Bush Condemns Appeasement; Obama complains - "he's talking about me!"
Fred Stone
I completely concur with John. The President’s speech was a beautiful,
eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish state. Here is the
offending passage:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and
radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi
tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord,
if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been
avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is–the false comfort
of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Obama’s faux anger in reaction to Bush’s speech is ludicrous. For one
thing, the President did not even mention Senator Obama in his speech.
What the President was rebutting was a (fairly prevalent) cast of mind,
one which is shared by Obama but by many others–including Jimmy Carter,
who just returned from the region, as well as a people serving in Bush’s
own State Department.
For Obama’s communications director to call the President’s remarks an
“unprecedented political attack on foreign soil” is utter nonsense. More
than that, though, Obama’s reaction is exactly the kind of “distraction”
that he constantly complains about–even when the issues raised are
legitimate ones to discuss (like his association with the Reverend
Wright). To take a serious address like the one President Bush delivered
in Israel today and shoehorn it into a campaign is exactly the kind of
thing that drags down political discourse in America–and is the opposite
of what Obama claims to represent.
With every passing week, it seems, the gap between what Obama says he is
and how he acts is widening. His campaign’s latest attack looks
contrived, petty, and stupid–unworthy even of our “old politics.”
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
Bill Baker
in message news:<02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/6431
>
> I completely concur with John. The President’s speech was a beautiful,
> eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish state.
The President is a liar and a moron who has nothing to lose, so he believes
he can say whatever he wants. Trouble is, he will call unwanted attention
to himself and lose McCain the presidency.
--
Bushism 9-30/10-1:
"I would have my Secretary of Treasury be in touch with the financial
centers, not only here but at home."
--Boston, Massachusetts; October 3, 2000
Fred Stone
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 07:44 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
> wrote in message news:<02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/6431
>>
>> I completely concur with John. The President’s speech was a beautiful,
>> eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish state.
>
> The President is a liar and a moron who has nothing to lose, so he
> believes he can say whatever he wants. Trouble is, he will call
> unwanted attention to himself and lose McCain the presidency.
So then you agree that when the President talked about appeasers he was
talking about Obama?
Bill Baker
in message news:<482cef7f$0$25205$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:16:38 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 07:44 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>> wrote in message news:<02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/6431
>>>
>>> I completely concur with John. The President’s speech was a beautiful,
>>> eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish state.
>>
>> The President is a liar and a moron who has nothing to lose, so he
>> believes he can say whatever he wants. Trouble is, he will call
>> unwanted attention to himself and lose McCain the presidency.
>
> So then you agree that when the President talked about appeasers he was
> talking about Obama?
Did I say that? No. Bush is simply wrong no matter who he's talking about.
--
Some conservative Christians argue in favor of hell by calling it "God's
great compliment." I'd like to ask such people what God does when he wants
to insult somebody. - Edward T. Babinski
towelie
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:16:38 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 07:44 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>> wrote in message news:<02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/6431
>>>
>>> I completely concur with John. The President's speech was a
>>> beautiful, eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish
>>> state.
>>
>> The President is a liar and a moron who has nothing to lose, so he
>> believes he can say whatever he wants. Trouble is, he will call
>> unwanted attention to himself and lose McCain the presidency.
>
> So then you agree that when the President talked about appeasers he
> was talking about Obama?
Just because your retard hero believes something doesn't make it so. WMDs
for example. Bush claims that Obama is as bad as Hitler, but he provides no
evidence. Sounds like you and your sockpuppet "JTEM".
towelie
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 10:20 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
> wrote in message news:<482cef7f$0$25205$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:16:38 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 07:44 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:<02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>>
>>>> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/6431
>>>>
>>>> I completely concur with John. The President's speech was a
>>>> beautiful, eloquent address celebrating the birth of the Jewish
>>>> state.
>>>
>>> The President is a liar and a moron who has nothing to lose, so he
>>> believes he can say whatever he wants. Trouble is, he will call
>>> unwanted attention to himself and lose McCain the presidency.
>>
>> So then you agree that when the President talked about appeasers he
>> was talking about Obama?
>
> Did I say that? No. Bush is simply wrong no matter who he's talking
> about.
Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he was
saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course for the
hated Bush regime.
johac
And I agree with Joe Biden.
---
May 15, 2008
Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
Posted: 04:07 PM ET
(CNN) ‹ The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe
Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bushąs comments accusing Sen. Barack
Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls**t˛
and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking
to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both
of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.
łThis is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for
the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in
the KnessetŠand make this kind of ridiculous statement,˛ Biden said
angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.
łHeąs the guy whoąs weakened us. Heąs the guy thatąs increased the
number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this
vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed
that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking
about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the
need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope
he comes home and does something.˛
He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we łneed to figure out a way to
develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.˛
---
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments
-bulls-t/
--
John #1782
Rick
Bush was clearly not talking about Obama. He was talking about McCain, 2006
Edition.
Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306_pf.html
hat tip:
UNEARTHED: 2006 John McCain favors talks with Hamas
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/15639/1519/929/516718
- Rick
Michelle Malkin
"Rick" <ri...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:O6GdnXfySISc37DV...@giganews.com...
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Bush was clearly not talking about Obama. He was talking about McCain,
> 2006 Edition.
Don't be more ridiculous than you already are, Fred.
