On Oct 24, 9:40*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? *That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.
He's been nothing more than a placeholder.
and he's DISHONEST;
he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies. He's STILL hiding his background,too.

He's a politician. It's what politicians do.

Look, politicians tell people what they want to hear. If they told
the
truth, nobody would vote for them.

You just have to find the politician who tells the lies that you like,
and vote for him/her.

Cindy Hamilton

On Oct 23, 7:45*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
olddog wrote:

Yeah you won.

Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". *Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with you
or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and address
it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the future of
mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.

Oh, fiddle-de-dee.

So what if parts of New Jersey and other places go under water - we'll move
inland. If we can put up with the population density of Hong Kong, the
entire planet's population could fit in a space the size of Georgia - and
Hong Kong has a pretty high standard of living.

By every economic standard, we are better off putting resources into
adjusting to whatever climate changes come upon us than trying to mitigate
them.

I don't want fire ants in Michigan. I don't want everybody who got
flooded out
or burned out or whatever moving here. I don't want this place to
turn into
Hong Kong (or even California).

Luckily, things will probably hold together well enough until I'm
gone, and I
don't have any children to worry about. But that's no excuse for me
to say
"I got mine--screw you."

We're going to have to cut back AND pursue other technologies.
Everybody
is looking for a single answer, and there isn't one.

And so what if climate change isn't caused by human activities? It's
a worthy
goal to not use up every damn thing we can. I'd be giddy if we never
sent another dollar to buy oil from unfriendly countries.

Cindy Hamilton

On Oct 24, 9:40*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? *That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.

Not possible. Unless you are going to posit that it is possible to
have negative substance.

At the very least, Obama appears Presidential and I wouldn't feel
embarassed to have him meet with other world leaders; I have
confidence that he would engage them in respectful, intelligent
discourse. Because McCain is, let's face it, getting on in years and
has known health problems, his choice of Palin as VP is ludicrously
irresponsible and an insult to the American public. I don't have warm
fuzzies about voting for Obama, but there's no way in hell I could
even consider voting for McCain.

he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies.

As opposed to McCain, who has turned his back on every position he's
ever taken to earn him the reputation as a "maverick" and made him
appealing in the first place? (e.g. torture, and telling the worst
elements of the religious right to screw off, to name two?) One is
left with the distinct impression that McCain is in it to win it, not
for any other purpose.

Neither candidate is perfect or, really, the best that either party
had to offer. But while Obama/Biden are merely unappealing, McCain/
Palin are frightening. Just say "President Palin" a few times and if
you don't get chills down your spine, you need to watch more TV.

Maybe that was McCain's plan - Governor Palin is a better life
insurance policy, should he be elected, than even Dick Cheney. We'll
be spending our whole GDP keeping McCain alive, if necessary.

nate

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a

On Oct 24, 10:42*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? *That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

* *And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a

Are we talking about the same people? Seriously. Sometimes I feel
like I'm living in this weird backwards parallel universe when I read
some of these posts.

nate

On Oct 23, 10:18*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I agree. He's [Osama ben Laden] a big piece of the puzzle but killing him
wouldn't
solve the problem. But you know, nothing would please Bush more.

olddog

If you want to send a message, there's no more powerful message than
swift, accurate justice. *Unfortunately that window closed a while
ago.

It has never been the policy of the United States to kill or capture Osama
ben Laden. If either happens, it's a bonus, but actively pursuing either has
never been a strategic - or even tactical - goal of the United States in the
War on Terror.

Since immediately after 9-11, the single strategic goal of the United States
has been to prevent another attack on the country or civilian U.S. interests
abroad. To accomplish this goal, tactical efforts have been directed toward
disrupting terrorist communications, financing, recruiting, training, and
the harboring of terrorists by rogue states as well as strengthening
defenses both at home and abroad.

In the decade of the 90's, there have been one or two attacks on U.S.
interests, either here or overseas, per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy
bombings, kidnappings of diplomats, etc. Since the aforementioned policy was
adopted, there has not been one single attack - successful or otherwise - in
the United States or against civilian US interests abroad.

