Ethics lesson 101
bobbyhaqq
critical of Bush for lying about Iraq when Clinton lied about Monica.
Just to make things clear.
Lying is bad.
Actions which result in the avoidable death of people (murder) is very
very very very very very bad.
Everyone has told one lie in their lives. We are all sinners on that
one. Lying in a civil case is bad. If I learned my father or best
friend had done it I would believe it was wrong, but it would not
effect our relationship. Its on the level of millions of sins,
cheating on a test at one point, lying on a job application, minor
vandalism, smoking pot, drinking too much on a few night, one of the
countless moral indiscretions that humans do.
But if one of these results in death then how much worse is that?
If I learned that my father had lied in a trial, which had resulted in
an innocent man getting the death penalty, well then I would feel the
need to go to the police, even a best friend. It would make continued
relations impossible, it is inhuman.
I know America kills lots of people in the thrid world all the time,
and I'm not concerned about that. I am a bit concerned about the US
forces who will be killed.
If Bush or someone in his adminsitration had knowingly made false
assertions to get approval and support for this war, and used those
reason to justify this war when it was not necessary or even wise,
then that is not just wrong or bad, that is evil. That is Stalin and
Hitler kind of Evil and that person is a monster.
In Iraq today something is being done to our forces that is
monsterouse. They are thrown in to a mission by the man who claimed
to so speak for them, in to a mission they are not trained for and
will result in many of them being killed. A mission that was clearly
not planned for in any way yet was utterly predictable as a
possibility.
And for not reason at all. No WMD in Iraq. That was false.
At the very least Bush should be as much of a man as LBJ after
Vietnam. Bush has a chance to make it right here though and do the
right thing. If he hands the mission over to the UN in the near term
he could save the lives of thousands of America.
Not just boys killed, for there will be hundreds more of those, but of
the thousands injured, some of them very seriously. I doubt that if
you cut yourself and need a medic to bind the wound that is counted as
injured by the military. Many of these are wounds which will destroy
the lives of the men who have them. They will live lives in
wheelchairs, or with mental disabilities which will prevent them from
having full lives. They will die young because of injuries.
And there families will be harmed. There children will suffer. This
is a massive trajedy and IT NEED NOT HAPPEN. IT NEVER NEEDED TO
HAPPEN BUT IT STILL CAN BE AVERTED.
For the sake of our Nation, we need a grass roots cry that this
operation be ended ASAP, and the UN be given administration of Iraq.
US forces then need to suffer the humiliation of leaving Iraq to
French and German forces but that seems a small price to pay for
saving so many lives.
Jim Alder
news:689922c7.03070...@posting.google.com:
> I noticed a few fascist claiming that somehow people can not
> be critical of Bush for lying about Iraq when Clinton lied
> about Monica.
Like who? Who made that claim? All the claims I've seen from
Bush supporters was that he DIDN'T lie, or at least there's no
proof that he did. I guess since you couldn't address that, you
had to make up an 'issue' to respond to, right?
--
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only
an intellectual could ignore or evade it. -- Thomas Sowell
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I noticed a few fascist claiming that somehow people can not be
>critical of Bush for lying about Iraq when Clinton lied about Monica.
Clinton lied with malice of forethought. It's documented. Bush
hasn't lied.
Unless you can document it..
no__...
>... Bush
>hasn't lied.
Why would anyone believe that?
none of the above
<no ...> wrote in message news:cjkegvsk9mqp1ase0...@4ax.com...
I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion that Bush lied. I do think it is reasonable to assume that if he didn't lie, he is
a dunce. There were plenty of public sources that stated that the CIA it self was not ready to state that there were WMD in
existence in Iraq. These very pages were full of similar references. The unfortunate reality is that Bush is either a deceiver or
a dummy. At best he is a person who discounts what he does not want to see. That goes on here hundreds of time a day, but all this
is of no real meaning. When our President does it,people die.
So maybe he did not lie, but doesn't that leave you with the uneasy feeling that you wish he did.
no__...
><no ...> wrote in message news:cjkegvsk9mqp1ase0...@4ax.com...
>> Some idiot wrote:
>> >... Bush
>> >hasn't lied.
>>
>> Why would anyone believe that?
>
>I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion that Bush lied.
He's been caught in lies before, often, and not in insignificant ones.
He had too much to gain from lying these times.
> I do think it is reasonable to assume that if he didn't lie, he is
>a dunce.
He could also be a lying dunce ...
> There were plenty of public sources that stated that the CIA it self was not ready to state that there were WMD in
>existence in Iraq. These very pages were full of similar references. The unfortunate reality is that Bush is either a deceiver or
>a dummy.
Or both ...
>At best he is a person who discounts what he does not want to see. That goes on here hundreds of time a day, but all this
>is of no real meaning. When our President does it, people die.
>
>So maybe he did not lie, but doesn't that leave you with the uneasy feeling that you wish he did.
You sure make good points.
Thanks.
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AF917C8543F...@216.168.3.44...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
<otis_p_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j6fegvcrq5eib3to8...@4ax.com...
bobbyhaqq
> news:689922c7.03070...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I noticed a few fascist claiming that somehow people can not
> > be critical of Bush for lying about Iraq when Clinton lied
> > about Monica.
>
> Like who? Who made that claim?
> All the claims I've seen from
> Bush supporters was that he DIDN'T lie, or at least there's no
> proof that he did. I guess since you couldn't address that, you
> had to make up an 'issue' to respond to, right?
Well does that make it better. The evidence is in on Iraq and Bush
lied, period, it has been utterly and totally established.
This is a very strange kind of reality, where you can change
intelligence reports and not lie. You can say things without evidence
to get a war and be telling the truth.
Very strange.
bobbyhaqq
The claim that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa—this
proved to based on forged documents and was exposed as a lie nearly a
year before Bush included the charge in his 2003 State of the Union
address
This is well known and been reported in the news a great deal, even on
Fox.
But you fascist will ignore it.
bobbyhaqq
> <no ...> wrote in message news:cjkegvsk9mqp1ase0...@4ax.com...
> > Some idiot wrote:
> >
> > >... Bush
> > >hasn't lied.
> >
> > Why would anyone believe that?
>
> I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion that Bush lied.
Its already been established one lie.
The claim that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa—this
proved to based on forged documents and was exposed as a lie nearly a
year before Bush included the charge in his 2003 State of the Union
address.
Bush got up in the State of the Union and gave evidence that the CIA
had asserted to be false a year ago.
How in the hell did this get in to the State of the Union.
So is it Bush is a liar or incompetent.
James Hall
become, once again, America.
JHall.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93AF917C8543F...@216.168.3.44>...
>> rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq) wrote in
>> news:689922c7.03070...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > I noticed a few fascist claiming that somehow people can
>> > not be critical of Bush for lying about Iraq when Clinton
>> > lied about Monica.
>>
>> Like who? Who made that claim?
No answer?
>> All the claims I've seen from
>> Bush supporters was that he DIDN'T lie, or at least there's
>> no proof that he did. I guess since you couldn't address
>> that, you had to make up an 'issue' to respond to, right?
>
> Well does that make it better. The evidence is in on Iraq and
> Bush lied, period, it has been utterly and totally
> established.
