funny
Prometheus
Gallic Wars – Lost
Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, but saved by Joan of Arc (a female
schizophrenic) who by accident created The First Rule of French Warfare;
"France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
Italian Wars – France became the first and only country in history to
lose not just one, but TWO wars against Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
Thirty Years War – Although not technically a principal, France manages
to get invaded anyway. Amusingly they claim a tie on the basis that
eventually the other participants started ignoring them.
The Dutch War - Tied.
War of the Augsburg League – Lost but France claims tie.
King William's War – Lost/claimed tie.
French and Indian War – Lost/claimed tie.
(Three ties in a row caused the deluded French to label this period as
the "height of French military power".)
War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. This war also gave the French
their first taste of a Marlboro, which they have loved ever since.
American Revolution - In foreshadowing of things to come, France claims
a victory even though the Colonists saw way more action. This rationale
comes to be known as "de Gaulle Syndrome". It also establishes Second
Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does the
fighting."
French Revolution - Won and yet lost. Won primarily due the fact that
the opponent was French. Lost for the same reason.
The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First
Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for
a British footwear designer.
The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. This is the war in which Germany first
plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France 's ugly girl home alone on a
Saturday night. France welcomes the attention with their characteristic
white flag.
World War I - Tied and on the way to losing. France is saved by the
United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not
only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein."
Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any
improvement in the French bloodline.
World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and
Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
War in Indochina – Lost French forces plead poor health then take to bed
with the Dien Bien Flu
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. This was the first real defeat of a western
army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades. It gave birth to
the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This
rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans,
English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism – Lost before it even begins. France surrenders
to Germans and five million illegal immigrants from Algeria just
to be safe.
--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com
Edward Dolan
......
> A brief history of France's "war record"
> War on Terrorism ? Lost before it even begins. France surrenders
> to Germans and five million illegal immigrants from Algeria just
> to be safe.
That's about the size of it Prometheus! I am saving your message to My
Documents for future reference. There are actually some nut cases on
this newsgroup who think France has acted honorably in the Iraqi war
situation. This will be ammunition for challenging their defense of la
belle France if and when the occasion arises. But I have to get out of
the habit of always referring to the French as the g.d. French. This
is very off putting no doubt for all the francophones to be found here
despite France's abominable behavior with respect to America vis-a-vis
Iraq. I pray that the terrorists will blow at least 3000 Frenchmen to
kingdom come so they will get at least a glimmer of reality pounded
into their thick skulls.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Prometheus <usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<3f60b...@news.chariot.net.au>...
> ......
> > A brief history of France's "war record"
> ......
> > War on Terrorism ? Lost before it even begins. France surrenders
> > to Germans and five million illegal immigrants from Algeria just
> > to be safe.
>
> That's about the size of it Prometheus!
"Prometheus" should have given credit to the web site he copied it from
- the Google parody site. [1]
[1] Type in "French military victories" into the Google search window
and hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.
Tom Sherman -
ai4i
--
Joel Wilson
Fort Lauderdale
=========================================
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subscriber
AI4I is always on the trailing edge of technology
=========================================
"Tom Sherman" <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:3F625CDB...@qconline.com...
DH
the Iraq bandwagon (along with many other countries). Last week's issue
of Time magazine, the Sept 8 issue, had an article, Europe To The Rescue?.
I faxed the following letter to the Editor re that article:
Dear Sir or Madam,
It seems the United States is pretty good at preparing meals while the
Europeans, I am sure, have the feeling they are being asked to clear the
table and wash the dishes. Things might have gone differently if the UN
were asked to help prepare the menu in the first place. ' Waiter, on
second thought, could I change that order of Freedom Fries to French
Fries?' [end]
As a tax paying US citizen (and one who served 20 years active duty), the
cost of the war, $67,000,000,000 to date, $1,000,000,000 per week and
$87,000,000,000 being asked for future costs, seems a tad too much for
this citizen. I'm sure a former CEO of Halliburton, our Vice-President,
is quite pleased with the outcome.
Edward Dolan
A pittance - less than 1% of GNP. We spent far more as a percentage of
GNP in other wars. Or maybe you don't think we are at war?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
DH
Edward, I have heard so many different reasons for why we are in Iraq.
First it started with WMD. We were told the 'war' has nothing to do with
oil. Does anyone really believe that anymore? What's the current reason
... which one will win the next election?
That 'pittance' you mention ... which figure is the one percent of our
GNP, the $67,000,000,000, the $87,000,000,000, the $1,000,000,000 per week
for how many weeks?
It's amazing, during the Vietnam 'war' those who questioned the decision
making of their government were labeled Communists or were told, 'America,
love it or leave it'. We lost 50,000+ young men. (As I recall, a young
Luitenant stationed in Texas dduring that 'war' did an admirable job,
Texas never came under attack and we could all sleep a little better.) If
we had to do that all over again, do you think the same people who
supported the Vietnam 'war' back then would do so again? (I know Henry
Kissinger would not have changed anything. That must be comforting to the
families of those 50,000+ men.)
I find it amazing that the same people who couldn't identify any country
in the Middle East now wish to spend our tax dollars to improve their
standard of living.
Zippy the Pinhead
>"DH" <NoS...@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bjvaem$7h$1...@news1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>...
>>[Yada, yada, yada. Halliburton. Cheney. Baaaa baaaa baaaa. ]
>>] IOW, the usual bleat. ]
>
>A pittance - less than 1% of GNP. We spent far more as a percentage of
>GNP in other wars. Or maybe you don't think we are at war?
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Ed, he IS at war -- but he's on the other side.
DH
Yep, anyone who disagrees with Dubya is a traitor. We can't have anyone
in a democracy who disagrees with those in power, it's just not ...
democratic. What was I thinking, let's triple the amount of money going
to Iraq, that should solve our economic problems and make the world a
better place. What was I thinking, ... sorry.
Zippy the Pinhead
You aren't either sorry, and you weren't thinking.
You have made your position known.
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of
liberty."- John F. Kennedy 1961
"Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our
enemies, justice will be done. ... The terrorists' directive commands
them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no
distinctions among military and civilians, including women and
children. ... And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe
haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to
make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
G. W. Bush, 9/19/2001
Edward Dolan
> Edward, I have heard so many different reasons for why we are in Iraq.
> First it started with WMD. We were told the 'war' has nothing to do with
> oil. Does anyone really believe that anymore? What's the current reason
> ... which one will win the next election?
I believe we are in Iraq for the same reason we are in Afghanistan. It
is all part of the War on Terrorism. To think that we are over there
because of the oil is absurd. We buy their oil from them (the Middle
Eastern states) on the world market the same as everyone else. The
first Gulf War decided the issue that no dictator was going to take
over the oil fields of the Middle East. The present war is not about
oil; it is about terrorism (9/11 in case you have forgotten).
> That 'pittance' you mention ... which figure is the one percent of our
> GNP, the $67,000,000,000, the $87,000,000,000, the $1,000,000,000 per week
> for how many weeks?
Safire mentioned this figure on one of the TV talk shows. I am pretty
sure he was saying it was for the entire proposed expenditure so far.
Sounds about right to me. I think out GNP is in the trillions now.
> It's amazing, during the Vietnam 'war' those who questioned the decision
> making of their government were labeled Communists or were told, 'America,
> love it or leave it'. We lost 50,000+ young men. (As I recall, a young
> Luitenant stationed in Texas dduring that 'war' did an admirable job,
> Texas never came under attack and we could all sleep a little better.) If
> we had to do that all over again, do you think the same people who
> supported the Vietnam 'war' back then would do so again? (I know Henry
> Kissinger would not have changed anything. That must be comforting to the
> families of those 50,000+ men.)
The Vietnam War was not a wasted war as some would have you believe.
It was the beginning of the roll back of Communism (Soviet and
Chinese). The war was not fought the way it should have been fought,
but we gave the Communists pause that they never recovered from.
Remember, it was mainly Kennedy's and Johnson's war. By the time Nixon
and Kissinger came on the scene the only question was how to get us
out of it. That was bungled too like the rest of the war, but mainly
because of Congress and the constant media drum which caused the
American public to withdraw their support of the war (there was no Fox
News back then). It would have been better if we had won the Vietnam
War because there are always consequences to losing wars. But it was
not a total disaster like the left would have you believe.
The constant din from the left about our casualties in the present war
strike me as amusing in the extreme. We are losing a few soldiers a
week. Did you know America loses almost 50,000 souls every year on our
highways in traffic accidents and hardly anyone raises a fuss about
that. These are mostly people in the prime of life and the very young
are over represented. I could also site the numbers killed and wounded
in previous wars and even in single battles (WWI especially) that
would blow your mind away. The problem is not the few causalities we
are taking but rather the fact that the left was totally against this
war from the beginning. I have said it before and I will say it again:
this is the right war in the right place at the right time.
> I find it amazing that the same people who couldn't identify any country
> in the Middle East now wish to spend our tax dollars to improve their
> standard of living.
The foreign policy of the US is not made and carried out by the public
at large but by experts who have been appointed by politicians that we
have elected to office. The public is always ignorant of these
matters everywhere in the world. The American public is no different
than the English or French publics in that regard. If we are able to
establish a more or less democratic state in the center of the Middle
East, a region of the world that has been a continuing problem for the
past 50 years, it would be the greatest good that I can imagine. It
would truly mark the beginning of the end to Islamic terrorism
worldwide because that is where all of it is originating from.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Mark Leuck
> I assume the France war record was posted because France did not jump on
> the Iraq bandwagon (along with many other countries). Last week's issue
> of Time magazine, the Sept 8 issue, had an article, Europe To The Rescue?.
>
> I faxed the following letter to the Editor re that article:
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> It seems the United States is pretty good at preparing meals while the
> Europeans, I am sure, have the feeling they are being asked to clear the
> table and wash the dishes. Things might have gone differently if the UN
> were asked to help prepare the menu in the first place. ' Waiter, on
> second thought, could I change that order of Freedom Fries to French
> Fries?' [end]
To expect the UN to be able to prepare any menu is foolhardy, they couldn't
even enforce the mandates against Iraq
> As a tax paying US citizen (and one who served 20 years active duty), the
> cost of the war, $67,000,000,000 to date, $1,000,000,000 per week and
> $87,000,000,000 being asked for future costs, seems a tad too much for
> this citizen. I'm sure a former CEO of Halliburton, our Vice-President,
> is quite pleased with the outcome.
Sounds like a reasonable expense to me
Edward Dolan
Damn, Zippy! I have been looking all over for that quote from Bush as
I distinctly remember it and it made a great impression on me when he
spoke it at the time. I agree with that statement 100%. The Kennedy
quote is also a nice touch as he remains an icon in the liberal
pantheon. I remember Kennedy and Johnson primarily as the last
Democratic presidents this country had who had the guts to stand up to
our enemies. But that party is long dead now and has been taken over
by gutless wonders. Because of their stance on the war I want to see
them defeated a la McGovern. Maybe if they nominate Dean I will get my
wish.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
DH
> I believe we are in Iraq for the same reason we are in Afghanistan. It
> is all part of the War on Terrorism. To think that we are over there
> because of the oil is absurd. We buy their oil from them (the Middle
> Eastern states) on the world market the same as everyone else. The
> first Gulf War decided the issue that no dictator was going to take
> over the oil fields of the Middle East. The present war is not about
> oil; it is about terrorism (9/11 in case you have forgotten).
Iraq is number two in oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is number one.
It is interesting, not too long ago almost _all_ countries wanted a
coalition to deal with Iraq. The US decided to go alone using WMD as the
reason. Now the US needs the support of the rest of the world to continue
with the ... maintenance of Iraq. You state the current war (wasn't that
just declared to be over?) is about terrorism. I thought it was about
WMD. Bush has used 9/11 to push through all kinds of questionable
legislation.
> > That 'pittance' you mention ... which figure is the one percent of our
> > GNP, the $67,000,000,000, the $87,000,000,000, the $1,000,000,000 per
week
> > for how many weeks?
>
> Safire mentioned this figure on one of the TV talk shows. I am pretty
> sure he was saying it was for the entire proposed expenditure so far.
> Sounds about right to me. I think out GNP is in the trillions now.
Glad to hear you have your facts straight. You think the GNP is in the
trillions now. Could you be just a tad more specific? You see, in nine
years I start collecting my Social Security and I vaguely remember the
budget was balanced not too very long ago. People have such short
memories.
Traffic accidents being mentioned in the same argument as the Vietnam
'war' is tasteless and specious. It would have made more sense for us to
let the communists take over Vietnam, it would have brought down the iron
curtain a lot sooner. Russia is in very bad economic shape with all of
their needless military spending. (Sound familiar?) Wait until it's time
for you to collect Social Security and let's see just how healthy our
economy is. What excuses will be be offered then?