To "capture" or "kill" ben Laden as a goal is to harken to the criminal
justice model. Ben Laden is NOT a criminal - he is an unlawful enemy
combatant, same as any other guerrilla, saboteur, spy, or fifth-columnist..
The criminal justice methodology is not the technique to use on him.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama, Biden,
Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy,
I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been
dismal failures?

nate

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a


look at how many times OBAMA has had to "nuance" or backtrack on his
statements.Libs call it "flip-flop" when a conservative does it,but ignore
it when their "Messiah" does it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

We're going to have to cut back AND pursue other technologies.
Everybody
is looking for a single answer, and there isn't one.

And so what if climate change isn't caused by human activities? It's
a worthy
goal to not use up every damn thing we can. I'd be giddy if we never
sent another dollar to buy oil from unfriendly countries.


I wholeheartedly agree that we should keep looking. Some things actually
help a bit: Walmart is putting skylights in its stores and reducing lighting
costs during the day. Almost anybody can erect a solar water heater and save
a few bucks a year.

A couple of points about "using up" every damn thing. Starting with the
Romans, much of Europe was denuded of trees and North Africa was turned into
a desert over the need for wood - mainly for charcoal. When the wood
essentially ran out, coal was developed. The industrial revolution was run
on coal.

Just before coal got scarce, oil was found to be a viable substitute.

If the oil runs out, we'll find something else.

The problem with being self-sufficient in oil is: we can't be. Oil is
fungible. Oil from here is much like oil from there, the only difference
being price. If we drill for oil in ANWAR, it'll probably be more profitable
to ship it to Japan than to the lower 48, one reason being the states of
Washington, Oregon, and California won't allow tankers to dock, so the oil
will have to be off-loaded in Mexico then piped through Texas. But that's
okay, because the oil Japan currently buys from Sri Lanka (or wherever) is
now available to us.

Another aspect of this fungibility problem is the malovelence of foreign
suppliers. Suppose a domestic company has to get, oh, $30/bbl delivered to
justify the development of a field. Nigeria or Iran could cut their price to
$25/bbl delivered and put a domestic supplier out of business.

What we COULD do in the short run is develop enough domestic oil supplies to
offset boycotts by mid-east countries. We currently get about 15% of our oil
from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, so we could remove them as a threat by
relying on domestic production (if we had to). We get most of our
foreign-supplied oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.

Regarding other technologies: It's possible that alternate forms of energy
can nibble at the margins but many don't stand a chance of doing more. For
example, reliance on solar power is doomed by the laws of physics. The earth
receives about 700 watts/sq meter of energy from the sun. At the equator. At
noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase that value is to move the
orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Accounting for latitude, cloud cover, hours of daylight, and efficiency of
solar collectors, it would take a "farm" the size of the Los Angeles basin
(about 1200 square miles) to provide enough energy for California. During
the daylight hours. Not counting the immense cost of such a contraption (and
its ongoing maintenance), everybody in Los Angeles would be in the dark!

Which, when you think on it, may not be such a bad idea.

N8N wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:40 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound
bite generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.

Not possible. Unless you are going to posit that it is possible to
have negative substance.

At the very least, Obama appears Presidential and I wouldn't feel
embarassed to have him meet with other world leaders; I have
confidence that he would engage them in respectful, intelligent
discourse. Because McCain is, let's face it, getting on in years and
has known health problems, his choice of Palin as VP is ludicrously
irresponsible and an insult to the American public. I don't have warm
fuzzies about voting for Obama, but there's no way in hell I could
even consider voting for McCain.

he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies.

As opposed to McCain, who has turned his back on every position he's
ever taken to earn him the reputation as a "maverick" and made him
appealing in the first place? (e.g. torture, and telling the worst
elements of the religious right to screw off, to name two?) One is
left with the distinct impression that McCain is in it to win it, not
for any other purpose.

Neither candidate is perfect or, really, the best that either party
had to offer. But while Obama/Biden are merely unappealing, McCain/
Palin are frightening. Just say "President Palin" a few times and if
you don't get chills down your spine, you need to watch more TV.

Maybe that was McCain's plan - Governor Palin is a better life
insurance policy, should he be elected, than even Dick Cheney. We'll
be spending our whole GDP keeping McCain alive, if necessary.