Bush would not knock McCain who is the Republican
nominee for President. He would, on the other hand,
knock Obama who is going to be the Democratic
nominee for President. If McCain is now against talking
to Hamas, there is no sense in attacking him for an old
opinion.
I AM A TRUE CHRISTIAN
> "Rick" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
> news:O6GdnXfySISc37DV...@giganews.com...
>
> > "Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> >news:02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > Bush was clearly not talking about Obama. He was talking about McCain,
> > 2006 Edition.
>
> Don't be more ridiculous than you already are, Fred.
> Bush would not knock McCain who is the Republican
> nominee for President. He would, on the other hand,
> knock Obama who is going to be the Democratic
> nominee for President. If McCain is now against talking
> to Hamas, there is no sense in attacking him for an old
> opinion.
>
> >
>
> > Hypocrisy on Hamas
> > McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
>
> > hat tip:
> > UNEARTHED: 2006 John McCain favors talks with Hamas
> >http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/15639/1519/929/516718
>
> > - Rick
THE NIGER OBAMA IS A COWARD
duke
wrote:
>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>May 15, 2008
>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
And I agree with President Bush.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
DanielSan
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>> May 15, 2008
>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>
> And I agree with President Bush.
>
Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at that
Nazi appeaser!
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Fred Stone
If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was probably
referring to Obama?
Fred Stone
> duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>> May 15, 2008
>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>
>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>
>>
> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>
> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at that
> Nazi appeaser!
Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
Fred Stone
If it's not so, then why did Obama react as if Bush was talking about
him? Bush didn't name any names, but Obama's people sure did recognize
him in what Bush said.
John Locke
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>May 15, 2008
>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>
>And I agree with President Bush.
>
Bush is the one appeasing terrorists. Bush doesn't even know
what a terrorist is. A "terrorist" is an Islamic fueled commando.
What you're really fighting is religion. That's the root of the
problem. If you don't take care of the source, then you'll never
put a dent in so called "terrorism". Bush could start by putting
a moratorium on Islam indoctrination, blowing up masques,
locking up Islamic clerics and providing protection for Muslim
dissentients.
Now here's a nice quote from your hero:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably
in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you.
Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."--Goerge W. Bush
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Martin
Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he said
it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing voices
in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god replies.
>
Rick
"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:orKdnX6-lpjoxLDV...@comcast.com...
pba...@worldonline.nl
> "Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
>
> news:02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Bush was clearly not talking about Obama. He was talking about McCain, 2006
> Edition.
>
> Hypocrisy on Hamas
>
> hat tip:
> UNEARTHED: 2006 John McCain favors talks with Hamashttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/15639/1519/929/516718
>
> - Rick
Was it before or after Hamas won the elections that he changed his
opinion?
You don't want to talk to those who win elections?
or do you?
Peter van Velzen
May 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Fred Stone
Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
took a direct hit?
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>> May 15, 2008
>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>
>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>
>
>Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
Ron Raygun was not President during WWII. 'rat Rosevelt was president then.
Bill Baker
news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>May 15, 2008
>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>
> And I agree with President Bush.
So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and like
he himself did with North Korea?
--
Bushism 6-27:
"The important question is, how many hands have I shaked?"
--Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire,
as quoted in the New York Times; October 23, 1999
Bill Baker
message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>
>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>
>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>>>
>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>
>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he said
>> it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing voices
>> in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god replies.
>>
>
> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
> took a direct hit?
Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
--
Bushism 8-22:
"See, we love--we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They
hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek
revenge, we seek justice out of love."
--Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; August 29, 2002
Fred Stone
> On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> message news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>May 15, 2008
>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>
>> And I agree with President Bush.
>
> So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
> governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and
> like he himself did with North Korea?
Look how well all those worked out.
Fred Stone
> On Friday 16 May 2008 11:15 am Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
> in message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
>>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
>>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>>>>
>>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>>
>>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he
>>> said it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing
>>> voices in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god
>>> replies.
>>>
>>>
>> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
>> took a direct hit?
>
> Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
Obama takes it personally anyway.
Bill Baker
message news:<482db961$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:41 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> message news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>
>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>
>> So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
>> governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and
>> like he himself did with North Korea?
>
> Look how well all those worked out.
So your argument is that because Republicans are bad at it, nobody should do
it ever?
--
Bushism 5-16:
"This has been tough weeks in that country."
--Washington, D.C.; April 13, 2004
Bill Baker
message news:<482db98f$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:05:49 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 11:15 am Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>> in message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
>>>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
>>>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>>>
>>>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he
>>>> said it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing
>>>> voices in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god
>>>> replies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
>>> took a direct hit?
>>
>> Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
>
> Obama takes it personally anyway.
Are you saying he doesn't have the right to do that?
--
Bushism 5-20/21:
"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions,
particularly to end the inhumane practice of ending a life that otherwise
could live."
--Cleveland, Ohio; June 29, 2000
Fred Stone
> On Friday 16 May 2008 12:42 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
> in message news:<482db961$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:41 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>> message news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>
>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>
>>> So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
>>> governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and
>>> like he himself did with North Korea?
>>
>> Look how well all those worked out.
>
> So your argument is that because Republicans are bad at it, nobody
> should do it ever?
Name some Democrats who have done it better.
