10 Things Bush Has Done Right
Mitchell Holman
1) He has united the country - against him.
2) He has united the whole world - against him.
3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
maxi...@netzoola.com
1) Correct
2)Correct
3)Correct
4)Correct
5)Correct, except for his dog, that is smarter than him might get the
purina award of merit for being smarter than his owner.
6)Correct, except for the stupid sheep that still love to take orders
from him.
7)Correct
8)Correct
9)Correct
10)Wrong, His Legacy will "Stink of Shit".
edi...@netpath.net
> 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
troops still love Bush.
Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
kyl...@yahoo.com
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> troops still love Bush.
Wow, what a remarkably well-researched "fact" that is! LOL! Basically,
"My friend says...". Whatever, editor.
GuitarMan
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1149676521.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
My wife's cousin is in RA and has been for over 20 years (2nd war for him)
and he says just the opposite...
I also have several veterans within my own family including myself and none
of us care about bush at all.
Not saying that we are liberals but we do NOT like bush...
Morton Davis
> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> troops still love Bush.
> Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
> and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
> but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
>
>
clinics under the Democrats and they don't want that back. The military
won't forgive the Democrats for running Gore and Kerry. They also won't
forget the Democrats calling them murderers.
Out of all the veteran's I know only two don't support Bush. They're both
BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
Clay
Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
...
> 1) He has united the country - against him.
Too soon to tell.
> 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
> 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
Too soon to tell.
> 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
Utter nonsense.
> 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
Too soon to tell.
> 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
What in the fuck does that mean?
> 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
Utter nonsense.
> 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
> 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
> 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
Jeez... do your fucking homework. Think "Stevens"... senator from
Alaska.
*sigh*
-C-
Mitchell Holman
@attbi_s72:
>
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> news:1149676521.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>>
>> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
>> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
>> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
>> troops still love Bush.
>> Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
>> and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
>> but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
>>
>>
> They won't sit it out. Veterans around here know the horrid condition of VA
> clinics under the Democrats and they don't want that back. The military
> won't forgive the Democrats for running Gore and Kerry.
Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
The entire Bush administration ducked out duty and
most dodged the military entirely. Case closed.
Mitchell Holman
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> ...
>
>> 1) He has united the country - against him.
>
> Too soon to tell.
Seen the polls lately?
>
>> 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
>
> France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
The same countries Bush is begging to
help him with the Iraq Quagmire.
>
>> 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
>
> Too soon to tell.
Just watch.
>
>> 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
>
> Utter nonsense.
Tell that to voters in Oregon and California
>> 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
>
> Too soon to tell.
>
Just watch.
>> 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> What in the fuck does that mean?
>
http://www.bandofbrothers2006.org/
>> 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
>
> Utter nonsense.
Not to mention Connectcut yankees pretending
to be Texans.
>
>> 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
>
> So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
Even Bush said his privatization program would
not address solvency, remember?
>
>> 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
>
> Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
Borrow and spend, borrow and spend. What happened
to the GOP plank of balanced budgets?
>> 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
>
> Jeez... do your fucking homework. Think "Stevens"... senator from
> Alaska.
Did Bush lose his veto stamp, or is he just
unable to figure out how it works?
si
>
>Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> ...
>
>> 1) He has united the country - against him.
>
>Too soon to tell.
Not too soon - what's Bush's approval rating now?
>
>> 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
>
>France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
England, Canada, Spain, South America, Germany, Italy etc. the list
goes on and on - probably the only country that's for Bush is Israel
and even they don't mind who signs their welfare cheques.
Matt
Clay wrote:
> Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> ...
>
> > 1) He has united the country - against him.
>
> Too soon to tell.
No, he's done a good job there.
>
> > 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
>
> France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
WITH him, Clay?
>
> > 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
>
> Too soon to tell.
True, we'll see in November and then again in 2008.
>
> > 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
>
> Utter nonsense.
Not in the least. The gay marriage ban is proof enough of that.
The Patriot Act certainly contains enough requirements of the
states that OUGHT to be state issues.
>
> > 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
>
> Too soon to tell.
Eh, I think this one is overrated. Just being associated with him
isn't going to hurt anyone, just as it didn't hurt anyone to be
associated
with Clinton.
>
> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> What in the fuck does that mean?
The army doesn't like him anymore. This is true, but I think they will
still vote Republican. The armed forces tend to do what they are told.
>
> > 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
>
> Utter nonsense.
This one might be closer to the the truth than you want to admit. I
think it
will be quite a while before we see another Texan in the White House.
>
> > 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
>
> So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
Yours. LOL. Social Security will go broke ONLY if it stays exactly on
its
course. Minor changes will prevent this, a complete overhaul only makes
sense
if it takes into account what Social Security was MEANT to be.
>
> > 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
>
> Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
Clinton: Budgetary Surplus
Bush: Budgetary Disaster.
Point proven.
>
> > 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
>
> Jeez... do your fucking homework. Think "Stevens"... senator from
> Alaska.
The Republican? Hm. I don't think that's quite what the OP meant, Clay.
Try thinking back to the 2000 campaign, it might help.
Matt
FeO2y
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:fXyhg.21174$1i1.8299@attbi_s72...
You're full of shit. It use to be I could walk in to any VA hospital and
get treated, now it is close to impossible to even get an appointment.
There is a 6 month to a year waiting list. Even my idiot dad(that thinks
bush is wonderful) who is retied from the Air Force complains about what has
happened to the VA under bush. I just tell him to look who is office and he
shuts the puck up.
Morton Davis
"FeO2y" <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lIAhg.23546$XV5.6469@fed1read10...
>
> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:fXyhg.21174$1i1.8299@attbi_s72...
> >
> > <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> > news:1149676521.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> >>
> >> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> >> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> >> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> >> troops still love Bush.
> >> Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
> >> and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
> >> but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
> >>
> >>
> > They won't sit it out. Veterans around here know the horrid condition of
> > VA
> > clinics under the Democrats and they don't want that back. The military
> > won't forgive the Democrats for running Gore and Kerry. They also won't
> > forget the Democrats calling them murderers.
> >
> > Out of all the veteran's I know only two don't support Bush. They're
both
> > BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
> >
> >
>
> You're full of shit.
Really?
>It use to be I could walk in to any VA hospital and
> get treated, now it is close to impossible to even get an appointment.
Wow!!! With that sterling attitude too. I see my doctor twice a year for
scheduled maintenance. Under Clinton, it'd be up to three hours past
appointed time before I got in. Under Bush I see my doctor at the appointed
time 9 times out of 10.
Secular Human
Dems should let them have power every 25 years to remind the public what
the true agenda of this party is.
Dr. Ernst Primer (again)
I have no idea what the actual numbers are among active military
members myself, but I have a close family member who's a Master Gunnery
Sargeant in the Marines and has served for literally decades... he's
actually up for retirement in a few years, in fact, but that's been
delayed because of a lot of recent back-to-back tours in Iraq.
Him and his wife recently told me they concede their earlier support
for Bush was a big mistake. Both of them now agree that Bush will not
be kindly regarded by history as a president. I'm glad to see the both
of them apparently expressing some sane political sentiments for once.
Now if only I can turn my 'Dittohead' Dad around....
FeO2y
Yeah right.......NOT!!!!
FeO2y
I hate a motherfucking liar and you are a liar, mortie
Bush to Veterans: Pay More, Wait Longer, Receive Less Health Care
March 1, 2004
President Bush has not submitted an adequate budget for the Department of
Veterans Affairs since he took office. Year after year, he has offered
budgets that have sought to make veterans pay more and more out of their own
pockets for health care. Not only has the Bush Administration tried - and
been successful in one case - to dramatically increase co-payments for
prescription drugs, the Administration has also proposed various methods of
generating additional revenue and artificially reducing demand for VA health
care. The Administration uses the projections from these measures to pad
their inadequate budget requests for veterans' services so that they can
claim budget increases. Some examples of this include the counting of
revenue from co-payments and third-party insurers as part of the President's
request, which has become standard practice for the Administration, and
shifting retirement funds from another government agency. The following is a
year-by-year summary of the President's budget proposals for veterans'
programs.
