive, the house is empty.

Whether the drugs & weapons were there or not, what is your reaction to that
scenario?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"FDR" wrote in message
...


And it should have been left to the UN. But Mr. "They've got WMD's"
Bush
invaded despite the UN. The UN turned out to be right because they
actually went in there on the ground to look for them. None was found.
But apparently, much like a homeviewer fan disputing the on-field
referees
call, Bush could see the WMD's from 60 miles in space and from across
the
ocean. Guess what, the people that actually went ther were right. All
this bs about how we have to improve our intelligence finding by getting
operatives into the countries, and they didn't even rely on the
in-country
intelligence.

Bush should ****ing apologize to every family that has had loved ones
maimed and killed because of his arrogance. But he continues to be an
arrogant ****. Well **** him.

But wait....we "knew exactly where they were", according to Colin Powell.
Hmmm.....then why did Nookular Boy wait almost 6 months? To give Saddam a
chance to move the WMDs? That must be the reason, because now, the
Limbaugh
robots are all saying the weapons were moved to Syria.


You oughta go back to talking about cars, Kanter. You don't make any more
sense... but it's more entertaining.


Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any quicker.
2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could pacify his
critics.



I find it interesting that YOU choose to NOT PERMIT relevant facts.

Therefore I'm not going to permit you to use any derogatory, insulting,
opinionated, or otherwise, things that I don't want to see/hear.

Sauce for the gander, you know.


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"FDR" wrote in message
m...


And it should have been left to the UN. But Mr. "They've got WMD's"
Bush
invaded despite the UN. The UN turned out to be right because they
actually went in there on the ground to look for them. None was found.
But apparently, much like a homeviewer fan disputing the on-field
referees
call, Bush could see the WMD's from 60 miles in space and from across
the
ocean. Guess what, the people that actually went ther were right. All
this bs about how we have to improve our intelligence finding by
getting
operatives into the countries, and they didn't even rely on the
in-country
intelligence.

Bush should ****ing apologize to every family that has had loved ones
maimed and killed because of his arrogance. But he continues to be an
arrogant ****. Well **** him.

But wait....we "knew exactly where they were", according to Colin
Powell.
Hmmm.....then why did Nookular Boy wait almost 6 months? To give Saddam
a
chance to move the WMDs? That must be the reason, because now, the
Limbaugh
robots are all saying the weapons were moved to Syria.


You oughta go back to talking about cars, Kanter. You don't make any more
sense... but it's more entertaining.


Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any quicker.
2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could pacify his
critics.

I find it interesting that YOU choose to NOT PERMIT relevant facts.

Therefore I'm not going to permit you to use any derogatory, insulting,
opinionated, or otherwise, things that I don't want to see/hear.

Sauce for the gander, you know.

Are you referring to me, or Mr. Miller?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction. I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

Doug Miller wrote:
....
I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

I think he needed them so the black helicopters would have someting to
carry...

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You said you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you think that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent. The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

I think he needed them so the black helicopters would have someting to
carry...

Careful, please... Doug *Kanter* wrote that. Not me.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to
have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You said
you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you think
that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent. The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.

I told you. I have absolutely no friggin' idea. But the fact is, he insisted
he knew where the weapons were, but allowed them to leave the country. If
you claim he did NOT know where they were, then he sent Colin Powell to lie
to the United Nations, with pictures & everything. Specifically:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...un-17300pf.htm

If we supposedly knew where these weapons were (based on satellite imagery),
why wait 6 months and let them vanish? And, since everyone who believes they
were there now insists they went to Syria, why not stop it? Were we unable
to locate Syria?

"We know exactly where the WMD are, they are in the region north, south,
east and west of Tikrit."
-Donny Rumsfeld

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to
have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You said
you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you think
that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent. The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.

I told you. I have absolutely no friggin' idea.

OK. So you think he wanted them moved. But you have no idea why.

What would be your reason for thinking that, then?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
igy.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to
have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert
this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense
with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You said
you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you think
that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent.
The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you
hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.

I told you. I have absolutely no friggin' idea.

OK. So you think he wanted them moved. But you have no idea why.

What would be your reason for thinking that, then?

Obviously, you want to continue this conversation, so please give me the
courtesy of reading what I write, or I'll end it, OK?

