Obama feeling the heat
Anonymous
Clitlip
> Tough when you are a lame duck.
Lame duck my ass.
Like it or not, he is trying to do something. What did Bush do for 8
years?
--------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Moderate
"Clitlip" <a80...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ttls6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 4 2009 6:01 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Tough when you are a lame duck.
>
> Lame duck my ass.
>
> Like it or not, he is trying to do something. What did Bush do for 8
> years?
Kept America safe.
bkn...@conramp.net
Frank Ketchum
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4af84a3a$0$5330$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>
>> Like it or not, he is trying to do something. What did Bush do for 8
>> years?
>
> Kept America safe.
You must have had your TV off on September 11, 2001. Look it up.
bkn...@conramp.net
Are you that naive Frank?
Why hadn't he made America safe on that date? Did he just sleep for
the eight months he had been in office? too? Nope.
What on earth do you think HE did to keep anything safe afterward?
Attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:j15hf5lmdtmj3gbdi...@4ax.com...
>>
>>You must have had your TV off on September 11, 2001. Look it up.
>>
> Are you that naive Frank?
>
> Why hadn't he made America safe on that date? Did he just sleep for
> the eight months he had been in office? too? Nope.
>
What in the hell are you talking about? Naive about what?
dene
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:ZW0Km.8960$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
Yeah Frank. Don't you know that attacking El Q directly in Afghanistan
arresting most of their leadership, and disrupting terror cells/operations
was a complete waste of time?
Never fear. Obama is in power now. He's closing Gitmo. No...wait a
second......
He promised to capture Osama......
Uh.....wait a second.
Don't you feel safe now?
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:j15hf5lmdtmj3gbdi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>You must have had your TV off on September 11, 2001. Look it up.
>>>
>> Are you that naive Frank?
>>
>> Why hadn't he made America safe on that date? Did he just sleep for
>> the eight months he had been in office? too? Nope.
>>
>
>What in the hell are you talking about? Naive about what?
>
If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he
has to be held responsible for 9/11.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
>news:ZW0Km.8960$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>>
>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> news:j15hf5lmdtmj3gbdi...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >>You must have had your TV off on September 11, 2001. Look it up.
>> >>
>> > Are you that naive Frank?
>> >
>> > Why hadn't he made America safe on that date? Did he just sleep for
>> > the eight months he had been in office? too? Nope.
>> >
>>
>> What in the hell are you talking about? Naive about what?
>>
>>
>> > What on earth do you think HE did to keep anything safe afterward?
>> > Attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
>> >
>> > BK
>
>Yeah Frank. Don't you know that attacking El Q directly in Afghanistan
>arresting most of their leadership, and disrupting terror cells/operations
>was a complete waste of time?
>
Yes it has been, and I hope Obama gets the hell out.
>Never fear. Obama is in power now. He's closing Gitmo. No...wait a
>second......
Brilliant. Gitmo is a safety threat now?
>He promised to capture Osama......
>Uh.....wait a second.
>.
Yeah, he's had 10+ months in office to do just that.
Bush had over 7 years.
>Don't you feel safe now?
Safer than with a complete moron, like Bush in the Oval office . Like
Ketchum said, its been in all the papers.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:nv8hf59btpi5u3987...@4ax.com...
>
> If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he
> has to be held responsible for 9/11.
>
I didn't say Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11.
And your logic is beyond convoluted.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:s59hf5d4fla7mvhqj...@4ax.com...
>
>>Never fear. Obama is in power now. He's closing Gitmo. No...wait a
>>second......
>
> Brilliant. Gitmo is a safety threat now?
He didn't say that. You frequently show a severe lack of reading
comprehension.
dene
>
> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:nv8hf59btpi5u3987...@4ax.com...
> >
> > If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he
> > has to be held responsible for 9/11.
> >
>
> I didn't say Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11.
It's logical to say that Bush did everything humanly possible to prevent
attacks since 9/11, perhaps too much given the torture allegations.
> And your logic is beyond convoluted.
You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault. Katrina
is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
-Greg
bkn...@conramp.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:nv8hf59btpi5u3987...@4ax.com...
>>
>> If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he
>> has to be held responsible for 9/11.
>>
>
>I didn't say Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11.
>
My apologies
As a matter of fact I misread your post that cited 9/11 and thought
that you had responded to me instead of Moderate. You and I are
actually in agreement.
>And your logic is beyond convoluted.
It was, as was Greg's because he too thought you and I were
disagreeing.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
Notice the question mark? That shows a lack of reading comprehension
Frank He mentioned it in a thread that was all about safety.
BK
Frank Ketchum
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7lrqhtF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> It's logical to say that Bush did everything humanly possible to prevent
> attacks since 9/11, perhaps too much given the torture allegations.
I think he did a lot right after 911, but he did a hell of a lot wrong.