Fred Stone
> On Friday 16 May 2008 12:42 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
> in message news:<482db98f$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:05:49 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 11:15 am Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote in message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what
>>>>>>> he was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the
>>>>>>> course for the hated Bush regime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>>>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he
>>>>> said it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was
>>>>> hearing voices in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and
>>>>> god replies.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if
>>>> he took a direct hit?
>>>
>>> Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
>>
>> Obama takes it personally anyway.
>
> Are you saying he doesn't have the right to do that?
I'm saying that by doing that he proclaims to the world that he's one of
the guys Bush was talking about.
Syd M.
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >And I agree with Joe Biden.
> >May 15, 2008
> >Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>
> And I agree with President Bush.
>
Big deal.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:05:49 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
> > in message <news:482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>
> >>> Fred Stone wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>
> >>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
> >>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
> >>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>
> >>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
> >>>> probably referring to Obama?
>
> >>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he
> >>> said it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing
> >>> voices in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god
> >>> replies.
>
> >> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
> >> took a direct hit?
>
> > Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
>
> Obama takes it personally anyway.
>
PDW
duke
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:20:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>May 15, 2008
>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>And I agree with President Bush.
>Bush is the one appeasing terrorists.
He is??? How's that? What a klutz.
duke
wrote:
>On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>May 15, 2008
>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>
>> And I agree with President Bush.
>So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
>governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and like
>he himself did with North Korea?
President Bush and I agree that we talk from a position of strength. the green
black man thinks we should talk from a position of weakness.
pba...@worldonline.nl
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:41 -0400, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org>
> wrote:
>
> ><news:vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
> >>>May 15, 2008
> >>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>
> >> And I agree with President Bush.
> >So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
> >governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and like
> >he himself did with North Korea?
>
> President Bush and I agree that we talk from a position of strength. the green
> black man thinks we should talk from a position of weakness.
Just like Jesus did when he told Peter to put away the sword aye ?
You and Georgy do not like pussies like them aye?
Or do you?
Think about it!
Bill Baker
message news:<0278cce5$0$26888$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:32:55 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 12:42 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>> in message news:<482db961$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:41 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>>
>>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
>>>> governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and
>>>> like he himself did with North Korea?
>>>
>>> Look how well all those worked out.
>>
>> So your argument is that because Republicans are bad at it, nobody
>> should do it ever?
>
> Name some Democrats who have done it better.
So now you switch to because Republicans are bad at it, that means Democrats
are good at it? It's just one logical fallacy after another with you,
isn't it?
--
<studdud> what the fuck is wtf
Bill Baker
news:<utor24htee5g9q657...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:04:41 -0400, Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>On Friday 16 May 2008 08:20 am duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:<vuuq24p26msdq1nsf...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>
>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>
>>So you agree with Bush that U.S. leaders should not talk to terrorist
>>governments like Reagan did with Iran, like Rumsfeld did with Iraq and
>>like he himself did with North Korea?
>
> President Bush and I agree that we talk from a position of strength. the
> green black man thinks we should talk from a position of weakness.
What proof do you have of that?
--
Bushism 2-9:
"I want to thank the dozens of welfare-to-work stories, the actual examples
of people who made the firm and solemn commitment to work hard to embetter
themselves."
--Washington, D.C.; April 18, 2002
Bill Baker
message news:<0278cd2e$0$26888$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
It doesn't matter because Bush is wrong anyway, no matter who he's talking
about.
--
Fred Stone
So now you can't name *anyone* who has done it successfully, but you
still insist on trying it anyway?
Fred Stone
And yet you just admitted that Bush is right, because you can't name
anybody who has gotten anything good out of negotiating with terrorists.
DanielSan
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nazi appeaser!
>
> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>
Neither is Iran.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
John Locke
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:12:12 -0700, John Locke <johnloc...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:20:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>And I agree with President Bush.
>
>>Bush is the one appeasing terrorists.
>
>He is??? How's that? What a klutz.
>
By leaving a bunch of religious Muslim nuts in control of the
government in Iraq. Thats how. Separation of church and state
was never even mentioned. You've go to put the clamps on
Islam...its poisonous.
DanielSan
> On Friday 16 May 2008 11:15 am Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in
> message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
>>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
>>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he said
>>> it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing voices
>>> in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god replies.
>>>
>> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
>> took a direct hit?
>
> Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
>
And not only that, but Obama has said in the past that he would do
diplomacy with so-called "enemy" states like all the previous presidents
did before Bush 43. And Obama was very vocal about it. Bush used his
typical "some say" argument when it is very plain and clear what he
meant -- That Obama is like those that appeased the Nazis. If he wasn't
talking about Obama, who was he talking about?
It's sickening, disgusting, and vile to suggest that talking with your
enemies is tantamount to treason.
Free Lunch
<johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:42:43 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:12:12 -0700, John Locke <johnloc...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:20:08 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>May 15, 2008
>>>>>Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>And I agree with President Bush.
>>
>>>Bush is the one appeasing terrorists.
>>
>>He is??? How's that? What a klutz.
>>
>By leaving a bunch of religious Muslim nuts in control of the
>government in Iraq. Thats how. Separation of church and state
>was never even mentioned. You've go to put the clamps on
>Islam...its poisonous.
Let's not forget that he overthrew the only person in power in the whole
area who actually had the religionists under control. Saudi Arabia gave
us 9/11. Iran took our hostages and still is run by religious leaders.