I base my opinion on the observation of behaviors. I gave you a perfectly
good analogy with the police/drugs example, which you refused to respond to.
I'll help you with that last one: If you were concerned about drugs &
weapons in your community, you'd be writing letters to your mayor and/or
yelling at your town council, because you'd suspect corruption or just plain
stupidity. But, this is EXACTLY what Bush did. He told the enemy what he was
after, he said he knew the location of the "items", and then gave the enemy
half a year to respond by removing them. For that, you have made the choice
to come to NO conclusion, much different than you'd respond to the
police/drug scenario.

I'm mystified by your thinking, although I'll return to the idea that your
have complete faith in Bush, as if he were a deity.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
digy.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought to
have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert
this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense
with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You said
you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you think
that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent.
The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you
hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.

I told you. I have absolutely no friggin' idea.

OK. So you think he wanted them moved. But you have no idea why.

What would be your reason for thinking that, then?

Obviously, you want to continue this conversation, so please give me the
courtesy of reading what I write, or I'll end it, OK?

I'd be happy if *you* would read what you write.

I base my opinion on the observation of behaviors.

You still haven't answered the question: why do you think that Bush wanted the
WMDs moved?

I gave you a perfectly
good analogy with the police/drugs example, which you refused to respond to.

I asked you a perfectly good direct question, which you refused to respond to.

[snip irrelevantia]

I'm mystified by your thinking, although I'll return to the idea that your
have complete faith in Bush, as if he were a deity.

I haven't expressed any opinions in these last few posts by which you could
gauge my thinking - I'm questioning *your* opinions. You expressed a pretty
silly one, which you can't justify - you don't seem to have any idea at all
why you hold it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
gy.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
odigy.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've
told
him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know???

*You* said you think he wanted them moved -- seems to me you ought
to
have
*some* inkling of why you think that.

I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert
this
discussion in yet another direction.

Whatever. Just one more instance of you spouting uninformed nonsense
with
nothing to back it up...

I'm curious about your opinion of the
police/drugs scenario I mentioned.

I'm curious about why you can't ever answer a direct question. You
said
you
think the President wanted Iraq's WMDs moved. I asked you why you
think
that;
you said "how should I know" and launched off on yet another tangent.
The
obvious conclusion is that you have opinions, but don't know why you
hold
them, and don't enjoy having that fact held up to the light.

I told you. I have absolutely no friggin' idea.

OK. So you think he wanted them moved. But you have no idea why.

What would be your reason for thinking that, then?

Obviously, you want to continue this conversation, so please give me the
courtesy of reading what I write, or I'll end it, OK?

I'd be happy if *you* would read what you write.

I base my opinion on the observation of behaviors.

You still haven't answered the question: why do you think that Bush wanted
the
WMDs moved?

I gave you a perfectly
good analogy with the police/drugs example, which you refused to respond
to.

I asked you a perfectly good direct question, which you refused to respond
to.

[snip irrelevantia]

I'm mystified by your thinking, although I'll return to the idea that your
have complete faith in Bush, as if he were a deity.

I haven't expressed any opinions in these last few posts by which you
could
gauge my thinking - I'm questioning *your* opinions. You expressed a
pretty
silly one, which you can't justify - you don't seem to have any idea at
all
why you hold it.

He waited 6 months because it did not matter. They were never there. There's
your direct answer, one of several possibilities, some of which are unknown
to you and I.

What's YOUR theory? I assume you believe the weapons were there, right?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...


In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"FDR" wrote in message
om...



And it should have been left to the UN. But Mr. "They've got WMD's"
Bush
invaded despite the UN. The UN turned out to be right because they
actually went in there on the ground to look for them. None was found.
But apparently, much like a homeviewer fan disputing the on-field
referees
call, Bush could see the WMD's from 60 miles in space and from across
the
ocean. Guess what, the people that actually went ther were right. All
this bs about how we have to improve our intelligence finding by
getting
operatives into the countries, and they didn't even rely on the
in-country
intelligence.

Bush should ****ing apologize to every family that has had loved ones
maimed and killed because of his arrogance. But he continues to be an
arrogant ****. Well **** him.

But wait....we "knew exactly where they were", according to Colin
Powell.
Hmmm.....then why did Nookular Boy wait almost 6 months? To give Saddam
a
chance to move the WMDs? That must be the reason, because now, the
Limbaugh
robots are all saying the weapons were moved to Syria.