> > I find it amazing that the same people who couldn't identify any
country
> > in the Middle East now wish to spend our tax dollars to improve their
> > standard of living.
>
> The foreign policy of the US is not made and carried out by the public
> at large but by experts who have been appointed by politicians that we
> have elected to office. The public is always ignorant of these
> matters everywhere in the world. The American public is no different
> than the English or French publics in that regard. If we are able to
> establish a more or less democratic state in the center of the Middle
> East, a region of the world that has been a continuing problem for the
> past 50 years, it would be the greatest good that I can imagine. It
> would truly mark the beginning of the end to Islamic terrorism
> worldwide because that is where all of it is originating from.
The 'public' you mention is not always so ignorant and we have world
organizations and international law to handle international problems. Our
occupation in the Middle East is not to bring democracy, but to insure the
flow of oil. Democracy is a convenient argument and Halliburton will
agree with you on that. (FWIW, we in Europe pay roughly 2.5 times for
gasoline than what you pay. The price per barrel is the same the world
over, the governments here tax the oil and use it for the the social
benefits the citizens enjoy (better health care, etc.) BTW, you can
check out what six Europeans pay compared to the US here ...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html )
I agree that we have to fight Islamic terrorism and I see the solution as
a concerted effort of many governments, not just the US. Unfortunately,
the US (with the UK) has decided to go this alone. Now they need the help
of the rest of the world and as long as the US is in charge (for the oil),
the rest can help us out, but the US has the has be in charge. That
sounds like a short sighted plan and one that will not work. I wouldn't
want to be part of that 'plan'.
Also, as long as our species believes in some kind of supreme being, every
religious group will claim Him (or Her or It) to be their own. Bush with
his faith (and support of the death penalty) has proven himself to be just
as mentally deficient as those religious fundamentalists. Believe me, if
Iraq were not number two in oil reserves, we wouldn't be there, period.
Why don't we hold a referendum and let the ignorant public vote on what
how it wants its tax dollars (and the lives of its soldiers) spent. How's
that? Would you go along with that? A referendum.
Ian
>
> You have made your position known.
>
> "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we
> shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
> friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of
> liberty."- John F. Kennedy 1961
>
> "Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our
> enemies, justice will be done. ... The terrorists' directive commands
> them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no
> distinctions among military and civilians, including women and
> children. ... And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe
> haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to
> make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
> G. W. Bush, 9/19/2001
>
world terrorism, the Bush statement denies all liberty and invites slavery
under threat of violence, I would have thought the U.S. had learned the
wrongs of slavery, seemingly not.
--
Ian
Edward Dolan
> >
> > I believe we are in Iraq for the same reason we are in Afghanistan. It
> > is all part of the War on Terrorism. To think that we are over there
> > because of the oil is absurd. We buy their oil from them (the Middle
> > Eastern states) on the world market the same as everyone else. The
> > first Gulf War decided the issue that no dictator was going to take
> > over the oil fields of the Middle East. The present war is not about
> > oil; it is about terrorism (9/11 in case you have forgotten).
>
> Iraq is number two in oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is number one.
>
> It is interesting, not too long ago almost _all_ countries wanted a
> coalition to deal with Iraq. The US decided to go alone using WMD as the
> reason. Now the US needs the support of the rest of the world to continue
> with the ... maintenance of Iraq. You state the current war (wasn't that
> just declared to be over?) is about terrorism. I thought it was about
> WMD. Bush has used 9/11 to push through all kinds of questionable
> legislation.
What is going on now in Iraq is all one war. And it may go on for many
years to come in other areas of the world. Those who cry peace when
there is no peace are deluded and foolish. We do not NEED the UN, but
it will make things go better with the rest of the world if we get
their imprimatur. Our military and our intelligence services would not
be so impoverished if we had not had a moron in the White House for
the past 8 years. As always, The Democrats want to cut spending in the
most critical areas to make room for spending on social welfare
programs.
> > > That 'pittance' you mention ... which figure is the one percent of our
> > > GNP, the $67,000,000,000, the $87,000,000,000, the $1,000,000,000 per
> week
> > > for how many weeks?
> >
> > Safire mentioned this figure on one of the TV talk shows. I am pretty
> > sure he was saying it was for the entire proposed expenditure so far.
> > Sounds about right to me. I think our GNP is in the trillions now.
>
> Glad to hear you have your facts straight. You think the GNP is in the
> trillions now. Could you be just a tad more specific? You see, in nine
> years I start collecting my Social Security and I vaguely remember the
> budget was balanced not too very long ago. People have such short
> memories.
No need to be specific about the GNP since we are talking about 1% of
GNP. But if you want to look it up, be my guest. Balanced budgets go
out the window when wars ensue in any event. Most economists now
believe balanced budgets don't matter a tinker's damn.
> > > It's amazing, during the Vietnam 'war' those who questioned the
> decision
> > > making of their government were labeled Communists or were told,
> 'America,
> > > love it or leave it'. We lost 50,000+ young men. (As I recall, a
> young
> > > Luitenant stationed in Texas during that 'war' did an admirable job,
Nonsense, you are just as dead from a traffic accident as you are from
getting your head blown off by a terrorist bomb. You can't possibly
have any concern that a few soldiers are dying defending us from our
enemies when civilians in this country are dying for no good reason at
all other than they want to get some place faster that they should. It
is all about costs and benefits. Try not to be so hypocritical about
people getting killed. Your comments about Vietnam and Russia are not
rational. Apparently the Cold War never existed for you.
> > > I find it amazing that the same people who couldn't identify any
> country
> > > in the Middle East now wish to spend our tax dollars to improve their
> > > standard of living.
> >
> > The foreign policy of the US is not made and carried out by the public
> > at large but by experts who have been appointed by politicians that we
> > have elected to office. The public is always ignorant of these
> > matters everywhere in the world. The American public is no different
> > than the English or French publics in that regard. If we are able to
> > establish a more or less democratic state in the center of the Middle
> > East, a region of the world that has been a continuing problem for the
> > past 50 years, it would be the greatest good that I can imagine. It
> > would truly mark the beginning of the end to Islamic terrorism
> > worldwide because that is where all of it is originating from.
>
> The 'public' you mention is not always so ignorant and we have world
> organizations and international law to handle international problems. Our
> occupation in the Middle East is not to bring democracy, but to insure the
> flow of oil. Democracy is a convenient argument and Halliburton will
> agree with you on that. (FWIW, we in Europe pay roughly 2.5 times for
> gasoline than what you pay. The price per barrel is the same the world
> over, the governments here tax the oil and use it for the the social
> benefits the citizens enjoy (better health care, etc.) BTW, you can
> check out what six Europeans pay compared to the US here ...
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html )
You were the first one to mention the ignorance of the public, so I
just expanded on it and put it in context. You are a nut on the oil
issue. If the Europeans want to tax the hell out of their people in
order to provide other benefits that is their business and has nothing
to do with the US. We Americans like cheap oil as we live in a big
country and have long distances to travel. But the present War on
Terrorism is precisely that and it has nothing to do with oil. But as
long as you think it does you will never be able to make any sense of
what we are doing.
> I agree that we have to fight Islamic terrorism and I see the solution as
> a concerted effort of many governments, not just the US. Unfortunately,
> the US (with the UK) has decided to go this alone. Now they need the help
> of the rest of the world and as long as the US is in charge (for the oil),
> the rest can help us out, but the US has the has be in charge. That
> sounds like a short sighted plan and one that will not work. I wouldn't
> want to be part of that 'plan'.
Your faith in the UN and multinational solutions is pathetic and has
proved a failure over and over. The UN is good for nothing except
picking up the pieces after the action is over (humanitarian aid). The
US will most certainly be in charge since we have made all the
sacrifices. We have fought and mostly won the war on our own after
attempting to get the help of the international community. Until you
get oil off of your brain you will never understand what is going on.
But maybe you agree with France, Germany and Russia, the most self
serving hypocrites in the entire Western World.
> Also, as long as our species believes in some kind of supreme being, every
> religious group will claim Him (or Her or It) to be their own. Bush with
> his faith (and support of the death penalty) has proved himself to be just
> as mentally deficient as those religious fundamentalists. Believe me, if
> Iraq were not number two in oil reserves, we wouldn't be there, period.
> Why don't we hold a referendum and let the ignorant public vote on what
> how it wants its tax dollars (and the lives of its soldiers) spent. How's
> that? Would you go along with that? A referendum.
I support the death penalty 100% because I believe life is precious.
When someone takes a life his own life is forfeit. Those who do not
support the death penalty hold life cheap. The proof of this is that
they are also invariably in favor of abortion on demand. Just how
despicable can one get. Again in the above paragraph you are talking
about oil (a monomania) and the "ignorant" public. I surely don't want
the public voting on anything other than on who is going to represent
them in Congress and in the White House. Referendums are for the
birds. I believe in republican forms of government, not direct
democracies. Have you ever been to a Vermont town hall meeting? If you
had you would die of laughter. Representative government is the only
type of government that works for the people - period!
Don't drag God into this. He has nothing to do with it. He created the
world and then left us to our own devices, or so at least I like to
believe. As far as I know Bush is a religious person and he has
nothing in common with those murderous Islamics. To suggest otherwise
is the ranting of an insane liberal extremist left-wing wacko nut
Bush Hater. You aren't that are you?
To reiterate, we would be in Iraq oil or no oil because the war is all
about killing terrorists and taking down the rogue states that support
and harbor them. We will need to keep a close watch on Syria and Iran.
North Korea is a separate problem and may well be the most dangerous
one of all. If they were to attack South Korea I would make sure they
know before hand that we would use nuclear weapons on them and regime
change in the North would be a foregone conclusion. That is how you
prevent war, not by a lot of beating about the bush about what we
might do or might not do. I think Saddam Hussein would never have
invaded Kuwait if we had made perfectly clear to him what we would do
in that event. But now I am starting to ramble, so time to close.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> Zippy the Pinhead must be edykated coz e writed:
And Ian must be an idiot because he can't spell.
It's ding-a-ling time in the UK now that Ian is back with his
incomprehensible posts. Anyone want to try to make sense out of what
he is blathering about? I think it must be his paternal Syrian
ancestry coming to the fore here. That must be why it is so
inscrutable. Since he has kill filed me anyway I am most definitely
going to take a pass on this one and thereby not get my blood pressure
all out of control. It is just not worth it.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Zippy the Pinhead
>>: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
>> G. W. Bush, 9/19/2001
>
>Damn, Zippy! I have been looking all over for that quote from Bush as
>I distinctly remember it and it made a great impression on me when he
>spoke it at the time. I agree with that statement 100%. The Kennedy
>quote is also a nice touch as he remains an icon in the liberal
>pantheon. I remember Kennedy and Johnson primarily as the last
>Democratic presidents this country had who had the guts to stand up to
>our enemies. But that party is long dead now and has been taken over
>by gutless wonders. Because of their stance on the war I want to see
>them defeated a la McGovern. Maybe if they nominate Dean I will get my
>wish.
I think that's what will happen. It is particularly amusing to see
liberal Democrats position themselves as defenders of the Treasury
("DH"'s rant about $87 billion is a typical example).
Five TRILLION dollars dumped into the "war on poverty" since LBJ's
1965, and we have more "poor people" (by the liberals' definition)
than ever before. Looked at more cynically, five TRILLION dollars
taken from the Treasury to buy votes, and we have democrat debacles
like the 2002 election.
By contrast, a "mere" 87 gigabucks invested in the war on terrorism
seems a bargain by comparison as the terrorists' house of cards
collapses. Even by the most cynical interpretation, our economy
CANNOT recover until we WIN the war on terrorism. Make no mistake
about it, the sacking of our economy is where the liberals are with
the terrorists and against us.
The extreme left of the democrat party has hijacked the party of
Hubert Humphrey as surely as the islamists have hijacked the religion
of their Prophet. And they've chosen their allies most unwisely.
If they're with the terrorists, they're against us, and they will
lose. They're trying desperately to triangulate, casting the war as
one being waged by "the Bush Administration" and not by their country;
by "Cheney and Halliburton" and not by Sgt. Smith and the 82nd
Airborne. They'd be funny if the struggle at its essence weren't so
genuine, so elemental, and so primal: good vs. evil.
They have chosen sides. May they rot in the same hell as their
allies.
Zippy the Pinhead
>> You see, in nine
>years I start collecting my Social Security and I vaguely remember the
>budget was balanced not too very long ago. People have such short
>memories.
Geez. I dug you out of my killfile for THIS???
Nine years, huh? Same as me. Looks like we've been some of the same
places, too. We surely learned disparate lessons.