Palin's not running for president and the only world leaders she'll meet are
the dead ones in her official capacity as representative for state funerals.

I suggest that the chances of Obama meeting an untimely end are far, far
greater than McCain. After all, there are about 1 billion Mohammadens who,
if they follow the dictates of their religion, have a specified sanction for
an apostate.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a


look at how many times OBAMA has had to "nuance" or backtrack on his
statements.Libs call it "flip-flop" when a conservative does it,but ignore
it when their "Messiah" does it.



Not entirely true and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Many Obama "flip-flop"
moments have been highlighted on CNN.

I think it's how a candidate changes position that many people object to. If
they try to act like they never said "that" or "were misunderstood" the
general public sees through it.

IOW: It's how the can shows his reasoning process. Does he admit the mistake
and move on or does he try to cover his previous stance up?

I'd have to say that Obama has given a better "face" on his flip-flops than
McCain. Not always, but he's human and in a tough spot. Take "the surge":
We're all thankful the violence has declined but at the same time we regret
being in the position that we have to mitigate the damage. Having to admit
it worked is like saying "good job" to someone who got us in one of the
worst messes of our life time.

olddog

"retired54" wrote in message
...

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a


look at how many times OBAMA has had to "nuance" or backtrack on his
statements.Libs call it "flip-flop" when a conservative does it,but
ignore
it when their "Messiah" does it.



Not entirely true and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Many Obama "flip-flop"
moments have been highlighted on CNN.

I think it's how a candidate changes position that many people object to.
If they try to act like they never said "that" or "were misunderstood" the
general public sees through it.

IOW: It's how the *can* shows his reasoning process. Does he admit the
mistake and move on or does he try to cover his previous stance up?

I'd have to say that Obama has given a better "face" on his flip-flops
than McCain. Not always, but he's human and in a tough spot. Take "the
surge": We're all thankful the violence has declined but at the same time
we regret being in the position that we have to mitigate the damage.
Having to admit it worked is like saying "good job" to someone who got us
in one of the worst messes of our life time.

olddog



can = *candidate*

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
N8N wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:40 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound
bite generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.

Not possible. Unless you are going to posit that it is possible to
have negative substance.

At the very least, Obama appears Presidential and I wouldn't feel
embarassed to have him meet with other world leaders; I have
confidence that he would engage them in respectful, intelligent
discourse. Because McCain is, let's face it, getting on in years and
has known health problems, his choice of Palin as VP is ludicrously
irresponsible and an insult to the American public. I don't have warm
fuzzies about voting for Obama, but there's no way in hell I could
even consider voting for McCain.

he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies.

As opposed to McCain, who has turned his back on every position he's
ever taken to earn him the reputation as a "maverick" and made him
appealing in the first place? (e.g. torture, and telling the worst
elements of the religious right to screw off, to name two?) One is
left with the distinct impression that McCain is in it to win it, not
for any other purpose.

Neither candidate is perfect or, really, the best that either party
had to offer. But while Obama/Biden are merely unappealing, McCain/
Palin are frightening. Just say "President Palin" a few times and if
you don't get chills down your spine, you need to watch more TV.

Maybe that was McCain's plan - Governor Palin is a better life
insurance policy, should he be elected, than even Dick Cheney. We'll
be spending our whole GDP keeping McCain alive, if necessary.

Palin's not running for president and the only world leaders she'll meet
are the dead ones in her official capacity as representative for state
funerals.

I suggest that the chances of Obama meeting an untimely end are far, far
greater than McCain. After all, there are about 1 billion Mohammadens who,
if they follow the dictates of their religion, have a specified sanction
for an apostate.

Bush is still alive and he is one of the most hated presidents in our
history.

olddog

On Oct 24, 12:07*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:40 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound
bite generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.

Not possible. *Unless you are going to posit that it is possible to
have negative substance.