You oughta go back to talking about cars, Kanter. You don't make any more
sense... but it's more entertaining.


Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any quicker.
2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could pacify his
critics.

I find it interesting that YOU choose to NOT PERMIT relevant facts.

Therefore I'm not going to permit you to use any derogatory, insulting,
opinionated, or otherwise, things that I don't want to see/hear.

Sauce for the gander, you know.


Are you referring to me, or Mr. Miller?



Either, both, or anyone that tries to dictate what may or may not be said.
This, of course, gives said parties the right to disagree with anything,
provided they can prove it to be wrong.


--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
y.com...


In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"FDR" wrote in message
. com...



And it should have been left to the UN. But Mr. "They've got WMD's"
Bush
invaded despite the UN. The UN turned out to be right because they
actually went in there on the ground to look for them. None was
found.
But apparently, much like a homeviewer fan disputing the on-field
referees
call, Bush could see the WMD's from 60 miles in space and from across
the
ocean. Guess what, the people that actually went ther were right.
All
this bs about how we have to improve our intelligence finding by
getting
operatives into the countries, and they didn't even rely on the
in-country
intelligence.

Bush should ****ing apologize to every family that has had loved ones
maimed and killed because of his arrogance. But he continues to be
an
arrogant ****. Well **** him.

But wait....we "knew exactly where they were", according to Colin
Powell.
Hmmm.....then why did Nookular Boy wait almost 6 months? To give
Saddam a
chance to move the WMDs? That must be the reason, because now, the
Limbaugh
robots are all saying the weapons were moved to Syria.


You oughta go back to talking about cars, Kanter. You don't make any
more
sense... but it's more entertaining.


Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted* those
weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot could've
told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker.
2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could pacify his
critics.

I find it interesting that YOU choose to NOT PERMIT relevant facts.

Therefore I'm not going to permit you to use any derogatory, insulting,
opinionated, or otherwise, things that I don't want to see/hear.

Sauce for the gander, you know.


Are you referring to me, or Mr. Miller?

Either, both, or anyone that tries to dictate what may or may not be said.
This, of course, gives said parties the right to disagree with anything,
provided they can prove it to be wrong.

You're right, but I'm just sick of hearing the two fairy tales I mentioned,
since I've heard them so many times from the little robots. Yeah - it takes
time to mount an invasion. That's a fact. But, it's being used by the robots
as an excuse to explain away a huge lie, or a huge mistake. And, as far as
#2 - Bush's sitters did a great job of expressing their disdain for the U.N.
in subtle ways, so any suggestion that they were appeasing the organisation
comes off as nonsense.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
....
I've heard a theory or two, but if I mentioned them, it would divert this
discussion in yet another direction.

I think he needed them so the black helicopters would have someting to
carry...

Careful, please... Doug *Kanter* wrote that. Not me.


The "he" here was referring to the subject person in question, not any
poster...

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..


Obviously not, if you think that Clinton was a fiscal conservative...

Compared to Bush, Clinton was a hard right fiscal conservative.

No,the Republicans and a minority of Democrats in the Congress were.
They stopped Clinton from doing anything.

And why exactly haven't they stopped Bush from doing anything? It's quite
allright that they let him run deficits to high heaven.

So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

You guys want to believe that it's all about Republican conservatisim, but
there hasn't been any since Bush has been in office.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker. 2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could
pacify his critics.




I just love Monday-morning quarterbacks.

I'm asking YOU! I don't know the reason he wanted the weapons moved.
Got any theories? He sent Powell to the U.N. to show satellite images
of their locations, and said WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE. Do you
remember that?




What makes you believe Bush -wanted- WMD weapons moved to Syria?
That makes NO sense.Why in the WORLD would he attack Iraq and intentionally
allow the WMD he's after to escape?
You think he WANTED the grief the MSM gave him over not finding them???

You sound paranoid.
You also have a distorted idea of our military's capabilities.
(thinking we could invade a large country and control borders and zoom in
and secure weapons sites without a buildup.)
You probably have no idea of HOW MANY weapons sites there were in Iraq.
People are still amazed at the amount of arms Saddam had amassed.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know??? But, imagine this: Your local cops
have good intelligence about someone doing huge business in drugs and
stolen weapons at a certain location. The police chief is interviewed
on local TV & radio news, every day for 14 days. Each time, he
mentions the address, the suspect's name, and the fact that they have
a warrant. Of course, when the cops arrive, the house is empty.