>
> This is a very strange kind of reality, where you can change
> intelligence reports and not lie. You can say things without
> evidence to get a war and be telling the truth.
No evidence?
> Very strange.
Not very.
Lone Haranguer
from the FBI lab.
He even committed perjury to conceal his activities and win a court
case.
We won't mention that fake "genocide" excuse for bombing Serbia for 78
days and the 8 years of lying about Waco.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
civilian targets for 78 days.
Serbians don't count or was Clinton "special" to you?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
You supported Clinton's lies about genocide, booby. You supported his
deliberate use of illegal weapons on civilian targets, all violations of
the Geneva convention.
You called it the perfect campaign.
What a phony piece of shit you are. If Clinton had bombed the Muslim
holy cities of Mecca and Medina to cow all Muslim terrorists, you would
call it a stroke of genius. If Bush would suggest it, it would be a war
crime.
You probably got fired when the dot.com bubble burst and blame it all on
Bush.
LZ
Jim Alder
news:3F084D96...@direcway.com:
> Clinton didn't admit to diddling Monica until the DNA tests
> came back from the FBI lab.
>
> He even committed perjury to conceal his activities and win a
> court case.
>
> We won't mention that fake "genocide" excuse for bombing
> Serbia for 78 days and the 8 years of lying about Waco.
> LZ
You're probably wasting your time. Robbie only needs ONE
example to prove himself right, while a thousand examples to the
contrary can be easily ignored.
ROBW
I agree.
Problem is, Busch said he was going to bring honour back to the office.
Guess that meant something else.
Keep hammering about Clinton, you nitwit, I didn't vote for him.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F084D96...@direcway.com...
ROBW
Busch withheld info.
I'm feeling it.
Small problem, I thought that kind of stuff was going to be history with
this new guy?
I guess that was just talk.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B0AF213E3CC...@216.168.3.44...
ROBW
We've been through this countless times.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F084E30...@direcway.com...
Bunny
> Bush hasn't lied.
Bush isn't smart enough to lie. His servants have to do it for him.
But, he has been a moron, which is worse than lying.
Lone Haranguer
ROBW wrote:
>
> So you're saying they both withheld information?
One was running for election, the other was already president.
> I agree.
>
> Problem is, Busch said he was going to bring honour back to the office.
> Guess that meant something else.
No Waco so far. No cover up. No Vince Foster. No Travelgate. No
Filegate. No assistant AGs indicted. No independent counsels
appointed.
>
> Keep hammering about Clinton, you nitwit, I didn't vote for him.
I think you lie. You're one of the most vocal Clinton defenders on
Usenet.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Fairy tales don't count here. Deeds do. You have no credibility if you
claim you spoke out elsewhere but lacked the conviction to speak out
here.
LZ
ROBW
repel the "House Manglers" and their religious buddies.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F08D6BD...@direcway.com...
ROBW
No more.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F08D9D9...@direcway.com...
bobbyhaqq
> So you SAY, but yet you never spoke a single word against it on Usenet.
>
> Fairy tales don't count here. Deeds do. You have no credibility if you
> claim you spoke out elsewhere but lacked the conviction to speak out
> here.
> LZ
>
Get used to it, in the coming years people are going to line up to say
they had opposed the war.
To do so in the United States last year and the early part of this one
took a great deal of courage. One could lose one's job if it was
became known in many work forces that one opposed this President and a
large number of people were simply forced to keep their mouths shut.
I imagine that at the Wal-marts in Kansas or the assembly plants in
Ohio, where layoffs were a common event, a single mom who knew Bush
was lying and feared the reality of war would probably have kept her
opinions to herself in the fact of overwhelming flag waving.
I notice the flag waving is even getting worse now that our boys are
being killed for nothing.
bobbyhaqq
> You supported Clinton's lies about genocide, booby. You supported his
> deliberate use of illegal weapons on civilian targets, all violations of
> the Geneva convention.
What lies abotu genocide, the US and Nato started operations in Kosovo
after a series of wars of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia
had left 100,000s of innocent people dead. Serbian forces under Slobo
had killed masses of civilians in Croatia and Bosnia and masses in
Kosovo.
The war was happening in Europe and therefore impacted Nato and Nato
was unified in the war.
Us forces have suffered no combat loses to this day.
> You called it the perfect campaign.
And the Bush administration likes to point to it as an excellent
operation as well. Bush people have pointed to two of its excellent
features as a campaign:
1. US forces wored with local Muslim forces and were massviely popular
with them.
2. Peace keeping operations were successful and order has been
restored.
I would add to this that we lost not a single Nato soldier to enemy
fire. Also that rifts between Russia and the US and China and the US
were cleaned up quickly.
> What a phony piece of shit you are. If Clinton had bombed the Muslim
> holy cities of Mecca and Medina to cow all Muslim terrorists, you would
> call it a stroke of genius. If Bush would suggest it, it would be a war
> crime.
How desperate you are.
Clinton would have never done such an insane thing and if he had I
would not have backed it. Clinton would have never invaded Iraq,
because it was a stupid thing to do.
Look, we lost 3 men in Iraq in the time this thread had been written
and we will lose more before it is finished. This Iraq situation is
not like Kosovo, its we are losing men and our objective are both
poorly formed and unrealistic.
>
> You probably got fired when the dot.com bubble burst and blame it all on
> Bush.
Boy are you getting desperate.
Lets talk about Iraq LZ.
bobbyhaqq
> No Waco so far. No cover up. No Vince Foster. No Travelgate. No
> Filegate. No assistant AGs indicted. No independent counsels
> appointed.
Are you comparing these things to Iraq?
How utterly desperate.
Stupendous Man
Lesson 2: do not lie about others lying unless you have proof they lied.
HTH
HAND
Stupendous Man—The Price of Freedom is never cheap!
Overhead view of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) launching an S-3B Viking:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/stennis/sten-fdviklaun.jpg
http://www.presidentreagan.info/ --The original Ronald Reagan page.
CorpComedy
>It is SO sad ,that the mind that can create such a good pseudonym as
>the "Lone Haranguer"
Lone Haranguer = BC comics character, since at least the early seventies
probably earlier
bobbyhaqq
> Lesson 1: do not lie under oath.
> Lesson 2: do not lie about others lying unless you have proof they lied.
>
Lesson 1: George Bush said in his state of the Union 2003 that the US
had evidence that Iraq was trying to get weapons grade material from
Africa, siting a CIA find of a letter. Problem was IT IS PROVEN that
the letter was false a year earlier. Either Bush was not told by the
CIA that the only piece of evidence they had for a nuclear weapons
program active in Iraq or he lied. The former would only be believed
by a child or idiot.
Lesson 2: If we take George Bush under oath and ask him if he had lied
to get a war started, he would probably say no, another lie. This lie
would be nothing compared to the evil of lying to get the war started.
His honesty would be nothing compared to the evil of killing in a
lie.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
>Some idiot wrote:
>
>>... Bush
>>hasn't lied.
>
>Why would anyone believe that?
Why not?
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
<NotAn...@maxivision.com> wrote:
>On 7 Jul 2003 06:29:58 -0700, rhook...@hotmail.com (bobbyhaqq)
>wrote:
>
>>Stupendous Man <anonymous...@nospam.dnaco.net> wrote in message news:<BB2EB1D8.117E2F%anonymous...@nospam.dnaco.net>...