At the very least, Obama appears Presidential and I wouldn't feel
embarassed to have him meet with other world leaders; I have
confidence that he would engage them in respectful, intelligent
discourse. *Because McCain is, let's face it, getting on in years and
has known health problems, his choice of Palin as VP is ludicrously
irresponsible and an insult to the American public. *I don't have warm
fuzzies about voting for Obama, but there's no way in hell I could
even consider voting for McCain.

he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies.

As opposed to McCain, who has turned his back on every position he's
ever taken to earn him the reputation as a "maverick" and made him
appealing in the first place? *(e.g. torture, and telling the worst
elements of the religious right to screw off, to name two?) *One is
left with the distinct impression that McCain is in it to win it, not
for any other purpose.

Neither candidate is perfect or, really, the best that either party
had to offer. *But while Obama/Biden are merely unappealing, McCain/
Palin are frightening. *Just say "President Palin" a few times and if
you don't get chills down your spine, you need to watch more TV.

Maybe that was McCain's plan - Governor Palin is a better life
insurance policy, should he be elected, than even Dick Cheney. *We'll
be spending our whole GDP keeping McCain alive, if necessary.

Palin's not running for president and the only world leaders she'll meet are
the dead ones in her official capacity as representative for state funerals.

Unless something happens to McCain - a non-zero probability.

I suggest that the chances of Obama meeting an untimely end are far, far
greater than McCain. After all, there are about 1 billion Mohammadens who,
if they follow the dictates of their religion, have a specified sanction for
an apostate.

I have yet to hear one Muslim publicly denounce Obama. the worst I've
heard is mutterings from US Muslims that they are disappointed that
Obama has not reached out to them more publicly.

Obama is relatively young, healthy, and will be surrounded by Secret
Service. Joe Biden isn't nearly as appalling as Palin, either.

nate

N8N wrote:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama,
Biden, Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy,
I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been
dismal failures?


Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who claims to be
a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's in the
best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the extreme whether
the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans are miffed. I measure
success by how many enemies of this great republic, their wives, children,
and goats die a horrible death (preceded, if possible, by piteous
lamentations), not the readings on some imaginary "Love Meter."

To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill terrorists. Kill terrorists. Kill more
terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on the
approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a Rumsfeld word)
in measuring "success."

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
N8N wrote:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama,
Biden, Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy,
I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been
dismal failures?


Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who claims to
be a neoconservative.


I get it. You voted for Bush so it's impossible for him to be a failure. Why
that would be a "flip-flop" and you can't have that.

It's your pride that is fouling your logic Cowboy.

olddog

On Oct 24, 12:21*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
N8N wrote:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama,
Biden, Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy,
I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been
dismal failures?

Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who claims to be
a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's in the
best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the extreme whether
the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans are miffed. I measure
success by how many enemies of this great republic, their wives, children,
and goats die a horrible death (preceded, if possible, by piteous
lamentations), not the readings on some imaginary "Love Meter."

To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill terrorists. Kill terrorists. Kill more
terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on the
approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a Rumsfeld word)
in measuring "success."

What metric do you use to describe the neocons' "success?"

I can't think of a single one that works.

They certainly have been responsible for the deaths of some terrorists
and potential terrorists. they have also been responsible for the
deaths of many of our young men and women, and those of our allies,
and destabilizing an already volatile country. they have also been
responsible for the creation of many more terrorists. they have also
bankrupted our country and destroyed our moral standing in the
international community.

If that's success, I want less of it. I find it hard to even speak
the word "neoconservative" without using the same tone of voice that
they use when speaking the term "liberal." More than anything else
they have destroyed the conservative movement or at least gravely
wounded it and have assured a Democratic victory in the upcoming
Presidential election.

nate

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


The problem with being self-sufficient in oil is: we can't be. Oil is
fungible. Oil from here is much like oil from there, the only difference
being price. If we drill for oil in ANWAR, it'll probably be more profitable
to ship it to Japan than to the lower 48, one reason being the states of
Washington, Oregon, and California won't allow tankers to dock, so the oil
will have to be off-loaded in Mexico then piped through Texas. But that's
okay, because the oil Japan currently buys from Sri Lanka (or wherever) is
now available to us.
We could (theoretically) be self-sufficient, because that is solely
a function of how much we pump. As long as we pump the same amount (or
more) as we consume we are self-sufficient. The fungibility is beside
the point unless there is some kind of major dislocation and we want to
keep it all at home. In that case, the above is likely the least of our
problems.