Whether the drugs & weapons were there or not, what is your reaction
to that scenario?

It's a stupid scenario.




You really think that we would drop troops into Iraq to secure the "known"
WMD sites that probably would be HEAVILY guarded,by heavy armor,in a
country with a large military waiting for battle??


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker. 2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he could
pacify his critics.




I just love Monday-morning quarterbacks.

I'm asking YOU! I don't know the reason he wanted the weapons moved.
Got any theories? He sent Powell to the U.N. to show satellite images
of their locations, and said WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE. Do you
remember that?




What makes you believe Bush -wanted- WMD weapons moved to Syria?
That makes NO sense.Why in the WORLD would he attack Iraq and
intentionally
allow the WMD he's after to escape?
You think he WANTED the grief the MSM gave him over not finding them???

Because he didn't give a damn whether we found them or not. Dealing with
them was not really a concern of his, or anyone else's. How's that?


You sound paranoid.

No. I simply observed the boy lying about the weapons, because that's what
he was told to say.


You also have a distorted idea of our military's capabilities.
(thinking we could invade a large country and control borders and zoom in
and secure weapons sites without a buildup.)

No I don't. For what....10 years?....we told Saddam that if he flew planes
here or there, or targeted our aircraft, he'd be spanked. For 10 years, we
successfully used his borders as the best practice range we could've asked
for. It worked. Do you believe we couldn't have informed him that the border
with Syria was now officially 20 miles "thick", and that anything which
moved inside that zone would be destroyed unless we got to inspect it?
Translation: If you're blown up along with your truck & cargo, it was
because you demanded to be killed, no different than a burglar who breaks
into a home, knowing the homeowner is real good with a handgun. The burglar
asks to be killed.


You probably have no idea of HOW MANY weapons sites there were in Iraq.
People are still amazed at the amount of arms Saddam had amassed.

Doesn't matter. Your president had no real interest in them. You were lied
to.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know??? But, imagine this: Your local cops
have good intelligence about someone doing huge business in drugs and
stolen weapons at a certain location. The police chief is interviewed
on local TV & radio news, every day for 14 days. Each time, he
mentions the address, the suspect's name, and the fact that they have
a warrant. Of course, when the cops arrive, the house is empty.

Whether the drugs & weapons were there or not, what is your reaction
to that scenario?

It's a stupid scenario.




You really think that we would drop troops into Iraq to secure the "known"
WMD sites that probably would be HEAVILY guarded,by heavy armor,in a
country with a large military waiting for battle??

No. I'm saying we could have easily turned the border with Syria into a
stone wall using primarily aircraft. You will now respond "How could we have
known the weapons would be moved to Syria?"

Don't ask. Just don't.

"FDR" wrote in message
.. .


So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?


Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it.

" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton. The brief surplus
during the Clinton years was a direct result of a booming economy,
particularly the increase in capital gains flowing from the stock
market boom. The stock market began it's crash from super inflated
levels in spring 2000, while Clinton was still in the white house and
the economy followed suit within a year. Those two events sharply
reduced tax revenue. Then there was this little thing called 9/11
that perhaps you heard about? What effect did that have on the US
economy? And as I recall, we had to spend a hell of a lot of money,
not only on 9/11 directly, but to take the steps to increase our
defense, intelligence and invade Afghanistan. Did you sleep through
all that? And don't start the BS with President Bush's tax cuts. They
were the correct response to an economy that could have gone into
depression, were it not for the tax cuts and the Fed taking interest
rates to just about zero. Even with all that, the recovery was very
slow.

wrote in message
oups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense, and didn't mix religious fervor with
business. Business involves math. Math is cold and logical. The results do
not mix well with insane financial promises. Every president makes some, but
others.....well....they're insulting to a 9th grader who listens closely.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.

Yeah, so what? When Bush came out with a plan to reduce taxes on dividends,
nearly every economist did a collective shrug and said "huh"?

If Bush had a MBA then he must understand how to balance a budget. So far
he hasn't come even close.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.


