What 'War' Was That Idiot Talking about?
lorad
That *stupid* mantric jingoism by McLame.
He said (again); " I would rather lose the elction - than lose 'The
War'.
What 'machismo' !
What idiocy !
What fricken 'war' was that idiot talking about?
There is no 'war' - the 'war' is over. (if there ever was one)
GW done declared 'Victory!'. Years ago.
It's all over.
For the second year running the fricken Iraqis have already (again)
asked us to leave... like soonest.
Is the idiot McLame going to start a war with them - in order to have
the privilege of wasting another 3.2 TRILLION - for nothing?
What's the deal here?
Are the neocon war mongers stupid - or what?
Do they think all voters are as stupid as they are?
Are the idiot democrats ever call insane neocon war-mongers 'war-
mongers'?
Blubbering Half-Wit McCain
in Iraq converted to Jesus, bought our surplus SUV's, and turned over
to the US all their camels and donkeys, we still would be getting screwed.
spammer
bval...@aol.com
> Gah... heard it on the radio again..
> That *stupid* mantric jingoism by McLame.
>
> He said (again); " I would rather lose the elction - than lose 'The
> War'.
> What 'machismo' !
> What idiocy !
>
> What fricken 'war' was that idiot talking about?
> There is no 'war' - the 'war' is over. (if there ever was one)
> GW done declared 'Victory!'. Years ago.
> It's all over.
.
> For the second year running the fricken Iraqis have already (again)
> asked us to leave... like soonest.
.
> Is the idiot McLame going to start a war with them - in order to have
> the privilege of wasting another 3.2 TRILLION - for nothing?
> What's the deal here?
> Are the neocon war mongers stupid - or what?
> Do they think all voters are as stupid as they are?
> Are the idiot democrats ever call insane neocon war-mongers 'war-
> mongers'?
The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
won the war.
George Grapman
You, of course, have quotes to back up those claims.
lorad
> Do you two just whine for fun or are you just paranoid idiots?
You seem to be unable to understand the english language..
Let me help:
"paranoid
adjective 1. (Informal) suspicious, worried, nervous, fearful,
apprehensive, antsy (informal) "
Clearly then any presidential candidate (such as McLame) who believes
that the US is still at war with Iran is needlessly:
-nervous
-worried
-fearful
-suspicious and
-apprehensive
..if not an abject idiot.
So.. what do you have to say about you and your paranoia?
dead kennedy haters
> >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
> >won the war.
> SO we can go home then?
.
That was the approach we used after WWI. By abandoning Germany and
returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
power.
After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. Thanks to
that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
powerful enemies.
So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
dead kennedy haters
Don't you ever read a newspaper? I mean, seriously, these were lead
stories.
lorad
> .> >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
> > >won the war.
> .
> > SO we can go home then?
>
> .
> That was the approach we used after WWI. By abandoning Germany and
> returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
> power.
Them's the breaks, eh?
(ever here of runaway inflation caused by the Versailles Treaty?)
> After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
> the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. Thanks to
> that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
> powerful enemies.
A wunnerful a wunnerful.
> So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
> Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
???
Why are you attempting to analogize permanent occupation of other
peoples countries - with Marshall Plans?
That's stupid.
And illegal.
George Grapman
and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
no trouble posting them.
lorad
> .
> Don't you ever read a newspaper? I mean, seriously, these were lead
> stories.
Did you attend the Obfuscating Weasel School of Journalism?
George Grapman
This is where we usually get the "do your own homework" or "already
posted it" type of answers.
dead kennedy haters
The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
looking up articles for you.
You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
say.
George Grapman
I do not recall replying to you in the past. Have you changed names?