Toppling the Iraqi government was long overdue, but sitting around and
trying to create an American style democracy is pure folly. The Iraq war
was over 2 weeks after it started (despite the liberal position that we
could not even defeat the Iraqi military at all). Everything after that has
been a waste of blood and treasure. Why are we still there? Why has Obama
basically decided to follow the Bush drawdown schedule? Where in the hell
is the anti-war left now? What a joke. I guess war is fine when waged by a
democrat.
And you essentially are falling for the notion that the problem is best
handled with a military solution in the first place. There is a lot to
disagree about there.
If you think Bush has done everything humanly possible to prevent attacks,
why in the damn hell did he refuse (REFUSE) to lift a finger to do anything
about securing the Mexican border? Get real.
> You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault.
> Katrina
> is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
Throw into the mix the current economy which will be Bush's fault until the
precise moment it turns around. Of course there will NEVER be any
explanation of exactly how Bush has managed to destroy Obama's economy, nor
any explanation for how exactly his economic policies worked fine for the
first 7.5 years of his administration but somehow crashed just in time for
young Barry to come along. Every misstep that Obama makes will be Bush's
fault. It's already at pretty comical levels and we aren't even a year into
his first term.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault. Katrina
>is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
>
>-Greg
Actually, the US suffered its first terrorist attack since 9/11 last
week in Texas. It only took a little less than 10 months with Obama
in charge for this to happen. Intelligence agencies knew this guy was
a danger and did nothing about it. I'm afraid that Obama's message
that political correctness is more important than national security
has cost American lives.
However, I'm sure that Obama made sure that the first thing that Nidal
Hasan heard when he woke up were his Miranda rights.
Sickening.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:stchf5h69qhk5do2s...@4ax.com...
> You and I are actually in agreement.
I knew that. I thought maybe you'd just tipped back a couple tall boys
before posting tonight:)
Lloyd Parsons
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes, your post is certainly sickening.
Frank Ketchum
"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:t9ehf51c5s00ngc4e...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually, the US suffered its first terrorist attack since 9/11 last
> week in Texas. It only took a little less than 10 months with Obama
> in charge for this to happen. Intelligence agencies knew this guy was
> a danger and did nothing about it. I'm afraid that Obama's message
> that political correctness is more important than national security
> has cost American lives.
>
> However, I'm sure that Obama made sure that the first thing that Nidal
> Hasan heard when he woke up were his Miranda rights.
So political correctness wasn't around before Obama?
Do you even remember how stupid the Bush hater crowd sounded? Are you any
different?
William Clark
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:35:30 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault. Katrina
> >is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
> >
> >-Greg
>
> Actually, the US suffered its first terrorist attack since 9/11 last
> week in Texas. It only took a little less than 10 months with Obama
> in charge for this to happen. Intelligence agencies knew this guy was
> a danger and did nothing about it. I'm afraid that Obama's message
> that political correctness is more important than national security
> has cost American lives.
"Intelligence agencies"? How about the US military - they knew about
this guy and did nothing about it. Blaming Obama for the misdeeds
committed by one of the Army's own, when they did nothing to prevent it
in spite of his history, is like buying a Taurus knowing it is a lemon,
and then holding the CEO of Ford responsible when it fails.
>
> However, I'm sure that Obama made sure that the first thing that Nidal
> Hasan heard when he woke up were his Miranda rights.
No, I'm sure the first thing he heard was Hollis the "Columbia"
hypocrite peddling his typical cant.
>
> Sickening.
No, that would be you that is sickening. You cannot stoop low enough to
take a cheap shot.
bkn...@conramp.net
I don't drink, but maybe I should start. :-)
BK
Hor...@net.net
<a80...@webnntp.invalid> wrote this crap:
>On Nov 4 2009 6:01 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Tough when you are a lame duck.
>
>Lame duck my ass.
>
>Like it or not, he is trying to do something. What did Bush do for 8
>years?
He won a Nobel Prize.... no, wait, that wasn't him.
He closed Gitmo.... no, wait, that didn't happen.
He visited all 57 states.... No, that was somebody else.
I got it! He kept crazed terrorists from shooting people on a
military base.
Vote for Palin-Ahhnold in 2012.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
dene
>
> "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
> news:7lrqhtF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > It's logical to say that Bush did everything humanly possible to prevent
> > attacks since 9/11, perhaps too much given the torture allegations.
>
> I think he did a lot right after 911, but he did a hell of a lot wrong.
> Toppling the Iraqi government was long overdue, but sitting around and
> trying to create an American style democracy is pure folly. The Iraq war
> was over 2 weeks after it started (despite the liberal position that we
> could not even defeat the Iraqi military at all). Everything after that
has
> been a waste of blood and treasure. Why are we still there?
We're there in Iraq....but in a limited way, thanks to the Surge. The test
of democracy will come when we are forced to bomb's Iran's nukes. Will the
Iraqi Shiites stand by or will the region erupt into a civil war.?
