Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article
,
Doobie Keebler wrote:

On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, " wrote:

John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...
This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.


Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for Hillary/
Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es off a
lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the religious
wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will either sit out this
election or vote third party. I know know who will win the Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our next
president.

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.

In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.

Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don't know, there are more people in the middle than you think. The best
thing that happened to McCain is having Limbaugh declare that it will be
the death of the Republican party. There are many people who sit a
little right of center who don't care for the full bore anything is OK
as long as a couple greedy reach guys profit from it system who find
McCain attractive. And of the thinking voters I know (not the I only
drink red or blue Koolaid people) they have said they would never
consider voting for Hillary if she should get the nomination.


Oh, but I agree. McCain; however, is a bit too far to the right on some
very important issues than Obama and Clinton. Clinton or Obama will win
just on health care alone. More and more people are getting scared that
they will be cut off from employer-provided medical insurance. Even
those with good employer-provided medical insurance are finding their
co-pays going up and/or their employers requiring increased
contributions from employees.

Its the economy stupid and McCain loses big time in that area.

I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the actions
of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he impressed
me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last round of
primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the religious
right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside but
I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or without
the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.

Yes, I know that excludes just about all politicians.

I think you have a lot of company in your attitude. I also think the far
religious right isn't as powerful within the Democratic party as they
were when Bush ran for office four years ago. If they are still such a
strong force, Huckabee would be doing a lot better in the primaries.

McCain is a bad taste in the mouths of the religious right, but he's
also too far right for most Democrats, so he won't get too many liberal
votes this November. On the other hand, the Democratic candidate is
likely to appeal to a lot more voters and have ****ed off far fewer
people than the Republicans, so although I have no idea who the
Democratic nominee will be, I feel virtually certain that whomever it is
will be our next president. We will break history in November by
electing either our first black president or our first female president,
and that fact alone will spur more people to vote, and more to vote D.

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.


So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.

HeyBub wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:


I'm one of those right-of-center people who is disgusted by the
actions of the right wing. I won't vote for McCain simply because he
impressed me with his "agents of intolerance" rhetoric in the last
round of primaries but this past year he has been cozying up to the
religious right in a blatant attempt to get more votes.

I think he's really still the old "agents of intolerance" guy inside
but I have a hard time voting for someone with no convictions and/or
without the spine to stand up and say what he really thinks.



So you want another Bush? Me too.

Ah, but all your concerns pale into insignificance compared to security.
Look what recent presidents have done when faced with aggression:

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter(D) cancelled the Olympics.
When Muslims did some nasties, Clinton(D) bombed an aspirin factory.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush 1(R) bombed 'em back to the stone age.
When Iraq just sat there, doing nothing, Bush 2(R), invaded, secured their
leader, killed his children, evicted him from his home, exiled his family,
confiscated his funds, and, eventually, had him hanged.

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it that is
not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to the four
corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of terrorists
destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints in the snow, while
the lamentations of the widows and the cries of the children mix with the
foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Well, aside from me, there's probably only one of the four national
candidates.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE
so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40"
flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is
more blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely?
Who is it that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies
strewn to the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over
the families of terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving
bloody footprints in the snow, while the lamentations of the
widows and the cries of the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.

Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious
qualifying test for our government employees. Check your beliefs at
the door of the Warrior Wing. Hillary said the military requires a
"suspension of disbelief." That's not true. We want, if necessary, a
suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who enjoys a job well done as he
disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE so we
can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40" flat screens.

They also wanted some action in response to 9/11 and
without those prepared to do that sort of thing, the US
wouldnt have been able to do anything about Afghanistan etc.

Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

And your mentality makes it hard to ensure that 9/11 wont be repeated.

You wont care about the beer if some terrorists manage to let off a dirty nuke in the US, stupid.

Billy wrote:

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE
so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40"
flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

Every dictator on Earth wants 'Peace'. They love the concept of peace. They
do anything to their subjects that is needed to be done in order to keep
peace.

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

LOL!!! Another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

Me? Bush has been transparent from the get go. How anybody could support
his treasonous actions is beyond comprehension. Unless you watch Fox
News that is and then it turns out you knew less than the rest of the
population.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article enKpj.2818$FW3.1223@trndny03,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:


And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?