>
>
>>> Lesson 1: do not lie under oath.
>
>Ok great, shrub is under the Oath of office. and he is a constant and
>dangerous liar. and needs to learn a lesson .
So, what "lies" can you prove?
>His concrete lies have been alledged and documented.
Alleged, yes. Documented? No.
>Now it's time for him to be under oath
>in a smaller place , a courtroom, to answer to the people.
LOL all you need now is PROOF!
>If Monica was a reason for a president to be taken to court ,
Had zero to do with Monica. Monica didn't lie under oath.
>then bush's lies and his administrations conflicts of interest, are WAY
>more than sufficiant.
Got proof..........?
>Reap what you sew
Sow, not sew. One's digging in the dirt, the other is related to
needle and thread.
>bush will then have no choice other than to seal his fate with more
>lies.
*yawn*
>
And you have the nerve to call GW "stupid"
Read the State of the Union address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
See if you can figure out what "stupid" George is saying.
Lone Haranguer
opportunity.
BTW, Overstock.com is already selling Hillary's book at a 32% discount.
Garage sales probably ask a dollar. You should have waited. Isn't that
humiliating?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
weak prostetations.
Qvetching about WMDs just lacks credibility, absent any record
whatsoever about the "genocide" lie. Don't you agree?
And you claim Paula Jones was a hypocrite while your track records are
similar. Plus you still repeat the propaganda fed you about Waco rather
than do a little investigating.
You defending the Clintons is like Jeffery Dahmer touting Oscar Mayer
wieners. Everyone knows what his real diet was. <snicker>
LZ
Lone Haranguer
bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3F08D9D9...@direcway.com>...
> > So you SAY, but yet you never spoke a single word against it on Usenet.
> >
> > Fairy tales don't count here. Deeds do. You have no credibility if you
> > claim you spoke out elsewhere but lacked the conviction to speak out
> > here.
> > LZ
> >
>
> Get used to it, in the coming years people are going to line up to say
> they had opposed the war.
You supported Clinton when he lied about "genocide" in Kosovo, despite
all the info I furnished you. Have you chosen to forget that?
>
> To do so in the United States last year and the early part of this one
> took a great deal of courage. One could lose one's job if it was
> became known in many work forces that one opposed this President and a
> large number of people were simply forced to keep their mouths shut.
>
Horse puckey. Robw has been gloating how well the Dixie Chicks were
doing after their anti-Bush remarks.
In our travels we see 90 "support the troops" signs for ever 1 opposing
our actions in Iraq.
> I imagine that at the Wal-marts in Kansas or the assembly plants in
> Ohio, where layoffs were a common event, a single mom who knew Bush
> was lying and feared the reality of war would probably have kept her
> opinions to herself in the fact of overwhelming flag waving.
Usually seniority decides who gets laid off first. At least in a union
shop but also in many others. Companies maintain such a policy just to
avoid lawsuits.
>
> I notice the flag waving is even getting worse now that our boys are
> being killed for nothing.
Did you listen to General Franks speech today? You can find it on the
ABC news site.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3F0867A7...@direcway.com>...
>
> > You supported Clinton's lies about genocide, booby. You supported his
> > deliberate use of illegal weapons on civilian targets, all violations of
> > the Geneva convention.
>
> What lies abotu genocide, the US and Nato started operations in Kosovo
> after a series of wars of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia
> had left 100,000s of innocent people dead.
But not in Kosovo, booby. THAT claim was a total lie but you screeched
it every chance you got, despite me posting evidence to the contrary.
Serbian forces under Slobo
> had killed masses of civilians in Croatia and Bosnia and masses in
> Kosovo.
But Clinton bombed Serbia because of CLAIMED genocide in Kosovo. Yet
the bodies unearthed were from AFTER the bombing started. You lied.
Clinton lied and you defended his bombing of civilians with illegal
weapons.
>
> The war was happening in Europe and therefore impacted Nato and Nato
> was unified in the war.
Bullshit. Only the Brits participated in the bombings, other NATO
countries dragged their feet. In fact NATO has gone downhill since
Clinton used it as cover for his "wag the dog" bombing of Serbia. Our
Greek allies nearly lynched Clinton on his subsequent visit. He was
afraid to leave his hotel.
>
> Us forces have suffered no combat loses to this day.
>
> > You called it the perfect campaign.
Bombing from 15,000 feet was because, politically, Clinton didn't have
the support to have any body bags coming home. Killing civilians was
the result.
>
> And the Bush administration likes to point to it as an excellent
> operation as well. Bush people have pointed to two of its excellent
> features as a campaign:
>
> 1. US forces wored with local Muslim forces and were massviely popular
> with them.
> 2. Peace keeping operations were successful and order has been
> restored.
As long as NATO forces occupy the country.
>
> I would add to this that we lost not a single Nato soldier to enemy
> fire. Also that rifts between Russia and the US and China and the US
> were cleaned up quickly.
They still haven't been.
>
> > What a phony piece of shit you are. If Clinton had bombed the Muslim
> > holy cities of Mecca and Medina to cow all Muslim terrorists, you would
> > call it a stroke of genius. If Bush would suggest it, it would be a war
> > crime.
>
> How desperate you are.
>
> Clinton would have never done such an insane thing and if he had I
> would not have backed it. Clinton would have never invaded Iraq,
> because it was a stupid thing to do.
He wouldn't do anything about Afghanistan either despite it being used
as a training ground for anti-U.S. terrorists. His bureaucrats at INS
allowed a flood of terrorists to set up permanent cells here.
>
> Look, we lost 3 men in Iraq in the time this thread had been written
> and we will lose more before it is finished. This Iraq situation is
> not like Kosovo, its we are losing men and our objective are both
> poorly formed and unrealistic.
In Kosovo Clinton AIDED AND ABETTED MUSLIM TERRORISTS to take over the
country. The KLA was/is a Muslim group of terrorists.
>
> >
> > You probably got fired when the dot.com bubble burst and blame it all on
> > Bush.
>
> Boy are you getting desperate.
Did I hit the target?
>
> Lets talk about Iraq LZ.
What's to talk about? Had you ever been in a combat situation, you
would learn that people take that in stride. Today we have an all
volunteer military, they didn't join to play hop-scotch.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
If you don't know, why was the rest snipped?
>
> How utterly desperate.
We were comparing the first 2 years of the Clinton regime with Bush's.
Get it now?
LZ
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"CorpComedy" <corpc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030707060404...@mb-m14.aol.com...
ROBW
And most places nowadays are discounting 15 to 25 percent from the jump, so
32% is not all that big a drop.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F09C114...@direcway.com...
ROBW
Sorry.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F09C3D0...@direcway.com...
bobbyhaqq
> bobbyhaqq wrote:
> >
> > Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3F08D9D9...@direcway.com>...
> > > So you SAY, but yet you never spoke a single word against it on Usenet.
> > >
> > > Fairy tales don't count here. Deeds do. You have no credibility if you
> > > claim you spoke out elsewhere but lacked the conviction to speak out
> > > here.