Why has Obama
> basically decided to follow the Bush drawdown schedule? Where in the hell
> is the anti-war left now? What a joke. I guess war is fine when waged by
a
> democrat.
If LBJ is a precedent, then it will be a half ass war.
> And you essentially are falling for the notion that the problem is best
> handled with a military solution in the first place. There is a lot to
> disagree about there.
It should be the last option. We had no business invading Iraq.
Kuwait...different story, as will be Iran.
> If you think Bush has done everything humanly possible to prevent attacks,
> why in the damn hell did he refuse (REFUSE) to lift a finger to do
anything
> about securing the Mexican border? Get real.
Good question. I wonder if the illegals are still coming here like they use
to. There's probably more jobs in Mexico than here now.
> > You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault.
> > Katrina
> > is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
>
> Throw into the mix the current economy which will be Bush's fault until
the
> precise moment it turns around. Of course there will NEVER be any
> explanation of exactly how Bush has managed to destroy Obama's economy,
nor
> any explanation for how exactly his economic policies worked fine for the
> first 7.5 years of his administration but somehow crashed just in time for
> young Barry to come along. Every misstep that Obama makes will be Bush's
> fault. It's already at pretty comical levels and we aren't even a year
into
> his first term.
Much of the boom during the Bush years was the result of people spending
other's people's money. He and his advisors should have saw that coming,
especially with the crazy real estate market.
-Greg
Jack Hollis
I'm fully able to accept the shortcoming of the Clinton and Bush
administration when it comes to intelligence before 9/11. Clinton did
a miserable job and Bush didn't do any better when he took over.
It seems clear that the terrorist attack last week in Texas was
preventable if the intelligence agencies did their job. If you want
to hold Clinton and Bush responsible for intelligence failures during
their watch, then you have to hold Obama responsible now.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>I'm fully able to accept the shortcoming of the Clinton and Bush
>administration when it comes to intelligence before 9/11. Clinton did
>a miserable job and Bush didn't do any better when he took over.
>
>It seems clear that the terrorist attack last week in Texas was
>preventable if the intelligence agencies did their job. If you want
>to hold Clinton and Bush responsible for intelligence failures during
>their watch, then you have to hold Obama responsible now.
It seems clear to me that you are FOS.
For heaven's sake Jack. Apples to oranges.
One man, losing it, is a far different thing from a planned
military-styled attack. This can't possibly be compared to 9/11 in
any way. It might have been preventable, but on the presidential
level? Not a chance.
Get a grip.
Its repugnant, but expected, of some of you ultra right wingers
jumping to foolish conclusions.
BK
Moderate
>
> "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
> news:7lrqhtF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> It's logical to say that Bush did everything humanly possible to prevent
>> attacks since 9/11, perhaps too much given the torture allegations.
>
> I think he did a lot right after 911, but he did a hell of a lot wrong.
> Toppling the Iraqi government was long overdue, but sitting around and
> trying to create an American style democracy is pure folly. The Iraq war
> was over 2 weeks after it started (despite the liberal position that we
> could not even defeat the Iraqi military at all). Everything after that
> has been a waste of blood and treasure. Why are we still there? Why has
> Obama basically decided to follow the Bush drawdown schedule? Where in
> the hell is the anti-war left now? What a joke. I guess war is fine when
> waged by a democrat.
President Bush had a bold plan for establishing an Islamic Democracy.
Getting people out of the stone age and into the 21st century was deemed by
President Bush as a path to peace and stability in the Mid-East. History
will show if he was right or wrong.
Moderate
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-1C817E...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <t9ehf51c5s00ngc4e...@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:35:30 -0800, "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You have to understand the liberal mindset. 9/11 is Bush's fault.
>> >Katrina
>> >is Bush's fault. Swine flu vaccine shortage....uh....hmmmm......uh....
>> >
>> >-Greg
>>
>> Actually, the US suffered its first terrorist attack since 9/11 last
>> week in Texas. It only took a little less than 10 months with Obama
>> in charge for this to happen. Intelligence agencies knew this guy was
>> a danger and did nothing about it. I'm afraid that Obama's message
>> that political correctness is more important than national security
>> has cost American lives.
>
> "Intelligence agencies"? How about the US military - they knew about
> this guy and did nothing about it. Blaming Obama for the misdeeds
> committed by one of the Army's own, when they did nothing to prevent it
> in spite of his history, is like buying a Taurus knowing it is a lemon,
> and then holding the CEO of Ford responsible when it fails.
Somebody tell Clark that Obama is Commander in Chief. The military gets its
policies from the President. It is premature to guess at what policies may
have affected the handling of a suspected Muslim radical, but Clark can't
separate the military from Obama.
MNMikeW
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
This gets stupider by the moment. Are you seriously suggesting that
Obama is responsible for some "policies" that deliberately gave this guy
a free ride? Then you are a moron. Besides, his troubles, and adverse
performance reports, go way back before Obama took office, which would
make Bush culpable too.