And your president's the guy who teaches that you can lower your income (in
what I will agree is a controlled fashion, i.e.: tax formulae), but crank up
your spending in a way that is completely unpredictable and has no end in
sight.

wrote in message
oups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

So you are saying that the Republican congress can't control spending? I
thouhgt they were conservative? I thought they cared about things like
that? Thanks for setting us straight. They are big spenders and then blame
Democrats for not being fiscally cosnervative. What a bunch of hypocrites.


The brief surplus
during the Clinton years was a direct result of a booming economy,
particularly the increase in capital gains flowing from the stock
market boom.

When Clinton got in office he laid forth a plan to balance the budget. I
recall an article that showed where they wanted to be budget wise for the
next several years. I remember talking to a conservative co-worker about it
because he said he was pinning it to his wall and was going to check on it
because he didn't believe it. I said I believed it. And the budget was
balanced after a few years.

The stock market began it's crash from super inflated
levels in spring 2000, while Clinton was still in the white house and
the economy followed suit within a year. Those two events sharply
reduced tax revenue.

So? Aren't Republicans capable of putting their money where their mouth is
and reduce spending then?


Then there was this little thing called 9/11
that perhaps you heard about? What effect did that have on the US
economy?

That was 4 years ago. The economy has recovered quite a bit sonce then.
Why are they still spending like drunken sailors?

And as I recall, we had to spend a hell of a lot of money,
not only on 9/11 directly, but to take the steps to increase our
defense, intelligence and invade Afghanistan. Did you sleep through
all that?

Fine, but what about all the money that's being wasted in the invsion of
Iraq?

And don't start the BS with President Bush's tax cuts. They
were the correct response to an economy that could have gone into
depression, were it not for the tax cuts and the Fed taking interest
rates to just about zero. Even with all that, the recovery was very
slow.

You don't lower taxes during war. Chose war or taxes. But Mr. Bigshot
president thinks he can do both. Guess what? The dollar went south, the
deficit soared and we pay for his foolishness for the next 50 years.

In article , "FDR" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
egroups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.

Yeah, so what? When Bush came out with a plan to reduce taxes on dividends,
nearly every economist did a collective shrug and said "huh"?

My recollection of the reaction to that is a bit different...

If Bush had a MBA then he must understand how to balance a budget. So far
he hasn't come even close.

Well, there's the recession he inherited from Clinton. And the 9/11 attacks,
also a legacy of Clinton's persistent failure to do anything about al Qaida
and OBL, had just a bit of an effect on our economy. We ran big budget
deficits during WWII also; does that mean that Roosevelt didn't know how to
balance a budget?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
egroups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.


And your president's the guy who teaches that you can lower your income (in
what I will agree is a controlled fashion, i.e.: tax formulae), but crank up
your spending in a way that is completely unpredictable and has no end in
sight.

Lower tax *rates* produce higher tax *revenues* because they stimulate
economic growth. That happened with Kennedy's tax cuts in the early 60s; it
happened again twenty years later with Reagan's tax cuts; and it's happening
again now with Bush's tax cuts. There's an article in this morning's paper
about it: "Unexpected tax revenue puts dent in federal deficit" - story came
from the Washington Post, to whom I'm sure the revenue *was* "unexpected" -
liberals never believe that cutting tax rates increases tax revenues, despite
abundant evidence that it does.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
wrote in message
legroups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the (balls?
honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you will
about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were dealing with
someone who had some business sense

Whaaaaat? Bush has an MBA from Harvard, and *Clinton* is the one with
"business sense"? Yeah, right. Clinton has so much business sense, he
thought
that nationalized health care would be a *good* thing for us. Uh-huh.


And your president's the guy who teaches that you can lower your income
(in
what I will agree is a controlled fashion, i.e.: tax formulae), but crank
up
your spending in a way that is completely unpredictable and has no end in
sight.

Lower tax *rates* produce higher tax *revenues* because they stimulate
economic growth. That happened with Kennedy's tax cuts in the early 60s;
it
happened again twenty years later with Reagan's tax cuts; and it's
happening
again now with Bush's tax cuts. There's an article in this morning's paper
about it: "Unexpected tax revenue puts dent in federal deficit" - story
came
from the Washington Post, to whom I'm sure the revenue *was*
"unexpected" -
liberals never believe that cutting tax rates increases tax revenues,
despite
abundant evidence that it does.

We shall see if this is just a hiccup. People who know what they're talking
about, like Greenspan, often warn about this phenomenon.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
We shall see if this [increased tax revenues] is just a hiccup. People who know what they're talking
about, like Greenspan, often warn about this phenomenon.