Fiscal Year 2005: Increased Fees and Longer Waits, Even as Troops Come Home
Inadequate funding. This year, President Bush's proposal would increase VA
health care spending by $500 million, an increase that would fail to provide
the VA with enough resources to maintain current services. With 60,000
veterans already on waiting lists for health care, and tens of thousands of
military personnel scheduled to return from Iraq and Afghanistan as the
newest generation of veterans, this underfunding will only further reduce
the quality and availability of veterans' health care.
VA Secretary Anthony Principi admitted at the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee's budget hearing that he asked the White
House for $1.2 billion more than what VA received. As a direct result of
President Bush's failure to meet Secretary Principi's request, valuable
specialty services like long-term care and mental health treatment will see
significant cuts in capacity and staffing - at a time when the demand for
these services is increasing. Moreover, the President's budget slashes $50
million from critical medical and prosthetic research programs at the VA.
Deja vu: more proposals for increased fees and co-payments. Just as he did
in his Fiscal Year 2004 budget, President Bush again attempts to mask the
inadequacy of his VA budget by driving veterans out of the system, and by
using those veterans who remain behind as revenue sources. The President's
budget estimates that these policies will drive over 10 percent of enrolled
veterans - more than 800,000 individuals - out of the VA system.
a.. In his Fiscal Year 2005 budget, the President proposes implementing a
$250 enrollment fee for middle-income veterans. However, in an attempt to
conceal the size of this fee, the President's proposal breaks it down into a
month by month payment schedule.
b.. The Administration's budget also seeks, again, to raise the
prescription drug co-payment from $7 to $15 for lower-income veterans.
c.. As in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004, no new Priority 8 veterans would be
allowed to enroll under President Bush's budget for Fiscal Year 2005.
Exacerbated claims backlog. Finally, despite a 348,000-person disability
claims backlog which has the average veteran waiting more than six months
for his or her disability claim to be processed, President Bush's budget
proposes eliminating 540 claims processing staff.
New generation of veterans. Meanwhile, 150,000 soldiers are expected to
return home this year after completing deployments in Iraq, and an
additional 110,000 will return from Iraq in 2005. Members of the National
Guard and Reserve are eligible to receive priority health care at the VA for
two years after demobilization. In addition, more than 3,000 soldiers have
been injured during Operation Iraqi Freedom and many of them are likely to
enroll in the VA system over the next few years.
Rising health care costs for veterans under the Bush Administration. In the
President's budget documents, collected receipts from veterans - that is,
co-payments, fees, deductibles, and other charges for service - are labeled
"First Party Collections." Under President Bush, these first party
collections have risen nearly 500 percent, an unacceptable increase in the
financial burden placed on our nation's veterans.
Clay
Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
...
> Clay wrote:
> > Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> > ...
> >
> > > 1) He has united the country - against him.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
>
> No, he's done a good job there.
Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
Conservative Senate members... dummy.
> > > 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> >
> > France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
>
> China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
> WITH him, Clay?
The ones that count... the ones with courage.
> > > 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
>
> True, we'll see in November and then again in 2008.
2006 will not be the disaster you traitors believe it will be. '08...
nobody wants a wimpy leftist in charge of anything except "A Chorus
Line".
<LOL>
> > > 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
> Not in the least. The gay marriage ban is proof enough of that.
> The Patriot Act certainly contains enough requirements of the
> states that OUGHT to be state issues.
The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
These (and others) are what the American people want. I'm talking
"real" Americans.
> > > 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
>
> Eh, I think this one is overrated. Just being associated with him
> isn't going to hurt anyone, just as it didn't hurt anyone to be
> associated with Clinton.
OK, Matt... you finally put on your thinking cap. I agree with you.
> > > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> >
> > What in the fuck does that mean?
>
> The army doesn't like him anymore. This is true, but I think they will
> still vote Republican. The armed forces tend to do what they are told.
With an answer like that, Matt... you simply proves that you have brain
damage... the extent of which is not known at this point. But it's
there.
> > > 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
> This one might be closer to the the truth than you want to admit. I
> think it will be quite a while before we see another Texan in the White House.
I should've written "too soon to tell"... but in either case -- you
"thinking" that anything will happen doesn't really mean shit.
> > > 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
> >
> > So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
>
> Yours. LOL. Social Security will go broke ONLY if it stays exactly on
> its
> course. Minor changes will prevent this, a complete overhaul only makes
> sense
> if it takes into account what Social Security was MEANT to be.
Coward. Liberals and leftists will surely be blamed for SS's downfall.
> > > 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
> >
> > Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
>
> Clinton: Budgetary Surplus
> Bush: Budgetary Disaster.
Uhhhh... Slick Willie WITH a Conservative Congress. It simply amazes
me that you liberal dopes leave off the most important part of that.
Too fucking funny.
> Point proven.
Reach up... touch the top of your head... now you're cooking.
<LOL>
> > > 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
> >
> > Jeez... do your fucking homework. Think "Stevens"... senator from
> > Alaska.
>
> The Republican? Hm. I don't think that's quite what the OP meant, Clay.
> Try thinking back to the 2000 campaign, it might help.
Wha? On this, I'm lost. First of all, what the fuck is an "OP"?
Secondly... I'm sure I'm right about this "bridge to nowhere" -- which
is a continual embarrassment to Conservatives.
Educate a brotha... whydoncha.
*sigh*
-C-
Matt
Clay wrote:
> Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
> ...
>
> > Clay wrote:
> > > Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > 1) He has united the country - against him.
> > >
> > > Too soon to tell.
> >
> > No, he's done a good job there.
>
> Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
> Conservative Senate members... dummy.
So? The Democrats held the House and Senate for 50 years. Does that
mean they were popular? Not with you, apparently. The point is that
he's
made himself amazingly unpopular. Check out ANY (and that includes Fox)
polls of his popularity.
>
> > > > 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> > >
> > > France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
> >
> > China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
> > WITH him, Clay?
>
> The ones that count... the ones with courage.
And those would be..?
>
> > > > 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
> > >
> > > Too soon to tell.
> >
> > True, we'll see in November and then again in 2008.
>
> 2006 will not be the disaster you traitors believe it will be. '08...
> nobody wants a wimpy leftist in charge of anything except "A Chorus
> Line".
Dunno. 2006 could be almost anything. It wouldn't surprise me at all
to see nothing change... the people are a very fickle bunch, and really
don't think much. They do what they are told to do by the news
networks.
Yes, those "liberal" media outfits.
2008? It depends, of course, on who runs for both sides. If we assume a
McCain ticket for the Republicans, they could easily hold the
Presidency.
However, I'm not so sure he can win his own party's nomination. For the
Democrats, its harder. There are a couple of guys I'd love to see run,
but I
don't see it happening.
One side note.. I don't see the next President being a Congresscritter.
They
have too much information available about them. One reason Bush won the
first time was that nobody really knew anything about him except his
name.
The second time, of course, its rather hard to beat a "War President",
even if
he has to start the war and mess it up to be one.
>
> <LOL>
>
> > > > 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
> > >
> > > Utter nonsense.
> >
> > Not in the least. The gay marriage ban is proof enough of that.
> > The Patriot Act certainly contains enough requirements of the
> > states that OUGHT to be state issues.
>
> The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
> The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is not the issue. 45 states
have passed marriage laws. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed under
Clinton. Why do we even need to discuss a Federal act? The first one
was
stupid enough. The Patriot Act is an abomination.
>
> These (and others) are what the American people want. I'm talking
> "real" Americans.
Really. And who would they be, Clay?
> > > > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> > >
> > > What in the fuck does that mean?
> >
> > The army doesn't like him anymore. This is true, but I think they will
> > still vote Republican. The armed forces tend to do what they are told.
>
> With an answer like that, Matt... you simply proves that you have brain
> damage... the extent of which is not known at this point. But it's
> there.
You think? Hm. And you just agreed with me. The army really doesn't
like
him anymore, Clay. They will do their jobs like good little soldiers,
but I don't
think they are going to be the solid bloc they once were for
Republicans.
>
> > > > 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
> > >
> > > Utter nonsense.
> >
> > This one might be closer to the the truth than you want to admit. I
> > think it will be quite a while before we see another Texan in the White House.
>
> I should've written "too soon to tell"... but in either case -- you
> "thinking" that anything will happen doesn't really mean shit.
Oooo, bad words from Clay. He must be upset. Too soon to tell is
correct.