George Grapman
Lookup IP Address: 76.94.185.220
General Information
Hostname: cpe-76-94-185-220.socal.res.rr.com
ISP: Road Runner
Organization: Road Runner
Proxy: None detected
Type: Cable/DSL
Geo-Location Information
Country: United States
State/Region: CA
City: Los Angeles
Latitude: 34.1006
Longitude: -118.3275
Area Code: 323
George Grapman
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:57:18 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
> <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I read at least three print papers each day including the NY Times
>>> and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
>>> no trouble posting them.
>> .
>> The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
>> looking up articles for you.
>
"dead kennedy haters" is Vallely, so he is talking to himself.
George Grapman
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:57:18 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
> <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
>>> no trouble posting them.
>> .
>> The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
>> looking up articles for you.
>
A quick google groups search for the last two months (something that
Vallely claims takes hours)shows no posts from him or his sock puppet
showing that either Obama or the Times said that we won the war.
A google news search also turns up nothing relating to this fantasy.
Don;t be surprised if he denies making the claim and then accuses me
of lying or taking his words out of context if I repost his claim.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Some people may not understand this but at the end of
the day it all comes down to someone not wanting to
be seen "like a 4 year old willing to accept choclate and
nuts in return for gold" Regardless of anything else.
bval...@aol.com
> > You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
> > hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
> > say.
.
> Why would it take hours to find a recent lead story?
Ah, another casual lie from Grapeman. I never said it would take
hours. The truth is that you're not worth any effort whatsoever.
bval...@aol.com
I've openly admitted that "Dead Kennedy Haters" is a glitch -
sometimes my posts are labeled by that name. Don't know why it does
that, I wish it didn't.
George Grapman
You even quoted yourself above where you said I ignored posts after
you "spent hours looking them up".Once again you accuse me of lying for
repeating what you said and then you are kind enough to repost what you
claim you never said.
George Grapman
are using google groups. When I post from google I have to either log on
with my user name and password or have them saved in my computer. Either
way the user name immediately appears on the top of the page yet you
claim that sometimes you have no control over that.
bval...@aol.com
> ANy fool knows it was the reparations that brought Hitler into power.>
.
Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI, "The
Great Teacher" cut a deal with the French - in exchange for their
support in Wilson's budding "League of Nations," America would rubber
stamp the evil Treaty of Versailles, bug out of Europe, and leave
those countries to handle their own affairs. The brutal French
quickly reduced Germany to third world status and created a fertile
breeding ground for Adolf Hitler.
Unlike modern Democrats, President Truman was not a historical
illiterate nor a fool. Determined not to repeat Wilson's short
sighted, tragic, blunder, the Haberdasher green lite the Marshal Plan
- which cost far more in today's money than Operation Freedom. We
still have troops in Europe to this day, the Europeans overwhelmingly
want us to stay, and they've had uninterupted peace with each other
since 1945.
Where would you rather live? In Germany in 1926, or Germany today?
Would you like to explain why Wilson's approach is superior to
Trumans?
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean.
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918 -
And they've hardly bothered us since then.
Tom Lehrer
"MLF Lullaby"
> It had nothing to do with the presence of US troops.>
.
How could it? We ran for the high grass after winning the war. There
were no American troops to stop Hitler. Why do you demand that we
repeat Wilson's tragic mistake?
.
> Compare for example Vietnam...>
.
We piled onto the last helicopter out of Saigon, which resulted in the
mass executions to people who supported America, and lead directly to
the genocide of millions of Cambodians. Inspired Saddam and bin Laden
that America could be safely fucked with, too.
And you feel that this is a good thing because ....?
>... and Korea.>
We've had troops there for almost 60 years. No genocide in South
Korea. North Korea, OTOH, is the sort of place that Orwell would have
examined in horror and whispered "I didn't make "1984" evil enough.
Your plan has been tried again and again. It brings genocide and
destruction. Why do you support it?
Falstaff
> .
>
>
>
> >
> .
> Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
> the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI,
"America won WWI"?
Are you for real? Do you know ANYTHING about this subject?
bval...@aol.com
> > Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
> > the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI,
> "America won WWI"?