> > > LZ
> > >
> >
> > Get used to it, in the coming years people are going to line up to say
> > they had opposed the war.
>
> You supported Clinton when he lied about "genocide" in Kosovo, despite
> all the info I furnished you. Have you chosen to forget that?
The term was ethnic cleansing. The White House never gave a number of
those killed in Kosovo but it was high. A large number of people had
died in the former Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia is now democratic and free, Kosovo is secured, the ethnic
fighting is over, Nato is running security, no US forces have been
killed by Serbs, and Slobo is on trail in the Hague.
What do you want?
I utterly fail to see why you are pushing the Kosovo thing, Bush looks
terrible when compared to Clinton on this. The objectives were meet
without US loses.
Even the Bush administration points to Kosovo as what it was, an utter
and total success. The Bush administration promised that Iraq would
be as easy to run after the war as Kosovo was.
If you want to compare Kosovo and Iraq for ever go ahead, as more and
more allied forces are killed or injured in Iraq your Kosovo comments
seem odder and odder.
> >
> > To do so in the United States last year and the early part of this one
> > took a great deal of courage. One could lose one's job if it was
> > became known in many work forces that one opposed this President and a
> > large number of people were simply forced to keep their mouths shut.
> >
> Horse puckey. Robw has been gloating how well the Dixie Chicks were
> doing after their anti-Bush remarks.
>
Over the past two years there have been hundreds of stories about
people losing their jobs over comments about the President.
The Dixie Chicks story was actually very scarry. They simply said
they did not like the President, and found themselves under a
organized campaign by the fascists in America to destroy their
carrers.
Perhaps more disturbing was Politically Incorrect show, when the White
House itself spoke out that all Americans must watch what they say.
It was very icy and scary, and probably the diaster of Iraq was set
then.
When it became very difficult for most Americans to say anything in
public against Bush the consequences were open.
> In our travels we see 90 "support the troops" signs for ever 1 opposing
> our actions in Iraq.
>
You have a point here?
I would never put up a sign in my house against the Iraq war in the
United States. I would simply set my home up as a target for attack,
or my family as targets for assault in public.
The story has not been written yet about how much pressure was put on
Americans to accept Iraq. I knew a number of people who could not see
the sense of the mission but dared not say anything for fear of
consequences.
Over the past year the tone in the US has been nothing short of
bullying. This administration really does try to subvert the
constitution and terrorize people in to silence. I mean when a man is
attacked in LA for being French, it does not give me confidence to
tell my co-workers what I think about the war.
If not for the ability to post under assumed names on the Internet I
doubt there would have been any dissent over the past year. The fear
to speak you mind in America is really scary. Most people I know who
still support Bush have impossed around themselves zones of silence,
it is impossible to speak about politics for them.
> > I imagine that at the Wal-marts in Kansas or the assembly plants in
> > Ohio, where layoffs were a common event, a single mom who knew Bush
> > was lying and feared the reality of war would probably have kept her
> > opinions to herself in the fact of overwhelming flag waving.
>
> Usually seniority decides who gets laid off first. At least in a union
> shop but also in many others. Companies maintain such a policy just to
> avoid lawsuits.
God have you been out of the real world for a long time. Firstly
people don't get laid off these days, they get fired. The pattern of
layoff during a slow point followed by a rehire has been dropped a
decade ago.
Seniroirty bases and unions are dead years ago. It has been atleast 20
years since you have had a job right?
> >
> > I notice the flag waving is even getting worse now that our boys are
> > being killed for nothing.
>
> Did you listen to General Franks speech today? You can find it on the
> ABC news site.
Yah, it was terrible. It was like a turtle out of his shell.
Over the coming years General and Politicans are going to give all
kinds of speeches about the American Revolution and other items.
But what are our forces being killed for. Children and Grandhcildren,
it sounds nice when Franks says it, but it means not a damn thing.
Mark my words. No democracy in Iraq, in the coming years Iraq will
fall in to the shit. Which type of shit is hard to say, but given the
history and the lack of adequate US forces and America's lack of
effective experience administoring colonies and mandates, the end is
inescapable.
I mean open your eyes old man. Saddam is giving audio intereviews
calling on the nation to resist. Alliance forces are being constantly
attacked and the civilian population is not helping us. Everyone,
even I, imagined it would be a short war. I had not idea it would
take this long, and no end in sight.
No end in sight. A year of war in Iraq, two years of war in Iraq?
For what. Some speech a General gives before being fired from the
CENTCOM command before the Bush PR spin master comes along.
Lone Haranguer
LZ
Lone Haranguer
nickname from the mid-60s already. Some young airmen bestowed it on me
for haranguing our Commander. I was an E-6, he was a Major. (In the
comic strip, the Lone Haranguer is well known for his nocturnal rides
where he yells out "The King is a fink").
LZ
Lone Haranguer
examining the real facts. Probably didn't want to give people ammo
against your idol.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3F09E811...@direcway.com>...
> > bobbyhaqq wrote:
> > >
> > > Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3F08D9D9...@direcway.com>...
> > > > So you SAY, but yet you never spoke a single word against it on Usenet.
> > > >
> > > > Fairy tales don't count here. Deeds do. You have no credibility if you
> > > > claim you spoke out elsewhere but lacked the conviction to speak out
> > > > here.
> > > > LZ
> > > >
> > >
> > > Get used to it, in the coming years people are going to line up to say
> > > they had opposed the war.
> >
> > You supported Clinton when he lied about "genocide" in Kosovo, despite
> > all the info I furnished you. Have you chosen to forget that?
>
> The term was ethnic cleansing. The White House never gave a number of
> those killed in Kosovo but it was high. A large number of people had
> died in the former Yugoslavia.
Clinton helped the KLA cleanse Kosovo of the Serbs, have you forgotten
that fact?
>
> Yugoslavia is now democratic and free, Kosovo is secured, the ethnic
> fighting is over, Nato is running security, no US forces have been
> killed by Serbs, and Slobo is on trail in the Hague.
>
> What do you want?
I want you to admit that Clinton LIED about the reason he bombed the
Serbs. He DELIBERATELY bombed civilian targets and DELIBERATELY
destroyed the civilian infrastructure. Both of those are war crimes.
In addition he used cluster bombs on civilians, another war crime.
>
> I utterly fail to see why you are pushing the Kosovo thing, Bush looks
> terrible when compared to Clinton on this. The objectives were meet
> without US loses.
>
Is that your criteria? Bush didn't deliberately destroy civilians and
ifrastructure. He didn't bomb from 15,000 feet. He went to the UN,
something which Clinton lacked the balls to do.
> Even the Bush administration points to Kosovo as what it was, an utter
> and total success. The Bush administration promised that Iraq would
> be as easy to run after the war as Kosovo was.
Got a quote? A URL?
>
> If you want to compare Kosovo and Iraq for ever go ahead, as more and
> more allied forces are killed or injured in Iraq your Kosovo comments
> seem odder and odder.
That is because you are stupid. We were still technically at war with
Iraq since Hussein had failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire
agreement.
We had NO similar justification to start dropping bombs on Serbian
civilians.