Another aspect of this fungibility problem is the malovelence of foreign
suppliers. Suppose a domestic company has to get, oh, $30/bbl delivered to
justify the development of a field. Nigeria or Iran could cut their price to
$25/bbl delivered and put a domestic supplier out of business.

That is largely what happened in the past. HOwever, most experts suggest
that most of the ability of OPEC to open the spigots and play games to
that extent is largely over as their oil fields have peaked. Russia
might be in a position, but they really don't have enough of their oil
fields open and flowing yet to do much damage.


What we COULD do in the short run is develop enough domestic oil supplies to
offset boycotts by mid-east countries. We currently get about 15% of our oil
from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, so we could remove them as a threat by
relying on domestic production (if we had to). We get most of our
foreign-supplied oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.

But the fungibility issue also works to our favor. Oil prices are
based on a WORLD market. So, to the extent that additional pumping from
US sources messes with the supply/price equilibrium point, oil prices
could come down. Which could impact on another kind of threat.

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:


Bush is still alive and he is one of the most hated presidents in our
history.

ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or
certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.

On Oct 24, 12:41*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"retired54" wrote:

Bush is still alive and he is one of the most hated presidents in our
history.

* ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or
certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.

Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

nate

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 3:27 am, "Bob F" wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message

...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

But it does indicate deliberate ignorance of the facts.

No, I too oppose socialist muslims. That tag, at least the "muslim"
part, does not apply to Obama however. Hopefully the moderates in
Congress will be able to minimize the socialist effects of an Obama
presidency.

************************************************** ************

But you have really enjoyed the give-away-to-the-rich actions of the republicans
since Reagan? Why shouldn't the people who benefit far more from our system pay
their part?
Without the working class, they'd have nothing.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.


So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate


she has far more substance than Obama.
He's been nothing more than a placeholder.
and he's DISHONEST;
he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies. He's STILL hiding his background,too.

But he's not even close to McCain. And McCain has flip-flopped on virtually
everything he used to believe since he began to run, all to meet the demands of
"the base". Taxes, abortion, torture, immigration - you name it.

The one time McCain stopped a supporter and told her that she was wrong, that
Obama was not "an arab", that Obama was a decent person, a family man, etc. was
the only sign I've seen this whole campaign that he has any honor at all. Not
someone I, or most other americans can think of voting for.

More americans trust Obama than McCain, as you'll soon see.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
N8N wrote:
On Oct 24, 9:40 am, Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound
bite generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

she has far more substance than Obama.

Not possible. Unless you are going to posit that it is possible to
have negative substance.

At the very least, Obama appears Presidential and I wouldn't feel
embarassed to have him meet with other world leaders; I have
confidence that he would engage them in respectful, intelligent
discourse. Because McCain is, let's face it, getting on in years and
has known health problems, his choice of Palin as VP is ludicrously
irresponsible and an insult to the American public. I don't have warm
fuzzies about voting for Obama, but there's no way in hell I could
even consider voting for McCain.

he lied about so many things,yet Obama supporters are so willing to
overlook his lies.

As opposed to McCain, who has turned his back on every position he's
ever taken to earn him the reputation as a "maverick" and made him
appealing in the first place? (e.g. torture, and telling the worst
elements of the religious right to screw off, to name two?) One is
left with the distinct impression that McCain is in it to win it, not
for any other purpose.

Neither candidate is perfect or, really, the best that either party
had to offer. But while Obama/Biden are merely unappealing, McCain/
Palin are frightening. Just say "President Palin" a few times and if
you don't get chills down your spine, you need to watch more TV.

Maybe that was McCain's plan - Governor Palin is a better life
insurance policy, should he be elected, than even Dick Cheney. We'll
be spending our whole GDP keeping McCain alive, if necessary.

Palin's not running for president and the only world leaders she'll meet are
the dead ones in her official capacity as representative for state funerals.