"Collecting YOUR social security", eh? This is the biggest of the
Big Lies of the New Deal. I've no hope of you becoming sociable in
nine years, and you should have no hope of becoming secure. Not if
you see the primary role of government as being one of providing for
your secure retirement in contradistinction to its most important
role: seeing to it that you and I have a Country to retire in. No
less than that is at stake.
And if your improvident "nest egg" lies in the Treasury, I hope it's
earmarked for military spending.
My nest egg is in the American economy which our troops, from whose
wallets you want to preserve "your" money, are busily defending as we
speak. We each have a stake in the outcome. I like mine better.
You seem to have made the same mistake as many of our miserable
generation made. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your Country can do for
you, ask rather what you can do for your Country." "Pay any price,
bear any burden...".
You heard: "Ask not what you can do for your Country. Ask rather what
your Country can make someone else do for you".
Back to the killfile with you. I might have to work until I die
because my investments tanked, a casualty of the War on Terror. But
if we lose it, mark my words, "your" social "security" money will be
just as gone as mine, and for the same reasons. If your head weren't
in your sigmoid colon, you'd see that too.
Zippy the Pinhead
wrote:
>>
>The Kennedy statement supports liberty, however the U.S. went on to sponsor
>world terrorism,
That's your spin. And even if it were true, when is it too late to
remedy the error? And what are we doing now if not trying to
ELIMINATE world terrorism?
> the Bush statement denies all liberty and invites slavery
>under threat of violence,
You have spooky psychic powers. Prove that. He said that freedom is
under attack. Freedom is slavery?
> I would have thought the U.S. had learned the
>wrongs of slavery, seemingly not.
Well, the U.S. learned that better than the countries in which slavery
continues to exist today. Last time I looked, there weren't any
slaves in the U.S.
You seem to think that the terrorists should win. You want there to
be three sides. There are but two. You're not on mine.
DH
the Treasury. The last numbers I heard was the Treasury 'borrows'
$1,000,000,000 per week from Social Security. The problem is, the
Treasury has no intention of paying it back.
I find this interesting on different levels. Here we have a 'social'
program implemented by Democrats, it is a cash cow for the Treasury and
the average citizen is clueless about all of this. I was first informed
about this by Patrick Monihan (sp?) years ago.
Imagine how bad the economy would be if we didn't have this program to
'borrow' from. Bush will drive our economy into the ground and for what?
A referendum is in order.
Mark Leuck
> One thing re Social Security .. it is a social program and a cash cow for
> the Treasury. The last numbers I heard was the Treasury 'borrows'
> $1,000,000,000 per week from Social Security. The problem is, the
> Treasury has no intention of paying it back.
>
> I find this interesting on different levels. Here we have a 'social'
> program implemented by Democrats, it is a cash cow for the Treasury and
> the average citizen is clueless about all of this. I was first informed
> about this by Patrick Monihan (sp?) years ago.
SS money has always gone into the general fund since the beginning, the
"borrowing" has always taken place
> Imagine how bad the economy would be if we didn't have this program to
> 'borrow' from. Bush will drive our economy into the ground and for what?
It would be what it is now
> A referendum is in order.
To do what? Prop up another failed social program?
marika
> years to come in other areas of the world. Those who cry peace when
> there is no peace are deluded and foolish. We do not NEED the UN, but
> it will make things go better with the rest of the world if we get
> their imprimatur. Our military and our intelligence services would not
> be so impoverished if we had not had a moron in the White House for
> the past 8 years. As always, The Democrats want to cut spending in the
> most critical areas to make room for spending on social welfare
> programs.
>
have you seen enemy at the gate?
one reviewer called it a red elephant
is a "red elephant" good or bad?
mk5000
"I'd rather that there was a healthy and robust debate. Better to
voice an opinion and be wrong, than hold it and be quiet, on some
misguided idea that everybody on one "side" is hoping for the same
ultimate outcome."--brian
Edward Dolan
The way to look a Social Security is as a social welfare program. It
will never make any sense if you try to see it as a social insurance
program. My sainted mother paid very little into it over the years and
got a heck of a lot out of it over the years (she lived to a ripe old
age). That is pretty much the way it has been up to the present time
and it will probably continue to be much that way into the future.
People are living longer and longer. There is nothing wrong with it as
a social welfare program as long as the federal government continues
to back it. It probably needs to be means tested sooner or later if it
comes to a funding crunch.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Zippy the Pinhead
>
>is a "red elephant" good or bad?
>
I've heard that it's rather good with pilaf, a spinach salad with
vinaigrette, and a perky little pinot noir.
Edward Dolan
> On 13 Sep 2003 23:46:56 -0700, edo...@iw.net (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >>: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
> >> G. W. Bush, 9/19/2001
> >
> >Damn, Zippy! I have been looking all over for that quote from Bush as
> >I distinctly remember it and it made a great impression on me when he
> >spoke it at the time. I agree with that statement 100%. The Kennedy
> >quote is also a nice touch as he remains an icon in the liberal
> >pantheon. I remember Kennedy and Johnson primarily as the last
> >Democratic presidents this country had who had the guts to stand up to
> >our enemies. But that party is long dead now and has been taken over
> >by gutless wonders. Because of their stance on the war I want to see
> >them defeated a la McGovern. Maybe if they nominate Dean I will get my
> >wish.
>
> I think that's what will happen. It is particularly amusing to see
> liberal Democrats position themselves as defenders of the Treasury
> ("DH"'s rant about $87 billion is a typical example).
>
> Five TRILLION dollars dumped into the "war on poverty" since LBJ's
> 1965, and we have more "poor people" (by the liberals' definition)
> than ever before. Looked at more cynically, five TRILLION dollars
> taken from the Treasury to buy votes, and we have democrat debacles
> like the 2002 election.
The best example of failed liberal Democrat social welfare programs I
can think of are those having to do with public housing for the poor.
The sight of all those high rise apartment buildings in places like
Chicago and St. Louis being brought down by dynamite into a pile of
dust and rubble speaks volumes. But do the Dems ever learn anything
from this? Of course not. They have now decided that high rises are
not the way to go with poor people, although they seem to work just
fine for the middle and upper classes. I have got news for them, low
rises aren't going to work any better.
> By contrast, a "mere" 87 gigabucks invested in the war on terrorism
> seems a bargain by comparison as the terrorists' house of cards
> collapses. Even by the most cynical interpretation, our economy
> CANNOT recover until we WIN the war on terrorism. Make no mistake
> about it, the sacking of our economy is where the liberals are with
> the terrorists and against us.
Yes, to hear the Dems talk of balanced budgets and restraint of
spending is ludicrous and surreal. All of my life they have been the
party of big spenders and big taxes. Look at what is happening in
California, the ultimate Dem state. They have spent themselves into
the poor house. And those who have to pay the taxes are fleeing for
places like Nevada and Arizona. And of course they never want to spend
anything on the military and/or to prosecute a war. They are like the
French that way. Why not just surrender and save a bundle so we can
spend it on social welfare programs. That is how you get votes, isn't
it?
> The extreme left of the democrat party has hijacked the party of
> Hubert Humphrey as surely as the islamists have hijacked the religion
> of their Prophet. And they've chosen their allies most unwisely.
I never much cared for Hubert Horatio either but at least he had the
elementary good sense to realize that the country needed to be
defended against it's enemies from time to time. I have also thought
that the Islamists are not all that well intentioned toward the
Christian West, whether they be extremists or the vast majority who
are not extremists. I lived in Morocco for a year when I was in the
Navy and I thought then and I still think today that their religion
makes them a very strange and odd sort of people. I simply can't
imagine any American ever embracing Islam.
> If they're with the terrorists, they're against us, and they will
> lose. They're trying desperately to triangulate, casting the war as
> one being waged by "the Bush Administration" and not by their country;
> by "Cheney and Halliburton" and not by Sgt. Smith and the 82nd
> Airborne. They'd be funny if the struggle at its essence weren't so
> genuine, so elemental, and so primal: good vs. evil.
>
> They have chosen sides. May they rot in the same hell as their
> allies.
Yes!!! Damn their rotten liberal souls all the way to hell and back!!!
With respect to their position on the war I regard them as treasonous
bastards. They not only hate Bush, they hate America. We should be
hating them right back with an equal venom.
If they want to split America on this issue they will reap the
whirlwind. It is important that we give them no quarter on this issue.
What ever reasons they come up with to be against the war let us
remember they were against this war from the very beginning for
reasons of their own despite 9/11. I am not talking about Democrats in
general, but I am talking about the insane liberal extremist left-wing
wacko nuts that infest such places as the West Coast and the Quad
Cities (who cares what the UK and Euro screwballs think since they
don't vote in our elections).
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Ian
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:49:06 +0100, Ian <spaman...@greasy.joes>
> wrote:
>
>> the Bush statement denies all liberty and invites slavery
>> under threat of violence,
>
> You have spooky psychic powers. Prove that. He said that freedom is
> under attack. Freedom is slavery?
>
>
> You seem to think that the terrorists should win. You want there to
> be three sides. There are but two. You're not on mine.
>
There should be enough space for differing opinions, Bush is saying "do it
my way or else to the western world", the old "if you do not agree with me
one hundred percent then you are supporting terrorism" angle. Come on are
you actually believing that poop about Al Queda being in league with Saddam
Hussein? Please. I think you are still suffering the aftermath of the
brainwashing during the Kennedy regime, where kids were "taught" about the
communist threat and had to practice hiding under the desk for the nuclear
attack, the fact they would be vaporised along with the desk didn't matter,
the whole spin was that the so called establishment was going to protect
them so they should do as they were told, the U.S. government have had a
long standing policy of head f*c*ing the population into submission, pre
glasnost Russia was a more libertine state than the current U.S. one. Wait
until they take all your bike path money for the war effort, up taxes for
the greater good then start locking up your neighbours because someone said
they heard them slate the government, your a gnats hair away from it.
No, I don't want the terrorists to win, I just want you to be aware who the
terrorists are before your government makes decisions in its own interests
at the expense of real freedom and liberty, then you will at least know who
to blame when your afraid to go out at night, not because of the unseen
terrorist extremist but because of the highly visible state terrorists in
the guise of government enforcement.
Roll on 1984.
--
Ian
Edward Dolan
> edo...@iw.net (Edward Dolan) wrote in message news:<7d49e514.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > "DH" <NoS...@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bk137d$lk4>
> > What is going on now in Iraq is all one war. And it may go on for many
> > years to come in other areas of the world. Those who cry peace when
> > there is no peace are deluded and foolish. We do not NEED the UN, but
> > it will make things go better with the rest of the world if we get
> > their imprimatur. Our military and our intelligence services would not
> > be so impoverished if we had not had a moron in the White House for
> > the past 8 years. As always, The Democrats want to cut spending in the
> > most critical areas to make room for spending on social welfare
> > programs.
> >
>
> have you seen enemy at the gate?
Yep! 9/11.
> one reviewer called it a red elephant
It is an Arabian camel.
> is a "red elephant" good or bad?
The Arabian camel is most definitely bad.
> mk5000
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Zippy the Pinhead
>
>Yes, to hear the Dems talk of balanced budgets and restraint of
>spending is ludicrous and surreal.
One of the best comments I read about this was in opinionjournal.com,
a Wall St. Journal publication. In it, they quoted Jesse "Sheets"
Helms, who proclaimed that "The United States Government isn't an
ATM".
The Journals comment was to the effect that this man, in one sentence,
reversed his previous 45 years of work in the Senate, which work was
to see to it that the Government was indeed an ATM for the causes he
favors.
To the dems, it's about buying votes to stay in power. Any spending
that doesn't consolidate their power is wrong.
Prometheus
mention is NOT the one I copied it from, nor am I able to identify any
author of the original.......It's been spread around so widely that it's
become a bit silly to get all pedantic about who gets the credit so I
didn't bother.
Prometheus.
--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com
GeoB
Ed... have you noticed that most people here discuss ideas (whether
you like their position or not) and *YOU* attack people? I am not
going to waste time compiling statistics (unless I get a buncha
slack-time today) but I think you have a way higher incidence of this
than anyone else here. In fact, your posts are consistently attacking
people.
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... I am not talking about Democrats in
> general, but I am talking about the insane liberal extremist left-wing
> wacko nuts that infest such places as the West Coast and the Quad
> Cities (who cares what the UK and Euro screwballs think since they
> don't vote in our elections).
Why not just mention me by name, rather than making the ridiculous
statement that the Quad Cities are "infested" with "insane liberal
extremist left-wing wacko nuts". While the Quad Cities are more highly
unionized than many places in the US and have a large blue-collar middle
class, they are about as "middle American" as it gets.