Once Bush finished overthrowing the only danger to the religionists, he
bowed to the demands of Bin Laden and removed all US troops from Saudi
Arabia.
Free Lunch
wrote:
>Bill Baker wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 11:15 am Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in
>> message news:<482da507$0$11259$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 15:16:38 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:15:55 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>>>>> Dumbya was probably referring to Obama. That does not mean what he
>>>>>> was saying had any relation to reality. Which is par for the course
>>>>>> for the hated Bush regime.
>>>>> If it bears no relation to reality, how do you know that he was
>>>>> probably referring to Obama?
>>>> Let's face it, Bush ain't the brightest spark in the firebox. If he said
>>>> it the chances are it bears no relation to reality or was hearing voices
>>>> in his head again. He talks to god don't ya know and god replies.
>>>>
>>> Once again, if Bush is so fucking vague, why did *OBAMA* react as if he
>>> took a direct hit?
>>
>> Because Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
>>
>
>And not only that, but Obama has said in the past that he would do
>diplomacy with so-called "enemy" states like all the previous presidents
>did before Bush 43. And Obama was very vocal about it. Bush used his
>typical "some say" argument when it is very plain and clear what he
>meant -- That Obama is like those that appeased the Nazis. If he wasn't
>talking about Obama, who was he talking about?
Was Bush appeasing Qaddafi when he started a (now failing because he
didn't follow through) peace process with Libya?
>It's sickening, disgusting, and vile to suggest that talking with your
>enemies is tantamount to treason.
Mostly, it proves how amazingly stupid you have to be to be a modern-day
right-winger.
Fred Stone
news:O6GdnXfySISc37DV...@giganews.com:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:02781ab0$0$25059$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Bush was clearly not talking about Obama. He was talking about McCain,
> 2006 Edition.
>
> Hypocrisy on Hamas
> McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR20080
> 51503306_pf.html
>
> hat tip:
> UNEARTHED: 2006 John McCain favors talks with Hamas
> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/15639/1519/929/516718
>
WashPost lies, video doesn't:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/breaking_news/washington_post_lies_video_
doesnt
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken
John Locke
wrote:
Bush and congress simply refuse to acknowledge that religion is the
cause of all the problems in the Middle East. Instead, they try to
respect and appease the Muslim nuts out of fear we'll lose an
oil supply.
Now Bush is in the position of begging those bastards
for increased oil supply. Of course, the answer was a big NO and
"go away you little Capitalistic insect".
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>>>
>>> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at that
>>> Nazi appeaser!
>>
>> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>>
>>
> Neither is Iran.
Don't be so sure.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Fred Stone
There is a significant difference between negotiating from a position of
strength, and with conditions on the table, which is what Bush and McCain
have advocated, and doing it *without conditions* from a position of
*weakness* which is what people like Jimmy Carter have done.
Free Lunch
The peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan has held. Too bad Reagan,
Clinton and the Bushes don't care if the rest of the area has peace.
Fred Stone
That's up to the Israelis and the Pals, not Reagan, Clinton or Bush.
JTEM
> And I agree with Joe Biden.
Now that Edwards endorsed Obama, Joe Biden is the obvious
choice for a "compromise candidate," assuming that Al Gore
refuses the nomination.
After all, those oh so precious DNC "rules" say that if you don't
win the required number of pledged delegates, they can nominate
ANYONE they want.
There is no booby prize for coming the closest.
JTEM
> Neither is Iran.
You realize, of course, that you told "Fred Stone," of all
people, that's he's right, and that Obama's policy is one
of appeasement.
Now THAT'S pretty scary... you Obamanations arguing that
"Fred" is RIGHT....
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>
>Now that Edwards endorsed Obama, Joe Biden is the obvious
>choice for a "compromise candidate," assuming that Al Gore
>refuses the nomination.
Joe Biden, who got all of *ZERO* delegates from the primaries and
elections.
This is your idea of respecting the will of the voters? By putting
forward two guys, one of whom never entered the race and the other who
dropped out January 3rd?
>After all, those oh so precious DNC "rules" say that if you don't
>win the required number of pledged delegates, they can nominate
>ANYONE they want.
And the last time that happened was?
>There is no booby prize for coming the closest.
Actually, there is. It's called momentum. Barack Obama leads in
popular votes, pledged delegates, states won, and super delegates. He
is going to be the nominee.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Bill Baker
message news:<l_qdnQb66cxK2LPV...@comcast.com>...
Exactly -- Bush is wrong no matter who he is talking about.
--
Funny Thurgood quote #3:
"I suppose you're talking about a three-way, or perhaps even an orgy. Is
there no limit to your depravity??? Do you happen to have a
webcam?" --Thurgood's future job as a marketing agent for porn sites looks
promising
JTEM
> Joe Biden, who got
Irrelevant.
You don't even have to run in the primaries, and they could
nominate you for President.
I'm sorry you're so ignorant on the subject, and I'm sorry
that you're so emotionally disturbed that you're incapable
of grasping anything I tell you. So, instead, I suggest you
try Google.
Good luck, idiot.
DanielSan
Actually, no. Obama is not appeasing anyone.
Bill Baker
news:<9ef4e078-6739-47b4...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Biden, who got
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> You don't even have to run in the primaries, and they could
> nominate you for President.