.
Are you saying that we lost WWI? Study your history, dude.
bval...@aol.com
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> > .
> >>> You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
> >>> hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
> >>> say.
> > .
> >> Why would it take hours to find a recent lead story?
> > .
> > Ah, another casual lie from Grapeman. I never said it would take
> > hours. The truth is that you're not worth any effort whatsoever.
.
> You even quoted yourself above where you said I ignored posts after
> you "spent hours looking them up".>
And that is the truth. However, that does not imply that all other
research items will take hours.
.
>Once again you accuse me of lying for repeating what you said and then you are kind enough to repost what you claim you never said.>
No, I accused you of lying for taking a statement of mine, and
pretending that it means something other than what it means. I never
said that looking up the New York Times comment on Iraq would take
hours - I wrote that OTHER references I sent you took hours.
bval...@aol.com
Don't know. Don't care.
bval...@aol.com
> A quick google groups search for the last two months (something that
> Vallely claims takes hours)>
I said no such thing.
George Grapman
post links after the Times and Obama said we won the war? Oh, right,
there are no links because neither happened.
George Grapman
you do not care.
bval...@aol.com
Because this is a hobby, not my life.
bval...@aol.com
I NEVER SAID IT WOULD TAKE HOURS.
David Johnston
>Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
>the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI, "The
>Great Teacher" cut a deal with the French - in exchange for their
>support in Wilson's budding "League of Nations," America would rubber
>stamp the evil Treaty of Versailles, bug out of Europe,
He said as if Wilson would have an option about bugging out of Europe.
George Grapman
won the war:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/beb83ea6818d8a2b?hl=en&dmode=source
The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
won the war.
Here is Vallely answering a request to back up that claim by asking
if I read papers and telling us they were "lead stories".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/372f043889b1146b?hl=en&dmode=source
> You, of course, have quotes to back up those claims.
.
Don't you ever read a newspaper? I mean, seriously, these were lead
stories.
And here is Vallely instead of posting a link saying that it takes
him hours to find links to back up his claims. One would think if Obama
said we won the war that comment would be easy to find.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/f7dc059f47484498?hl=en&dmode=source
> I read at least three print papers each day including the NY Times
> and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
> no trouble posting them.
.
The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
looking up articles for you.
You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
bval...@aol.com
> >Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
> >the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI, "The
> >Great Teacher" cut a deal with the French - in exchange for their
> >support in Wilson's budding "League of Nations," America would rubber
> >stamp the evil Treaty of Versailles, bug out of Europe,
> He said as if Wilson would have an option about bugging out of Europe.
He had tons of options - insisting that the Treaty of Versailles not
be written by vampires would have been a start. Instead, Wilson threw
it all away for the French support of the League of Nations.
In any case, Wilson's folly give the lie to the idea that countries
should simply pull out after winning wars.
Gary DeWaay
sfge...@paccbell.net George Grapman says...
> > .
> > I've openly admitted that "Dead Kennedy Haters" is a glitch -
> > sometimes my posts are labeled by that name. Don't know why it does
> > that, I wish it didn't.
> >
> I am curious, how do you suppose that could happen? It appears you
> are using google groups. When I post from google I have to either log on
> with my user name and password or have them saved in my computer. Either
> way the user name immediately appears on the top of the page yet you
> claim that sometimes you have no control over that.
>
>
It must be frustrating trying to control a computer when you have no
idea how to use it.
Poor Billy.
George Grapman
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/f7dc059f47484498?hl=en&dmode=source
> I read at least three print papers each day including the NY Times
> and several more on line. Since they were lead stories you should have
> no trouble posting them.
.
The problem I have is not posting the article, it's wasting time
looking up articles for you.
You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
Gary DeWaay
d3c5f0...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bval...@aol.com dead
kennedy haters says...
> .
> > >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
> > >won the war.
> .
> > SO we can go home then?