From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

LOL!!! Another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally Œmove
from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that you
haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to this
country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can thank you
and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article 8eKpj.5295$k%2.2207@trndny09,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE
so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40"
flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

Every dictator on Earth wants 'Peace'. They love the concept of peace. They
do anything to their subjects that is needed to be done in order to keep
peace.

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

If you were a real American, you would know that is supposed to be
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

But like Hitler's dream of beauty, Bush's dream has been a nightmare for
the rest of us.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

If you were a real American, you would know that is supposed to be
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

But like Hitler's dream of beauty, Bush's dream has been a nightmare for
the rest of us.
Invoking Godwin. You lose.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is
more blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely?
Who is it that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies
strewn to the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over
the families of terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving
bloody footprints in the snow, while the lamentations of the
widows and the cries of the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.

Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious
qualifying test for our government employees. Check your beliefs at
the door of the Warrior Wing. Hillary said the military requires a
"suspension of disbelief." That's not true. We want, if necessary, a
suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who enjoys a job well done as he
disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE so
we
can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40" flat
screens.

They also wanted some action in response to 9/11 and
without those prepared to do that sort of thing, the US
wouldnt have been able to do anything about Afghanistan etc.

Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

And your mentality makes it hard to ensure that 9/11 wont be repeated.

You wont care about the beer if some terrorists manage to let off a dirty
nuke in the US, stupid.

Marion Wayne is it?

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.

If this country wasn't run by big corporations that squeeze the last
drop of blood out of third world we wouldn't be in this jam. If
Eisenhower had been taken seriously we wouldn't have arrived at this
state. Try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
or "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq"
by Stephen Kinzer and get some idea of how this country works.

When you push people, sometimes they push back.

And you want to sing "America the Beautiful" and pretend that we are
what you see on the Disney Channel? Hellooooooo
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Billy wrote:



Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.
Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo,
although it took him awhile.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is
more blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely?
Who is it that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies
strewn to the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over
the families of terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving
bloody footprints in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows
and the cries of the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.

Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious
qualifying test for our government employees. Check your
beliefs at the door of the Warrior Wing. Hillary said the
military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's not true.
We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone
who enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

And how Mr. Blood-n-Guts do we identify the enemy? Is it those
identified by an election stealing, draft dodging, mentally inferior
Commander in Chief or, do you just make it up as you go along?

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want PEACE so we
can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl on 40" flat screens.

They also wanted some action in response to 9/11 and
without those prepared to do that sort of thing, the US
wouldnt have been able to do anything about Afghanistan etc.

Your life style makes it hard to go get the beer.

And your mentality makes it hard to ensure that 9/11 wont be repeated.

You wont care about the beer if some terrorists
manage to let off a dirty nuke in the US, stupid.

Marion Wayne is it?

Nope.

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000
feet or sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay.

Clinton tried that approach, it doesnt work.

Boots on the ground is for oil and the military-industrial complex.

Its what worked in Afghanistan when combined with B52s etc.

If this country wasn't run by big corporations that squeeze the
last drop of blood out of third world we wouldn't be in this jam.

Mindless silly stuff. That aint what produced 9/11.

If Eisenhower had been taken seriously we wouldn't have arrived at this state.

How odd that he didnt pull out of the cold war as soon as he got to be prez.

Try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins
or "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii
to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer and get some idea of how this country works.

That aint how it works.

When you push people, sometimes they push back.

Yes, and sometimes like with the Japs in WW2, they had to be pushed regardless.

There was no way that 9/11 could have been avoided by american policy.

What comprehensively ****ed off the stupid ragheads like bin Laden was
that it took america to **** over Saddam in the first Gulf War and prevent
him not only invading Kuwait, but Saudi etc once he had done that.

And you want to sing "America the Beautiful" and pretend
that we are what you see on the Disney Channel?

Nope, I realise that without the military system, that Saddam would
have been able to do anything he wanted once he had decided that
he was going to invade Kuwait and that his occupation of Saudi etc
is about the last thing the west needed at that time.

And it would have been even more stupid to do nothing about the terrorist training
camps in Afghanistan, whatever fools like you would have done about them.

Billy wrote:
In article 8eKpj.5295$k%2.2207@trndny09,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

My point is that the tax payers who pay for your "services" want
PEACE so we can raise our kids, keep our jobs, and watch Super Bowl
on 40" flat screens. Your life style makes it hard to go get the
beer.