The average chance that a VP will end up as president is 1 in 3. With McCain,
that chance is way higher than average. The risk is just too high to take the
chance. I've yet to see any indication that Palin can "think on her feet".
Everything I've seen is nothing more than parroting prepared responses.


I suggest that the chances of Obama meeting an untimely end are far, far
greater than McCain. After all, there are about 1 billion Mohammadens who, if
they follow the dictates of their religion, have a specified sanction for an
apostate.

Most of that risk probably comes from the idiots that McCain and Palin have been
imflaming with their negative campaigning. Have you seen the interviews of
people waiting to get into his "town meetings"? Many are scary. Ignorant and
misinformed to the point of danger after Obama takes office, I suspect.

It all does help in the process of throwing out the republicans that have been
ruining our country, I guess.

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 12:41 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"retired54" wrote:

Bush is still alive and he is one of the most hated presidents in our
history.

ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or
certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.

Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

************************************************** **************8

Everyone I know who's been overseas in the last several years has indicated that
the people they've talked to are appalled by the actions of the Bush
administration.

Us citizens abroad are certain less safe than they were before. But then, who
can afford to travel anymore?

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 10:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a

Are we talking about the same people? Seriously. Sometimes I feel
like I'm living in this weird backwards parallel universe when I read
some of these posts.

************************************************** ***88

Pretty amazing, isn't it. I guess we'll soon see who the public believes.

"retired54" wrote in message
...

I'd have to say that Obama has given a better "face" on his flip-flops than
McCain. Not always, but he's human and in a tough spot. Take "the surge":
We're all thankful the violence has declined but at the same time we regret
being in the position that we have to mitigate the damage. Having to admit it
worked is like saying "good job" to someone who got us in one of the worst
messes of our life time.

Much of the claimed benefit of "the surge" is not directly related to it. The
Anbar awaking, and the policy of paying off of groups to stop them from shooting
at us have been a significant part of the improvement.

John McCains explanation of the connection between the awakening and the surge
display a confused understanding of the reality of the occupation of Iraq.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
N8N wrote:

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and others understand this. Obama,
Biden, Pelosi, Carter, and others of the left do not.

Oh, yes, if I want examples of functional, intelligent foreign policy,
I'm going to turn to people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Couldn't you come up with some examples of people who have not been
dismal failures?


Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who claims to be a
neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition, foreigners
don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's in the best interests
of the United States. I am indifferent in the extreme whether the French have
their feelings hurt or the Minoans are miffed. I measure success by how many
enemies of this great republic, their wives, children, and goats die a
horrible death (preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the
readings on some imaginary "Love Meter."

To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill terrorists. Kill terrorists. Kill more
terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on the
approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a Rumsfeld word) in
measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are killing by our
actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the hundreds of
thousands.

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..

"retired54" wrote in message
...

I'd have to say that Obama has given a better "face" on his flip-flops
than McCain. Not always, but he's human and in a tough spot. Take "the
surge": We're all thankful the violence has declined but at the same time
we regret being in the position that we have to mitigate the damage.
Having to admit it worked is like saying "good job" to someone who got us
in one of the worst messes of our life time.

Much of the claimed benefit of "the surge" is not directly related to it.
The Anbar awaking, and the policy of paying off of groups to stop them
from shooting at us have been a significant part of the improvement.

John McCains explanation of the connection between the awakening and the
surge display a confused understanding of the reality of the occupation of
Iraq.



Regardless, it was to Obama's advantage that the focus shifted from the war
in Iraq to the economy. The public was buying McCain's story: Less deaths
equal "we're winning".

what a fu#king mess!

On Oct 24, 12:48*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"N8N" wrote in message

...
On Oct 24, 3:27 am, "Bob F" wrote:

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message

...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

But it does indicate deliberate ignorance of the facts.

No, I too oppose socialist muslims. *That tag, at least the "muslim"
part, does not apply to Obama however. *Hopefully the moderates in
Congress will be able to minimize the socialist effects of an Obama
presidency.

************************************************** ************

But you have really enjoyed the give-away-to-the-rich actions of the republicans
since Reagan? Why shouldn't the people who benefit far more from our system pay
their part?
Without the working class, they'd have nothing.