> .
> That was the approach we used after WWI. By abandoning Germany and
> returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
> power.
>
> After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
> the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. Thanks to
> that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
> powerful enemies.
>
> So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
> Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
>
>
The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
both were very sick of war. Thus it made sense to build them up.
In contrast, the Iraqi's have already been fighting each other for
thousands of years (and will prolly be fighting each other for another
thousand) and have more of a tribal mentality than a national
mentality... there's nothing to build on. They could give a shit less
about a strong "Iraq." The nation is meaningless to them. The Japanese
people WANTED to rebuild Japan, as well as the Germans. Thus it made
sense to rebuild them and make them our allies. How do you make someone
want to rebuild something they don't care about?
I read all of this BEFORE we invaded. Too bad morons like you and the
neo-cons don't have access to things like the USA Today or something.
George Grapman
find a link.
The Trucker
> On Jul 22, 8:16 pm, dead kennedy haters <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> .> >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
>> > >won the war.
>> .
>> > SO we can go home then?
>>
>> .
>> That was the approach we used after WWI. By abandoning Germany and
>> returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
>> power.
>
> Them's the breaks, eh?
> (ever here of runaway inflation caused by the Versailles Treaty?)
>
>> After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
>> the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. Thanks to
>> that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
>> powerful enemies.
>
> A wunnerful a wunnerful.
>
>> So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
>> Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
>
> ???
> Why are you attempting to analogize permanent occupation of other
> peoples countries - with Marshall Plans?
> That's stupid.
> And illegal.
Mostly it is unnecessary and unprofitable.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
Gary DeWaay
sfge...@paccbell.net George Grapman says...
Vallely needs to find a forum where they don't archive his posts.
He can then pretend he isn't a pathological liar, or a hypocrite more
easily.
George Grapman
The pattern:
Vallely makes a claim.
He is asked to back up that claim.
He says he never made the claim.
His claim is reposted.
He denies making the claim but includes the repost of his words in
his reply.
The words are reposted along with his denial.
He accuses the poster of lying.
If,as Vallely claims, one is lying when one reposts a Vallely
message doesn't that mean that Vallely lied?
dead kennedy haters
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT), "bvall...@aol.com"
> More revisionist BS. Wilson tried to talk the French out of the harsh
> reparations but was unsuccessful.
.
> http://www.papermasters.com/woodrow_wilson.html
Your own source said... "(Wilson) agreed to the resolutions drafted in
his absence, but it is clear that the war guilt clause was not his
creation."
So, Woodrow didn't agree with the Treaty, but signed it anyway.
He then bugged out of Europe, and sat by as Hitler rose to power.
And this is the tactic that you demand we duplicate in Iraq?
You're an idiot.
dead kennedy haters
> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Unlike modern Democrats, President Truman was not a historical
> >illiterate nor a fool. Determined not to repeat Wilson's short
> >sighted, tragic, blunder, the Haberdasher green lite the Marshal Plan
> >- which cost far more in today's money than Operation Freedom. We
> >still have troops in Europe to this day, the Europeans overwhelmingly
> >want us to stay, and they've had uninterupted peace with each other
> >since 1945.
.
> More revisionist stuff.>
.
What objective, obvious truth are you claiming is not true?
1. America abandoning Europe after WWI lead to the rise of Hitler?
2. Truman was President when the Marshal Plan was launched?
3. Truman was once a haberdasher?
4. We have troops in Europe to this day?
5. There has been uninterrupted peace in Europe since 1945?
.
> Truman did have the benefit of Keynes paper on
> Reparations and their responsibility in giving us Hitler and WWII. See
> "The Economic consequences of the Peace."
.
And Truman, not being an historical illterate like yourself, refused
to repeat Wilson's tragic mistake.
Why do you demand that we repeat Wilson's tragic mistake.
dead kennedy haters
> >Your plan has been tried again and again. It brings genocide and
> >destruction. Why do you support it?