You can't get dumber than this. But I'm sure you will try to prove me
wrong.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
You might want to read the follow-ups Mike. Then your "no kidding"
comment will show who's convoluted....you.
BK
William Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
I am sorry that you cannot see the difference between intelligence
operations conducted by the CIA that gather information from around the
world on which the US predicates policy, and the inability of the Army
to identify a single problem individual within their own ranks.
OIf course, you wouldn't be able to take a swipe at Obama if you did,
but I would have expected better from a "Columbia graduate".
bkn...@conramp.net
Daily.
BK
Moderate
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-E6438B....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you that the military gets its
policies from the President of the United States. You suggest there is some
type of disconnect and the military acts autonomously.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:1v0jf5l0nbd9scj0m...@4ax.com...
I just need this stupid remark.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
No it does not. But to even remotely imply that the President is
responsible for the minutiae of how one apparently discontented and
poorly performing officer should be dealt with by the Army is beyond
absurd.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>I just need this stupid remark.
>
>"If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he has to
>be held responsible for 9/11"
>
Stupid? Why is he only responsible after the fact? Now THAT"S
stupid.
BK
Moderate
I did not remotely imply anything. It is you making absurd implications.
It is you making incorrect statements and assumptions. As usual.
You have zero knowledge of how the military functions or how it reacts to
the President's policies or what those policies are. You still think we
aren't conducting warrantless wiretaps.
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:kmejf5lkcg73tv7tt...@4ax.com...
Funny you gave Obama a pass for only being in office for only 8 months.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
There haven't been any 9/11s.
BK
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Good, so now at least you have backed off (in your own backhanded way,
as usual) from claiming that Obama is responsible for the day to day
operation of individual army units. That is progress of a kind.
>
> You have zero knowledge of how the military functions or how it reacts to
> the President's policies or what those policies are. You still think we
> aren't conducting warrantless wiretaps.
Further evidence that the emperor has no clothes - you can't find any
better defense than loony resorts to a kind of "my Dad's bigger than
your Dad" nonsense.
Game over.
Moderate
I never said anything of the sort. You fabricated a scenario in your own
backward thinking way.
>> You have zero knowledge of how the military functions or how it reacts to
>> the President's policies or what those policies are. You still think we
>> aren't conducting warrantless wiretaps.
>
> Further evidence that the emperor has no clothes - you can't find any
> better defense than loony resorts to a kind of "my Dad's bigger than
> your Dad" nonsense.
>
> Game over.
I was never on the defense. You are mentally ill.
MNMikeW
MNMikeW
>
> Good, so now at least you have backed off (in your own backhanded way,
> as usual) from claiming that Obama is responsible for the day to day
> operation of individual army units. That is progress of a kind.
That's funny because Abu Ghraib was totally Bush's fault, hummmm.
>>
Alan Baker
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Ummmm...
You do realize that the FBI looked at this guy a year ago -- under
Bush's watch -- and decided there was nothing there, ..
...right?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:v8jjf5h7m12d9bsk6...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:08:42 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:kmejf5lkcg73tv7tt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:32:03 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I just need this stupid remark.
>>>>>
>>>>>"If you think Bush is responsible for no attacks since 9/11 then he has
>>>>>to
>>>>>be held responsible for 9/11"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stupid? Why is he only responsible after the fact? Now THAT"S
>>>> stupid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BK
>>>
>>>Funny you gave Obama a pass for only being in office for only 8 months.
>>>
>> There haven't been any 9/11s.
>>
>> BK
>>
>LOL!
>
I actually said that Obama's only had 10+ months to find Osama., and
Bush had 8 years. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
You fail to realize that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't
think he's responsible for keeping the U.S. safe since.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:e2pjf5pplpffrj81i...@4ax.com...
So who do you think IS responsible for it?
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> I actually said that Obama's only had 10+ months to find Osama., and
>> Bush had 8 years. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
>>
>>
>> You fail to realize that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't
>> think he's responsible for keeping the U.S. safe since.
>>
>> BK
>
>So who do you think IS responsible for it?
>
There is so much finger-pointing that its impossible to even guess.
Was it a U.S. government conspiracy? Bad intelligence? Liberals?
Conservatives? They've all been blamed.
All we know is that those nineteen or so Saudis pulled it off.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:75qjf5d70fm1bmu50...@4ax.com...
I meant who do you think is responsible for keeping us safe since 911.
Chris Bellomy
Who was responsible for keeping us safe *on* 9/11/01?
My personal view is that I'd rather be kept free than
safe, anyway... but if you're gonna crow about what a
great job you did starting on 9/12/2001, then I'm going
to want to know why you waited 'til then to start.
cb
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:75qjf5d70fm1bmu50...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:16:57 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> I actually said that Obama's only had 10+ months to find Osama., and
>>>> Bush had 8 years. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You fail to realize that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't
>>>> think he's responsible for keeping the U.S. safe since.