>
> > >
> > > To do so in the United States last year and the early part of this one
> > > took a great deal of courage. One could lose one's job if it was
> > > became known in many work forces that one opposed this President and a
> > > large number of people were simply forced to keep their mouths shut.
> > >
> > Horse puckey. Robw has been gloating how well the Dixie Chicks were
> > doing after their anti-Bush remarks.
> >
>
> Over the past two years there have been hundreds of stories about
> people losing their jobs over comments about the President.
I've yet to see the first one. How come they haven't made it to this
NG?
>
> The Dixie Chicks story was actually very scarry. They simply said
> they did not like the President, and found themselves under a
> organized campaign by the fascists in America to destroy their
> carrers.
They said they were ashamed to be from Texas because Bush was from
there. They won't be moving back to Texas.
>
> Perhaps more disturbing was Politically Incorrect show, when the White
> House itself spoke out that all Americans must watch what they say.
> It was very icy and scary, and probably the diaster of Iraq was set
> then.
It was? I must have missed that. I have yet to see anything on TV that
scares me.
>
> When it became very difficult for most Americans to say anything
> public against Bush the consequences were open.
Check with Daschle. He says something every day.
>
> > In our travels we see 90 "support the troops" signs for ever 1 opposing
> > our actions in Iraq.
> >
>
> You have a point here?
Yep. You are a minority. Take a look at that election map again.
Those who voted for Bush cover 90% of the map.
>
> I would never put up a sign in my house against the Iraq war in the
> United States. I would simply set my home up as a target for attack,
> or my family as targets for assault in public.
That is because you are a coward. I go by a house every day who has
such signs and nothing has happened to the people who live there.
Neighbors are perfectly civil to them and they get the same invitations
they always got. No one has attempted to remove the signs either.
>
> The story has not been written yet about how much pressure was put on
> Americans to accept Iraq. I knew a number of people who could not see
> the sense of the mission but dared not say anything for fear of
> consequences.
You must have a lot of wussy friends. Clinton had people audited by the
IRS and otherwise harassed but it never stopped me from speaking out
against him.
>
> Over the past year the tone in the US has been nothing short of
> bullying. This administration really does try to subvert the
> constitution and terrorize people in to silence.
Nothing like Waco, the "militia" hoax after OK City and the armed
assault to kidnap Elian.
I mean when a man is
> attacked in LA for being French, it does not give me confidence to
> tell my co-workers what I think about the war.
He was probably being a smart ass. I've insulted the French since 1966
when I had my first experiences with the assholes.
They deserve to be insulted since they are insulting themselves.
>
> If not for the ability to post under assumed names on the Internet I
> doubt there would have been any dissent over the past year. The fear
> to speak you mind in America is really scary. Most people I know who
> still support Bush have impossed around themselves zones of silence,
> it is impossible to speak about politics for them.
You must have a lot of wussy friends. I see the same people posting as
always.
>
> > > I imagine that at the Wal-marts in Kansas or the assembly plants in
> > > Ohio, where layoffs were a common event, a single mom who knew Bush
> > > was lying and feared the reality of war would probably have kept her
> > > opinions to herself in the fact of overwhelming flag waving.
> >
> > Usually seniority decides who gets laid off first. At least in a union
> > shop but also in many others. Companies maintain such a policy just to
> > avoid lawsuits.
>
> God have you been out of the real world for a long time. Firstly
> people don't get laid off these days, they get fired. The pattern of
> layoff during a slow point followed by a rehire has been dropped a
> decade ago.
Not here. When new orders come in, laid off employees are re-hired.
>
> Seniroirty bases and unions are dead years ago. It has been atleast 20
> years since you have had a job right?
>
I still have children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces in the work
force. They are all doing well, new houses, new boats, new cars and
trucks, long vacations and great benefits. Maybe you should seek
retraining?
> > >
> > > I notice the flag waving is even getting worse now that our boys are
> > > being killed for nothing.
> >
> > Did you listen to General Franks speech today? You can find it on the
> > ABC news site.
>
> Yah, it was terrible. It was like a turtle out of his shell.
>
> Over the coming years General and Politicans are going to give all
> kinds of speeches about the American Revolution and other items.
>
> But what are our forces being killed for. Children and Grandhcildren,
> it sounds nice when Franks says it, but it means not a damn thing.
Obviously you were not taught to make sacrifices for the benefit of
others. I was. Our entire complement of gunners in Korea was composed
of volunteers. Ever hear of the Peace Corps? They don't fight battles
but at least they make personal sacrifices to benefit others.
>
> Mark my words. No democracy in Iraq, in the coming years Iraq will
> fall in to the shit. Which type of shit is hard to say, but given the
> history and the lack of adequate US forces and America's lack of
> effective experience administoring colonies and mandates, the end is
> inescapable.
Ho hum. Your predictions do not have a good track record.
>
> I mean open your eyes old man. Saddam is giving audio intereviews
> calling on the nation to resist. Alliance forces are being constantly
> attacked and the civilian population is not helping us. Everyone,
> even I, imagined it would be a short war. I had not idea it would
> take this long, and no end in sight.
So far, I have not been surprised at events. We could have gotten lucky
and caught Saddam for all to see. Things will change overnight if he is
captured.
>
> No end in sight. A year of war in Iraq, two years of war in Iraq?
When I got to Korea the south had been freed of the Commies for 2
years. You still couldn't venture off base though and Kunsan was 100
miles south of the front lines. Occasionally they would even get bold
enough to fire heavy machine guns with tracers as we took off from our
own runway.
Your experience in living in occupied countries is?????
>
> For what. Some speech a General gives before being fired from the
> CENTCOM command before the Bush PR spin master comes along.
I think he had 34 years of active duty. How many years is required?
LZ
ROBW
Someone bought it.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B17FA...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B1A22...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B1C38...@direcway.com...
no__...
>...no ... wrote:
>>Some idiot wrote:
>>
>>>... Bush
>>>hasn't lied.
>>
>>Why would anyone believe that?
>
>Why not?
The facts show that he has lied, repeatedly,
and about issues of significance.
What's the matter, 'otis', don't you like facts?
no__...
>...PROOF! ...
Why don't you insist on any before slaughtering people?
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
So, show me the "facts".
Not your wishful thinking.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
So, you have no proof.
A young pup such as yourself need to learn these lessons!
Lone Haranguer
you moron. Joe Izuzu has a better track record.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
considered yourself a cultural guru?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
with any evidence to justify your past pronouncements so you choose to
bail. Coward.
LZ
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C31E4...@direcway.com...
ROBW
Not knowing every detail is not needed.
I'm sure you've heard of "Saturday Night Live"?
I'm quite sure you could not name this year's cast without consulting your
god "Google,"
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C323F...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C32AA...@direcway.com...
Lone Haranguer
people lost their ass betting on their integrity.
Keep pumping Hillary, you have similar ethics.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
ROBW wrote:
>
> I'm aware of both strips.
Sure.
> Not knowing every detail is not needed.
Some people never "get" what the comic strips are about.
> I'm sure you've heard of "Saturday Night Live"?
Yep. Fox shows their clips often.
> I'm quite sure you could not name this year's cast without consulting your
> god "Google,"
Nor do I claim to be a cultural guru as you do.
Guess you got bitch-slapped again.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
LZ
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0CC05C...@direcway.com...