>
> > > > 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
> > >
> > > So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
> >
> > Yours. LOL. Social Security will go broke ONLY if it stays exactly on
> > its
> > course. Minor changes will prevent this, a complete overhaul only makes
> > sense
> > if it takes into account what Social Security was MEANT to be.
>
> Coward. Liberals and leftists will surely be blamed for SS's downfall.
If you say so. Of course, it doesn't happen to be true, but that's
never bothered
you before, has it?
>
> > > > 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
> > >
> > > Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
> >
> > Clinton: Budgetary Surplus
> > Bush: Budgetary Disaster.
>
> Uhhhh... Slick Willie WITH a Conservative Congress. It simply amazes
> me that you liberal dopes leave off the most important part of that.
Yep. And Bush has a Conservative Congress, and he writes the Budget.
And he has never vetoed a bill.
Huh. I think perhaps... Bush is to blame.
Cya later Clay. Enjoy wherever you end up.
Matt
Lamont Cranston
> Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
Clay, on the other hand, hates being wrong, but always manages to do it
anyway.
>
>
> Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
> Conservative Senate members... dummy.
Smallest reelection margin in history ... dummy.
>
>
>>>>2) He has united the whole world - against him.
>>>
>>>France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
>>
>>China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
>>WITH him, Clay?
>
>
> The ones that count... the ones with courage.
No, only the ones with leaders even more stupid than Bush.
>
> The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
lol -- so is racism, sexism, and congenital stupidity
> The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
... as it eviscerates our civil rights
clifff...@yahoo.com
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> troops still love Bush.
Which is why most intelligent people consider them stupid grunts,
and why Bush himself considers them quite expendable.
> Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
> and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
> but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
America is in a fine mess for 2008. What are our choices? Another
spineless joke like Bush, or a piece of Demoncrap....even Hillary!!!
BTW, I still say she can never win.
-----------
"Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We,
the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
----Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 2001
--
Cliff
Igor
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> troops still love Bush.
That's why he needs to keep them over there. Once they come back,
within six months, they will have seen enough of what he's done to
really screw things up.
Clay
Why does Matt pick a fight that he is sure to lose? <LOL>:
...
> Clay wrote:
> > Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
> > ...
> >
> > > Clay wrote:
> > > > Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > 1) He has united the country - against him.
> > > >
> > > > Too soon to tell.
> > >
> > > No, he's done a good job there.
> >
> > Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
> > Conservative Senate members... dummy.
>
> So? The Democrats held the House and Senate for 50 years. Does that
> mean they were popular? Not with you, apparently. The point is that
> he's
> made himself amazingly unpopular. Check out ANY (and that includes Fox)
> polls of his popularity.
Jeez... you're not too bright, Matt. Lemme give you a corollary -- a
candidate says he/she will do (A). Another one says (A) is a
disaster... we need to do (B). Needless to say, candidate (A) wins...
and gets many of his/her programs passed with the blessings of another
governing branch (in this case, Congress).
Only an election (yet another election) will prove if (A) or (B) was
right... the more persuasive or the more powerful. In any case, this
is the belly of the beast within we (you and I) now live. Deal with
it.
You are a leftist, Matt... you argue Soviet. This is why you guys lose
-- each and every time.
> > > > > 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> > > >
> > > > France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
> > >
> > > China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
> > > WITH him, Clay?
> >
> > The ones that count... the ones with courage.
>
> And those would be..?
Not France, not Russia, not Zimbabwe... nor not China.
Is that too much of a hint, Matt?
Too fucking funny.
> > > > > 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
> > > >
> > > > Too soon to tell.
> > >
> > > True, we'll see in November and then again in 2008.
> >
> > 2006 will not be the disaster you traitors believe it will be. '08...
> > nobody wants a wimpy leftist in charge of anything except "A Chorus
> > Line".
>
> Dunno. 2006 could be almost anything. It wouldn't surprise me at all
> to see nothing change... the people are a very fickle bunch, and really
> don't think much. They do what they are told to do by the news
> networks.
> Yes, those "liberal" media outfits.
Your "thinking" is Soviet, Matt... thanks for that confirmation. I
believe in the wisdom of the American masses... elections count.
During the era of Slick Willie, I coped. I did this b/c it was clear
(at least to me) that sanity would, one day, take back the night.
Elections count.
> 2008? It depends, of course, on who runs for both sides. If we assume a
> McCain ticket for the Republicans, they could easily hold the
> Presidency.
> However, I'm not so sure he can win his own party's nomination. For the
> Democrats, its harder. There are a couple of guys I'd love to see run,
> but I
> don't see it happening.
Coward. Don't think so? Then... let's play:
2008...
The Left - Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Dean, Gore... others.
My side - Allen, Frist, Bush (the younger), McCain... others.
Why is it that Conservatives can "walk on the wild side" and speculate
about leftists and ourselves. But leftists can do neither?
There has to be a reason.
> One side note.. I don't see the next President being a Congresscritter.
> They
> have too much information available about them. One reason Bush won the
> first time was that nobody really knew anything about him except his
> name.
> The second time, of course, its rather hard to beat a "War President",
> even if
> he has to start the war and mess it up to be one.
You're beginning to sound like a "9/11 conspiracy nut", Matt. I would
like to think of you as not that.
Your turn, Matt.
> > <LOL>
> >
> > > > > 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
> > > >
> > > > Utter nonsense.
> > >
> > > Not in the least. The gay marriage ban is proof enough of that.
> > > The Patriot Act certainly contains enough requirements of the
> > > states that OUGHT to be state issues.
> >
> > The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
> > The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
>
> Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is not the issue.
Not legal = Soviet -- thanks, again for that -- Matt.
> 45 states have passed marriage laws.
Uhhh... which, I believe, would be considered -- LEGAL.
Just a thought, Matt.
> The Defense of Marriage Act was passed under
> Clinton. Why do we even need to discuss a Federal act? The first one
> was stupid enough. The Patriot Act is an abomination.
Jeez... you have covered all of MY bases.
> > These (and others) are what the American people want. I'm talking
> > "real" Americans.
>
> Really. And who would they be, Clay?
Real Americans, Matt.
> > > > > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> > > >
> > > > What in the fuck does that mean?
> > >
> > > The army doesn't like him anymore. This is true, but I think they will
> > > still vote Republican. The armed forces tend to do what they are told.
> >
> > With an answer like that, Matt... you simply proves that you have brain
> > damage... the extent of which is not known at this point. But it's
> > there.
>
> You think? Hm. And you just agreed with me. The army really doesn't
> like
> him anymore, Clay. They will do their jobs like good little soldiers,
> but I don't
> think they are going to be the solid bloc they once were for
> Republicans.
You know nothing about "Army" life... Matt. If you think that "Army"
guys do what their told... each and every time -- you're as dumb as I
peg you to be. I hope I'm wrong in that aspect. If I'm right -- I'm
wasting my time.
Soldiers from NJ will vote a whole lot different from soldiers from
Alabama.
Trust me.
> > > > > 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
> > > >
> > > > Utter nonsense.
> > >
> > > This one might be closer to the the truth than you want to admit. I
> > > think it will be quite a while before we see another Texan in the White House.
> >
> > I should've written "too soon to tell"... but in either case -- you
> > "thinking" that anything will happen doesn't really mean shit.
>
> Oooo, bad words from Clay. He must be upset. Too soon to tell is
> correct.
Thanks for playing -- "too soon to tell".
> > > > > 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
> > > >
> > > > So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
> > >
> > > Yours. LOL. Social Security will go broke ONLY if it stays exactly on
> > > its
> > > course. Minor changes will prevent this, a complete overhaul only makes
> > > sense
> > > if it takes into account what Social Security was MEANT to be.
> >
> > Coward. Liberals and leftists will surely be blamed for SS's downfall.
>
> If you say so. Of course, it doesn't happen to be true, but that's
> never bothered
> you before, has it?
Amazing... I guess it didn't exist in the '80's. Keep your
stranglehold onto education. When SS fails, the teaching plan can be
"it was the other guy's fault".
> > > > > 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
> > > >
> > > > Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
> > >
> > > Clinton: Budgetary Surplus
> > > Bush: Budgetary Disaster.
> >
> > Uhhhh... Slick Willie WITH a Conservative Congress. It simply amazes
> > me that you liberal dopes leave off the most important part of that.
>
> Yep. And Bush has a Conservative Congress, and he writes the Budget.