That's a noble sentiment, but Obama has been quiet *corporate
taxes.* And McCain is absolutely correct on that point - our
corporate tax rates are uncompetitively high. There's no reason for a
large multinational corporation to stay incorporated in the US. My
own employer is a perfect example. We can either lower our corporate
tax rates and get *some* revenue, or leave them high and get none.

nate

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to
kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?



************************************************** **************8

Everyone I know who's been overseas in the last several years has indicated
that
the people they've talked to are appalled by the actions of the Bush
administration.
The ephemeral "everyone I know". This is less useful than n=1
studies.



Us citizens abroad are certain less safe than they were before. But then, who
can afford to travel anymore?
You have any evidence of that? I certainly don't see it in my
travels.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to
kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?

I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people that
don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's actions.
And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit hthe
aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan for
that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE commitment
of police-type forces) things might have been different. Unfortunately
our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war after winning the
battle.

nate

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

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:


Bush is still alive and he is one of the most hated presidents in our
history.

Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Aided and abetted by a leftist,"liberal",socialist media.
( a bit of redundancy there,sorry..)

ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or
certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.


"Rabid" is a very accurate description.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

Hey,the Presidency of the US is NOT any popularity game.
It's serious business.
and there's always going to be people who are jealous of the US,and/or have
desires that the US opposes by it's support for freedom around the world.

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to
kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?



************************************************** **************8

Everyone I know who's been overseas in the last several years has
indicated that
the people they've talked to are appalled by the actions of the Bush
administration.

Perhaps they are not rational.
Perhaps they are blinded by bias.

The ephemeral "everyone I know". This is less useful than n=1
studies.



Us citizens abroad are certain less safe than they were before. But
then, who can afford to travel anymore?
You have any evidence of that? I certainly don't see it in my
travels.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to

no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?

I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people that
don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's actions.

That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit hthe
aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan for
that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE commitment
of police-type forces) things might have been different. Unfortunately
our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war after winning the
battle.

nate


Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about every war
the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis Hanson's articles..)
One MAJOR thing different this time is that we no longer had the support of
the media.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to

no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?
I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people that
don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's actions.

That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit hthe
aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan for
that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE commitment
of police-type forces) things might have been different. Unfortunately
our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war after winning the
battle.

nate


Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about every war
the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis Hanson's articles..)
One MAJOR thing different this time is that we no longer had the support of
the media.


Of course. Those who do not learn from history, et cetera. This is why
Bush et. cie. are failures. Do *you* support someone who keeps doing
the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome? Isn't
that a clinical definition of insanity?

nate

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

Bob F wrote:

************************************************** ************

But you have really enjoyed the give-away-to-the-rich actions of the
republicans since Reagan? Why shouldn't the people who benefit far
more from our system pay their part?
Without the working class, they'd have nothing.

I agree that those who USE more government services should pay more. The
rich don't send their kids to public schools, use food stamps, appear at the
county hospital, end up in jail (as a rule), and so on.

The rich DO drive on public roads (or their driver does) and a few other
things, so they should pay SOME taxes.

Bob F wrote:

Are we talking about the same people? Seriously. Sometimes I feel
like I'm living in this weird backwards parallel universe when I read
some of these posts.

************************************************** ***88

Pretty amazing, isn't it. I guess we'll soon see who the public
believes.

I think we're seeing it already as the investor class computes the future of
a probable Obama administration.

Bob F wrote:

Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."

Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


You are no better than they.

nate


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

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 10:42 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I oppose socialist muslims who want to redistribute wealth.

So? That in no way negates the fact that Palin is a shrill sound bite
generator who has yet to show any substance whatsoever.

nate

And Biden has fallen into some black hole somewhere. He makes Palin
look a Sumo wrestler in the substance comparison. More an indictment of
Biden than props for Palin in real life. a

Are we talking about the same people? Seriously. Sometimes I feel
like I'm living in this weird backwards parallel universe when I read
some of these posts.

nate

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

It's called denial.

We're dealing with more than just politics. We're up our ears in hurt pride.

olddog

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote:

Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


Well Pakistan has a bunch of them. Why don't you pack up the Winnebago?

Good Riddance.

olddog