In other words, the Democratic party makes their own rules for the
nomination process and they can disenfranchise whichever states they want
to. They can even put up a two-tier nomination system in some states so
that the one that gets the most votes doesn't necessarily get the most
delegates. Thanks for explaining that to me.
--
Bushism 5-18:
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."
--From a 1994 interview, as quoted in First Son, by Bill Minutaglio
towelie
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:47 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>
>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at
>>>> that Nazi appeaser!
>>>
>>> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>>>
>>>
>> Neither is Iran.
>
> Don't be so sure.
I'm not so sure the Saudis aren't Nazis. Now who was begging the Saudis to
lower oil prices last week...?
towelie
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>
>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>
>>
>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>
> president then.
And that "rat" kicked the Nazis asses.
Or was it that the "UN" un-Nazied the world forever? I never can remember.
JTEM
> In other words, the Democratic party makes their
> own rules for the nomination process
you're talking about the way they gave Obama more
delegates for Texas & Nevada even though Hillary won
those states... or how they gave North Carolina -- a
state Obama couldn't lose if he tried -- "bonus"
delegates... or how they disenfranchised two large
and very important states that Hillary couldn't lose...
Because WE KNOW that you're not talking about he
rules which allow an open convention!
No way!
Because THOSE RULES are anything but new. In
fact, it's the way that candidates used to be chosen.
THOSE RULES protect the party: A smart leadership
(if the Democrats had smar leaders, instead of the
assholes) would note that neither Hillary nor Obama
could win the nomination, and decide to go with a
third, "compromise" candidate.
Like I keep saying, I suggest Al Gore. If not Gore, Biden
would be an excellent choice.
Remember: Obamanation use the oh so precious rules
to justify disenfrancing voters. They certainly can't
complain about the rules being used to maximize the
party's chances at winning in November.
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:47 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at
>>>>> that Nazi appeaser!
>>>>
>>>> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Neither is Iran.
>>
>> Don't be so sure.
>
> I'm not so sure the Saudis aren't Nazis.
They aren't fuzzy bunnies, but then neither are HAMAS.
> Now who was begging the Saudis to lower oil prices last week...?
Yeah, bad move. Worse move is letting them buy enriched uranium.
Bill Baker
news:<50a51331-b78e-4d7f...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> In other words, the Democratic party makes their
>> own rules for the nomination process
>
> you're talking about the way they gave Obama more
> delegates for Texas & Nevada even though Hillary won
> those states... or how they gave North Carolina -- a
> state Obama couldn't lose if he tried -- "bonus"
> delegates... or how they disenfranchised two large
> and very important states that Hillary couldn't lose...
Yes, the very ones you keep complaining about as if Obama had anything to do
with making them.
--
An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a
place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not
scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I
cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean,
guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolph
Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than
finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy
novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of
Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless
infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a
deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely
mathematical universe around us. If such a monster-God did exist, the sane
attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion.
Don't give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will
recover his wits some day. - Robert Anton Wilson, "Cheerful Reflections on
Death and Dying," Gnoware, February 1999
Free Lunch
>On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:06:45 -0500, towelie wrote:
>
>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:47 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at
>>>>>> that Nazi appeaser!
>>>>>
>>>>> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Neither is Iran.
>>>
>>> Don't be so sure.
>>
>> I'm not so sure the Saudis aren't Nazis.
>
>They aren't fuzzy bunnies, but then neither are HAMAS.
Of course that's true, but the Saudis have hurt the US far more in the
past and can be expected to hurt us in the future. Hamas is a serious
annoyance, like any organized criminal ring with political power.
Fred Stone
The Saudi government had nothing to do with 9/11. HAMAS, on the other
hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
one of our allies in the mideast.
Free Lunch
The Saudi government set the stage for the attacks that were carried out
by Saudi nationals. Maybe if the US hadn't been supporting the corrupt
Saud family we would not have been attacked. Maybe we wouldn't have been
attacked if the Saud family hadn't been trying to buy off people with
its funding of religious zealotry. Still, the Saudis are responsible
because they had a history of refusing to cooperate with the US in prior
incidents.
> HAMAS, on the other
>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
>one of our allies in the mideast.
Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits from
their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its last
incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in war very
easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters a better
choice.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> Joe Biden, who got
>
>Irrelevant.
Ah, so now the will of the voters is irrelevant? The voters in 48
states, Puerto Rico, overseas Democrats, our Dems in uniform.. all of
their votes don't matter because the guy you don't like is on the
verge of winning?
This after weeks of demanding that Florida and Michigan be counted,
despite a clear violation of the established rules, because to do
otherwise would shit on the voters.
Thanks for showing that you are an absolute hypocrite.
>You don't even have to run in the primaries, and they could
>nominate you for President.
And the last time that happened was when?
>I'm sorry you're so ignorant on the subject, and I'm sorry
>that you're so emotionally disturbed that you're incapable
>of grasping anything I tell you. So, instead, I suggest you
>try Google.
Back to the ad hom attacks, I see.
Mark K. Bilbo
> duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And I agree with Joe Biden. May 15, 2008
>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>
>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>
>
> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>
> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at that
> Nazi appeaser!
>
How 'bout this appeasing bastard?