> And he has never vetoed a bill.
Human being fuck up... GWBush surely has.
> Huh. I think perhaps... Bush is to blame.
On this point... blame is shared.
> Cya later Clay. Enjoy wherever you end up.
Replying to your dumbass, Matt.
Didn't you know that?
<LOL>
-C-
Clay
Lamont Cranston is almost too stupid to pick on (I'm sure leftists
would agree):
...
> Clay wrote:
>
> > Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
>
> Clay, on the other hand, hates being wrong, but always manages to do it
> anyway.
Jeez... you again -- huh?
> > Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
> > Conservative Senate members... dummy.
>
> Smallest reelection margin in history ... dummy.
Did I see you say "victory" -- shit-for-brains? Or did you simply tune
out reality again?
> >>>>2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> >>>
> >>>France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
> >>
> >>China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
> >>WITH him, Clay?
> >
> >
> > The ones that count... the ones with courage.
>
> No, only the ones with leaders even more stupid than Bush.
Saudi Arabia, shit-for-brains... this one?
Why do you do this, you stupid mother-fucker?
> > The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
>
> lol -- so is racism, sexism, and congenital stupidity
You really think this is true?
*sigh*
> > The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
>
> ... as it eviscerates our civil rights
Amazing.
But this is the "thinking" of the left -- such as it is.
*sigh*
-C-
Matt
Clay wrote:
> Why does Matt pick a fight that he is sure to lose? <LOL>:
> ...
>
> > Clay wrote:
> > > Matt loves being wrong; I guess it's in his DNA <LOL>:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Clay wrote:
> > > > > Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1) He has united the country - against him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Too soon to tell.
> > > >
> > > > No, he's done a good job there.
> > >
> > > Last ELECTION... Bush won; More Conservative House members & More
> > > Conservative Senate members... dummy.
> >
> > So? The Democrats held the House and Senate for 50 years. Does that
> > mean they were popular? Not with you, apparently. The point is that
> > he's
> > made himself amazingly unpopular. Check out ANY (and that includes Fox)
> > polls of his popularity.
>
> Jeez... you're not too bright, Matt. Lemme give you a corollary -- a
> candidate says he/she will do (A). Another one says (A) is a
> disaster... we need to do (B). Needless to say, candidate (A) wins...
> and gets many of his/her programs passed with the blessings of another
> governing branch (in this case, Congress).
Hm. Germany, 1939. Your point is?
>
> Only an election (yet another election) will prove if (A) or (B) was
> right... the more persuasive or the more powerful. In any case, this
> is the belly of the beast within we (you and I) now live. Deal with
> it.
No, Clay, I'm not going to just "deal with it". I'm going to do what
the
Constitution allows me to do, which is to work as hard as I can to
remove
the insane men that currently "run" our country.
>
> You are a leftist, Matt... you argue Soviet. This is why you guys lose
> -- each and every time.
Sure Clay. We lost so well from, say, 1950 to 2000?
>
> > > > > > 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> > > > >
> > > > > France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
> > > >
> > > > China, Germany, Italy, Japan... how many countries are
> > > > WITH him, Clay?
> > >
> > > The ones that count... the ones with courage.
> >
> > And those would be..?
>
> Not France, not Russia, not Zimbabwe... nor not China.
>
> Is that too much of a hint, Matt?
Apparently not. Where is your "coalition of the willing", Clay? Anybody
left? Maybe Britain, if they haven't pulled out yet. So? Where's your
"ones with courage", son?
> > > 2006 will not be the disaster you traitors believe it will be. '08...
> > > nobody wants a wimpy leftist in charge of anything except "A Chorus
> > > Line".
> >
> > Dunno. 2006 could be almost anything. It wouldn't surprise me at all
> > to see nothing change... the people are a very fickle bunch, and really
> > don't think much. They do what they are told to do by the news
> > networks.
> > Yes, those "liberal" media outfits.
>
> Your "thinking" is Soviet, Matt... thanks for that confirmation. I
> believe in the wisdom of the American masses... elections count.
> During the era of Slick Willie, I coped. I did this b/c it was clear
> (at least to me) that sanity would, one day, take back the night.
Soviet. As if you would know what this means. You are quite right,
Clay, sanity will take back the night. And that will happen when you
and
your insane ilk are removed from power.
>
> Elections count.
They do? Hm. I guess we'll see then. And when the Republicans lost
in 2006 and 2008, what will you claim then?
>
> > 2008? It depends, of course, on who runs for both sides. If we assume a
> > McCain ticket for the Republicans, they could easily hold the
> > Presidency.
> > However, I'm not so sure he can win his own party's nomination. For the
> > Democrats, its harder. There are a couple of guys I'd love to see run,
> > but I
> > don't see it happening.
>
> Coward. Don't think so? Then... let's play:
>
> 2008...
> The Left - Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Dean, Gore... others.
Gore has already said he's not running, I tend to believe him. Hillary
isn't going
to run and inherit this disaster. Biden is a possibility. Dean won't
run. Bayh is
another possibility. Obama is another one.
> My side - Allen, Frist, Bush (the younger), McCain... others.
Frist is dead in the water. Bush the younger isn't going to follow his
brother
(I assume you mean Jeb) and go anywhere. McCain is certainly possible.
I
don't know enough about Allen to know if he's serious or not.
>
> Why is it that Conservatives can "walk on the wild side" and speculate
> about leftists and ourselves. But leftists can do neither?
>
> There has to be a reason.
We can all speculate. I just think its far too early to really think
about who is
realistically running. Guiliani was mentioned regularly a few years
back. Where
did HE go?
>
> > One side note.. I don't see the next President being a Congresscritter.
> > They
> > have too much information available about them. One reason Bush won the
> > first time was that nobody really knew anything about him except his
> > name.
> > The second time, of course, its rather hard to beat a "War President",
> > even if
> > he has to start the war and mess it up to be one.
>
> You're beginning to sound like a "9/11 conspiracy nut", Matt. I would
> like to think of you as not that.
Um... you are disagreeing that Bush started the war now?
> > > > > > 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
> > > > >
> > > > > Utter nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Not in the least. The gay marriage ban is proof enough of that.
> > > > The Patriot Act certainly contains enough requirements of the
> > > > states that OUGHT to be state issues.
> > >
> > > The "Gay" marriage amendment is wildly popular with "real" folks.
> > > The Patriot Act passes like a hot knife through butter.
> >
> > Whether or not gay marriage should be legal is not the issue.
>
> Not legal = Soviet -- thanks, again for that -- Matt.
Gay marriage is a fact. Whether we recognize it in our laws is a
different
matter. Thus, legal.
>
> > 45 states have passed marriage laws.
>
> Uhhh... which, I believe, would be considered -- LEGAL.
>
> Just a thought, Matt.
Yep, and 5 have not. At least two recognize marriages whether or not
the
two parties are of the same sex. Now what, Clay?
>
> > The Defense of Marriage Act was passed under
> > Clinton. Why do we even need to discuss a Federal act? The first one
> > was stupid enough. The Patriot Act is an abomination.
>
> Jeez... you have covered all of MY bases.
That I have.
>
> > > These (and others) are what the American people want. I'm talking
> > > "real" Americans.
> >
> > Really. And who would they be, Clay?
>
> Real Americans, Matt.
Cyclical Redundancy Check. Error Error. Abort. Try facts, Clay.
> > You think? Hm. And you just agreed with me. The army really doesn't
> > like
> > him anymore, Clay. They will do their jobs like good little soldiers,
> > but I don't
> > think they are going to be the solid bloc they once were for
> > Republicans.
>
> You know nothing about "Army" life... Matt. If you think that "Army"
> guys do what their told... each and every time -- you're as dumb as I
> peg you to be. I hope I'm wrong in that aspect. If I'm right -- I'm
> wasting my time.
No, of course I know *nothing* about Army life, Clay. After all, you
know
this because... um... why is it you know this again?
>
> Soldiers from NJ will vote a whole lot different from soldiers from
> Alabama.
>
> Trust me.
No, I don't think so. Trusting someone got us into this mess. We will
no
longer trust blindly. Wasn't it your hero, Reagan that said "trust but
verify"?