>>>>
>>>> BK
>>>
>>>So who do you think IS responsible for it?
>>>
>>
>> There is so much finger-pointing that its impossible to even guess.
>> Was it a U.S. government conspiracy? Bad intelligence? Liberals?
>> Conservatives? They've all been blamed.
>>
>> All we know is that those nineteen or so Saudis pulled it off.
>>
>> BK
>
>I meant who do you think is responsible for keeping us safe since 911.
>
I don't know that you can point to anyone that has kept us safe. I
haven't seen, or heard, of any major attacks that have been thwarted.
It takes time for a group of terrorists to plan and carry out such, so
maybe they're at it now.
The responsibility rests on our intelligence sources, and they have
had their problems in the last several years. Then there's the
Homeland Security, that seems to be more involved with immigration.
IMO its just another tier of government that may or may not answer to
its charge.
Of course we have a slew of experts here on RSG who will have all of
the answers.
BK
Hor...@net.net
>I meant who do you think is responsible for keeping us safe since 911.
That would be Rush Limbaugh.
Vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
BigSlicer
The thread is over, now back to golf.
Golf related, shot a 86 today. Tough life, wonder what the poor people
did today? Probably just being poor! Start time tommorowm 8am, will
dedicate my first birdie to the hopes that RSG will one day return to its
former grandeur. A grandeur before the likes of you and others became
consumed with all these stupid political posts. Posts that are clearly OT
and are in violation of this groups FAQ. When was the last time you read
the FAQ? Might do you some good. Might do some others here good too!
------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Jack Hollis
>One man, losing it, is a far different thing from a planned
>military-styled attack. This can't possibly be compared to 9/11 in
>any way. It might have been preventable, but on the presidential
>level? Not a chance.
This was a planned terrorist attack. The thing that disturbs me is
that both the FBI and the military had flagged this guy as trouble. It
looks like neither one spoke to the other about what they knew. Open
communications between the various intelligence gathering agencies was
supposed to be happening. This was one of the problems that prevented
the 9/11 terrorists from being detected.
In any case, this is the first terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.
It's pretty clear that at least the military dropped the ball on this
one. Obama is the CiC, so the buck stops with him.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
You're just flat-out nuts Jack.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
>The thread is over, now back to golf.
>
>Golf related, shot a 86 today. Tough life, wonder what the poor people
>did today? Probably just being poor! Start time tommorowm 8am, will
>dedicate my first birdie to the hopes that RSG will one day return to its
>former grandeur. A grandeur before the likes of you and others became
>consumed with all these stupid political posts. Posts that are clearly OT
>and are in violation of this groups FAQ. When was the last time you read
>the FAQ? Might do you some good. Might do some others here good too!
>
Good for you Big Slicer, you finally posted about golf. Now you're
about 2,000 behind most of us here, even the political posts.
Couple of questions for you.
1. Why is it that you have singled out one person for the OTs?
2. When was the last time you read the FAQ? Be really careful
your with your answer.
BK
BigSlicer
The FAQ is very specific about the purpose of this group. It is not a
political newsgroup.
I am singling out no one. I am sick of all of you, that is all of you
that refuse to acknowledge that this is a GOLF discussion group. There
are hundreds of other places to go to discuss politics, why come to a golf
group? Do you not understand that voluntary compliance with the FAQ and
RSG charter is all that we have? No one can be forced to comply, so it is
up to all to show some intergrity and stay on topic. No one says you
can't discuss politics, but why do it on a golf newsgroup?
Frank Ketchum
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:o2rhf5l1hd92ilor4...@4ax.com...
>>
>
> He won a Nobel Prize.... no, wait, that wasn't him.
>
> He closed Gitmo.... no, wait, that didn't happen.
>
> He visited all 57 states.... No, that was somebody else.
>
> I got it! He kept crazed terrorists from shooting people on a
> military base.
Dumbass, you left out;
Instituted "pay as you go government"
Prevented the slowing economy from crashing
Kept the unemployment number from rising above 8%
Turned the full might of the military towards Afghanistan
Withdrew from Iraq
Posted all legislation for 72 hours for us pleebs to read before signing
Ended "warrantless wiretaps"
Prosecuted W
bkn...@conramp.net
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 10 2009 8:10 PM, bknight wrote:
>> 2. When was the last time you read the FAQ? Be really careful
>> your with your answer.
>>
>> BK
>
>
>The FAQ is very specific about the purpose of this group. It is not a
>political newsgroup.
You ducked the question. When was the last time you read the RSG FAQ?
You say its very specific, so you imply that you have read it. When?
BK
BigSlicer
I downloaded the entire FAQ many years ago. There was a time that we
respected the charter of RSG. There was a time that there were very few
political posts. Then, several decided to post about almost everything
except golf. Why can't they go elsewhere if they want to discuss
politics.