Tom Sherman
Use soft words and hard arguments. - English Proverb
Edward Dolan
When posters like Ian spout their asininities there is nothing to
respond to except their stupidities. If and when someone says
something intelligent then I respond accordingly. It amuses me that
you do not seem to notice their personal attacks but are quick to
notice mine. I think that is because they attempt to cloak their
personal attacks with a veneer of "evidence" whereas I do not pretend
anything, but go the heart of the matter, which is their confounded
stupid opinions. You do not find their opinions stupid and so
therefore you do not see their personal attacks. It is a case of the
blind leading the blind.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> Zippy the Pinhead must be edykated coz e writed:
And Ian must be an idiot because he can't spell.
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:49:06 +0100, Ian <spaman...@greasy.joes>
I am so relieved that Ian has kill filed me so that I don't have to
respond to this garbage, other than to say there is now emerging
plenty of evidence that the terrorists were in fact in league with the
Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. But what do these wacko nuts
care about evidence? All you need to know about them is that they hate
Bush and they hate America.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> Use soft words and hard arguments. - English Proverb.
Mr. Sherman can only appreciate his own sense of humor. He is the only
one who can be permitted to point fun at someone else's expense.
Everyone in the world knows what the Quad Cities is like and that he
is an anomaly there. He is not even from the Midwest by his own
admission. His proper place of residence according to his political
views should be San Francisco or Seattle, not the Quad Cities. But at
least he did not take me up on my point that the West Coast is
predominantly liberal and Democratic.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Mr. Sherman can only appreciate his own sense of humor. He is the only
> one who can be permitted to point fun at someone else's expense.
> Everyone in the world knows what the Quad Cities is like and that he
> is an anomaly there. He is not even from the Midwest by his own
> admission. His proper place of residence according to his political
> views should be San Francisco or Seattle, not the Quad Cities. But at
> least he did not take me up on my point that the West Coast is
> predominantly liberal and Democratic.
There have been quite a few people on various email lists who have no
idea where the Quad Cities are. The Illinois side is quite Democratic,
however, as in the most recent election there were no Republican
candidates for the Illinois House and Senate on the ballot.
You must not be familiar with Madison, Wisconsin. The precincts on the
east side of the isthmus have voted Green in the last two presidential
elections.
GeoB
> > you like their position or not) and *YOU* attack people? I am not
> > going to waste time compiling statistics (unless I get a buncha
> > slack-time today) but I think you have a way higher incidence of this
> > than anyone else here. In fact, your posts are consistently attacking
> > people.
>
> When posters like Ian spout their asininities there is nothing to
> respond to except their stupidities.
Ed, I 'spose there is no use my continuing this discussion if you
really feel that what you are doing is the correct thing. You could
always ignore the truly ignorant. And if they really are less gifted
mentally, then ranting at them only serves to lower yourself. But I
know you have thought of this. But yet you continue.. so your goals
must not be my goals.. Oh, I get it.. if they won't say what you want,
you will endeavor to destroy the news group, in order to silence the
liberal dogs.. I believe we have all seen over the years that harsh
angry attacks consistently does. Like Samson you would pull the
entire building down with you.
> If and when someone says something intelligent then
> I respond accordingly.
Well, maybe sometimes but not mostly.
> It amuses me that you do not seem to notice their
> personal attacks but are quick to notice mine.
1) Sure, theirs is as distastful as yours. But I know you are just
being defensive here, cuz I clearly said, "you have a way higher
incidence". I at no time even implied that you were the only one.
Just the leader.
> I think that is because they attempt to cloak their
> personal attacks with a veneer of "evidence" whereas
> I do not pretend anything, but go the heart of the
> matter, which is their confounded stupid opinions.
You have said this before. Sure, your opinions seem to represent a
decided minority here, but you sound to me like you have a dangerous
tendency to think you are being attacked when someone disagrees with
you. Please don't give me any recent post as an example of you being
attacked... you have helped roil the waters so much here that a great
many posts are aggressive.
> You do not find their opinions stupid and so therefore
> you do not see their personal attacks.
Yes, condemn me, that way you can ignore what I say. Remarkable how
well that works! I don't suppose it would do any good to point out
that 1)** you have no idea what I find stupid and 2) you are wrong in
that statement.
> It is a case of the blind leading the blind.
I knew you couldn't post a msg without an attack.
** I put the astericks in so it would look like I was using footnotes.
If this gentle jab makes you feel attacked, may I suggest an
anger-management session or two?
Edward Dolan
There are of course pockets of liberalism to be found everywhere in
the land, even in the Heartland. It may be there are even a few
pockets of conservatism in otherwise liberal California. As regards
the Heartland, these pockets of liberalism are especially to be found
in college and university towns which would account for your Madison
precincts and also in heavily blue collar areas (at least they
continue to vote Democratic even if not all that liberal in their
thinking). I believe both Minnesota and Wisconsin went for Gore in
this past general election.
To tell you the truth, when I think of the Quad Cities, I think mainly
of Davenport, Iowa. And we all know where Iowa stands. However, no one
on any email list of which you are a member could not possibly know
where the Quad Cities are. You posts, and consequently your
annoyances, are too numerous to ever pass unnoticed. Trust me on this,
everyone will have looked up where the hell the Quad Cities is at.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> > > Ed... have you noticed that most people here discuss ideas (whether
Prior to my coming on this newsgroup every asininity manage to pass
without any objections from those of you who think yourselves
intelligent and above the fray. That is most likely because you are
liberal yourselves and do not see any reason to object to obvious
liberal stupidities since you are in basic agreement. Now you are up
against someone who is not on your side and it is bugging you. Good! I
mean to make up in "incidence" for your lack of "incidence" and I am
going to stay more pissed off than than my opposition since they
outnumber me about 10 to 1.
Maybe if these liberals had been properly challenged in the past I
would not now have to be doing what I am doing. I will only reason
with reasonable folk and most of them are not reasonable. They are
into name calling big time. How many of their posts have you read
where they are calling Bush and his advisers every rotten name their
small minds can come up with and how many times have you let it pass
with nary a word? It makes me sick to think how a small clique can
drag this newsgroup through the mud with their Bush hatred and their
America hatred - and the rest of you who should know better sit back
and say nothing. Those bastards are the ones who have destroyed this
newsgroup, not me. If I didn't lower myself to their level, who would?
Would you?
> > I think that is because they attempt to cloak their
> > personal attacks with a veneer of "evidence" whereas
> > I do not pretend anything, but go the heart of the
> > matter, which is their confounded stupid opinions.
>
> You have said this before. Sure, your opinions seem to represent a
> decided minority here, but you sound to me like you have a dangerous
> tendency to think you are being attacked when someone disagrees with
> you. Please don't give me any recent post as an example of you being
> attacked... you have helped roil the waters so much here that a great
> many posts are aggressive.
>
> > You do not find their opinions stupid and so therefore
> > you do not see their personal attacks.
>
> Yes, condemn me, that way you can ignore what I say. Remarkable how
> well that works! I don't suppose it would do any good to point out
> that 1)** you have no idea what I find stupid and 2) you are wrong in
> that statement.
>
> > It is a case of the blind leading the blind.
>
> I knew you couldn't post a msg without an attack.
No, I do not have any idea where you stand on any of what goes on here
because you don't speak up except to criticize me. Apparently Ian's
stupid posts do not upset you. Here we have a Brit who sees his way
clear to condemning the US and Bush for everything he finds wrong in
the world and he does it by name calling and making stupid rotten
jokes. And mostly the only responses he gets are that the rest of the
dumbbells on this newsgroup chime in with their own name calling and
stupid rotten jokes. If it weren't for me objecting, who would? Would
you? Or maybe it's fine with you that some crazy Brit wants to make
fun of our country and our leadership and insult them (and us) into
the bargain.
> ** I put the astericks in so it would look like I was using footnotes.
> If this gentle jab makes you feel attacked, may I suggest an
> anger-management session or two?
No, I am not feeling attacked and I am not as mad as I like to make
myself sound. But I am going to take on this liberal inanity with
respect to the War on Terrorism and I am going to defend Bush and our
leadership whether anyone here likes it or not. I know I am not alone
as there are a few others who have spoken up. But someone has to hit
them where they live, and they live in the region of the groin and not
the head. I would be a fool if I tried to elevate the discussion with
them like you suggest. I do not like to talk to the ether. If I am
getting through to them that I do not like them for what they are
saying about Bush and our country with respect to the War on
Terrorism, then I am content and I am accomplishing my purpose.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
GeoB
> side and it is bugging you.
Well, while this is an assumption, it is more importantly an attack.
You *could* see my comments as from someone concerned about the value
of open honest discourse as a way of raising understanding, lowering
barriers and levels of hostility between disparate groups. You choose
to ignore this possibility, and other equally possible positive
motivations, and attribute a selfish and dishonest motivation to me.
I say 'dishonest' because if this were true, I'd be chiding you based
on animosity toward you and no higher issue. I can't see how you
could have enough information about me personally to be confident
enough to make this assertion. Therefore, I judge you to be reckless
with the truth and other's reputations. Note that these are your
actions I am judging, not 'you'.
> Maybe if these liberals had been properly challenged
Name-calling constitutes a proper challenge in early grade-school, if
that, but not so much after that.
> How many of their posts have you read where they are
> calling Bush and his advisers every rotten name their
> small minds can come up
Calling Bush names, besides being legal, doesn't hamper the free
exchange of ideas between Bush and this group.
In my value system, the more important issue is exercising the freedom
we have of criticising our government. I don't want to attack anyone
personaly, but sometimes the truth sounds like an attack. But I am
more concerned about a certain mind-set that seems to want to squelch
criticism of the government. This is a far more serious issue.
> through the mud with their Bush hatred and their
> America hatred - and the rest of you who should
> know better sit back and say nothing.
This is another aspect of this dangerous mind-set that seems to lead
folks to believe that not liking Bush is hating America. It is ideas
like this that would deliver our country to an autocratic despot, with
jack-booted skin-head goons patroling the streets.
And who cares if a detractor hates America? If they truly do, which I
doubt. We are 'large' enough to be able to bear it. Maybe the
important thing is what value we can wrest from his complaints.
Didn't they say in the book 'In Search of Excellence', "Your most
valuable customer is the one that cares enough to complain"? I like
listening to foreign media talk about America. I think it is healthy
to find nuggets of truth there, unfiltered by our denial, egotism and
the reticence of our press. I don't care if it is American, or
un-American, we citizens can't make good decisions without truth. We
ARE the government, we retain responsibility for its actions. Can you
say what song this stanza is from? "Stand beside her, and guide her,
through the night, with the light from above"
GeoB
I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a moral
example to the world.
- Martin Luther King Jr
"A popular government without popular information, or the means of
acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps
both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean
to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives."
- James Madison (4th president)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Edward Dolan
> > Now you are up against someone who is not on your
> > side and it is bugging you.
>
> Well, while this is an assumption, it is more importantly an attack.
> You *could* see my comments as from someone concerned about the value
> of open honest discourse as a way of raising understanding, lowering
> barriers and levels of hostility between disparate groups. You choose
> to ignore this possibility, and other equally possible positive
> motivations, and attribute a selfish and dishonest motivation to me.
> I say 'dishonest' because if this were true, I'd be chiding you based
> on animosity toward you and no higher issue. I can't see how you
> could have enough information about me personally to be confident
> enough to make this assertion. Therefore, I judge you to be reckless
> with the truth and other's reputations. Note that these are your
> actions I am judging, not 'you'.
I have not seen you being critical of all the liberals posting to this
newsgroup who say the most incredibly stupid things about Bush and
this country. What other assumption can I make other than that you are
in sympathy with what they are saying? I am not attacking you at all
as so far you have not said anything at all for me to attack except
for being one-sided in your criticism. You do not like my style. Sorry
about that, but I am not going to change it when I am having to deal
with blooming idiots. But I tailor my style to what is being said to
me and to the manner in which it is being said. When I encounter a
gentleman I respond like a gentleman.
> > Maybe if these liberals had been properly challenged
>
> Name-calling constitutes a proper challenge in early grade-school, if
> that, but not so much after that.
I am responding in kind always. The fact is that you are not fair and
balanced. You do not see their name calling because, I assume, you are
in sympathy with their views.
> > How many of their posts have you read where they are
> > calling Bush and his advisers every rotten name their
> > small minds can come up
>
> Calling Bush names, besides being legal, doesn't hamper the free
> exchange of ideas between Bush and this group.
>
> In my value system, the more important issue is exercising the freedom
> we have of criticising our government. I don't want to attack anyone
> personaly, but sometimes the truth sounds like an attack. But I am
> more concerned about a certain mind-set that seems to want to squelch
> criticism of the government. This is a far more serious issue.
>
> > through the mud with their Bush hatred and their
> > America hatred - and the rest of you who should
> > know better sit back and say nothing.