ROBW
I simply pointed out that you can be aware of something without having to
deal with all it's minutia.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0CC2E3...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0CC328...@direcway.com...
Lone Haranguer
as printing false stories FOR YEARS and covering it up.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
whole world is supposed to know all the details.
Delusional nitwit.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Davidians to justify the murders of innocent children.
LZ
ROBW
while you know nothing about ours..........i.e. we know who the "Wizzard of
Id" is while you have no idea who "Radiohead"
is.
Just one small example.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0E1787...@direcway.com...
ROBW
You know.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0E182D...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0E1721...@direcway.com...
bobbyhaqq
> Right. Wear blinders and believe Clinton and Reno. Demonize all the
> Davidians to justify the murders of innocent children.
I would love for you to work for Bush. If the Democrats could get
someone high up in the Bush White House going on about the Davidians
opening fire on ATF and then dismiss losses in Iraq. Oh that would be
sweet.
bobbyhaqq
> So, what "lies" can you prove?
The Vice President of the US, a year before the State of the Union,
orderd the CIA review the truth in the Niger claim.
The CIA learned that not only was the claim false, that it was
impossible. It would be like a woman on food stamps claiming someone
stold a million dollars from her, it was false. Niger did not have
the material claimed to have been sold.
This information was returned to the White House via the CIA. We know
for certain this happened 10 months before the State of the Union. We
also know that the Vice President himself had ordered the review.
And yet somehow the claim found its way in to the State of the Union
address 10 months later. Either the administration lied, or is
incompetent beyond belief, or a mixture of both.
Bush was either kept intentionally in the dark or lie. You decide
which one you want to believe.
> >His concrete lies have been alledged and documented.
>
> Alleged, yes. Documented? No.
Yes. The actual statement in the State of the Union has been
documented and even the White House now says it was a mistake to
include.
The intelligence trail to the White House from the CIA has been
documented. The fact that the Vice President has ordered the CIA to
make the review has been documented. The diplomat making the review
has publically gone on record.
We have it DOCUMENTED that the CIA gave this information to the White
House 10 montsh early on the bequest of the Vice President, but still
10 months later the claim is in the State of the Union.
> >Now it's time for him to be under oath
> >in a smaller place , a courtroom, to answer to the people.
>
> LOL all you need now is PROOF!
There is documentation. We have the evidence of the inforamtion
entering the White House at the VP's request and the statement made by
the President. This is clearly enough information for a fraud
investigation.
Sorry but the standards set out by the GOP in their desperation to get
Monica are more than what is needed here. Giving Congress false
information to promote an agenda is fraud, it is a crime. Congress
was presented with false information. The investigation would
establish if intentional fraud had been performed. But information
disproving the claim can be tracked to the White House.
There would be more than enough grounds for a criminal or
congressional investigation, and for them to ask for a statement or
questions of the President.
> And you have the nerve to call GW "stupid"
>
Well I generally just say he is stupid, without the quotes myself.
> Read the State of the Union address:
Which is him just speaking off the cuff right.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
>
> See if you can figure out what "stupid" George is saying.
Yah, hes saying that if the US does not invade Iraq right now Iraq
was going to attack the US with a nuclear, chemcial or biological
weapon in the near future.
Lone Haranguer
know as much about mine. I doubt you have read a fraction of the books
I have read or taken a fraction of the courses I have. Nor have you had
the variety of experiences I have had.
You want to have a contest? Bring it on.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
been too gullible during the Clinton years?
LZ
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
We like to think of ourselves as enlightened people who try,
especially in politics, not to judge people by our first impressions.
Take President Carter ... please.
Our first impression of him was not good. Putting aside that we were
not crazy about having a President whose first name was "Jimmy" (and
still hope to have the rest of the world believe that the outhouse was
not a fixture of American culture), when we first saw candidate
Carter, he was wearing brown socks with a blue suit. "So what," we
said, still prepared to be open-minded. We were hiring a President,
not a tailor. And maybe he was colorblind, which would not effect his
ability to be President except for matters of the budget, when he has
to be able to tell the red ink from the black. And what happened? Our
first impression was right. We ended up waiting on lines at the gas
stations -- and we didn't even own a car.
Then came Clinton. When we saw him we felt that he was the kind of
person who would give used car salesmen a bad name. Then he was
elected. We understood that the business of the government was being
conducted in the Oval Office, but did it have to be on the carpet of
the Oval Office?
With Clinton, we tried to look at the positive side of things, and
were prepared to be generous in our judgment. Adultery, so what? It
takes ten minutes to commit adultery and he had the whole rest of the
day to be President. And what finally happened? It turned out he did
to the rest of the country what he was doing to his girl friends.
Andrew Cuomo first came to our attention when he married Robert F.
Kennedy's daughter, Kerry.
Our first impression of the Kennedys was visceral and goes back two
generations before Kerry. Old man Joe, Kerry's grandfather, founded
the house of Kennedy by a political marriage with Rose Fitzgerald,
daughter of Boston's mayor "Honey Fitz." Joe believed in "family" to
such a degree that he openly had one family with Rose and another home
with film star Gloria Swanson.
What soured us on Joe, though, were his political positions, not the
ones in his bedroom. He became U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain in
1937 until he was forced to resign in 1940. His continued praise of
Hitler and exhortations for us to drop our support for England in the
early days of World War II became an international embarrassment.
Joe Kennedy was not just a Nazi lover, he was also a racist, as
described by Frank Sinatra's valet, George Jacobs, in his new book,
Mr. S
"He [Kennedy] referred to the august Louis B. Mayer as a 'kike
junkman.' The Jewish jokes didn't stop. The worst one I can recall:
'What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? The pizza doesn't
cry on its way to the oven.'"
Jacobs, to whom he was talking, was a black man. But he was also
Jewish, having been Bar Mitzvahed in Israel, which goes to show that
Kennedy was dumb as well as bigoted.
When it came to Andrew Cuomo, what has been revealed in the last few
days confirmed our original impression of him, which was not very
favorable. In order to buy votes for the Clinton Administration, as
Clinton's Secretary of Housing, this professed liberal dangled, then
gave, then withheld, federal funds for New York housing. Can there
really be anybody lower than a person who professes to be a liberal,
concerned about the plight of poor people, and then, when in a
position where he could really do some good for these unfortunate
people, uses his power to further his own and his party's political
ends.
We were also turned off when, trying to run for Governor of New York,
he shoved his wife Kerry and even his children in the face of the
voters at every opportunity. Little did we then know that this was the
ultimate scam because, at the same time, their marriage was, in fact,
a sham. She had a boyfriend, Cuomo was calling her every possible
insulting name, and yet they sought to present themselves as a model
-- the ultimate political couple to the voters of New York. Of course,
he had a great role model in Clinton who, with Hillary, was the gold
standard for political marriages. Their marriage had everything a
marriage could want -- thievery, crookedness, adultery, violence, and
phoney religiosity -- in short, a marriage made in heaven.
But Cuomo was also able to do something that even Tony Soprano would
not do. Initially, he released reports that his wife betrayed him and
then, in case anybody did not know how she betrayed him, explained
that she was an adulterer. After having done all of this, like a man
who kills his parents and complains he is an orphan, he then bemoaned
the fact that their three children had to find out about it.