Well, in general, it's two closely related phenomena--lower taxes do
tend to spur economic growth and the subsequent growth is largely
responsible for the increase in revenues. How long it lasts depends on
how long the recovery lasts (obviously).

The former "surplus" was fueled almost entirely by the dotcom-led stock
market bubble..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to
(Syria).

Two answers you are NOT permitted to use:
1) Takes time to mount an invasion - couldn't have been done any
quicker. 2) He was waiting for the U.N. to do whatever, so he
could pacify his critics.




I just love Monday-morning quarterbacks.

I'm asking YOU! I don't know the reason he wanted the weapons moved.
Got any theories? He sent Powell to the U.N. to show satellite
images of their locations, and said WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE.
Do you remember that?




What makes you believe Bush -wanted- WMD weapons moved to Syria?
That makes NO sense.Why in the WORLD would he attack Iraq and
intentionally
allow the WMD he's after to escape?
You think he WANTED the grief the MSM gave him over not finding
them???

Because he didn't give a damn whether we found them or not. Dealing
with them was not really a concern of his, or anyone else's. How's
that?

Not rational.



You sound paranoid.

No. I simply observed the boy lying about the weapons, because that's
what he was told to say.

Clinton also believed there was WMD,and many other countries,too.
Also all those Democrat Congressmen and women,who VOTED for the
invasion.(and then later changed their minds and were against it!)

But no one is accusing THEM of "lying".



You also have a distorted idea of our military's capabilities.
(thinking we could invade a large country and control borders and
zoom in and secure weapons sites without a buildup.)

No I don't. For what....10 years?....we told Saddam that if he flew
planes here or there, or targeted our aircraft, he'd be spanked. For
10 years, we successfully used his borders as the best practice range
we could've asked for. It worked. Do you believe we couldn't have
informed him that the border with Syria was now officially 20 miles
"thick", and that anything which moved inside that zone would be
destroyed unless we got to inspect it? Translation: If you're blown up
along with your truck & cargo, it was because you demanded to be
killed, no different than a burglar who breaks into a home, knowing
the homeowner is real good with a handgun. The burglar asks to be
killed.


You probably have no idea of HOW MANY weapons sites there were in
Iraq. People are still amazed at the amount of arms Saddam had
amassed.

Doesn't matter. Your president had no real interest in them. You were
lied to.


Paranoia.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Well, why do YOU think your president waited? I think he *wanted*
those weapons moved, assuming the existed to begin with. Any idiot
could've told him the mostly likely place they'd vanish to (Syria).

Why on earth would he have wanted them moved?

How the phuque should I know??? But, imagine this: Your local cops
have good intelligence about someone doing huge business in drugs
and stolen weapons at a certain location. The police chief is
interviewed on local TV & radio news, every day for 14 days. Each
time, he mentions the address, the suspect's name, and the fact that
they have a warrant. Of course, when the cops arrive, the house is
empty.

Whether the drugs & weapons were there or not, what is your reaction
to that scenario?

It's a stupid scenario.




You really think that we would drop troops into Iraq to secure the
"known" WMD sites that probably would be HEAVILY guarded,by heavy
armor,in a country with a large military waiting for battle??

No. I'm saying we could have easily turned the border with Syria into
a stone wall using primarily aircraft. You will now respond "How could
we have known the weapons would be moved to Syria?"

Don't ask. Just don't.




Then you and others would be whining about bombing all the civilian traffic
the trucks were among.Not to mention the disaster of releasing toxins to
blow around in the winds,who knows where.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

wrote in message
oups.com...
" So tell me how it is Republicans in congress were able to control
the
government spending under Clinton and not under Bush?

Interesting question. But, your "opponent" here hasn't got the
(balls? honesty? smarts?) to answer it. "

Spending wasn't controlled by anyone under Clinton.

Your response makes sense, but there's something else: Say what you
will about Clinton, but when Congress dealt with him, they were
dealing with someone who had some business sense, and didn't mix
religious fervor with business. Business involves math. Math is cold
and logical. The results do not mix well with insane financial
promises. Every president makes some, but others.....well....they're
insulting to a 9th grader who listens closely.



What businesses has Clinton run or managed?
He and his wife were LAWYERS,poor ones at that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net