>
> This is another aspect of this dangerous mind-set that seems to lead
> folks to believe that not liking Bush is hating America. It is ideas
> like this that would deliver our country to an autocratic despot, with
> jack-booted skin-head goons patroling the streets.
Yes, I will freely admit that I do have a mind set when it comes to
these treasonous liberals who would sell this country out; who would
cut and run from our enemies; and who are altogether despicable. They
are the ones who are spewing hatred of our elected leaders and of our
country - and in a time of war too. I am fed up with it and I am going
to tell them exactly what I think of them when they foul the air with
their lies and slanders.
> And who cares if a detractor hates America? If they truly do, which I
> doubt. We are 'large' enough to be able to bear it. Maybe the
> important thing is what value we can wrest from his complaints.
> Didn't they say in the book 'In Search of Excellence', "Your most
> valuable customer is the one that cares enough to complain"? I like
> listening to foreign media talk about America. I think it is healthy
> to find nuggets of truth there, unfiltered by our denial, egotism and
> the reticence of our press. I don't care if it is American, or
> un-American, we citizens can't make good decisions without truth. We
> ARE the government, we retain responsibility for its actions. Can you
> say what song this stanza is from? "Stand beside her, and guide her,
> through the night, with the light from above"
I mean to fight hatred with hatred. That turning the other cheek crap
is for chumps. The Islamic extremists hate us and mean to kill us and
kill our country. And the treasonous liberals will not support the war
as it needs to be supported in order for us to prevail. Just how
stupid would you like me to get? There is nothing that the foreign
press can say about us that we cannot say about ourselves. And I sure
as hell do not want to listen to a lot of Brit and Euro crap on this
newsgroup about how this country is not down to their miserable low
standards. European diplomacy was the world's greatest failure in this
century just past. If they want to criticize, let them look inward.
For heaven's sake, they couldn't even take care of the Balkan mess
which was in their own back yard.
> I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a moral
> example to the world.
> - Martin Luther King Jr
>
> "A popular government without popular information, or the means of
> acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps
> both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean
> to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which
> knowledge gives."
> - James Madison (4th president)
>
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
> or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is
> not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."
> - Theodore Roosevelt
There is such a thing as being too critical and being too submissive
to criticism. We need to defend ourselves and stand up for ourselves.
These other nations (and the treasonous liberals among us) do not have
our interests at heart. Far from it. France I no longer regard as an
erstwhile ally, but as a newly acquired enemy. They are not for us.
They are against us. We should have the brains to at least be against
them too. You are entirely too accommodating to criticism in this time
of national peril to suit me.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Randy N.
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> I am responding in kind always. The fact is that you are not fair and
> balanced. You do not see their name calling because, I assume, you are
> in sympathy with their views.
That was sarcasm, wasn't it? Fair and balanced is dead, since Reagan
removed it from the FCC. Or do you consider Roger Ailes fair and balanced?
>
>
> Yes, I will freely admit that I do have a mind set when it comes to
> these treasonous liberals who would sell this country out; who would
> cut and run from our enemies; and who are altogether despicable.
AHH There is the fair and balanced discourse you were saying you prefer
earlier. This is straight from the Ann Coulter playbook.
They
> are the ones who are spewing hatred of our elected leaders and of our
> country - and in a time of war too. I am fed up with it and I am going
> to tell them exactly what I think of them when they foul the air with
> their lies and slanders.
>
Rick Sanitarium, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanky, Bill Orally,
Jeb Bush, Sam Brown Nose, and the list goes on into the distance of
those who have Ann Coulterish sensibilities. The radical right displays
little restraint, fairness, or civility.
>
> I mean to fight hatred with hatred. That turning the other cheek crap
> is for chumps.
Then don't be surprised when you discover yourself in the middle of a
civil war that your side is losing. There are more people that identify
themselves as liberal, when you compare progressive platforms to
neoconservatism.
The Islamic extremists hate us and mean to kill us and
> kill our country. And the treasonous liberals will not support the war
> as it needs to be supported in order for us to prevail.
There was very little support for the oil rape of Iraq before hand, and
it settled down to a dubious grumble and dulsitory flag waving during.
Now, in full debacle and mid-quagmire, with 5 billion a month going into
Iraq, and precious little oil coming out, with a soldier killed
everyday, Bush goes hat in hand to the UN begging for assistance.
He also comes to middle class America and tells them they need to cough
up 87Billion to stabilize Iraq. Tell me again how this was smarter than
inspectors, Ed.
Note the arrival of the clue bus. If WMD were our raison d'être for
being there, we can leave, because we didn't find any.
If Saddam was our reason, we can leave because, as you say, he is no
longer in power.
If liberating the Iraqi people was the reason, see above.
Why aren't we leaving?
The only reason we stay is the oil, which is the only real reason we
went there in the first place, just as when we told Saddam in 91 that he
could settle the border dispute with kuwait however he wanted to... and
then invaded Iraq after rescuing another dictator in Kuwait.
The whole game plan of this pirate crew was to steal the Middle East's
oil and gut the last of the New Deal for fun and profit.
This has as much to do with the average American's safety or well being
as Bush's massive tax relief for the rich.
Just how
> stupid would you like me to get? There is nothing that the foreign
> press can say about us that we cannot say about ourselves. And I sure
> as hell do not want to listen to a lot of Brit and Euro crap on this
> newsgroup about how this country is not down to their miserable low
> standards. European diplomacy was the world's greatest failure in this
> century just past. If they want to criticize, let them look inward.
> For heaven's sake, they couldn't even take care of the Balkan mess
> which was in their own back yard.
>
Ed, I think you would be hard pressed to sound more stupid than these
comments. We spend a lot more for the military than most of the rest of
the world combined, but we can't manage to pump Iraqi oil. I don't think
we are in a great position to say that Europe made the wrong choice.
Welcome to the Internet Ed. If you don't want to be a part of an
International community, I recommend the Klan. It would actually be a
favor to the non American audience, as well as the informed Americans if
you confined yourself to Free Republic where the discourse is more to
your liking.
In case you didn't actually pay attention, Old Europe showed up by the
busload for Afghanistan, a place that only people who really love you
would dress up like G.I. Jacques or Hans and march into. PS, they are
still there in Afghanistan, and Ed Dolan is not... So quoting your hero
Orally, I suggest you shut up.
>
> There is such a thing as being too critical and being too submissive
> to criticism. We need to defend ourselves and stand up for ourselves.
> These other nations (and the treasonous liberals among us) do not have
> our interests at heart. Far from it. France I no longer regard as an
> erstwhile ally, but as a newly acquired enemy. They are not for us.
> They are against us. We should have the brains to at least be against
> them too. You are entirely too accommodating to criticism in this time
> of national peril to suit me.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Trust me Ed, you are not in danger of being too submissive to criticism.
To be like that, you actually have to listen to it.
The biggest peril, in this time of supposed national peril is G. W. Bush
and his Oily Pirate Ship of State. The sooner his boys are in
Leavenworth, the sooner we will be safe as a nation again.
George was the guy who told the FBI to stand down, the INS to stand
down, did not listen to anyone who warned him about al qaeda, and then
had his goons twist arms at the CIA for a good reason to attack Iraq,
when they could not give Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, or Bush the
justification, they lied like a rug. Mind you, his dad trained Osama,
maybe that is the cause of his reluctance to actually kill him. But he
will actually kill Saddam, because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy, maybe
THAT is why will murdered thousands of Iraqis?
Now you and your cretinous buddies will not admit that the WMD issue was
crap, and that strangely, after a decade of economic sanctions and
having inspectors on the ground in Iraq for most of that period, the
Iraqis simply did not have either an arsenal of ABC weapons
OR the method to disperse them. George was wrong, and he knew he was
wrong-- where I come from it is called a lie.
Bill Clinton lied about a stained dress and we impeached him.
George Bush lied about a blood stained country and we are not going to
let it pass. Hell, just standing there and allowing the looting of the
Baghdad museum alone was unforgivable, and that was a minor tragedy
compared to what we have put Iraq through to satisfy Richard Perle's
dreams of Empire and Dick Cheney's dreams of avarice.
Because of those lies George Bush is unelectable.
Even with the astounding job he has done with our economy left out of
the picture, he is toast, and so is NeoConservatism... Would someone ask
Grover to turn the light out when he leaves the building?
The fountain of bile is going to dry up on American TV network news,
because everybody now knows how they helped push the lie that was the
Iraqi war.
It's ok Ed, you can keep listening to Rush on AM radio while our one
term wonder takes the whole PNAC wing of the Republican party down with
him. His coattails are attached to concrete overshoes.
Shadenfreude-- it is so sweet watching Bush and gang suffer.
I only regret that fixing this mess will be so painful, expensive, and long.
Randy N.
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan must be edykated coz e writed:
Another long post from Mr. Dolan with a lot of opinions and attacks, but
no facts or logical arguments. He is following his role models Coulter
and Limbaugh well. [1]
[1] Typical behavior for right-wing media pundits in the US.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
Tom Sherman
"Randy N." wrote a well reasoned and thoughtful post:
...but in vain, since Mr. Dolan merely wishes to either vent his anger
or be the newsgroup bully, and cares not for facts or reason.
Tom Sherman
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
it is foreign policy." - Anonymous
Carl
<tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
> Edward Dolan must be edykated coz e writed:
>
> Another long post from Mr. Dolan with a lot of opinions and attacks, but
> no facts or logical arguments. He is following his role models Coulter
> and Limbaugh well. [1]
So what? Just add him to your killfile and be done with it. I just
added the Ed vs Jim thread to mine, makes reading the group so much
more pleasant.
-Carl
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
.......
> > Yes, I will freely admit that I do have a mind set when it comes to
> > these treasonous liberals who would sell this country out; who would
> > cut and run from our enemies; and who are altogether despicable.
>
> AHH There is the fair and balanced discourse you were saying you prefer
> earlier. This is straight from the Ann Coulter playbook.
You should read her instead of spouting your liberal ideological
inanities. You might learn something.
> They
> > are the ones who are spewing hatred of our elected leaders and of our
> > country - and in a time of war too. I am fed up with it and I am going
> > to tell them exactly what I think of them when they foul the air with
> > their lies and slanders.
> >
>
> Rick Sanitarium, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanky, Bill Orally,
> Jeb Bush, Sam Brown Nose, and the list goes on into the distance of
> those who have Ann Coulterish sensibilities. The radical right displays
> little restraint, fairness, or civility.
We have taken a leaf from your playbook and will never again make the
mistake of giving any quarter in the interests of civility since
extremist liberals never have and never will. Turnabout is fair play.
It is all about hatred at first sight from now on. The days when the
Republicans were cast as the permanent minority party and the "loyal"
opposition are over forever. It is your turn to play that role now.
Try to learn how to be "loyal". Just because you can't get your way
anymore doesn't mean you have to act like a child.
> > I mean to fight hatred with hatred. That turning the other cheek crap
> > is for chumps.
>
> Then don't be surprised when you discover yourself in the middle of a
> civil war that your side is losing. There are more people that identify
> themselves as liberal, when you compare progressive platforms to
> neoconservatism.
Then why the hell is Bush President and why the hell do the
Republicans control both houses of Congress? You are nuts! What you
need to compare is not "progressive" with "neoconservative", but
liberal with conservative. Most Americans today are overwhelmingly
conservative, especially when it comes to national defense and
security issues. You liberals had better get your heads screwed on
straight or you are going to go the way of the dodo bird.
> > The Islamic extremists hate us and mean to kill us and
> > kill our country. And the treasonous liberals will not support the war
> > as it needs to be supported in order for us to prevail.
>
> There was very little support for the oil rape of Iraq before hand, and
> it settled down to a dubious grumble and dulsitory flag waving during.
You are an oil nut and will not be rational on the subject. Therefore
anything you write with the word "oil" in it is not worth the paper it
is written on and I certainly will not waste my time reading it or
responding to it.
> Now, in full debacle and mid-quagmire, with 5 billion a month going into
> Iraq, and precious little oil coming out, with a soldier killed
> everyday, Bush goes hat in hand to the UN begging for assistance.
> He also comes to middle class America and tells them they need to cough
> up 87Billion to stabilize Iraq. Tell me again how this was smarter than
> inspectors, Ed.
The inspectors were getting us nowhere. Maybe you like things to drag
on forever with no conclusion ever in sight except a worsening
situation for our side (the good guys) but most Americans like
decisive action before we all die of boredom or get blown up in a
nuclear bombing.
> Note the arrival of the clue bus. If WMD were our raison d'être for
> being there, we can leave, because we didn't find any.
>
> If Saddam was our reason, we can leave because, as you say, he is no
> longer in power.
>
> If liberating the Iraqi people was the reason, see above.
>
> Why aren't we leaving?