What is so hard about keeping political posts off a golf newsgroup?
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
bkn...@conramp.net
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
10 2009 8:10 PM, bknight wrote:
>>
>> >> 2. When was the last time you read the FAQ? Be really careful
>> >> your with your answer.
>> >>
>> >> BK
>> >
>> >
>> >The FAQ is very specific about the purpose of this group. It is not a
>> >political newsgroup.
>>
>> You ducked the question. When was the last time you read the RSG FAQ?
>> You say its very specific, so you imply that you have read it. When?
>>
>> BK
>I downloaded the entire FAQ many years ago.
Then you know who kept the FAQ, right? What was your screen name in
those years?
BK
Jim Lovejoy
news:alangbaker-AFE28...@news.shawcable.com:
Yeah, but that was Obama's fault too.
Hor...@net.net
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> He visited all 57 states.... No, that was somebody else.
>>
>> I got it! He kept crazed terrorists from shooting people on a
>> military base.
>
>Dumbass, you left out;
Listen up, Frank. You have to stop calling people a "dumbass."
That's my gimmick, you dumbass. If you continue to use my gimmicks I
will have no choice but to sue you and have you prosecuted for Gimmick
Infringement. You will spend time in jail, and end up so broke that
you won't be able to buy used golf tees, dumbass. You do not want to
go up against the law firm that I use, Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe.
Dumbass.
Frank Ketchum
<Hor...@net.net> wrote in message
news:136lf55fteesae21o...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Listen up, Frank. You have to stop calling people a "dumbass."
> That's my gimmick, you dumbass. If you continue to use my gimmicks I
> will have no choice but to sue you and have you prosecuted for Gimmick
> Infringement. You will spend time in jail, and end up so broke that
> you won't be able to buy used golf tees, dumbass. You do not want to
> go up against the law firm that I use, Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe.
> Dumbass.
I employ a team of high priced lawyers who are always looking for a fight.
Bring it, dumbass.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
> "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-C53A29....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4af9bd99$0$5326$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
> > "Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I did not remotely imply anything. It is you making absurd implications.
> >> It is you making incorrect statements and assumptions. As usual.
> >
> > Good, so now at least you have backed off (in your own backhanded way,
> > as usual) from claiming that Obama is responsible for the day to day
> > operation of individual army units. That is progress of a kind.
>
> I never said anything of the sort. You fabricated a scenario in your own
> backward thinking way.
It's always wise to use innuendo, rather than being direct. That way you
a) don't have to be brave enough to say what you really mean, and b) you
can always weasel your way out by denial when you are challenged.
Congratulations.
>
> >> You have zero knowledge of how the military functions or how it reacts to
> >> the President's policies or what those policies are. You still think we
> >> aren't conducting warrantless wiretaps.
> >
> > Further evidence that the emperor has no clothes - you can't find any
> > better defense than loony resorts to a kind of "my Dad's bigger than
> > your Dad" nonsense.
> >
> > Game over.
>
> I was never on the defense. You are mentally ill.
Really? You obviously have not looked in the mirror this morning.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Only in the sense that there would never have been any Abu Ghraib if
Bush had not launched his vainglorious war on Iraq. There is no parallel
there with Fort Hood.
William Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Stupid, just plain stupid. This was no "terrorist" attack, this one one
unhinged nutter on a rampage. Like the postal workers that seem to pop
off every few years.
The buck stops with the army to have acted on the adverse reports
received over the years on this guy. Obama as CIC did his part by going
to the memorial service and comforting the families, and if he now tells
the army to get a grip on itself, that will be his job, too.
Moderate
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-7A930F...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
BS. The media and nut jobs like you cried that there was an Abu Ghraib
trail that led directly to the White House. Your revisionist history is
appalling.
Moderate
President Bush - The buck stops here.
President Obama - The buck stops at Bush.
It is a good thing you think Obama's sole responsibility is to give
speeches. That is all he does. Well that and play golf.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
President Bush - started a nonsensical war
> President Obama - The buck stops at Bush.
President Obama - trying to clear up the mess
>
> It is a good thing you think Obama's sole responsibility is to give
> speeches. That is all he does. Well that and play golf.
And get us out of recession, and out of Afghanistan, and out of Iraq,
and . . . . . .
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
See above. Actually reading things before the wingnut reflex kicks in
would be helpful for you.
Bush was responsible for Abu Ghraib in the sense that he started the war
that created it (on false pretences). Got it?
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:9htjf59u2l7i4po6h...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:47:59 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:75qjf5d70fm1bmu50...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:16:57 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> I actually said that Obama's only had 10+ months to find Osama., and
>>>>> Bush had 8 years. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You fail to realize that I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't
>>>>> think he's responsible for keeping the U.S. safe since.
>>>>>
>>>>> BK
>>>>
>>>>So who do you think IS responsible for it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is so much finger-pointing that its impossible to even guess.