> > > > > > 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
> > > > >
> > > > > So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
> > > >
> > > > Yours. LOL. Social Security will go broke ONLY if it stays exactly on
> > > > its
> > > > course. Minor changes will prevent this, a complete overhaul only makes
> > > > sense
> > > > if it takes into account what Social Security was MEANT to be.
> > >
> > > Coward. Liberals and leftists will surely be blamed for SS's downfall.
> >
> > If you say so. Of course, it doesn't happen to be true, but that's
> > never bothered
> > you before, has it?
>
> Amazing... I guess it didn't exist in the '80's. Keep your
> stranglehold onto education. When SS fails, the teaching plan can be
> "it was the other guy's fault".
It existed in the 80s and was doing fine. Now, suddenly, when the
Republicans
discover it is actually POPULAR with folk (after trying to kill it off
for years) they
want to "revamp" it. LOL. Yeah, that went really far, didn't it?
> > Yep. And Bush has a Conservative Congress, and he writes the Budget.
> > And he has never vetoed a bill.
>
> Human being fuck up... GWBush surely has.
Yep.
>
> > Huh. I think perhaps... Bush is to blame.
>
> On this point... blame is shared.
Hm. Certainly there is enough blame to go around. But when the opposing
party
can't pass a bill, or overturn a veto, you really can't assign much
blame there. Face
it, Clay, you are backing a bad horse. The conservatives I once
admired, and you
claim to, are long dead.
Matt
Clay
Matt is a dope -- this is sad:
...
You think that the USA-2000, the USA-2004, Italy-post/2000,
France-post/2000, Canada-post/2000 equates to anything Germany 1939 --
this betrays your complete ignorance.
Your ignorance, Matt... this is what I peeked and exploited some time
ago, you dumb piece of shit.
Matt.
<LOL>
-C-
Matt
No, son, it betrays your complete blindness. Go back and READ your
history,
Clay. Then compare it to what you just said. See if it doesn't compare
well.
>
> Your ignorance, Matt... this is what I peeked and exploited some time
> ago, you dumb piece of shit.
Whatever you say, Clay. I can always tell when you know you've lost.
You
get even MORE annoying and abusive.
Poor Clay.
Matt
Clay
Matt is melting (and it's fun to watch) <LOL>:
<snips apply>
> >> Hm. Germany, 1939. Your point is?
>
>> You think that the USA-2000, the USA-2004, Italy-post/2000,
>> France-post/2000, Canada-post/2000 equates to anything Germany 1939 --
>> this betrays your complete ignorance.
>
> No, son, it betrays your complete blindness. Go back and READ your
> history, Clay. Then compare it to what you just said. See if it doesn't
> compare well.
You are sad, Matt. You compare what we have to the Nazis.
You need help, Matt.
You need hope.
-C-
Matt
Really? No, I compared what YOU said to the Nazis. Probably because
it was a VERY accurate rendition of what happened in 1939. Go back and
read for a change, Clay. Your kind is capable of it, given enough time.
You
do tend to move your lips tho.
>
> You need help, Matt.
No, Clay, I don't. I have lots of help. Most of America is behind me.
Now,
YOU on the other hand... you need help.
>
> You need hope.
Ah, Clay. You know, in 2000, I was seriously worried. I lost a lot of
hope
after 9/11. I lost some people I had worked with in the past. When the
Patriot
Act passed, I lost more hope. Then the Iraq War crushed what little
remained.
But, oh Clay, watching you and your kind implode has given me back some
small hope for this country.
Matt
Clay
Matt continues to melt (and it's still fun to watch) <LOL>:
...
> Clay wrote:
> > Matt is melting (and it's fun to watch) <LOL>:
> >
> > <snips apply>
> >
> > > >> Hm. Germany, 1939. Your point is?
> > >
> > >> You think that the USA-2000, the USA-2004, Italy-post/2000,
> > >> France-post/2000, Canada-post/2000 equates to anything Germany 1939 --
> > >> this betrays your complete ignorance.
> > >
> > > No, son, it betrays your complete blindness. Go back and READ your
> > > history, Clay. Then compare it to what you just said. See if it doesn't
> > > compare well.
> >
> > You are sad, Matt. You compare what we have to the Nazis.
>
> Really? No, I compared what YOU said to the Nazis.
Sad... I have never said anything to the Nazis, Matt. This is contrary
to everything that the voices are screaming in your head.
> Probably because it was a VERY accurate rendition
> of what happened in 1939.
You think that the USA-2000, the USA-2004, Italy-post/2000,
France-post/2000, Canada-post/2000 equates to anything regarding
Germany 1939.
You are a sad, mis-informed shit-for-brains, Matt.
You are funny to witness.
> Go back and read for a change, Clay.
You think that the USA circa 2006 is a Nazi nation. What more can be
said, sad-sack?
> Your kind is capable of it, given enough time.
It will be nice when you get help, Matt.
> You do tend to move your lips tho.
Only when I pray for your sad soul, Matt.
> > You need help, Matt.
>
> No, Clay, I don't. I have lots of help. Most of America is behind me.
> Now, YOU on the other hand... you need help.
Someone need to cry for you, Matt. It won't be me today... but someone
needs to.
> > You need hope.
>
> Ah, Clay. You know, in 2000, I was seriously worried. I lost a lot of
> hope
> after 9/11. I lost some people I had worked with in the past. When the
> Patriot
> Act passed, I lost more hope. Then the Iraq War crushed what little
> remained.
> But, oh Clay, watching you and your kind implode has given me back some
> small hope for this country.
I pity you, Matt.
*sigh*
-C-
Slo
Clay wrote:
> Matt :
> ...
> >
> > Clinton: Budgetary Surplus
> > Bush: Budgetary Disaster.
>
> Uhhhh... Slick Willie WITH a Conservative Congress. It simply amazes
> me that you liberal dopes leave off the most important part of that.
>
Clinton forced the GOP to tax responsibly. That's how you
balance budgets.
Now we have the GOP in congress, the senate, and in the
white house and the debt is exploding. That's governmental
irresponsibility.
Clay
Slo wrote:
...
9/11.
IOW... your pals, the Arab terrorists.
Do the math, traitor.
-C-
Slo
Clay wrote:
> Slo wrote:
> ...
>>
> > Clinton forced the GOP to tax responsibly. That's how you
> > balance budgets.
> >
> > Now we have the GOP in congress, the senate, and in the
> > white house and the debt is exploding. That's governmental
> > irresponsibility.
>
> 9/11.
Thanks for reminding me.
9/11, now there's a major Bush fuck up for you. He's warned
about a terror attack and dumbo goes on vacation. Nice.
>
> IOW... your pals, the Arab terrorists.
Wow, is that dumb. Because I think Bush is bad at handling
terror you think I'm a terrorist? Real smart there Clay but that's
the kind of stupid fear-mongering we've come to expect from the
Ann Coulter-loving right.
>
> Do the math, traitor.
You support traitors who outed a CIA agent for political purposes.
Clay
Slo(W) continues his treason:
...
> Clay wrote:
> > Slo(W) wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> > > Clinton forced the GOP to tax responsibly. That's how you
> > > balance budgets.
> > >
> > > Now we have the GOP in congress, the senate, and in the
> > > white house and the debt is exploding. That's governmental
> > > irresponsibility.
> >
> > 9/11.
>
> Thanks for reminding me.
Remind you? Nah... it's on the top of your list -- you "to do" list,
traitor.
> 9/11, now there's a major Bush fuck up for you. He's warned
> about a terror attack and dumbo goes on vacation. Nice.
I thought you believed that GWBush actually planned the attack,
traitor. Aren't you one of those "investigate 9/11" nutjobs?
<LOL>
> > IOW... your pals, the Arab terrorists.
>
> Wow, is that dumb.
Simply on point.
> Because I think Bush is bad at handling terror you think I'm a terrorist?
Nope... I know you're a terrorist b/c you are a anti-American leftist.
You pray at the god of al-Queda.
> Real smart there Clay but that's
> the kind of stupid fear-mongering we've come to expect from the
> Ann Coulter-loving right.
Is there a hateful left?
> > Do the math, traitor.
>
> You support traitors who outed a CIA agent for political purposes.
Ahhhh... Joe Wilson, another terrorist-lover.
And his NOW millionaire wife.
You are a DUM-DUM.
-C-
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Matt wrote:
> No, Clay, I don't. I have lots of help. Most of America is behind me.