See Message 57 in thread Re: Is there a moderator here? where I answer
questions like this. We, of course, cannot just leave Iraq until the
job is done. But that is what you treasonous extremist liberals would
like us to do - to cut our losses and run. Another Mogadishu or Beirut
example to set before the world. No thanks! Been there, done that!
>
> The only reason we stay is the oil, which is the only real reason we
> went there in the first place, just as when we told Saddam in 91 that he
> could settle the border dispute with kuwait however he wanted to... and
> then invaded Iraq after rescuing another dictator in Kuwait.
>
> The whole game plan of this pirate crew was to steal the Middle East's
> oil and gut the last of the New Deal for fun and profit.
You are not rational on the oil question. You are a complete and utter
nut! However, you do make a good point on Bush I being out to lunch on
the Kuwait border question. We should have made plain to Saddam that
any invasion of Kuwait would be repulsed by the full might of our
military forces in no uncertain terms. Believe it or not, I was not a
great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
courage and imagination in dealing with our enemies that I don't
believe Bush I was capable of. Thank God a new generation comes along,
well ....every generation.
> This has as much to do with the average American's safety or well being
> as Bush's massive tax relief for the rich.
>
> Just how
> > stupid would you like me to get? There is nothing that the foreign
> > press can say about us that we cannot say about ourselves. And I sure
> > as hell do not want to listen to a lot of Brit and Euro crap on this
> > newsgroup about how this country is not down to their miserable low
> > standards. European diplomacy was the world's greatest failure in this
> > century just past. If they want to criticize, let them look inward.
> > For heaven's sake, they couldn't even take care of the Balkan mess
> > which was in their own back yard.
> >
>
> Ed, I think you would be hard pressed to sound more stupid than these
> comments. We spend a lot more for the military than most of the rest of
> the world combined, but we can't manage to pump Iraqi oil. I don't think
> we are in a great position to say that Europe made the wrong choice.
This guy has got oil on the brain. Instead of blathering about oil,
why don't you address my complaint that Europe couldn't even take care
of the Balkan mess, but that America had to solve it for them with our
military forces.
> Welcome to the Internet Ed. If you don't want to be a part of an
> International community, I recommend the Klan. It would actually be a
> favor to the non American audience, as well as the informed Americans if
> you confined yourself to Free Republic where the discourse is more to
> your liking.
Now you are just being stupid again! But I do say screw the UN all the
way to hell and back. We need them like we need an anthrax attack.
Those who put the safety and security of America and the Free World in
the hands of the UN are worse than fools; they are anti-American.
> In case you didn't actually pay attention, Old Europe showed up by the
> busload for Afghanistan, a place that only people who really love you
> would dress up like G.I. Jacques or Hans and march into. PS, they are
> still there in Afghanistan, and Ed Dolan is not... So quoting your hero
> Orally, I suggest you shut up.
Yes, that is all that Old Europe and the g.d. UN is good for these
days is picking up the pieces and humanitarian aid. Isn't that what I
have been saying all along? Glad you agree with me!
>
> >
> > There is such a thing as being too critical and being too submissive
> > to criticism. We need to defend ourselves and stand up for ourselves.
> > These other nations (and the treasonous liberals among us) do not have
> > our interests at heart. Far from it. France I no longer regard as an
> > erstwhile ally, but as a newly acquired enemy. They are not for us.
> > They are against us. We should have the brains to at least be against
> > them too. You are entirely too accommodating to criticism in this time
> > of national peril to suit me.
> Trust me Ed, you are not in danger of being too submissive to criticism.
> To be like that, you actually have to listen to it.
>
> The biggest peril, in this time of supposed national peril is G. W. Bush
> and his Oily Pirate Ship of State. The sooner his boys are in
> Leavenworth, the sooner we will be safe as a nation again.
Oilamania in full flower! What a nut! I am rolling on the floor with
laughter!
> George was the guy who told the FBI to stand down, the INS to stand
> down, did not listen to anyone who warned him about al qaeda, and then
> had his goons twist arms at the CIA for a good reason to attack Iraq,
> when they could not give Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, or Bush the
> justification, they lied like a rug. Mind you, his dad trained Osama,
> maybe that is the cause of his reluctance to actually kill him. But he
> will actually kill Saddam, because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy, maybe
> THAT is why will murdered thousands of Iraqis?
Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
and engaging in oral sex with a slut. And the Dems are always cutting
spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
finance welfare services for the undeserving poor. By the way, you
moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
are on.
> Now you and your cretinous buddies will not admit that the WMD issue was
> crap, and that strangely, after a decade of economic sanctions and
> having inspectors on the ground in Iraq for most of that period, the
> Iraqis simply did not have either an arsenal of ABC weapons
> OR the method to disperse them. George was wrong, and he knew he was
> wrong-- where I come from it is called a lie.\
Yep, they had them and everyone in the world knew they had them
including Clinton and the UN. But since we can't find them, they must
not have had them. Is that your logic? Not very persuasive if you ask
me, but I realize you are grinding an ax for a position and you could
care less about the truth. But what will happen to your argument if
and when we find the WMD? You will simply go on to some other equally
specious argument because you are against America having a forceful
and effective foreign policy, especially if it is being provided by
Bush and the Republicans. If the policy is successful it means almost
for sure that the Dems are going to lose the next election big time.
> Bill Clinton lied about a stained dress and we impeached him.
> George Bush lied about a blood stained country and we are not going to
> let it pass. Hell, just standing there and allowing the looting of the
> Baghdad museum alone was unforgivable, and that was a minor tragedy
> compared to what we have put Iraq through to satisfy Richard Perle's
> dreams of Empire and Dick Cheney's dreams of avarice.
Now you are being infantile! Apparently international politics is like
a Hollywood movie to you. You need to stop watching West Wing on TV.
> Because of those lies George Bush is unelectable.
> Even with the astounding job he has done with our economy left out of
> the picture, he is toast, and so is NeoConservatism... Would someone ask
> Grover to turn the light out when he leaves the building?
>
> The fountain of bile is going to dry up on American TV network news,
> because everybody now knows how they helped push the lie that was the
> Iraqi war.
> It's ok Ed, you can keep listening to Rush on AM radio while our one
> term wonder takes the whole PNAC wing of the Republican party down with
> him. His coattails are attached to concrete overshoes.
Yep, it is all about the big lie, and you and the other extremist
liberals are the ones telling it. The American people are going to see
through your lies and slanders and your Dem candidate, whoever he may
turn out to be (I hope it is Dean), will be soundly defeated a la
McGovern, another defeatist bastard from the far left who did not
deserve to be an American.
> Shadenfreude-- it is so sweet watching Bush and gang suffer.
> I only regret that fixing this mess will be so painful, expensive, and long.
He who laughs last laughs best! The Dems have never yet proved
themselves capable of fixing anything; they only make matters
infinitely worse. Johnson's Great Society is evidence of that if any
evidence is needed.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... Believe it or not, I was not a
> great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
The same courage he showed when his father arranged a cushy National
Guard slot so he could avoid going to Vietnam? Fighting wars is for the
lower classes, not those with inherited wealth.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
Tom Sherman
Think about how bad poor Mr. Dolan would feel if we did not give him
something to rave about.
Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers
Randy N.
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> You should read her instead of spouting your liberal ideological
> inanities. You might learn something.
Let me get this straight. You are supporting someone who defends Big Joe
McCarthy? How about Roy Cohn? Hell, her next book will no doubt cut to
the chase and praise Satan as a Great American Hero. Her books are a
slathering of hysterical raving, supported by a mountain of inaccurate
and essentially meaningless end notes. Does that kind of crap impress
you? (better start footnoting then)
>
> It is all about hatred at first sight from now on. The days when the
> Republicans were cast as the permanent minority party and the "loyal"
> opposition are over forever. It is your turn to play that role now.
> Try to learn how to be "loyal". Just because you can't get your way
> anymore doesn't mean you have to act like a child.
>
>
The Republicans were not 'cast' as the loyal opposition, they earned
that title in 1931.
As loyal as Newt?
Ok. Sounds good to me. I spent over 20 years of my life teaching people
how to kill other people for fun. I could be a lot more effective as the
'loyal opposition' thing than that pansy ass Tom DeLay.
You obviously forgot about the impeachment, Ed, I didn't.
>
>
> Then why the hell is Bush President and why the hell do the
> Republicans control both houses of Congress? You are nuts! What you
> need to compare is not "progressive" with "neoconservative", but
> liberal with conservative. Most Americans today are overwhelmingly
> conservative, especially when it comes to national defense and
> security issues. You liberals had better get your heads screwed on
> straight or you are going to go the way of the dodo bird.
>
Uhh, Florida and Choicepoint voter scrubbing clearly show the answer.
I will take 'FRAUD' for 100 dollars, Alex.
>
>
> You are an oil nut and will not be rational on the subject. Therefore
> anything you write with the word "oil" in it is not worth the paper it
> is written on and I certainly will not waste my time reading it or
> responding to it.
>
I am nearly car free and disabled, I hardly qualify as an oil nut. That
would be someone who is willing to violate 200+ years of official
American policy on aggression for a bit more... you guessed it, OIL.
That would be someone sitting in the middle of rush hour in a HumVee, I
believe his name is J.F. Scott, now that I think of it.
>
>
> The inspectors were getting us nowhere. Maybe you like things to drag
> on forever with no conclusion ever in sight except a worsening
> situation for our side (the good guys) but most Americans like
> decisive action before we all die of boredom or get blown up in a
> nuclear bombing.
>
>
1. Boredom is not a legit cause for unilateral invasion.
2. The only people poised to nuke us that I can see are the North
Koreans, to whom Bush is showing a fist of Jello(tm).
3. Re dragging things on forever... See George Kennan, AKA 'X'.
( I am including the link on the very slim chance you do not know who
actually brought down the Soviet Union)
His solution to drag out the cold war via containment until Moscow
froze over saved the planet. It was a smart plan, adopted by Harry
Truman (the only American president to nuke an enemy of the US), far
smarter than Bush I or II's ineptitude, greed, and duplicity strategy.
>
> See Message 57 in thread Re: Is there a moderator here? where I answer
> questions like this. We, of course, cannot just leave Iraq until the
> job is done. But that is what you treasonous extremist liberals would
> like us to do - to cut our losses and run. Another Mogadishu or Beirut
> example to set before the world. No thanks! Been there, done that!
>
Define Job, define Done. The job will take about 40 years (ok, a lot
more than that at the rate we are pumping it right now). At 4.6 Billion
a month to keep most of the oil in the pipeline, this looks a bit like a
pyrric victory.
>
> You are not rational on the oil question. You are a complete and utter
> nut! However, you do make a good point on Bush I being out to lunch on
> the Kuwait border question. We should have made plain to Saddam that
> any invasion of Kuwait would be repulsed by the full might of our
> military forces in no uncertain terms. Believe it or not, I was not a
> great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
> courage and imagination in dealing with our enemies that I don't
> believe Bush I was capable of. Thank God a new generation comes along,
> well ....every generation.
>
>
I have written internal white papers on IT business strategies regarding
automation and the international energy market. There is the slight
possiblity I possess a bit more knowledge than you on this subject.
I am not tranquil on the subject of oil. Do not mistake deeper
understanding for insanity. Insanity is our current soi disant energy
policy. As for my sanity, I think I am still functional, thanks.
>
> This guy has got oil on the brain. Instead of blathering about oil,
> why don't you address my complaint that Europe couldn't even take care
> of the Balkan mess, but that America had to solve it for them with our
> military forces.
Who is he talking too? Please address me in the first person.
('There he goes again'...R. Reagan AKA Roger Ailes)
>
>
> Now you are just being stupid again! But I do say screw the UN all the
> way to hell and back. We need them like we need an anthrax attack.
> Those who put the safety and security of America and the Free World in
> the hands of the UN are worse than fools; they are anti-American.
>
Damn, and I was trying for equally offensive. Speaking of Anthrax...
Have we caught:
Osama
Saddam
or the Anthrax Killer?
After two years looking for the former and latter-most, what does our
AWOL Jet Pilot leader have to say for himself?
I think George couldn't catch a cold sitting in a tub of ice water, but
that's just one liberal's opinion... Ok, I guess it is more than one
liberal's opinion.
>
>
> Yes, that is all that Old Europe and the g.d. UN is good for these
> days is picking up the pieces and humanitarian aid. Isn't that what I
> have been saying all along? Glad you agree with me!
>
That was a comment worthy of Rush himself, as was so aptly proven by Al
Franken in his masterpeice of satire, 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.'
>
>
> Oilamania in full flower! What a nut! I am rolling on the floor with
> laughter!
>
>
I suspect you will feel differently in Nov, 2004.
Actually, before that, when American oil prices hit European parity.