Every dictator on Earth wants 'Peace'. They love the concept of
peace. They do anything to their subjects that is needed to be done
in order to keep peace.

Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

If you were a real American, you would know that is supposed to be
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

That is the language which is basis of our founding documents, words which
have their basis in ONE concept: Freedom.

But like Hitler's dream of beauty, Bush's dream has been a nightmare
for the rest of us.

Bush Derangement Syndrome from a listner of Air America.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Billy wrote:

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is
for oil and the military-industrial complex.

Yawn.

If this country wasn't run by big corporations that squeeze the last
drop of blood out of third world we wouldn't be in this jam. If
Eisenhower had been taken seriously we wouldn't have arrived at this
state. Try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John
Perkins or "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii
to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer and get some idea of how this country
works.

When you push people, sometimes they push back.

And you want to sing "America the Beautiful" and pretend that we are
what you see on the Disney Channel? Hellooooooo

Air America, the friend of the deranged.

Billy wrote:

From the above list, the making it up as you go along seems to be
working pretty well for you...

LOL!!! Another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally
Œmove from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that
you haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to this
country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can thank
you and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.

Bwhahahahaha.... Another gem from Air America.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Americans want what this country was founded on: FREEDOM.

If you were a real American, you would know that is supposed to be
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

But like Hitler's dream of beauty, Bush's dream has been a nightmare for
the rest of us.

Invoking Godwin. You lose.

You're way late.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.

Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo,
although it took him awhile.

But it worked in Kosovo, although Clinton shouldn't have told the
truth at the time by saying he had no plans to send in ground troops.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Now, which of the candidates still in the hunt do we believe is more
blood-thirsty? Who do we think can hate more intensely? Who is it
that is not disgusted by seeing body parts of our enemies strewn to
the four corners? Who would have the no regrets over the families of
terrorists destined to wander the plains, leaving bloody footprints
in the snow, while the lamentations of the widows and the cries of
the children mix with the foul north winds?

Kinda makes you wonder how they call themselves Christians.


Shame on you! We are a pluralistic nation with no religious qualifying test
for our government employees. Check your beliefs at the door of the Warrior
Wing. Hillary said the military requires a "suspension of disbelief." That's
not true. We want, if necessary, a suspension of BELIEF (plus someone who
enjoys a job well done as he disembowels the enemy).

Really? How many non-Christians have served as president? How many
atheists are serving in congress or have ever served as president? Where
elections are concerned, we Americans are very prejudiced toward
Christians?

Billy wrote:

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is
for oil and the military-industrial complex.

Oil is a perfectly good reason for going to war. That's why Japan attacked
the U.S., oil is why Hitler invaded Russia. Oil was the main reason Sadaam
tried to take over Kuwait.

The fact that all those folks lost shouldn't validate the idea.

Billy wrote:
You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally
Omove from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that
you haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to this
country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can thank
you and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.

Sure we do! The 74 consecutive months of expansion, low inflation, extremely
low unemployment, increased income, higher productivity, increased life
expectancy, WAY lower poverty and welfare, rising school scores, and so on.
The economy is so robust it was able to shrug off 9-11, Katrina, and other
hits and will, no doubt, likewise ignore the current housing mess.

Some try to make hay out of marginal issues such as an increased budget
(lower as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Clinton) or increased debt (no
where near historical highs).

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

This doesn't mean things couldn't be better, they could. But we've got to be
wary of "fixes." For example, it's not the best that 40 million people don't
have health insurance (that doesn't equate to 40 million don't get health
CARE), but the proposals I've seen would **** up a perfectly fine system for
260 million in an ATTEMPT to accommodate 40 million.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:



Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.
Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo,
although it took him awhile.

Not really. Miloseviç made Clinton look like a fool in Bosnia, while the
Serbs slaughtered the Muslims there. Clinton had had enough of Milosevic
making him look like a fool when the problem of Kosovo rolled around
and, he hammered their infrastructure.

Afghanistan is more difficult because it has a lot less infrastructure.
Afghanistan is attractive because of a proposed oil pipeline that we
would like to lay through it.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:
You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally
Omove from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that
you haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to this
country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can thank
you and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.

Sure we do! The 74 consecutive months of expansion, low inflation, extremely
low unemployment, increased income, higher productivity, increased life
expectancy, WAY lower poverty and welfare, rising school scores, and so on.
The economy is so robust it was able to shrug off 9-11, Katrina, and other
hits and will, no doubt, likewise ignore the current housing mess.