Worse yet, Kerry is apparently an amateur at the adultery game -- she
should have taken lessons from her relatives. After her husband called
her an adulteress, her boyfriend then said that he will stay with his
wife, and wants no part of Kerry.
If a conservative did all of these things, he would be reviled as the
lowest person who ever lived. Since Cuomo is a liberal, he is simply a
chip off the old block.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/mason.html
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
Joe Kennedy was not just a Nazi lover, he was also a racist, as
described by Frank Sinatra's valet, George Jacobs, in his new book,
Mr. S
"He [Kennedy] referred to the august Louis B. Mayer as a 'kike
junkman.' The Jewish jokes didn't stop. The worst one I can recall:
'What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? The pizza doesn't
cry on its way to the oven.'"
Jacobs, to whom he was talking, was a black man. But he was also
Jewish, having been Bar Mitzvahed in Israel, which goes to show that
Kennedy was dumb as well as bigoted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lone Haranguer
and will only be believed by those who want to believe, regardless of
truth.
I wouldn't place much faith in them, knowing their standards.
LZ
Rochester Bob
> Trust First Impressions
>
>
> We like to think of ourselves as enlightened people who try,
> especially in politics, not to judge people by our first impressions.
<snip>
Your treatise would be much more convincing if it included examples of
some of our first impressions about Republicans as well. For example,
George W. Bush was initially considered an inarticulate, inept, spoiled
rich kid with no experience nor interest in foreign affairs or civil
rights. Dick Cheney was viewed as a well-heeled CEO whose only interest
was to shape public policy to benefit his corporate cronies. Ronald
Reagan was at first thought to be no more than a puppet nominated to do
the bidding of the far right Christian conservatives. The perception of
Richard Nixon was that of a devious, life-long politician that would do
anything to achieve his personal political goals, including unfairly
destroying the reputation of his opponents.
I am not necessarily saying that I agree with any of the above
characterizations. Rather, I offer them as examples of first
impressions that should not have been overlooked by your original post.
--
Rochester Bob
"And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts
will show the world the truth."
George W. Bush
July 9, 2003
Lone Haranguer
The ATF shot first. Koresh came to the door unarmed, even the ATF
agents testified to that fact.
NO ATTEMPT was made to serve a warrant NOR had any plan been made to
serve one. The ENTIRE operation was planned as a "dynamic entry" ; i.e.
a heavily armed assault. All because it was SUSPECTED that the
Davidians had guns they had not bought stamps and obtained permits for.
This is your idea of law enforcement? Pathetic how easy it is to
brainwash you and get you to ignore the facts.
LZ
ROBW
Bring whatever you got.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0EDC6F...@direcway.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0EDCCA...@direcway.com...
ROBW
Hell, with nan citing Howard Stern "wack pack" member and you quoting
Frank's people...........hell, why do we need FNC?
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
<otis_p_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01otgvscpptl8rv27...@4ax.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F0EE42B...@direcway.com...
no__...
>no ... wrote:
>>Obviously terrified into stupor aka otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>...no ... wrote:
>>>>Some idiot wrote:
>>>>>... Bush hasn't lied.
>>>>Why would anyone believe that?
>>>Why not?
>>The facts show that he has lied, repeatedly,
>>and about issues of significance.
>>What's the matter, 'otis', don't you like facts?
>
>So, show me the "facts".
Saddam didn't have nukes otis.
There wasn't going to be any mushroom cloud
over your head in 45 minutes.
Bush spewed. You sucked. You swallowed.
no__...
>...no ... wrote:
>>Overtly timid insipid & stupid, otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>...PROOF! ...
>>
>>Why don't you insist on any before slaughtering people?
>
>So, you have no proof.
Your idol Bush didn't.
Yet you wanted helpless innocent people killed over it anyway.
Why can't you think for yourself at all?
>A young pup ... need [sic] to learn these lessons!
Otherwise Bush spews, you suck, you swallow.
Lone Haranguer
things that matter you don't know ANYTHING. You have NEVER posted a
cite to something you claimed and have REPEATEDLY denied facts which I
then presented. You then dodge and weave or refuse to discuss it.
You can only function in your own tiny circle, outside Philly you are
just a rube.
What knowledge and experience do you have about:
Gun systems?
Aircraft?
Weapons?
Electronics?
Radar?
Weather interpretation and observing?
Map plotting?
Map analysis?
Military field maneuvers?
Military customs?
German language?
Spanish language.
Hunting?
Fishing?
Gardening?
RV travel?
Far East History?
Internet satellite systems?
TV satellite systems?
RV maintenance?
Plumbing?
Heating?
Electrical wiring?
Navigation?
Boat handling?
Marksmanship?
Small engine repair?
Outboard motors?
Animal husbandry?
Growing crops?
Well drilling?
Tree species?
Bird species?
Wildlife management?
German hunting laws and customs?
European travel?
The Korean War?
GPS/mapping?
Camping?
Child rearing?
Marriage?
Grafting fruit trees?
Running a chain saw and circle saw?
Seasoning firewood?
Aircraft engineer (B-26)
Bombs and fuses, dearming procedures.
Gunsmithing?
Tractor maintenance?
Hell, you can't spell past the 4th grade level and are completely
helpless outside of your small environment.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
told me what to feel.
Puppet.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
markets and only reporting those with higher sales figures.
Tells me all I need to know. Plus Overstock sales means undersold or
overprinted and not reaching expectations.
Keep denying.
LZ
ROBW
Sorry, I was talking about intellect, not the ability to filet a fish.
I was talking about Trstan Tzara, James Joyce, William S. Burroughs, Jack
Kerouac, Marcel Duchamp, John Cage, to name a few, not Bob Vila and Mark
Trail.
You listed things that could be learned in tech schools.
Sorry, I've always aspired to higher things.
But the world needs people like you.
Well, as least Wal-Mart does.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F107766...@direcway.com...
ROBW
I'm not ex-military,remember?
F*ck little girls and lead your sheep to slaughter.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F1077DC...@direcway.com...
ROBW
us.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F1078A0...@direcway.com...
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
WMD = Chem, Bio, Nuke.
Hussein's gov't had 8000 liters of Anthrax.
Enough to kill every mammal on the planet.
And that's OK with you.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
>Obviously terrified into stupor otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>...no ... wrote:
>>>Overtly timid insipid & stupid, otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>...PROOF! ...
>>>
>>>Why don't you insist on any before slaughtering people?
>>
>>So, you have no proof.
>
>Your idol Bush didn't.
Just all the intel from US, EU, UN et al...
>Yet you wanted helpless innocent people killed over it anyway.
No, I wanted those killings to stop. That's just another
justification for removing Saddam.
I wanted to prevent another 9-11.
You didn't care one way or the other, as long as Hussein could still
be in power
>Why can't you think for yourself at all?
I do, I am not spoonfed from communist web-sites, and other anarchist
philosophies you cling to.
otis_p_d...@hotmail.com
Poor libs, nothing to say...??? LOL!!!