>
> Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
> was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
> if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
> and engaging in oral sex with a slut. And the Dems are always cutting
> spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
> finance welfare services for the undeserving poor. By the way, you
> moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
> medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
> Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
> are on.
>
Killing in a military action can indeed be murder (another link for the
seriously devoid of clue)
http://www.google.com/search?q=War+crimes++trial&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0
Today, Bill Clinton was cheered in the streets of Kosovo as a hero. The
entire city took a holiday to see him speak, lining the sidewalks of
*Bill Clinton Avenue* to applaud his saving of Kosovo from the Serbians.
I am trying to imagine 5 years from now, G.W. Bush in Baghdad among
cheering crowds without the presence of a big guy with an axe and a
large block of wood.
>
>
> Yep, they had them and everyone in the world knew they had them
> including Clinton and the UN. But since we can't find them, they must
> not have had them. Is that your logic? Not very persuasive if you ask
> me, but I realize you are grinding an ax for a position and you could
> care less about the truth. But what will happen to your argument if
> and when we find the WMD? You will simply go on to some other equally
> specious argument because you are against America having a forceful
> and effective foreign policy, especially if it is being provided by
> Bush and the Republicans. If the policy is successful it means almost
> for sure that the Dems are going to lose the next election big time.
>
>
Actually, Clinton got his information from *gasp* Richard Perle.
The UN, in the person of their chief inspector Hans Blix thought Bush
was full of it. And you don't ever want to see me with an axe.
If find WMD in Iraq, I will write a letter of thanks to the CIA for
getting America out of the big wringer Bush stuck our privates into.
If the Republicans win the election big time, I will personally burn
Diebold to the ground. There is exactly one way Bush can win an actual
election by next fall... Cheat again. See Choicepoint, FLA.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1
>
>
> Now you are being infantile! Apparently international politics is like
> a Hollywood movie to you. You need to stop watching West Wing on TV.
>
Thanks for reminding me.. I have gotta check it out one of these days.\
No, international politics is like ... diplomacy, economics, and T&T
(Treaties and Tariffs).
For you, it seems to be an endless re-run of John Wayne movies.
>
> Yep, it is all about the big lie, and you and the other extremist
> liberals are the ones telling it. The American people are going to see
> through your lies and slanders and your Dem candidate, whoever he may
> turn out to be (I hope it is Dean), will be soundly defeated a la
> McGovern, another defeatist bastard from the far left who did not
> deserve to be an American.
Actually, I hope it is Kucinich, because when your boy gets handed his
ass by Dennis, it will be like a stake through... where his heart would
normally be on a higher primate...
>
> He who laughs last laughs best! The Dems have never yet proved
> themselves capable of fixing anything; they only make matters
> infinitely worse. Johnson's Great Society is evidence of that if any
> evidence is needed.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Well, Clinton balanced the budget a wee bit better than either Bush.
Yeah, that commie training ground headstart is better off dead.
And that damned Medicare, that was a Stalinist nightmare if ever I saw
one. And even SCOTUS is full of Reds and Traitors... I MENA[1] first it
was Affirmative Action, and now those filthy sodomites (it even *sounds*
like Saddam)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chaos, that's what it was... All them coloreds got to vote, and them
hippies and their damn free love. The yellow peril, and the red menace,
the Islamic terrorists, and the Killer D's -- Damn, why can't we have
our PATRIOT II act now, mistah Ashcroft suh?
Randy, who knows his place and is a good 'Murikan boy now.
1. --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/walsh_gets_evidence.html
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan must be edykated coz e writed:
And Tom Sherman must be an idiot because he can't spell.
> Another long post from Mr. Dolan with a lot of opinions and attacks, but
> no facts or logical arguments. He is following his role models Coulter
> and Limbaugh well. [1]
>
> [1] Typical behavior for right-wing media pundits in the US.
>
> Tom Sherman - Vive la France
I see the nanny of ARBR is back at work again trying to keep ARBR in
his image of what a newsgroup ought to be. He is even copying Ian's
idiotic header just to annoy me. And of course he likes the g.d.
French and what they did to us. His post speaks for itself and hardly
calls for any comment from me - and so I won't, other than to say the
polemicist I admire the most is David Horowitz. Look him up sometime
on his Front Page Magazine. Even you might get educated.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> In article <3F6B9E3D...@qconline.com>, Tom Sherman
> <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
> > Edward Dilan must be educated Cox e writed:
Carl, are you edykated too?
> > Another long post from Mr. Dolan with a lot of opinions and attacks, but
> > no facts or logical arguments. He is following his role models Coulter
> > and Limbaugh well. [1]
>
> So what? Just add him to your killfile and be done with it. I just
> added the Ed vs Jim thread to mine, makes reading the group so much
> more pleasant.
>
> -Carl
Carl, we hardly knew ye! But as for Tom Sherman kill filing me, get
real! That is the last thing in the world he will ever do. If it
weren't for me he would just be preaching to the choir and putting
them all to sleep. Even a braying jackass like him needs to know
someone is reading him and responding, if only in disagreement. No, we
are locked in a dance of death and all you Carls will not rip us
asunder.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> In article <3F6B9E3D...@qconline.com>, Tom Sherman
> <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
>
> > Edward Dilan must be educated Cox e writed:
Carl, are you edykated too?
> > Another long post from Mr. Dolan with a lot of opinions and attacks, but
> > no facts or logical arguments. He is following his role models Coulter
> > and Limbaugh well. [1]
>
> So what? Just add him to your killfile and be done with it. I just
> added the Ed vs Jim thread to mine, makes reading the group so much
> more pleasant.
>
> -Carl
Carl, we hardly knew ye! But as for Tom Sherman kill filing me, get
Edward Dolan
As everyone can now so plainly see it is Mr. Sherman who is ruining
this newsgroup with all his insane posting. How many subject threads
do we need to keep track of what the liberal idiots are saying? One
thread on the subject is more than enough. Either that or I have got
him so rattled that he no longer knows how to post. I suggest that he
slows down and recollect his wits if he hasn't permanently misplaced
them.
Of course Mr. Sherman thinks anyone who agrees with him is "reasoned
and thoughtful". What a laugh that is. As far as I can see it is just
one idiot agreeing with another idiot. The only thing one has to know
about these liberal extremist idiots is that they hate Bush, they hate
America and, at bottom, they hate democracy itself. They fancy
themselves an elite who would like to rule over everyone because they
know best what is good for us. Since they can no longer win at the
ballot box, they have resorted to liberal judges to get their way.
They are despicable and worthy of our utmost contempt.
Anyone who wants to argue with them on substance is a fool. Hence, Mr.
Sherman's steady bleating about "facts" and "evidence" (see Randy N's
post with it's obsessive ranting about oil which Mr. Sherman finds
"reasoned and thoughtful"). The truth is that the universe is full of
facts and evidence and what we pick and choose to highlight is going
to determine what we are going to think about something. The liberal
extremists are incapable of picking and choosing the correct facts
(like Randy N with his going on and on about oil) and so it is nothing
but an exercise in futility. And please, do not even use that word
"reason" within my earshot in connection with them. The liberal
extremists left reason behind ages ago and are now more or less insane
(bereft of reason). The proof of this is that they like Dean as their
man for 2004. I rest my case!
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> As everyone can now so plainly see it is Mr. Sherman who is ruining
Quote from a real person I met (who shall remain anonymous):
"I am a conservative, and I kill filed Ed Dolan." Enough said.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ... Believe it or not, I was not a
> > great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
> > courage and imagination in dealing with our enemies....
>
> The same courage he showed when his father arranged a cushy National
> Guard slot so he could avoid going to Vietnam? Fighting wars is for the
> lower classes, not those with inherited wealth.
Fighting wars is for those who freely enlist in our all volunteer
military forces, the greatest bequest ever of the Nixon
administration. As a result of his genius we now have a military
second to none, one that can cut through the vaunted Iraqi Republican
Guard like a hot knife through butter. It is all that is standing
between us and our enemies. The question is not whether a president
was ever in the military but whether or not he knows how to use the
military. Even Clinton wasn't bad in this respect, but Bush II is a
genius. What the Dems fear most in this world is a successful
Republican war president; it makes it just that much harder for them
to win elections.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> Carl <ca...@sick.of.spam> wrote in message news:<190920032153437559%ca...@sick.of.spam>...
>
> > In article <3F6B9E3D...@qconline.com>, Tom Sherman
> > <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Edward Dilan must be educated Cox e writed:
Now Mr. Dolan is deliberately misquoting me - not something an honest
person would do.
> ... Carl, we hardly knew ye!...
I met Carl this spring. I asked him about the seat on his bike [1], and
did not mention politics at all.
[1] Since it was evident the seat was not stock.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
Tom Sherman
Ian wrote:
>
> Tom, have you plagiarised my intro?
Only for Mr. Dolan, since it makes him feel warm and fuzzy. ;)
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... What the Dems fear most in this world is a successful
> Republican war president; it makes it just that much harder for them
> to win elections.
It is hard to win elections, when the electronic voting machines are
owned by Republican supports, and the public is not allow to verify the
function of the machines. There is the potential for the 2004 US
elections to be as farcical as the one where Saddam Hussein was
"re-elected" with 99% of the vote.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> >
> > You should read her instead of spouting your liberal ideological
> > inanities. You might learn something.
>
> Let me get this straight. You are supporting someone who defends Big Joe
> McCarthy? How about Roy Cohn? Hell, her next book will no doubt cut to
> the chase and praise Satan as a Great American Hero. Her books are a
> slathering of hysterical raving, supported by a mountain of inaccurate
> and essentially meaningless end notes. Does that kind of crap impress
> you? (better start footnoting then)
Ann Coulter knows how to write so as to entertain as well as to
inform, something that most liberal writers have forgotten how to do.
If you have not read Whittaker Chambers then I do not care to discuss
McCarthy with you as you will be hopelessly ignorant on the subject.
You can read your asshole supreme, Al Franken, and I will stick to Ann
Coulter.
> > It is all about hatred at first sight from now on. The days when the
> > Republicans were cast as the permanent minority party and the "loyal"
> > opposition are over forever. It is your turn to play that role now.
> > Try to learn how to be "loyal". Just because you can't get your way
> > anymore doesn't mean you have to act like a child.
> >
> >
> The Republicans were not 'cast' as the loyal opposition, they earned
> that title in 1931.
>
> As loyal as Newt?
> Ok. Sounds good to me. I spent over 20 years of my life teaching people
> how to kill other people for fun. I could be a lot more effective as the
> 'loyal opposition' thing than that pansy ass Tom DeLay.
> You obviously forgot about the impeachment, Ed, I didn't.
No, by the time Gingrich came on the scene the Republicans had
undergone a metamorphosis and were no longer the same party that had
acquiesced as a permanent minority from the years after WWII to almost
the present. Yes, we had Republican presidents, but both houses of
Congress were always in control of the Democrats. They grew fat and
arrogant because of that. Gingrich marked the beginning of the change.
> > Then why the hell is Bush President and why the hell do the
> > Republicans control both houses of Congress? You are nuts! What you
> > need to compare is not "progressive" with "neoconservative", but
> > liberal with conservative. Most Americans today are overwhelmingly
> > conservative, especially when it comes to national defense and
> > security issues. You liberals had better get your heads screwed on
> > straight or you are going to go the way of the dodo bird.
> >
>
> Uhh, Florida and Choicepoint voter scrubbing clearly show the answer.
> I will take 'FRAUD' for 100 dollars, Alex.
You are simply wrong on your facts. Bush won fair and square.
> > You are an oil nut and will not be rational on the subject. Therefore
> > anything you write with the word "oil" in it is not worth the paper it
> > is written on and I certainly will not waste my time reading it or
> > responding to it.
> >
> I am nearly car free and disabled, I hardly qualify as an oil nut. That
> would be someone who is willing to violate 200+ years of official
> American policy on aggression for a bit more... you guessed it, OIL.
> That would be someone sitting in the middle of rush hour in a HumVee, I
> believe his name is J.F. Scott, now that I think of it.
It is irrelevant whether you drive a car or not. The nature of warfare
has changed irrevocably with the advent of nuclear weapons that rogue
states and terrorist groups are on the point of acquiring. Preemptive
wars become absolutely necessary unless you enjoy the prospect of
responding after several million Americans have been killed as a
result of an atom bomb being detonated in the homeland. The Monroe
doctrine is as dead as a door nail. This is the 21st century in case
you haven't noticed.
> > The inspectors were getting us nowhere. Maybe you like things to drag
> > on forever with no conclusion ever in sight except a worsening
> > situation for our side (the good guys) but most Americans like
> > decisive action before we all die of boredom or get blown up in a
> > nuclear bombing.
> >
> >
>
> 1. Boredom is not a legit cause for unilateral invasion.