.
> You have only your straw man. You have no idea what my "plan" is or
> would be.
.
Are you telling me that you don't support Obama's idiotic timetable?
dead kennedy haters
wrote:
> In article <c36fcad1-2256-4dd7-b1ca-
> d3c5f052e...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bvall...@aol.com dead
> kennedy haters says...
>
>
>
> > .
> > > >The problem is that even Obama and the New York Times admit that we
> > > >won the war.
> > .
> > > SO we can go home then?
> > .
> > That was the approach we used after WWI. By abandoning Germany and
> > returning home after the war, we allowed Adolf Hitler to rise to
> > power.
>
> > After WWII, having learned our lesson, the United States instituted
> > the Marshal Plan which, in today's money, cost trillions. Thanks to
> > that forward looking plan, we know have powerful allies instead of
> > powerful enemies.
>
> > So tell me - why do you want to emulate the plan that brought us Adolf
> > Hitler instead of the one that brought about lasting peace?
>
> The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
> dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
> both were very sick of war. Thus it made sense to build them up.
The Japanese were "sick of war"?
The Japanese?
My father was a Marine Sargent in the Pacific Theater during WWII, and
was penciled in to invade Japan.
Japan was gearing up to fight to the last man, woman and child.
LITERALLY. Casualties were expected to run about a million to a
million and a half.
To convince the Japanese that surrender was their best option, we
nuked Hiroshima, quick frying 86,000 people. (My father tells of being
woken up by his corporal who screamed "Jesus, Vallely, the just
dropped the biggest damned bomb on Japan in world history, and killed
something like 100,000 of them." My father said "good", and then went
back to sleep.)
The Japanese's reaction? They basically said "we don't think you can
do it again" So we did, this time killing 69,000.
It took an internal overthrow to convince the Japanese that they lost
the war.
THESE are the guys that you claim lost their taste for fighting?
The next question is "why would two countries with strong nationalism
be MORE open to letting another country leave their troops there than
a country with a weak national idenity?
.
> In contrast, the Iraqi's have already been fighting each other for
> thousands of years (and will prolly be fighting each other for another
> thousand) and have more of a tribal mentality than a national
> mentality... there's nothing to build on.
.
So, you're saying that Arabs are savages, unlike the civilized Nazis?
My, aren't we the proper little racist?
In any case, the debate is over.
Your side lost.
Iraq hasn't degenerated into civil war.
They have a constitution that works.
The country is pulling together.
They're prepping for their second election.
dead kennedy haters
> >The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
> >dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
> >both were very sick of war. Thus it made sense to build them up.
> Not to mention we were dealing with countries that had planned to go
> to war and invaded others.
.
And this is different from Nazi German and WWII Japan exactly how?
George Grapman
was behind 9/11.
George Grapman
Claims that both Obama and the NY Times have said we won the war.
Asked for a site he asks if I read papers because they were lead stories.
When I noted that I read multiple papers and never saw that item
Vallely says he is not willing to spend hours finding a link.
I noted that if they were lead stories it would not take hours to
find them.
Vallely denies saying it would take hours and is kind enough to
include the quote from an earlier post of mine where I reposted his
claim that he spends hours looking for links.
I note that Vallely never posted a link to back up his claims and ask
why they do not turn up in a google search.
Vallely loses interest in the topic.
David Johnston
>.
>> >Quite correct - and those reparations would not have happened without
>> >the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. After America won WWI, "The
>> >Great Teacher" cut a deal with the French - in exchange for their
>> >support in Wilson's budding "League of Nations," America would rubber
>> >stamp the evil Treaty of Versailles, bug out of Europe,
>.
>> He said as if Wilson would have an option about bugging out of Europe.
>.
>He had tons of options - insisting that the Treaty of Versailles not
Oh yes. He could "insist". And then what? And how is that an option
about bugging out of Europe?