Dr. Splatt's delusions run deep and wide.
Peacenik
news:fXyhg.21174$1i1.8299@attbi_s72...
>
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> news:1149676521.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> > vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> > works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> > troops still love Bush.
> > and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
> > but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
> >
> >
VA
> clinics under the Democrats and they don't want that back.
Democrats?? You've got to be kidding! Nobody had been more damaging to VA
clinics than Republicans. Remember what Reagan did to them? And now Bush?
> The military
> won't forgive the Democrats for running Gore and Kerry.
Why? Do they have something against veterans?
> They also won't
> forget the Democrats calling them murderers.
O'Reilly is not a Democrat.
> Out of all the veteran's I know only two don't support Bush. They're both
> BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
Out of all veterans I know, none support Bush.
Not PC
<cnelso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Out of all the veteran's I know only two don't support Bush. They're both
>> BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
>
>Out of all veterans I know, none support Bush.
>
That's what you get for hanging around deserters.
Morton Davis
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Peacenik wrote:
> Out of all veterans I know, none support Bush.
You need to get out more, Piecedick.
Perhaps they could take you to the mall.
(ask nicely)
Mitchell Holman
news:1149734079.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
So why did Bush's "spontaneous interview"
with the troops have to be rehearsed? Were
their handlers afraid someone might say the
"wrong" thing?
liber...@yahoo.com
Moron (sic) Davis judges the world by what he can see, hear, feel, and
taste. Mostly taste. If he hasn't experienced it, it never happened or
does not exist. He probably lives near a VA hospital in a powerful
Congressperson's district and thinks all VA hospitals are just like
his. Plus, he admits to have never been in any combat situation. He
needs VA medical services?
liber...@yahoo.com
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in news:1149680872.899034.236640
> @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
> > ...
> >
> >> 1) He has united the country - against him.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
> >
> > France, Russia, Zimbabwe & China... what a big loss.
>
>
> help him with the Iraq Quagmire.
>
>
> >
> >> 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
> >
> > Too soon to tell.
> >
>
> Just watch.
>
>
> >> 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 7) He has ended the presidential ambitions of Texas Republicans.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
>
> to be Texans.
>
>
> >
> >> 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
> >
> > So... when it goes broke... whose fault will that be?
>
>
>
> not address solvency, remember?
>
>
> >
> >> 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
> >
> > Tax, tax, tax... you have to be kidding.
>
>
>
> to the GOP plank of balanced budgets?
>
>
>
> >> 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
> >
> > Jeez... do your fucking homework. Think "Stevens"... senator from
> > Alaska.
>
>
>
> unable to figure out how it works?
The veto stamp takes an up and down motion, he can only flip-flop.
liber...@yahoo.com
Gumby's a hoot, isn't he? Anyway, Winning any house of Congress, by the
democrats, is, well, a long shot. I cite Paul Hackett, and now
Cunningham's district. By all estimates, both elections should have
been a lock. (OTOH, Busby did seem a weak candidate just looking for a
way to screw up)
The real problem is, for example, democrats win both Houses of Congress
and try to start fixing things. The national pain of taxes to rebuild
the military, Homeland Security, etc. That would kill any chance of a
democratic White House in '08, I give the voting public no credit for
brains.
Frankly, the only way to overcome the political nuclear minefield Bush
is leaving behind is impeachment....and a guilty verdict. Democrats
don't want to do that, and I understand. It would create a sense of
"Impeach me, impeach you". A total screw up of our political system.
Perhaps the way out would be winning the Senate, then investigate Bush
and let a republican House pull the "trigger" on Bush.
>
> Matt
Mitchell Holman
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
LOL.
Maybe that explains why he can't
eat a pretzel without instructions
and a trainer.........
Slo
liber...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Gumby's a hoot, isn't he? Anyway, Winning any house of Congress, by the
> democrats, is, well, a long shot. I cite Paul Hackett, and now
> Cunningham's district. By all estimates, both elections should have
> been a lock.
Are you a masochist? Do you like flaunting your ignorance on
the Internet? Hackett and Busby both lost, yes, but barely and
in hard-core Republican stronholds.
James H. Hood
Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
Window-dressing.
Joseph Welch
"Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1149722202.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 9/11.
What about it? Clinton prevented it. Bush allowed it.
> IOW... your pals, the Arab terrorists.
Bush's pals and the pals of traitors like you, you mean. Terrorism has
TRIPLED world-wide under Bush, and Bush pulled troops OUT of Saudi Arabia -
the country where 15 of the 19 9/11 mass murderers came from.
Why do you love terrorists so much, you fucking traitor?
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
James H. Hood
>
> Mitchell Holman is nothing but pure speculation:
No, his resume includes much more than that.....sedition, defeatism, and
prevarication.
Joseph Welch
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the
president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which
he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as
he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to
the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to
stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic
not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."
-- President Theodore Roosevelt
Those who volunteer to serve their country in the United States military are
by understanding agreeing to make the supreme sacrifice in answer to their
country's call - and this is something to be honored by all Americans.
This does not preclude the responsibilty of every American to demand from
our elected and appointed leaders the highest possible standards when
considering whether to send those who serve into harm's way in defense of
this great nation. George W. Bush and his accolytes have grossly failed in
this responsibilty, and it is in honor of those who serve and have died for
this country that we who speak out against this administration do so as part
of our patriotic duty to the United States of America.
George W. Bush and his supporters have helped the 9/11 mass murderers
succeed beyond their wildest dreams. America is divided internally; more
Americans are dead; the world is united against America, terrorism
world-wide has TRIPLED; and the middle-east's newest recruiting and training
ground for terrorists - Iraq - has implemented a socialist Islamic
theocracy.
Opposing the Bush administration and it's idiotic policies isn't 'treason"
or "unpatriotic - far from it. It is patriotism of the highest order.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to
how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush, [6/5/99]
FeO2y
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone would
go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
alive.
Irving Layton
news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
>
> Window-dressing.
You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of US
servicemen like that.
Why do you HATE the US military?
Morton Davis
Purple Hearts with no visible scars, a Silver Star with a never issued "V"
device and a box of re-enactment home movies.
Matt
Ok, Clay, you lost and you know you lost. End of discussion.
Matt
Clay
The voices in Matt's head have taken over <LOL>:
...
You need to get back on your meds, Matt.
For everyone's sake.
<LOL>
-C-
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
What the fuck are you babbling about, Hole_man?
I was replying to Piecedicks statement:
"Out of all veterans I know, none support Bush."
Try again, pathetic lib-turd.
Mitchell Holman
@attbi_s21:
>
> "FeO2y" <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:lROhg.23579$XV5.3251@fed1read10...
>>
>> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
>> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
>> >
>> >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
>> >
>> > Window-dressing.
>> >
>> Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone
> would
>> go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
>> alive.
>>
> Four month tours,
You meant to say "four month tours, which is longer
than Limbaugh, Rove, Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Delay,
Wolfowitz, O'Reilly and Rumsfled PUT TOGETHER", I am sure.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
So they won, right?
Bhaaaawwwwwwaawwawawaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Jeffrey Turner
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
>>
>>Window-dressing.
>
>
> You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of US
> servicemen like that.
>
> Why do you HATE the US military?
He's a Republican, he supports the troops as long as they're
over there building the empire. As soon as they come home he
kicks 'em to the curb.
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
Matt
Ahh, Clay has become my SECOND groupie. Wow, I'm acquiring a
big following here.
Matt
Clay
Matt is confused, as usual:
...
Too fucking funny. You're a dope, Matt. And your above comment
cements that fact.
If you truly think that "I am YOUR groupie" (scroll up and embrace the
tree)... you haven't learned anything about USENET in all of the years
that you have been a USENET poster.
I find this amazing.
When you and I first communicated, I thought that you were smarter than
you obviously are. We never discussed politics back then... I'm sorry
that we began this sad journey.
> Wow, I'm acquiring a big following here.
Only in your sick and diseased mind, Matt.
Seek help. Do it soon.
I don't wanna read about your dumbass doing something stupid (more
stupid than what you're now doing) --hurting someone.
Will you attend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's funeral, Matt?
<LOL>
-C-
Matt
Good Groupie. Sit. Good Clay. Want a treat?
Matt
Clay
Matt is a sad-sack:
...