>>> Was it a U.S. government conspiracy? Bad intelligence? Liberals?
>>> Conservatives? They've all been blamed.
>>>
>>> All we know is that those nineteen or so Saudis pulled it off.
>>>
>>> BK
>>
>>I meant who do you think is responsible for keeping us safe since 911.
>>
> I don't know that you can point to anyone that has kept us safe. I
> haven't seen, or heard, of any major attacks that have been thwarted.
> It takes time for a group of terrorists to plan and carry out such, so
> maybe they're at it now.
>
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1599331&page=1&page=1
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:3kbkf55k5jgmhr9b6...@4ax.com...
Moderate
How is that working out for him? Not very well by any account.
Moderate
> In article <4afacd65$0$5326$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
> "Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
>
> would be helpful for you.
>
> Bush was responsible for Abu Ghraib in the sense that he started the war
> that created it (on false pretences). Got it?
What I get is that you have changed your story from the White House
sanctioning and encouraging the abuse at Abu Ghraib to President Bush being
responsible as CNC.
Unfortunately you absolve Obama's responsibility as CNC for anything the
military does or does not do. You are mentally ill.
Lloyd Parsons
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Progress though slow, will be made. Hell, you gave Bush the benefit of
the doubt for 8 years, can't Obama at least get one full year?
dene
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-0540...@port80.individual.net...
He has less than a year to fill his empty suit.
-Greg
Lloyd Parsons
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
IOW, you wouldn't give him credit for anything he might accomplish. It
is patently obvious that your mind is made up about him, and probably
was a long time ago.
I remember Bush as he started out, nothing there until 9/11, then he
stepped up to the bar. He gained a lot of respect from me with his
initial moves as that progressed and I was with him until he BS'd his
way into Iraq.
Let's face it, Obama inherited a hell of a mess. A mess that took a
hell of a long time to fully develop, any and all solutions aren't going
to happen overnight, nor in 10 months.
Moderate
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-0540...@port80.individual.net...
I disagreed with some of President Bush's policies. I disagree with some of
Obama's policies. I thought President Bush's Tarp and stimulus was a
mistake and Obama's Tarp stimulus was the same mistake only more expensive.
I support Obama keeping Gitmo open. I don't support "Don't ask, don't
tell", but it is better than open homosexuality in the military, so I give
Obama credit for that. I support Obama's opposition to homosexual marriage.
I support Obama's warrantless wiretapping program and leaving the troops in
Iraq. I wish Obama would not play politics in Afghanistan, but he didn't
pull the troops out.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
McCain and Pailin would've had all of Bush's messes cleaned up in 10
months. Right? Wrong.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
C'Mon Lloyd. All of these problems arose in November of '08. (Do I
really need a smiley?)
BK
Moderate
Well Bush gave taxpayers a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. He reformed 'No
Child Left Behind.'
Obama created his own mess. The economy has gotten much worse since he took
office. His policies were supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. He failed
horribly at that promise.
Lloyd Parsons
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
Not for me you don't.
But let's be honest here. All of these problems took a long time to
develop, and while the Democrat in me would like to only blame the
Republicans for all of it, it wouldn't be true.
What is true is that the DC politicians, bought and paid for out of
slush funds of the corporates and their shills, screwed the majority of
us. And that is on both sides of the aisle.
If there is really anyone left that believes the politicos are out there
for the common man, you have to wonder at their incredible stupidity!
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>I disagreed with some of President Bush's policies. I disagree with some of
>Obama's policies. I thought President Bush's Tarp and stimulus was a
>mistake and Obama's Tarp stimulus was the same mistake only more expensive.
>
>I suplport Obama keeping Gitmo open.
I don't.
> I don't support "Don't ask, don't tell", but it is better than open homosexuality in the military, so I give
>Obama credit for that. I support Obama's opposition to homosexual marriage.
Obama has to walk a fine line on these issues. IMO he's just
avoiding the issue because of politics. Not a pressing issue anyway.
I don't support homophobes. Most are latently involved. Why does
anyone think that they should have input on how others live?
(Rhetorical question)
>I support Obama's warrantless wiretapping program and leaving the troops in
>Iraq.
I don't.
> I wish Obama would not play politics in Afghanistan, but he didn't
>pull the troops out.
>.
I frankly don't know what to think about an Afghanistan war. Its
pretty unwinnable too.
BK
Lloyd Parsons
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
I agree with you on the TARP, said so from the beginning. All it got us
was Wall Street and the bankers bailed out at the expense of JOBS!
> I support Obama keeping Gitmo open. I don't support "Don't ask, don't
> tell", but it is better than open homosexuality in the military, so I give
> Obama credit for that. I support Obama's opposition to homosexual marriage.
> I support Obama's warrantless wiretapping program and leaving the troops in
> Iraq. I wish Obama would not play politics in Afghanistan, but he didn't
> pull the troops out.