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/_/1/saddam_rummy.jpg
Mark K. Bilbo
Did he slip 'em some tongue this time? I mean, all the hand holding in
public, ya gotta wonder what's goin' on behind those closed doors...
Mark K. Bilbo
> DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Neither is Iran.
>
> You realize, of course, that you told "Fred Stone," of all
> people, that's he's right, and that Obama's policy is one
> of appeasement.
Do tell, what, exactly, is "appeasement"?
Mark K. Bilbo
> On 18 May 2008 11:53:19 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:06:45 -0500, towelie wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:06:47 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>>>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>>>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.serpo.org/r27_pics/Reagan_Gorbachev_16.jpg <---Look at
>>>>>>> that Nazi appeaser!
>>>>>> Gorbie wasn't a Nazi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Neither is Iran.
>>>> Don't be so sure.
>>> I'm not so sure the Saudis aren't Nazis.
>> They aren't fuzzy bunnies, but then neither are HAMAS.
>
> Of course that's true, but the Saudis have hurt the US far more in the
> past and can be expected to hurt us in the future.
Yep. 9/11 was funded by Saudis. Planned by Saudis. Fifteen of the
highjackers were Saudis...
Mark K. Bilbo
> duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:26:38 -0700, DanielSan
>> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 00:06:45 -0700, johac
>>>> <jhac...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>>>>> May 15, 2008
>>>>> Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
>>>> And I agree with President Bush.
>>>>
>>> Then you must've hated it when Reagan appeased Nazis, eh?
>> Ron Raygun was not President during WWII. 'rat Rosevelt was
>> president then.
>
> And that "rat" kicked the Nazis asses.
Are you referring to that ol' Stalin appeaser?
Mark K. Bilbo
> johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And I agree with Joe Biden.
>
> Now that Edwards endorsed Obama, Joe Biden is the obvious
> choice
Yah, he got *so* many delegates in the primaries...
Mark K. Bilbo
> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe Biden, who got
>
> Irrelevant.
And here we go again. JTEM finds voting and voters to be "irrelevant" if
they don't vote for what *he* wants...
Fred Stone
Oh, right, maybe those Muslim religious fanatics would all settle down to
kite flying and kittens. Suuuure, Lunchie. You haven't read a damn thing
about Qutb or al-Qaradawi have you?
>> HAMAS, on the other
>>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
>>one of our allies in the mideast.
>
> Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits from
> their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its last
> incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in war very
> easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters a better
> choice.
What Israel should have learned learned is that they shouldn't listen to
lily-livered idiots who want them to *talk* to HAMAS instead of wiping
the bastards out root and branch.
Fred Stone
None of whom were approved by the Saudi government.
Free Lunch
I don't know if the US or the rest of the West will be able to get much
change any time soon. We have shown for over a century, that we do not
really care what these countries want. We have proven ourselves
untrustworthy to them. We do have to defend ourselves, but occupying
countries and mismanaging them during the occupation will guarantee that
we have created a million new enemies. That is what Bush failed to
understand. That is what you refuse to admit.
>>> HAMAS, on the other
>>>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
>>>one of our allies in the mideast.
>>
>> Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits from
>> their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its last
>> incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in war very
>> easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters a better
>> choice.
>
>What Israel should have learned learned is that they shouldn't listen to
>lily-livered idiots who want them to *talk* to HAMAS instead of wiping
>the bastards out root and branch.
So, you recommend that Israel engage in genocide.
Free Lunch
So they say now.
Fred Stone
What *you* refuse to admit is that although we made some grievous errors
in Iraq, we *have* managed to make things right with the vast majority of
Iraqis. Oh, by the way, the "sectarian violence" there wasn't caused by
the US, it was caused by al Qaeda.
>>>> HAMAS, on the other
>>>>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
>>>>one of our allies in the mideast.
>>>
>>> Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits
>>> from their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its
>>> last incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in
>>> war very easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters a
>>> better choice.
>>
>>What Israel should have learned learned is that they shouldn't listen to
>>lily-livered idiots who want them to *talk* to HAMAS instead of wiping
>>the bastards out root and branch.
>
> So, you recommend that Israel engage in genocide.
HAMAS isn't a race.
Fred Stone
You have evidence that the Saudi government did approve of the 9/11
attack, before it happened?
JTEM
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> > you're talking about the way they gave Obama more
> > delegates for Texas & Nevada even though Hillary won
> > those states... or how they gave North Carolina -- a
> > state Obama couldn't lose if he tried -- "bonus"
> > delegates... or how they disenfranchised two large
> > and very important states that Hillary couldn't lose...
>
> Yes,
Well those same rules also say that we can throw out
Obama & Hillary, and pick a compromise candidate. One
whose electable -- unlike Obama -- and one that even
Obama's so-called "Democrats" can support -- unlike
Hillary.
If the Democrats had good leaders -- instead of the
assholes -- that's exactly what would happen. They'd
abandon the unelectable Obama for a third, "Compromise"
candidate -- one who isn't Hillary but can win without
cheating.
Obama, on the other hand, couldn't win the nomination
even WITH cheating. Shit, the loser even fucked up
stealing Indiana.... Sheesh!
Al Gore is the obvious choice. Another great choice would
be Biden, who was the single most qualified man to run
for the office in generations.