What a sad poster you've turned out to be.
Remember?
<LOL>
-C-
Peacenik
news:s82f82tfgmsj0di3t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 09:05:05 +0800, "Peacenik"
> <cnelso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
both
> >> BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
> >
> >
Have you no respect for our veterans?
Peacenik
news:1149734079.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'd expect such a response from someone who names himself after a worm.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
So, are they taking you to the mall, piecedick?
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Clay wrote:
> Will you attend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's funeral, Matt?
They won't let him out for more than a walk in the yard.
They do allow him to fly his rainbow flag at half mast though.
James H. Hood
So says the cheerleader for trotskerry.
James H. Hood
Irving Layton <irv...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0oPhg.12599$3q2....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >
> > Window-dressing.
>
> You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of
US
> servicemen like that.
Go fornicate yourself, you kerry-cheering slimeball.
James H. Hood
Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:128g6iv...@corp.supernews.com...
> Irving Layton wrote:
> > "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >>
> >>Window-dressing.
> >
> >
> > You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of
US
> > servicemen like that.
> >
> > Why do you HATE the US military?
>
> He's a Republican, he supports the troops as long as they're
> over there building the empire. As soon as they come home he
> kicks 'em to the curb.
That's the forte of you and your socialist ilk.
TheNIGHTCRAWLER
Irving Layton wrote:
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
> >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >
> > Window-dressing.
>
> You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of US
> servicemen like that.
What are you going to do about it, lib-turd?
More harsh words?
Yeah! That will teach him!
(retard)
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>Irving Layton wrote:
>>>"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
>>>>
>>>>Window-dressing.
>>>
>>>You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice of
>>> US
>>>servicemen like that.
>>>
>>>Why do you HATE the US military?
>>
>>He's a Republican, he supports the troops as long as they're
>>over there building the empire. As soon as they come home he
>>kicks 'em to the curb.
>
> That's the forte of you and your socialist ilk.
No, it's a well-known habit of conservatives that goes back to
the aftermath of the American Revolution, at least in the U.S.
Shay's Rebellion was farmers who'd fought in that war and were
getting screwed by the bankers.
You might want to look up the "Bonus March" as well.
FeO2y
I see you bought shrub's propaganda hook, line and sinker, neo-cons sure
are simple minded idiots, just can't think for themselves. If bush was
selling shit, you would buy it.....come to think about it, that is about all
the shrub does sell, a line of shit, a mile long and neo-cons eat is up.
I'd like to see your medals.....what that you don't have any....didn't think
so, chicken shit. Come back when you get some balls jr.
>
>
Morton Davis
>
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:448a6ce5$0$1017$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >
> > FeO2y <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:lROhg.23579$XV5.3251@fed1read10...
> >>
> >> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >> >
> >> > Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
> >> >
> >> >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >> >
> >> > Window-dressing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone
> > would
> >> go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
> >> alive.
> >
> > So says the cheerleader for trotskerry.
>
> I see you bought shrub's propaganda hook, line and sinker,
While you've simply been bought.
James H. Hood
> James H. Hood wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>Irving Layton wrote:
> >>>"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >>>>
> >>>>Window-dressing.
> >>>
> >>>You unpatriotic son-of-a-bitch -- don't *ever* downplay the sacrifice
of
> >>> US
> >>>servicemen like that.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you HATE the US military?
> >>
> >>He's a Republican, he supports the troops as long as they're
> >>over there building the empire. As soon as they come home he
> >>kicks 'em to the curb.
> >
> > That's the forte of you and your socialist ilk.
>
> No, it's a well-known habit of conservatives
It's endemic to dimocrats.
James H. Hood
>
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:448a6ce5$0$1017$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >
> > FeO2y <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:lROhg.23579$XV5.3251@fed1read10...
> >>
> >> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >> >
> >> > Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
> >> >
> >> >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> >> >
> >> > Window-dressing.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone
> > would
> >> go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
> >> alive.
> >
> > So says the cheerleader for trotskerry.
>
> I see you bought shrub's propaganda hook, line and sinker
Aren't your DNC kneepads chafing?
t1gercat
Morton Davis wrote:
> "FeO2y" <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:lROhg.23579$XV5.3251@fed1read10...
> >
> > "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> > news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
> > >
> > >> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
> > >
> > > Window-dressing.
> > >
> > Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone
> would
> > go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of a bitch
> > alive.
Pansy comment . . .
> Four month tours, one smoke opium while he was there, the other has three
> Purple Hearts with no visible scars, a Silver Star with a never issued "V"
> device and a box of re-enactment home movies.
What the F--k do you know about it? Ever serve on a Swiftboat? Four
months in combat is one hell of a long time. Ever put yourself in
harm's way? Anyone who receives a wound in hot combat deserves
whatever recognition he or she gets. What you -- in you limitless
ignorance -- fail to comprehend is that a "minor" shrapnel wound in the
arm or leg might have been lethal, disfiguring or horribly damaging had
it struck somewhere else. The wound testifies to the fact that the man
was there, stood his ground and did his duty. It was minor because the
bugger was lucky enough not to be hit in the eye or balls or brain.
That's why minor wounds are recognized in the same way that major ones
are. That's why a Purple Heart can be awarded for a concussion event
even if there is no physical evidence of a wound.
As for Gore, he was an enlisted photographer who regularly went to the
field and did his job. Most military jobs (over 90%) are support.
During the Vietnam War it took over 10 GIs to support one infantryman.
Gore was one of the humble 90%. Your allegation that he smoked opium in
Vietnam is just another right wing lie.
Oh, and the SiIver Star... ALL Silver Stars are awarded for valor --
ALL of them. You can't get a Silver Star for meritorius performance, so
all have a V device.
You know, if you're going to spew wingnut lies, you should learn some
facts first, so you don't embarrass yourself. You have a problem with
Kerry or his political viewpoint, argue your case like a man. Don't
degenerate to the sniveling tactics of a spoiled adolescent and call
people names or repeat lies about them.
Wexford
alohac...@yahoo.com
the bell is rung, its time to die, time to die....bush avoided this
scenario....not as dumb as present day grunts.
Don't see a lot of yellow ribbons on cars these days....I guess they've
migrated to the backs of the chickenhawks.
In a nutshell, what the hell are our troops dying for?
kyl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> >
> > You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the GI
> > vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> > works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> > troops still love Bush.
>
> Wow, what a remarkably well-researched "fact" that is! LOL! Basically,
> "My friend says...". Whatever, editor.
alohac...@yahoo.com
va hospital on monday morning....I am a vietnam vet.....lets see what
happens....
Stay tuned.
liber...@yahoo.com wrote:
> FeO2y wrote:
> > "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> > news:mVAhg.767335$084.38603@attbi_s22...
> > >
> > > "FeO2y" <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:lIAhg.23546$XV5.6469@fed1read10...
> > >>
> > >> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:fXyhg.21174$1i1.8299@attbi_s72...
> > >> >
> > >> > <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:1149676521.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > >> >> > 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You're smoking grass. If you think liberals are going to get the
> > >> >> GI
> > >> >> vote in 2008, you're sadly mistaken; a friend who actually on contract
> > >> >> works with vets from Iraq - and who herself hates Bush - says the
> > >> >> troops still love Bush.
> > >> >> Best the liberals can hope for on the GI vote in 2008 is that GIs
> > >> >> and veterans just sit out the election in disgust. That's possible -
> > >> >> but not any plurality of them voting liberal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > They won't sit it out. Veterans around here know the horrid condition
> > >> > of
> > >> > VA
> > >> > clinics under the Democrats and they don't want that back. The military
> > >> > won't forgive the Democrats for running Gore and Kerry. They also won't
> > >> > forget the Democrats calling them murderers.
> > >> >
> > >> > Out of all the veteran's I know only two don't support Bush. They're
> > > both
> > >> > BCD recipients who are also convicted felons.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> You're full of shit.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > >>It use to be I could walk in to any VA hospital and
> > >> get treated, now it is close to impossible to even get an appointment.
> > >
> > > Wow!!! With that sterling attitude too. I see my doctor twice a year for
> > > scheduled maintenance. Under Clinton, it'd be up to three hours past
> > > appointed time before I got in. Under Bush I see my doctor at the
> > > appointed
> > > time 9 times out of 10.