I don't agree with Gitmo at all, we have plenty of laws, courts and
prisons to deal with that population just fine without the taint of
hiding things away from the public eye.
Homosexuality in the military is an issue that has always been there,
how to deal with it has always been a thorn in the military's side.
Don't ask, don't tell seems like a good way, but we've lost some very
good military members when it doesn't quite work the way it should.
As to the 2 wars, get out now! If Iraq isn't ready to take over by now,
they never will be. And Afghanistan today has only proven what history
has already showed us.
I'm ambivalent about homosexual marriage. I just don't care and
whatever they do doesn't change anyone else's marriage.
Of course, there are those that say, let 'em get married and be as
miserable as the rest of us... :) But I wouldn't say that!
Moderate
So we both support and oppose some of Obama's policies. Just not the same
ones :-)
Lloyd Parsons
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
The tax cut was very welcome, but it just exacerbated the financial
problems in our country. So it is a two-edged sword at best.
And No Child Left Behind was a nice idea but never funded well as I
recall.
>
> Obama created his own mess. The economy has gotten much worse since he took
> office. His policies were supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. He failed
> horribly at that promise.
LOL! Obama certainly did create some of it, but it was well on its way
before he took office. His creations were attempts to make things
better, and some worked some didn't. Mostly wall street and the bankers
got the gold mine, we got the shaft as the song goes.
Time will tell us if he made enough of the right moves.
And pray tell, how the hell do you cap unemployment? Wave a magic wand,
or just twiddle the numbers?
Lloyd Parsons
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Which is exactly as it should be. There have been no perfect presidents
in my lifetime, and if the history books are right, there weren't any
before then either. :)
The political idiocy that is going on right now is extremely bothersome.
You've got all these yakkers from the ultra-both-sides getting way too
much time on the air and in print, completely screwing up rational
political discussion. Take a look at the political newsgroups, you have
to wonder which nuthouse released all those posters.
I blame 24/7 news channels. Too much crapola needed to fill all that
air time! And when a comedy channel show and person can be given
credence in news reporting, it really tells us just how screwed up the
24/7 guys are!
MNMikeW
Obama seems to like to twiddle numbers which would explain the "jobs created
or saved" BS.
Lloyd Parsons
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Yeah, Obama likes to twiddle numbers, like no one in DC ever did that
before!! :)
Twiddling the numbers is what they all do whenever they need to make a
bogus point.
But, yeah, Obama is a real jerk 'cause he might have done it too! :)
annika1980
>
> And No Child Left Behind was a nice idea but never funded well as I
> recall.
No, it was a terrible idea that was poorly funded. Ever since that
crap was passed it's all been about the test scores, not actual
learning in the classroom. Teachers now teach to the test and even
the Principals are playing a big game of CYA.
Although this was a Bush creation it was also supported across the
aisle by folks like Teddy Kennedy. So blame the dead guy, right
Moderator?
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Checked the market indices lately? The company reports?
I thought not.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
And an economic recession - no point in a tax cut if aren't earning.
>
> Obama created his own mess. The economy has gotten much worse since he took
> office. His policies were supposed to cap unemployment at 8%. He failed
> horribly at that promise.
Nonsense - simple nonsense. He anticipated unemployment to continue to
rise to the 10% area before it went down. There is clear evidence that
corporations are beginning to hire again, and that home sales are on the
rise, etc. You will hate the next few years.
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
If you start a war, and then the occupants of the WH openly maintain
that it is acceptable to use torture to extract information, then you
are much more than indirectly responsible for a mess like Abu Ghraib. I
would say that Bush was directly responsible for creating that
situation, if it wasn't for the fact that he was too dumb to do it, and
it was Cheney and Rumsfeld that led him by the nose.
>
> Unfortunately you absolve Obama's responsibility as CNC for anything the
> military does or does not do. You are mentally ill.
No, Hasan is mentally ill. You, on the other hand, are just too stupid
and prejudiced not to try to spin this as another opportunity to knock
Obama.
MNMikeW
So next time the Dow sheds 250 it will be Obamas fault right? I thought not.
MNMikeW
> You will hate the next few years.
Can't disagree here. :-)
Moderate
>
> And pray tell, how the hell do you cap unemployment? Wave a magic wand,
> or just twiddle the numbers?
Ask Obama. He said his stimulus plan would cap unemployment at 8%.
Moderate
Obama said his stimulus package would hold unemployment to 8%. Your
re-writing of history is pathetic.
Lloyd Parsons
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
That was the goal and intent, didn't work out. What's so new about that?
Moderate
Thanks for contradicting yourself.
>> Unfortunately you absolve Obama's responsibility as CNC for anything the
>> military does or does not do. You are mentally ill.
>
> No, Hasan is mentally ill. You, on the other hand, are just too stupid
> and prejudiced not to try to spin this as another opportunity to knock
> Obama.
Now you are a psychiatrist who can make a diagnosis out of thin air. Great
to know.