New Iraqi council declares holiday
Associated Press
A 25-member governing council of prominent Iraqis from diverse
political and religious backgrounds was named at an inaugural meeting
Sunday, the first national body since the fall of Saddam Hussein and a
crucial first step on the nation's path to democracy. In its first
public act, the council declared April 9 as a national holiday marking
Saddam's fall from power and wiped out six dates that were celebrated
under the old regime.
"THE ESTABLISHMENT of this council represents the Iraqi national will
after the collapse of the dictatorial regime," said council member
Mohammed Bahr al-Uloum, a prominent Shiite cleric from Najaf,
announcing the new holiday.
The multiethnic panel will have real political muscle, with the power
to name ministers and approve the 2004 budget, but final control of
Iraq still rests with the top American administrator, L. Paul Bremer.
Former Foreign Minister and council member Adnan Pachachi said he does
not expect Bremer to veto council decisions and believed negotiations
would settle all disputes.
Yet to be seen, however, is whether the council can convince the Iraqi
people that it represents them, despite the fact they never had a
chance to vote on its members. Coalition leaders say an election in
Iraq is not yet practical.
The council said it would select its leadership on Monday. The
majority of members are Shiites -- who make up a 60 percent majority
of the 24 million population -- and who suffered deeply under Saddam's
minority Sunni government. The council makeup was decided after more
than two months of deliberations to strike a balance between Iraq's
factions: 13 Shiites, 5 Kurds, 5 Sunnis, 1 Christian and 1 Turkoman.
Three members are women.
'HISTORIC' DAY
The council members, some dressed in traditional Arabic robes, others
in Islamic clerical garb and some in business suits, sat in a
semicircle of chairs on a stage at a downtown Baghdad convention
center. Bremer and other dignitaries watched from the front row.
"I helped deliver thousands of Iraqi babies, and now I am taking part
in the birth of a new country and a new rule based on women's rights,
humanity, unity and freedom," said Raja Habib al-Khuzaai, one of the
female members and the director of a maternity hospital in southern
Iraq.
Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. representative to Iraq, called the
day "historic" and an important step toward returning sovereignty back
to the Iraqi people.
"Iraq is moving back to where it rightfully belongs, at peace with
itself and a member of the community of nations," de Mello said. He
added that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan promised the world body
would be "here for you, in any way you wish, and for as long as you
need."
Many of the council members were vehemently pro-American in comments
made during the news conference, and several criticized Arabic
television channels and the British Broadcasting Corp. for coverage
they saw as pro-Saddam.
"For how long are these (Arabic) satellite channels going to wait for
Saddam to return? Saddam is on the rubbish heap of history," al-Uloum
said in response to a questions from a correspondent with Qatar-based
Al-Jazeera.
Ahmad Chalabi, founder of the once-exiled Iraqi National Congress and
a council member, condemned continuing attacks on American forces in
the country,
"The Iraqi people consider them forces of liberation and they don't
consider these attacks as acts of resistance," Chalabi said.
Iraqis have clamored for say in the running of their country, and
several U.S. delays and backtracking fueled a common perception that
the Americans were here to colonize, rather than liberate, the
country.
REPRESENTING IRAQIS
On the panel are Chalabi, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, a leader of the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Barzani and Jalal
Talabani, leaders of the two main Kurdish groups, and Pachachi.
The group, however, is dominated by lesser known Iraqis, many of whom
remained in their country during Saddam's 23-year dictatorship. A
Turkoman woman and an Assyrian Christian are on the list, as well as a
human rights activist and a member of Iraq's Communist Party.
"The launch of the Governing Council will mean that Iraqis play a more
central role in running their country," Bremer said in a speech on
Iraqi television Saturday. "It will represent the diversity of Iraq:
whether you are Shiite or Sunni, Arab or Kurd, Baghdadi or Basrawi,
man or woman, you will see yourself represented in this council."
The panel is meant to be the forerunner of a larger constitutional
assembly that will have about a year to draft a new constitution. A
senior Western diplomat has told The Associated Press that a
preliminary constitutional committee is expected to be named within
two to three weeks.
By mid- to late-September, the 200-250 strong Constitutional
Convention is expected to take office and begin deliberations. The
convention is expected to take nine months to a year to produce a
draft constitution, after which Iraqis will hold a referendum to vote
on the document. Free elections to pick a government are expected to
follow.
In the streets, Iraqis welcomed the move.
"The formation of this council which represents all sectors of Iraqi
society is the birth of democracy in the country. It is better than
Saddam's government of destruction and dictatorship," said Razzak
Abdul-Zahra, a 35-year-old engineer.
Others were hopeful but skeptical of U.S. intentions.
"We do not want to see this council used by the Americans as a tool to
achieve their goals in Iraq," said Bassem al-Duleimi, a 22-year-old
university student.
The U.S.-led administration has revised its plans for the council
several times. At one point it was envisioned as only a consultative
panel, but Bremer later acceded to Iraqi demands that it be given real
political power.
Adel Noory Mohammed, a leader of the Kurdistan Islamic Union, one of
the groups represented on the council, said it is in the interests of
both the Iraqis and the Americans that the council be given wide
powers.
"If the Americans do not get this done quickly they will lose even
more legitimacy and popularity in the eyes of the Iraqi people and
they will put themselves under enormous pressure," he said. "The new
government, if it is a strong government, will have the respect of the
Iraqi street, and people will obey it."
no__...
>no ... wrote:
>>Obviously terrified into stupor otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>...no ... wrote:
>>>>Overtly timid insipid & stupid, otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>...PROOF! ...
>>>>Why don't you insist on any before slaughtering people?
>>>So, you have no proof.
>>Your idol Bush didn't.
>
>Just all the intel from US, EU, UN et al...
Why would anyone believe that?
>>Yet you wanted helpless innocent people killed over it anyway.
>
>No ...
You're a liar.
You believed lies to seek the killings of innocents.
>>Why can't you think for yourself at all?
>
>I do ...
You're a liar.
You believed lies to seek the killings of innocents.
no__...
>no ... wrote:
>>Obviously terrified into stupor otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>no ... wrote:
>>>>Obviously terrified into stupor aka otis_p_d...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>...no ... wrote:
>>>>>>Some idiot wrote:
>>>>>>>... Bush hasn't lied.
>>>>>>Why would anyone believe that?
>>>>>Why not?
>>>>The facts show that he has lied, repeatedly,
>>>>and about issues of significance.
>>>>What's the matter, 'otis', don't you like facts?
>>>So, show me the "facts".
>>Saddam didn't have nukes otis.
>>There wasn't going to be any mushroom cloud
>>over your head in 45 minutes.
>>Bush spewed. You sucked. You swallowed.
>
>WMD = Chem, Bio, Nuke.
Saddam didn't have them, otis.
no__...
>Well, looks like the Iraqi government is ...
It's another figment of your deranged imagination.
Notice that the robber barons are taking over, over there.
joanie
> Well, looks like the Iraqi government is up and at 'em.
>
>
> Poor libs, nothing to say...??? LOL!!!
>
You'll have to excuse them.
Their mouths are full of crow!
LMAO !!!!!!
no__...
>... mouths are full ...
Bush spews, you suck, you swallow.
If you were rational or ethical you could avoid
your treason, but perhaps you prefer to be a
mere traitor to the USA.