> >
> >
> > Yeah right.......NOT!!!!
>
> Moron (sic) Davis judges the world by what he can see, hear, feel, and
> taste. Mostly taste. If he hasn't experienced it, it never happened or
> does not exist. He probably lives near a VA hospital in a powerful
> Congressperson's district and thinks all VA hospitals are just like
> his. Plus, he admits to have never been in any combat situation. He
> needs VA medical services?
alohac...@yahoo.com
Usbekistan, pakistan and afghanistan, Iraq has nothing to do with
anything.
Bush has no idea what is he doing...he just does what he is told to do.
The bushes are shit and so are you.
Joseph Welch wrote:
> "Clay" <clayo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1149725564....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the
> president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which
> he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as
> he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to
> the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to
> stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic
> not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."
> -- President Theodore Roosevelt
>
> Those who volunteer to serve their country in the United States military are
> by understanding agreeing to make the supreme sacrifice in answer to their
> country's call - and this is something to be honored by all Americans.
>
> This does not preclude the responsibilty of every American to demand from
> our elected and appointed leaders the highest possible standards when
> considering whether to send those who serve into harm's way in defense of
> this great nation. George W. Bush and his accolytes have grossly failed in
> this responsibilty, and it is in honor of those who serve and have died for
> this country that we who speak out against this administration do so as part
> of our patriotic duty to the United States of America.
>
> George W. Bush and his supporters have helped the 9/11 mass murderers
> succeed beyond their wildest dreams. America is divided internally; more
> Americans are dead; the world is united against America, terrorism
> world-wide has TRIPLED; and the middle-east's newest recruiting and training
> ground for terrorists - Iraq - has implemented a socialist Islamic
> theocracy.
>
> Opposing the Bush administration and it's idiotic policies isn't 'treason"
> or "unpatriotic - far from it. It is patriotism of the highest order.
>
> "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
> explain to us what the exit strategy is."
> -George W. Bush [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
>
> "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to
> how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
> -George W. Bush, [6/5/99]
>
> --
> George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
> their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
> western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
> violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
> Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by underminig American
> freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
> Supporting Bush is treason.
>
> ***************
> JW
> ***************
> "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
> you left no sense of decency?"
> http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Cut'n'run Ray-gun
--
Open-minded people look at the BIG (BROKEN) PICTURE and say "we can fix
that", closed-minded people look the same big broken picture and say..."what
picture"?
-- Anon Nonconformist
Morton Davis
"Cut'n'run Ray-gun" <PUSSY@White_House_1980-1988.com> wrote in message
news:XcmdnUaJJMqCfhbZ...@giganews.com...
is likely what you meant.
Fredric L. Rice
>"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
>news:448a6ce5$0$1017$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> FeO2y <Rusty...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:lROhg.23579$XV5.3251@fed1read10...
>>> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4487b763$0$1004$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>>>> Mitchell Holman <NoE...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns97DB4FF09...@216.196.97.131...
>>>>> Gore served in Vietnam. Kerry served in Vietnam.
>>>> Window-dressing.
Good grief. Kerry volunteerd and didn't need to be drafted. Twice.
>>> Window-dressing?!?!?! What the hell does that mean? You think anyone
>>> would go to war just to look good. You got to be the dumbest son of
>>> a bitch alive.
>> So says the cheerleader for trotskerry.
>I see you bought shrub's propaganda hook, line and sinker, neo-cons sure
>are simple minded idiots, just can't think for themselves.
It's doubly amusing because these Bushites suck the terrorist dick of
a deserter -- who deserted from a safe Air National Guard, no less.
It's also funny because Vietnam was an illegal atrocity against humanity
and deserting was the _heroic_ thing to do.
---
"de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
http://www.SkepticTank.org/ http://www.SkepticFiles.ORG/
James H. Hood
t1gercat <wexfo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150008896.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone who receives a wound in hot combat deserves
> whatever recognition he or she gets.
Your approval of Purple Hearts for self-inflicted scratches like
trotskerry's is a disgusting insult to troops. Hang yourself.
James H. Hood
Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:128ok07...@corp.supernews.com...
> It's doubly amusing because these Bushites suck the terrorist dick of
> a deserter -- who deserted from a safe Air National Guard, no less.
It's most amusing to see the left trot out their repeatedly shot-down lies.
> It's also funny because Vietnam was an illegal atrocity against humanity
> and deserting was the _heroic_ thing to do.
See above.
jmcgill
> Your approval of Purple Hearts for self-inflicted scratches like
> trotskerry's is a disgusting insult to troops.
You have some sort of basis for your claim that Kerry's wounds were
self-inflicted? That it has been repeated by kooks, does not make it
evidence. What else have you got? Why doesn't the Navy concur with
this claim?
*us*
wrote:
>...repeatedly shot-down lies.
Where were those WMD in Iraq, again?
*us*
wrote:
>...trots ...
You should point your diarrhea away from your keyboard.
"Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house.htm
Not PC
>
>You should point your diarrhea away from your keyboard.
>
>"Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House"
Did you mean TrotsKerry?
>
>http://www.prison....
OH BOY! An alex jones devotee. Do you get commercial rates on
tinfoil for your helmets?
*us*
wrote:
>...trots ...
You should point your diarrhea away from your keyboard.
"Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house.htm
Notice that even the most pathetic, most desperate bushkultie
can't address, much less dispute, much less refute this article.
Not PC
>Notice that even the most pathetic, most desperate bushkultie
>can't address, much less dispute, much less refute this article.
Refute alex jones? No one should bother to READ alex jones. He's the
definition of a whack job. Let's just hope you spend ALL your money
buying his tapes.
*us*
>... the
>definition of a whack job ...
Of course you are: you can't discern that your ad hominem fallacy
isn't valid discourse.
Your failure is noted, as predicted.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:07:24 -0500, "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net>
wrote:
>...trots ...
You should point your diarrhea away from your keyboard.
"Trotsky's ghost wandering the White House"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house.htm
Notice that even the most pathetic, most desperate bushkultie
Baldin...@msn.com
Mitchell Holman wrote:
> 1) He has united the country - against him.
>
> 2) He has united the whole world - against him.
>
> 3) He is engineering the defeat of the whole GOP agenda.
>
> 4) He has shown the GOP "states rights" to be a mockery.
>
> 5) He has ended the political ambitions of anyone related to him.
>
> 6) He has ended the military support of all things Republican.
>
>
> 8) He has ended GOP efforts to privatize Social Security.
>
> 9) He has exposed the sham of "fiscal conservatism"
>
> 10) His legacy - the "Bridge To Nowhere"
He just signed an order limiting federal eminent domain. Tat and a
couple of other things were good, but generally he is a cruddy
"president"
BP
Sanders Kaufman
news:1151265360.6...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> He just signed an order limiting federal eminent domain. Tat and a
> couple of other things were good, but generally he is a cruddy
> "president"
It was about to be used against run-down old churches.
They're an eye-sore, they attract panhandlers, and they don't pay taxes.
That makes them *prime* targets for eminent domain.
In many cases, the properties can better be used to serve the community as
public parks.
Not PC
>>... the
>>definition of a whack job ...
>
>Of course you are: you can't discern that your ad hominem fallacy
>isn't valid discourse.
>
>Your failure is noted, as predicted.
As someone said:
In the real world, Jones is nothing more than your typical irascible,
bombastic radio shock jock. The only difference is that Jones replaces
the ordinary vulgarities and titillations with preposterous conspiracy
theories. His method is to mix these in with legitimate issues (like
encroaching government surveillance and the latest bioethical
controversies), in order to maintain a veneer of credibility. It's
clearly just his shtick. He has a proven track record of latching onto
trendy new lunacies time and again in hopes of keeping his audience's
attention. Are there RFID chips hidden in American currency? Is FEMA
making plans to round up the entire civilian population? Jones'
website says so.
*us*
>In the real world ...
How would you know?
You don't even understand the reality that your invalid
discourse merely confirms your incapacity.
You can't refute the person you attempt to smear, and
your evasion is due to your weakness.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:45:35 GMT, Not PC <fs...@gnbc.com> wrote:
>... the
>definition of a whack job ...
Of course you are: you can't discern that your ad hominem fallacy
isn't valid discourse.
Your failure is noted, as predicted.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:07:24 -0500, "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIE...@urdirect.net>