Some try to make hay out of marginal issues such as an increased budget
(lower as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Clinton) or increased debt (no
where near historical highs).

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Man, what are you smokin'?


This doesn't mean things couldn't be better, they could. But we've got to be
wary of "fixes." For example, it's not the best that 40 million people don't
have health insurance (that doesn't equate to 40 million don't get health
CARE), but the proposals I've seen would **** up a perfectly fine system for
260 million in an ATTEMPT to accommodate 40 million.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:05:01 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly"
wrote:



Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.

Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo,
although it took him awhile.

But it worked in Kosovo, although Clinton shouldn't have told the
truth at the time by saying he had no plans to send in ground troops.

If you're making a comparison, though, it'd be best to remember that
WJCs effort was successful in Kosovo.

Billy wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
Billy wrote

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000
feet or sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots
on the ground is for oil and the military-industrial complex.

Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo, although it took him awhile.

Not really. Miloseviç made Clinton look like a fool in Bosnia, while
the Serbs slaughtered the Muslims there. Clinton had had enough
of Milosevic making him look like a fool when the problem of
Kosovo rolled around and, he hammered their infrastructure.

Afghanistan is more difficult because it has a lot less infrastructure.

None that matters, actually.

But it had the advantage that airstrikes against the talibums when
organised by fire directors on the ground worked very well indeed.

Afghanistan is attractive because of a proposed
oil pipeline that we would like to lay through it.

Pure fantasy. Thats not why the europeans and others have troops there.

The real reason for Afghanistan is that anyone with a clue
realised that there were terrorist training camps there and
they could see the downsides of allowing those to continue.

Slick was just too stupid to do anything more than attempt missile
strikes with **** all evidence of what should be hit, because he didnt
have anyone on the ground to work out what mattered and what didnt.

That was much easier to do in Kosovo.

There was no oil in Somalia or Beurut either.

HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay.
Boots on the ground is for oil and the military-industrial complex.

Oil is a perfectly good reason for going to war.

That isnt the reason for Afghanistan.

That's why Japan attacked the U.S.,

Yes.

oil is why Hitler invaded Russia.

Nope.

Oil was the main reason Sadaam tried to take over Kuwait.

But not to get access to oil, he had plenty of that. The problem
for him was that Kuwait was undercutting on price.

The fact that all those folks lost shouldn't validate the idea.

It does however mean that it makes sense to realise what you
have a hope of achieving. Japan never ever had a hope except
if the US had decided that stopping Japan wasnt worth a war.

HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally
Omove from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that
you haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to
this country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can
thank you and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.

Sure we do! The 74 consecutive months of expansion, low inflation,
extremely low unemployment, increased income, higher productivity,
increased life expectancy, WAY lower poverty and welfare, rising
school scores, and so on. The economy is so robust it was able to
shrug off 9-11, Katrina, and other hits and will, no doubt, likewise
ignore the current housing mess.

Some try to make hay out of marginal issues such as an increased
budget (lower as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Clinton) or
increased debt (no where near historical highs).

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

This doesn't mean things couldn't be better, they could. But we've got to be wary of "fixes." For example, it's not
the best that 40 million people don't have health insurance (that doesn't equate to 40 million don't get health CARE),
but the proposals I've seen would **** up a perfectly fine system for 260 million in an ATTEMPT to accommodate 40
million.

Have fun explaining how come every other modern
first world country can manage to do that fine.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 05:35:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic whether
our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren Will be able to
afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

And it can be paid for by increased taxes too.

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic
whether our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
Will be able to afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Corse they can, just like they managed it fine with WW2, the cold war, and Vietnam.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:07:33 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

And it can be paid for by increased taxes too.

What do you figure the chances will be? Anyone seriouslyu suggesting
that?

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic
whether our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
Will be able to afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Corse they can, just like they managed it fine with WW2, the cold war, and Vietnam.

Are the bills now fully paid for those?

Revisit that presumption. It too is wrong.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

And it can be paid for by increased taxes too.

What do you figure the chances will be?

Lousy, essentially because its a lot more politically palatable to run deficits instead,
particularly when its an immense amount of money involved like it is with Iraq.

Anyone seriouslyu suggesting that?