Yes, yes, you could argue that Al Gore -- after eight years
in the Veep spot PLUS his Sneate experience was AT
LEAST as qualified, if not more so -- but for a moment you
can just pretend that I said Biden was the most qualified
OTHER than AL Gore....
Anyhow, seeing how you Obamanations already used the
rules to pervert the process -- change the outcome -- and
to justify your acts, you certainly can't argue against using
the rules TO SAVE THE PARTY now.
Oops, I forgot, you don't give a shit about healing the party,
or winning the Whitehouse. You cunts only care about handing
your empty suit the nomination, and to hell with everyone else.
Fuck you.
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
Do tell, why would or should I?
Are you saying that one huge nut can't tell another nut something,
unless I define it?
Amazing....
JTEM
> Are you referring to that ol' Stalin appeaser?
>
> http://www.poloniatoday.com/images/record6-3.jpg
Do tell, what, exactly, is "appeasement"?
JTEM
> How 'bout this appeasing bastard?
Do tell, what, exactly, is "appeasement"?
(for the moment, we won't explore the implication that
appeasing is okay if the GOP did it... or maybe it's
"The empty Suit can't appease if the GOP ever
appeased anyone." It's hard to tell what -- if any --
point you're trying to make)
JTEM
> Ah, so now the will of the voters is irrelevant?
Now? NOW?
Theydecided to disenfrancised Michigan & Florida last August!
This ENTIRE PRIMARY SEASON has been a "Fuck the Voters"
Primary, SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINNING!
Damn, you really are fucked up. You're supporting a candidate
who is so bad that you have to try and reinvent reality on the fly,
just to justify that support.
SEEK HELP.
JTEM
> And here we go again. JTEM finds voting and voters to be
> "irrelevant"
If you'd take a moment to glimpse outside your sphincter there'd
be a good chance that you'd notice that they started
disenfranchising voters in 2007, AND YOU SUPPORT IT.
As a matter of fact, without disenfranchising millions of voters
Obama would have trailed Hillary since early Febuary, and the
dynamics of the race would have been completely transformed.
But it wasn't just Michigan & Florida that were disenfranchised,
now was it? Hillary won Nevada & Texas -- Texas by 100 thousand
votes -- but Obama got more delegates.
"Fuck the voters" has been the battle cry of the Obamanations.
And then there's the "Bonus" delegates given to North Carolina,
because it's unfair if more important blue states -- with larger
Democratic parties -- have a proportional say...
Anyhow, turd muncher, as Obama would have been "also ran"
WITHOUT fucking over the voters, you're in no position to complain
about using the EXACT SAME RULE BOOK to nominate a GOOD
candidate, one that doesn't need you neo-cons....errr... "Obama
Supporters" making shit up, because the truth really is so bad
that you can't admit to it.
JTEM
> Yah, he got *so* many delegates in the primaries...
Wait a minute. You think that matters? Seriously?
Boy, you're fucking ignorant!
You have no idea what the rules are, yet you both
defend them & attack them.... depending on what you
need to do in order to prop up the lying election thief
that is Obama.
Mark K. Bilbo: He'll stoop to any low in support of the
"Family Values" candidate.
Well, according to his WIFE he's the "Family Values"
candidate...
Say, didn't "Fred Stone" spend *Years* defending a
Religious Reichtard, the way you're going to do?
It's a lucky man who gets to glimpse his future...
Free Lunch
That explains the number of refugees.
>Oh, by the way, the "sectarian violence" there wasn't caused by
>the US, it was caused by al Qaeda.
Except there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the US bungled the
occupatioin of Iraq.
>>>>> HAMAS, on the other
>>>>>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks on
>>>>>one of our allies in the mideast.
>>>>
>>>> Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits
>>>> from their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its
>>>> last incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in
>>>> war very easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters a
>>>> better choice.
>>>
>>>What Israel should have learned learned is that they shouldn't listen to
>>>lily-livered idiots who want them to *talk* to HAMAS instead of wiping
>>>the bastards out root and branch.
>>
>> So, you recommend that Israel engage in genocide.
>
>HAMAS isn't a race.
How many Palestinians voted for Hamas? Weren't you insisting that all of
the Palestinians who voted for them be executed?
Free Lunch
We have evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been our friend for decades,
that they have often done things that are contrary to American interest
and that they are quite willing to fund anti-American activities.
Fred Stone
You realize, of course, that refugees have been *returning* to Iraq.
>>Oh, by the way, the "sectarian violence" there wasn't caused by the US,
>>it was caused by al Qaeda.
>
> Except there was no al Qaeda in Iraq until the US bungled the
> occupatioin of Iraq.
>
Which matters not the least, now.
>>>>>> HAMAS, on the other
>>>>>>hand, has *everything* to do with constant, repeated terror attacks
>>>>>>on one of our allies in the mideast.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hamas is bad. It is bad for everyone except the group that benefits
>>>>> from their social services programs. As Israel learned, again in its
>>>>> last incursion into Lebanon, groups like Hamas cannot be defeated in
>>>>> war very easily. They have to be defeated by giving their supporters
>>>>> a better choice.
>>>>
>>>>What Israel should have learned learned is that they shouldn't listen
>>>>to lily-livered idiots who want them to *talk* to HAMAS instead of
>>>>wiping the bastards out root and branch.
>>>
>>> So, you recommend that Israel engage in genocide.
>>
>>HAMAS isn't a race.