David Johnston
So you are suggesting that he should have threatened France and
England by remaining at war with Germany? What the hell did they care
if he signed the treaty?
>
>He then bugged out of Europe, and sat by as Hitler rose to power.
What are you babbling about? Wilson was dead when Hitler started to
rise to power. And once again, Wilson had no option about bugging out
of Europe.
Gary DeWaay
retro...@comcast.net says...
> But yes I argued in 2001 we should have stayed out of Iraq and
> Marshall planned Afghanistan to turn it into the prime example of
> nonsectarian democratic Islam. We could have flooded them with
> schools, rebuilt their universities and made them the next South Korea
> and had more positive impact on US respect in the region.
>
Imagine if Bush had pumped a trillion dollars into Afghanistan instead
of Iraq, and actually killed bin Laden in Tora Bora?
He'd prolly be still having historically high approval ratings, the Pubs
would still be controlling both Houses, and the next President would
almost certainly be a Pub.
And righties act like it is us mean ol' lefties fault their "permanent
Republican Majority" flamed out in 6 years... never to be seen again..
prolly in any of our lifetimes.
"You fucked up... you trusted us." Animal House
dead kennedy haters
wrote:
> In article <t9Khk.5642$np7.2...@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> sfgeo...@paccbell.net George Grapman says...
>
> > > .
> > > I've openly admitted that "Dead Kennedy Haters" is a glitch -
> > > sometimes my posts are labeled by that name. Don't know why it does
> > > that, I wish it didn't.
>
> > I am curious, how do you suppose that could happen? It appears you
> > are using google groups. When I post from google I have to either log on
> > with my user name and password or have them saved in my computer. Either
> > way the user name immediately appears on the top of the page yet you
> > claim that sometimes you have no control over that.
.
> It must be frustrating trying to control a computer when you have no
> idea how to use it.
.
I could probably fix it if I wanted to - I just don't care that much.
This, after all, is a hobby.
dead kennedy haters
> >>> The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
> >>> dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
> >>> both were very sick of war. Thus it made sense to build them up.
.
> >> Not to mention we were dealing with countries that had planned to go
> >> to war and invaded others.
.
> > And this is different from Nazi German and WWII Japan exactly how?
> You must be one of the Fox News viewers who still thinks that Saddam
> was behind 9/11.
Not really an answer to the question, is it?
dead kennedy haters
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:49:49 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
> LOL. WE INVADED IRAQ moron.
.
We invaded Japan and Germany, too.
dead kennedy haters
I'm through treating you like an adult.
Waste somebody else's time.
George Grapman
war. Iraq did neither.
George Grapman
Standard response when you can not back up your fantasies. Can you
refute these facts?
You claimed the the NY Times and Obama both said we have won the war.
You never posted links for either claim.
google searches fail to show anything about either claim.
You said both were lead stories but you are unwilling to spend
"hours" finding them.
You denied saying it would take hours but included your own words to
that effect in your reply.
Whenever you are asked to back up your fantasies you say doing so is
a waste of time.
dead kennedy haters
Waste someone else's time.
dead kennedy haters
Of course, the discussion isn't about how we entered the war, rather,
how we have historically handled our post war victories.
At the end of WWI, Wilson set about on a strategy similar to the one
Obama demands - bug out at the first possible chance, and leave the
country to fend for itself. The result was the rise of Adolph Hitler,
the Holocaust and 40 million innocent souls dead. Let's refer to this
plan as "Operation Short Sighted Shitheads".
At the end of WWII, Truman set about a program similar to what George
Bush wants. The Marshal plan has led to uninterrupted peace in Europe
since 1945, prosperity for that continent, and strong allies for the
United States. Let's refer to this option as "Operation Eternal Peace
And Happiness Which Is Hated By Shortsighted Shitheads".