Greenspan and Bernanke.

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic
whether our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
Will be able to afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Corse they can, just like they managed it fine with WW2, the cold war, and Vietnam.

Are the bills now fully paid for those?

WW2 is, the cold war and Vietnam, arguably.

Revisit that presumption.

No thanks. And it isnt a presumption anyway.

It too is wrong.

Nope, they have been paid for, the interest on the deficit.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:45:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

And it can be paid for by increased taxes too.

What do you figure the chances will be?

Lousy, essentially because its a lot more politically palatable to run deficits instead,
particularly when its an immense amount of money involved like it is with Iraq.

QED.

Anyone seriouslyu suggesting that?

Greenspan and Bernanke.

I said Seriously -- someone in a position actually to Do it, rather
than just talk about it.

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic
whether our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
Will be able to afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Corse they can, just like they managed it fine with WW2, the cold war, and Vietnam.

Are the bills now fully paid for those?

WW2 is, the cold war and Vietnam, arguably.

No -- none of them are fully paid. The costs were rolled over and
over and over endlessly.

Revisit that presumption.

No thanks. And it isnt a presumption anyway.

Yeah -- really it is.

It too is wrong.

Nope, they have been paid for, the interest on the deficit.

They have, unfortunately Not been paid for. And the interest on the
deficit keeps growing, and now somewhere between 15 and 20% of annual
revenues pay it right off the top.

Much to governments who do not have Our best interests foremost.

Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

But, in the main, we're doing swell. Just swell.

Yep. And the US can even afford the fiasco in Iraq.

So long as it's on the National Credit Card, we can sustain it.

And it can be paid for by increased taxes too.

What do you figure the chances will be?

Lousy, essentially because its a lot more politically palatable to
run deficits instead, particularly when its an immense amount of
money involved like it is with Iraq.

QED.

Nope, particularly if the obscenity of the rathole for money, Iraq, is done with.

Anyone seriouslyu suggesting that?

Greenspan and Bernanke.

I said Seriously

You 'think' they are joking about that ?

-- someone in a position actually to Do it, rather than just talk about it.

You said 'suggesting', not able to do that.

None of the prez candidates are in any position to do it either,
until one of them actually gets elected, and even then, that
individual still gets to convince the congress to do it like that.

There are reasonable prospects for paying down the national debt if Iraq is
finished with, particularly if the Democrats retain their power in the Congress.

Some countrys have paid down their national debt, but they dont have
the problem of the immense amount of money that Iraq has cost the US.

When it comes time to actually Pay for it, it's problematic
whether our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
Will be able to afford it, as the term is correctly used.

Corse they can, just like they managed it fine
with WW2, the cold war, and Vietnam.

Are the bills now fully paid for those?

WW2 is, the cold war and Vietnam, arguably.

No -- none of them are fully paid.

Wrong with WW2.

The costs were rolled over and over and over endlessly.

Thats not really true about the costs of WW2.

Revisit that presumption.

No thanks. And it isnt a presumption anyway.

Yeah -- really it is.

Nope, try a dictionary some time.
http://onelook.com/?w=presumption

It too is wrong.

Nope, they have been paid for, the interest on the deficit.

They have, unfortunately Not been paid for.

They have in the sense that thats what the grandkids etc are paying.

And the interest on the deficit keeps growing,

Only because the national debt keeps growing. See above on Iraq.

and now somewhere between 15 and 20% of annual revenues pay it right off the top.

And that is clearly being paid, so you are just plain wrong.

Much to governments who do not have Our best interests foremost.

You aint established that that national debt is a significant problem.

The only downside with it is that more taxes are paid to pay
the interest on it than would otherwise need to be raised.

Thats clearly affordable for the US today, just like WW2 was at that time too.

Don Homuth wrote:
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Billy wrote:

Look, if we want to take it to them, we can do it from 30,000 feet or
sin hundred miles away. We can make them pay. Boots on the ground is for
oil and the military-industrial complex.

Heck even Clinton came to realize the fallacy of that idea in Kosovo,
although it took him awhile.

But it worked in Kosovo, although Clinton shouldn't have told the
truth at the time by saying he had no plans to send in ground troops.

If you're making a comparison, though, it'd be best to remember that
WJCs effort was successful in Kosovo.

Yes! He really gave those heroin-producing Muslims a lot of help putting
down the drug police.

--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.