>
> How many Palestinians voted for Hamas? Weren't you insisting that all of
> the Palestinians who voted for them be executed?
No, I wasn't.
Fred Stone
So you have no evidence that the Saudi government aided or approved of
the 9/11 attacks.
Bill Baker
news:<a9bfd97a-74dc-4420...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> > you're talking about the way they gave Obama more
>> > delegates for Texas & Nevada even though Hillary won
>> > those states... or how they gave North Carolina -- a
>> > state Obama couldn't lose if he tried -- "bonus"
>> > delegates... or how they disenfranchised two large
>> > and very important states that Hillary couldn't lose...
>>
>> Yes,
>
> Well those same rules also say that we can throw out
> Obama & Hillary, and pick a compromise candidate.
Yes they can. But will they? Probably not.
--
An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a
place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not
scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I
cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean,
guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolph
Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than
finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy
novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of
Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless
infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a
deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely
mathematical universe around us. If such a monster-God did exist, the sane
attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion.
Don't give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will
recover his wits some day. - Robert Anton Wilson, "Cheerful Reflections on
Death and Dying," Gnoware, February 1999
towelie
> Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, so now the will of the voters is irrelevant?
>
> Now? NOW?
>
> Theydecided to disenfrancised Michigan & Florida last August!
MI and FL disenfranchised themselves by running the early primaries. And
the rules were in place last year, why didn't Hillary complain then?
JTEM
> > Well those same rules also say that we can throw out
> > Obama & Hillary, and pick a compromise candidate.
>
> Yes they can. But will they? Probably not.
The'd rather hand the election to McCain. Or, worse yet,
another Florida-2000 "Victory."
Fuck you, you worthless, anti-democratic maggot.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> Yah, he got *so* many delegates in the primaries...
>
>Wait a minute. You think that matters? Seriously?
OK, so now you don't care about delegate counts and the will of the
voters? What happened to your passion about seating the Florida and
Michigan delegates? What happened to your pleas for the superdelegates
to vote your way?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>
>> And here we go again. JTEM finds voting and voters to be
>> "irrelevant"
>
>If you'd take a moment to glimpse outside your sphincter there'd
>be a good chance that you'd notice that they started
>disenfranchising voters in 2007, AND YOU SUPPORT IT.
Actually it was Michigan and Florida, and their Democratic committes,
that did that. They were told, in August 2007, when they could
schedule their primaries and what the penalty for violating the rules
were. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were part of the
decision, it was made by Howard Dean and the DNC committee on
primaries.
I support following the rules, yes.
>As a matter of fact, without disenfranchising millions of voters
>Obama would have trailed Hillary since early Febuary, and the
>dynamics of the race would have been completely transformed.
Except of course she wouldn't be leading.
>But it wasn't just Michigan & Florida that were disenfranchised,
>now was it? Hillary won Nevada & Texas -- Texas by 100 thousand
>votes -- but Obama got more delegates.
>
>"Fuck the voters" has been the battle cry of the Obamanations.
Because both states have dual primary and caucus proceedures. This was
not called for by Obama, who was about 20 years old when Texas started
using the system.
>And then there's the "Bonus" delegates given to North Carolina,
>because it's unfair if more important blue states -- with larger
>Democratic parties -- have a proportional say...
A rule adopted last year to reward states that moved to the back of
the primary pack. Long before anyone knew what a tight race this was
going to be.
>Anyhow, turd muncher, as Obama would have been "also ran"
>WITHOUT fucking over the voters, you're in no position to complain
>about using the EXACT SAME RULE BOOK to nominate a GOOD
>candidate, one that doesn't need you neo-cons....errr... "Obama
>Supporters" making shit up, because the truth really is so bad
>that you can't admit to it.
Obama beats McCain in every poll.
You're just the sorest loser, emphasis on LOSER, I've ever seen.
President Barack Obama. Get used to it.
Free Lunch
We have evidence that other similar attacks were abetted or that the
Saudis interfered in investigations of those attacks. If the corrupt
Saud family was not directly responsible for the attacks, they had
certainly set the stage for them.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>Well those same rules also say that we can throw out
>Obama & Hillary, and pick a compromise candidate. One
>whose electable -- unlike Obama -- and one that even
>Obama's so-called "Democrats" can support -- unlike
>Hillary.
Polling data:
Funny, but the American people seem to think that Obama is a better
choice than McCain.
Douglas Berry
carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
Dude, you are the one who just did a complete 180.
>SEEK HELP.
Good advice. For you.
Fred Stone
You forgot to cite your evidence.
Bill Baker
news:<3d38364f-ac24-488b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>...
> Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>
>> > Well those same rules also say that we can throw out
>> > Obama & Hillary, and pick a compromise candidate.
>>
>> Yes they can. But will they? Probably not.
>
> The'd rather hand the election to McCain. Or, worse yet,
> another Florida-2000 "Victory."
Or perhaps Obama will win legitimately. Remember, I don't trust your
predictions. Not only did you predict that the Republicans would hold onto
the house and senate in 2006, you said that Bush had made Osama bin
Laden "disappear."
> Fuck you, you worthless, anti-democratic maggot.
Classic invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument.
--
Bushism 11-16:
"There's no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world's worst leaders
to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and
allies with the world's worst weapons."
--South Bend, Indiana; September 5, 2002