Why do you insist that we repeat Wilson's idiotic, shortsighted
mistakes, while ignoring Turman's option, which is the most successful
post-war operation in world history?
dead kennedy haters
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:09:25 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
>
>
>
> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 10:17 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:49:49 -0700 (PDT), dead kennedy haters
>
> >> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >.
> >> >> >The difference is that with the two Marshall Plan countries, we were
> >> >> >dealing with countries that both had a strong sense of nationality, and
> >> >> >both were very sick of war. Thus it made sense to build them up.
> >.
> >> >> Not to mention we were dealing with countries that had planned to go
> >> >> to war and invaded others.
> >.
> >> >And this is different from Nazi German and WWII Japan exactly how?
.
> >> LOL. WE INVADED IRAQ moron.
.
> >We invaded Japan and Germany, too.
> Not as the initial aggressor moron.
.
Don't have anything to do with how best to handle the post war
situation, does it?
BTW, if you had your way, Saddam would still be funding terrorism.
He's still be dropping people into wood chippers.
He'd still have professional rapists on his payroll.
He'd still be filling mass graves with the bodies of little girls.
Now, there is a constitution and free elections in Iraq.
NO THANKS TO YOU. HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE ON THE SIDE OF THE FASCISTS,
ASSWIPE?
dead kennedy haters
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 10:42 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> .
> >>>>> You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
> >>>>> hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
> >>>>> say.
> >>>> Why would it take hours to find a recent lead story?
> >>> .
> >>> Ah, another casual lie from Grapeman. I never said it would take
> >>> hours. The truth is that you're not worth any effort whatsoever.
> > .
> >> You even quoted yourself above where you said I ignored posts after
> >> you "spent hours looking them up".>
> > .
> > And that is the truth. However, that does not imply that all other
.
> >> Once again you accuse me of lying for repeating what you said and then you are kind enough to repost what you claim you never said.>
.
> > No, I accused you of lying for taking a statement of mine, and
> > pretending that it means something other than what it means. I never
> > said that looking up the New York Times comment on Iraq would take
> > hours - I wrote that OTHER references I sent you took hours.
.
> Why would it take hours if it was the lead story? >
.
I never said it did.
dead kennedy haters
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 11:47 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 23, 10:42 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>>> You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
> >>>>>>> hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
> >>>>>>> say.
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>> Why would it take hours to find a recent lead story?
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> Ah, another casual lie from Grapeman. I never said it would take
> >>>>> hours. The truth is that you're not worth any effort whatsoever.
> >>> .
> >>>> You even quoted yourself above where you said I ignored posts after
> >>>> you "spent hours looking them up".>
> >>> .
> >>> And that is the truth. However, that does not imply that all other
> >>> .
> >>>> Once again you accuse me of lying for repeating what you said and then you are kind enough to repost what you claim you never said.>
> > .
> >>> No, I accused you of lying for taking a statement of mine, and
> >>> pretending that it means something other than what it means. I never
> >>> said that looking up the New York Times comment on Iraq would take
> >>> hours - I wrote that OTHER references I sent you took hours.
.
> >> Why would it take hours if it was the lead story?
.
.
> If Obama had said we won the war it should take minutes not hours to
> find a link.
.
I never said it would take hours.
dead kennedy haters
> You have a long history of simply ignoring posts after I've spent
> hours looking them up, or pretending they say things they simply don't
> say.
.
wasted hours looking up pieces which you've then ignored.
George Grapman
Translation:Once again Vallely can not back up his fantasies.
George Grapman
After I asked for links for your claims that Obama and the NY Times
said we have won the war you claimed to wasted hours hunting for links
that back up those fantasies . When I noted that you said both items
were lead stories and thereby easily found your explanation was you did
not want to waste time finding them.
Any reason you never posted links when you made those claims?
George Grapman
somehow come up at times under "dead kennedy haters", a band he admits
disliking.
Guess he never noticed that in order to post from google you either
have to log in with a user name and pass word or have one set by
default. If the former is the case he would be able to post under his
own name. If the latter is true he would simply have look at the top of
the screen,see he is logged in under the wrong name and then simply log
off and log back in under the desired name.
George Grapman
No, but the implication was that it would take hours. If they were
lead stories as you claim they should be easy to find and,more telling,
you could have posted them when you made the claim.
dead kennedy haters
No, I'm simply not playing your troll games anymore.
dead kennedy haters
I never said any such thing.
I never implied any such thing.
This is EXACTLY the reason that you're not worth the time it takes to
look up references. You'll either ignore what I post, or pretend it
means something entirely different.
I'm not playing your troll games anymore.
dead kennedy haters
I did, and they weren't fantasies. When you were proven wrong, you
simply ignored what I posted, or pretended that they said something
entirely different.
I will not waste time with your troll games anymore.
dead kennedy haters
> At the end of WWI, Wilson set about on a strategy similar to the one
> Obama demands - bug out at the first possible chance, and leave the
> country to fend for itself. The result was the rise of Adolph Hitler,
> the Holocaust and 40 million innocent souls dead. Let's refer to this
> plan as "Operation Short Sighted Shitheads".
.
> At the end of WWII, Truman set about a program similar to what George
> Bush wants. The Marshal plan has led to uninterrupted peace in Europe
> since 1945, prosperity for that continent, and strong allies for the
> United States. Let's refer to this option as "Operation Eternal Peace
> And Happiness Which Is Hated By Shortsighted Shitheads".
.
> Why do you insist that we repeat Wilson's idiotic, shortsighted
> mistakes, while ignoring Turman's option, which is the most successful
> post-war operation in world history?
(crickets)
Gary DeWaay
37f382...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, bval...@aol.com dead
kennedy haters says...
> > After I asked for links for your claims that Obama and the NY Times
> > said we have won the war you claimed to wasted hours hunting for links
> > that back up those fantasies .>
> .
> I did, and they weren't fantasies.
>
I'm sure you wouldnt mind reposting them. I'd also like to see them
saying we won the war.
When did we win?
Gary DeWaay
e42d7e...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, bval...@aol.com dead
kennedy haters says...
> .
> > >Your plan has been tried again and again. It brings genocide and
> > >destruction. Why do you support it?
> .
> > You have only your straw man. You have no idea what my "plan" is or
> > would be.
> .
> Are you telling me that you don't support Obama's idiotic timetable?
>
>
The timetable that Maliki supports?
The timetable that a majority of the USA supports?
Yea... fuck that.
Keep scooping against the tide... let's see in Nov how many candidates
win with 33% support!
miles
> The timetable that a majority of the USA supports?
A time table with set dates in place? The vast majority do not agree
with setting withdrawal dates etc. They do agree with a time table
based on specific conditions on the ground, but not dates.
Ed Chapin
> Gah... heard it on the radio again..
> That *stupid* mantric jingoism by McLame.
>
> He said (again); " I would rather lose the elction - than lose 'The
> War'.
> What 'machismo' !
> What idiocy !
>
> What fricken 'war' was that idiot talking about?
http://mindmined.com/public_library/fiction/ed_chapin_the_great_bologna_conflict.html
Ed
dead kennedy haters
> > > After I asked for links for your claims that Obama and the NY Times
> > > said we have won the war you claimed to wasted hours hunting for links
> > > that back up those fantasies .>
.
> > I did, and they weren't fantasies.
.
> I'm sure you wouldnt mind reposting them. I'd also like to see them
> saying we won the war.
> When did we win?
.
Why would I bother looking up anything for you?
George Grapman
Why should be believe your claims that a candidate who opposes the
war said we have won, that a paper that opposes the war says we have won
and that both were lead stories when you refuse to offer anything to
back up your claims?
Jerry Okamura
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:2Kqik.16357$uE5....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Neither did Yugoslavia