>
> 2. The only people poised to nuke us that I can see are the North
> Koreans, to whom Bush is showing a fist of Jello(tm).
>
> 3. Re dragging things on forever... See George Kennan, AKA 'X'.
> ( I am including the link on the very slim chance you do not know who
> actually brought down the Soviet Union)
> His solution to drag out the cold war via containment until Moscow
> froze over saved the planet. It was a smart plan, adopted by Harry
> Truman (the only American president to nuke an enemy of the US), far
> smarter than Bush I or II's ineptitude, greed, and duplicity strategy.
Reagan had everything to do with bringing down the Soviet Union.
Kennan's policy of containment was morphing into a policy of
appeasement under the Democrats after Johnson. Carter was a disgrace
to the Presidency. In any event, the Soviets were relatively sane
compared to the Islamic fanatics. The Islamic extremists cannot be
contained. They proved that on 9/11.
> > See Message 57 in thread Re: Is there a moderator here? where I answer
> > questions like this. We, of course, cannot just leave Iraq until the
> > job is done. But that is what you treasonous extremist liberals would
> > like us to do - to cut our losses and run. Another Mogadishu or Beirut
> > example to set before the world. No thanks! Been there, done that!
> >
>
> Define Job, define Done. The job will take about 40 years (ok, a lot
> more than that at the rate we are pumping it right now). At 4.6 Billion
> a month to keep most of the oil in the pipeline, this looks a bit like a
> pyrric victory.
We need to stay in Iraq however long it takes. The payoff will be
enormous if and when a more or less democratic society is established
there. It will be the first one in the Arab World and will have
enormous repercussions.
> > You are not rational on the oil question. You are a complete and utter
> > nut! However, you do make a good point on Bush I being out to lunch on
> > the Kuwait border question. We should have made plain to Saddam that
> > any invasion of Kuwait would be repulsed by the full might of our
> > military forces in no uncertain terms. Believe it or not, I was not a
> > great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
> > courage and imagination in dealing with our enemies that I don't
> > believe Bush I was capable of. Thank God a new generation comes along,
> > well ....every generation.
> >
> >
>
> I have written internal white papers on IT business strategies regarding
> automation and the international energy market. There is the slight
> possibility I possess a bit more knowledge than you on this subject.
> I am not tranquil on the subject of oil. Do not mistake deeper
> understanding for insanity. Insanity is our current soi disant energy
> policy. As for my sanity, I think I am still functional, thanks.
The Iraqi War was not about oil no matter how much you know about oil
and the energy market. If you persist in thinking it was then you
will never understand why we are in Iraq.
> > This guy has got oil on the brain. Instead of blathering about oil,
> > why don't you address my complaint that Europe couldn't even take care
> > of the Balkan mess, but that America had to solve it for them with our
> > military forces.
>
> Who is he talking too? Please address me in the first person.
> ('There he goes again'...R. Reagan AKA Roger Ailes)
No, when I am writing on this forum I am addressing any and all
readers, not just the person I am responding to. You write in the
style to which you are accustomed and I will write the way I want to.
Otherwise, we should just be doing emails. What a horrible prospect
that would be!
> > Now you are just being stupid again! But I do say screw the UN all the
> > way to hell and back. We need them like we need an anthrax attack.
> > Those who put the safety and security of America and the Free World in
> > the hands of the UN are worse than fools; they are anti-American.
> >
>
> Damn, and I was trying for equally offensive. Speaking of Anthrax...
> Have we caught:
> Osama
> Saddam
> or the Anthrax Killer?
>
> After two years looking for the former and latter-most, what does our
> AWOL Jet Pilot leader have to say for himself?
>
> I think George couldn't catch a cold sitting in a tub of ice water, but
> that's just one liberal's opinion... Ok, I guess it is more than one
> liberal's opinion.
>
> > Yes, that is all that Old Europe and the g.d. UN is good for these
> > days is picking up the pieces and humanitarian aid. Isn't that what I
> > have been saying all along? Glad you agree with me!
> That was a comment worthy of Rush himself, as was so aptly proven by Al
> Franken in his masterpeice of satire, 'Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.'
The faith that liberals put in the UN to solve problems is pitiful and
pathetic. It would be hilarious if it didn't occasionally have such
serious consequences. By the way, what did you think of Al Franken's
face off with O'Reilly on C-Span awhile back. I learned that it is
impossible for Franken to make a fool of himself because he defines
the very word "fool". If you are taking him seriously then you are a
lost soul.
> > Oilamania in full flower! What a nut! I am rolling on the floor with
> > laughter!
> >
> >
> I suspect you will feel differently in Nov, 2004.
> Actually, before that, when American oil prices hit European parity.
The only reason European oil prices are as high as they are is because
of added taxes for social welfare benefits. Do you think we are going
to do that?
> >
> > Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
> > was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
> > if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
> > and engaging in oral sex with a slut. And the Dems are always cutting
> > spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
> > finance welfare services for the undeserving poor. By the way, you
> > moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
> > medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
> > Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
> > are on.
> >
>
> Killing in a military action can indeed be murder (another link for the
> seriously devoid of clue)
> http://www.google.com/search?q=War+crimes++trial&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0
>
> Today, Bill Clinton was cheered in the streets of Kosovo as a hero. The
> entire city took a holiday to see him speak, lining the sidewalks of
> *Bill Clinton Avenue* to applaud his saving of Kosovo from the Serbians.
> I am trying to imagine 5 years from now, G.W. Bush in Baghdad among
> cheering crowds without the presence of a big guy with an axe and a
> large block of wood.
I was very much in favor of our intervention in the Balkan mess since
the Europeans were derelict as always. I give Clinton a lot of credit
for taking action when many others wanted to look the other way. Bush
will be similarly cheered when the Iraqi War is over and we have
established a democratic and prosperous Iraq. You are a defeatist when
there is no reason to be a defeatist. We are going to win and we are
going to prevail. If you could stop hating Bush for a few moments you
would see that clearly.
> > Yep, they had them and everyone in the world knew they had them
> > including Clinton and the UN. But since we can't find them, they must
> > not have had them. Is that your logic? Not very persuasive if you ask
> > me, but I realize you are grinding an ax for a position and you could
> > care less about the truth. But what will happen to your argument if
> > and when we find the WMD? You will simply go on to some other equally
> > specious argument because you are against America having a forceful
> > and effective foreign policy, especially if it is being provided by
> > Bush and the Republicans. If the policy is successful it means almost
> > for sure that the Dems are going to lose the next election big time.
> >
> >
> Actually, Clinton got his information from *gasp* Richard Perle.
> The UN, in the person of their chief inspector Hans Blix thought Bush
> was full of it. And you don't ever want to see me with an axe.
Blix couldn't find his own ass. He had plenty of time as did the UN to
bring Saddam to heel, and it just never happened. Perle by the way is
a deep strategic thinker and it is people like him that is keeping
America safe and secure from our enemies.
> If find WMD in Iraq, I will write a letter of thanks to the CIA for
> getting America out of the big wringer Bush stuck our privates into.
It is your head that needs to be wrung through a wringer.
> If the Republicans win the election big time, I will personally burn
> Diebold to the ground. There is exactly one way Bush can win an actual
> election by next fall... Cheat again. See Choicepoint, FLA.
> http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1
I would never even think about going to any reference of yours. Would
you ever go to any reference of mine? Of course not. You won't even
read Ann Coulter. But you will read a jackass like Franken. Go figure.
> > Now you are being infantile! Apparently international politics is like
> > a Hollywood movie to you. You need to stop watching West Wing on TV.
> >
> Thanks for reminding me.. I have gotta check it out one of these days.\
> No, international politics is like ... diplomacy, economics, and T&T
> (Treaties and Tariffs).
>
> For you, it seems to be an endless re-run of John Wayne movies.
Hey! Better John Wayne than Martin Sheen!
> > Yep, it is all about the big lie, and you and the other extremist
> > liberals are the ones telling it. The American people are going to see
> > through your lies and slanders and your Dem candidate, whoever he may
> > turn out to be (I hope it is Dean), will be soundly defeated a la
> > McGovern, another defeatist bastard from the far left who did not
> > deserve to be an American.
>
> Actually, I hope it is Kucinich, because when your boy gets handed his
> ass by Dennis, it will be like a stake through... where his heart would
> normally be on a higher primate...
God! Eureka! Some freak who likes Kucinich! Why am I even writing to
this guy?
> > He who laughs last laughs best! The Dems have never yet proved
> > themselves capable of fixing anything; they only make matters
> > infinitely worse. Johnson's Great Society is evidence of that if any
> > evidence is needed.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
> Well, Clinton balanced the budget a wee bit better than either Bush.
Yes, and I liked and respected Clinton a lot for that too (besides his
intervention in the Balkans), but I wonder if Clinton would have been
able to balance the budget without a Republican Congress to help.
Interesting question don't you think? I am hearing economists now who
say that balancing the budget is not important, but I am like Arnold
that way. I am a fiscal conservative. I think it is possible the
entire country could end up like California, a state that the Dems
have spent into the poor house.
> Yeah, that commie training ground headstart is better off dead.
> And that damned Medicare, that was a Stalinist nightmare if ever I saw
> one. And even SCOTUS is full of Reds and Traitors... I MENA[1] first it
> was Affirmative Action, and now those filthy sodomites (it even *sounds*
> like Saddam)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Chaos, that's what it was... All them coloreds got to vote, and them
> hippies and their damn free love. The yellow peril, and the red menace,
> the Islamic terrorists, and the Killer D's -- Damn, why can't we have
> our PATRIOT II act now, mistah Ashcroft suh?
I could argue everyone of your incoherences above, but you are not
rational. More importantly, you are not even focused. I won't kill
file you but you may get my standard response in the future unless you
become more intelligible. You could take a few lessons from Mr.
Sherman in how not to ramble. In any event I do not have unlimited
time and energy to engage in nonsense.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
At least now we know how Mr. Sherman got to be the most prolific
poster on this newsgroup. His posts generally run only a few
sentences. His post here is only one sentence. He has so little to say
but has got to say it anyway. I think if I had so little to say I
would just not say it. But that's me and not him. I think he must be
trolling for our sympathies. But Mr. Sherman knows how to curry favor
with others on this newsgroup. I would not stoop that low myself, but
like I said, that's me and not him.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
DH
September 19, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's
Threat to the U.S.
The Bush administration this week backed away from three major
rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its
assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United
States and its allies.
September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the
question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just
don't know."1 But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any
connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that
Hussein was involved.2 Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen
any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."3
Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks
garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the
widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's
security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the
CIA not to be credible.4
'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days
before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was
that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
weapons."5 But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks
before that , "There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."6
And six months later on Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."7
Weapons of Mass Destruction
This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S.
knew where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why
the weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do
you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."8 Yet
months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where
they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,
south and north somewhat."9
Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the
Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Pace, 9/16/03,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030916-secdef0682.html
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1.
5. Meet the Press, NBC, 3/16/03.
6. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update, 3/7/03,
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
7. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
8. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Pace, 9/16/03,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030916-secdef0682.html
9. This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC, 3/30/03.
Ian
Randy N.
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<%1Sab.432$Ns3.61...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>
> Ann Coulter knows how to write so as to entertain as well as to
> inform, something that most liberal writers have forgotten how to do.
> If you have not read Whittaker Chambers then I do not care to discuss
> McCarthy with you as you will be hopelessly ignorant on the subject.
> You can read your asshole supreme, Al Franken, and I will stick to Ann
> Coulter.
Whittiker Chambers was a 'reformed' communist lacky whose contribution
to America was his ability to hide microfilm in a pumpkin, successfully
throwing off the CIA. He also remained a Soviet Spy throughout his career.
And he was no where near as funny as Al Franken.
So let me get this straight, you call *me* a traitor?
>
>
> No, by the time Gingrich came on the scene the Republicans had
> undergone a metamorphosis and were no longer the same party that had
> acquiesced as a permanent minority from the years after WWII to almost
> the present. Yes, we had Republican presidents, but both houses of
> Congress were always in control of the Democrats. They grew fat and
> arrogant because of that. Gingrich marked the beginning of the change.
>
>
They had indeed become a new party, well ok, an old party.
But hey, their ideological forebearers gave us a lot of good things, the
1936 olympics and the Graf Zepplin, for example.
As for arrogance, no one beats uncurious George.
>
> You are simply wrong on your facts. Bush won fair and square.
>
Was his Florida margin higher than 90 thousand? That is the number of
mostly democratic voters Jeb's favorite company, Choicepoint incorrectly
scrubbed from the voter list. 2000 was a debacle that will go down as a
smelly stain on the history of American representitive govt. It is a
sign of your deep indoctrination that you cannot allow yourself to see that.
By the way, your endless, arrogant, purile, ad hominum attacks also
do not do your more sincere attempts at arguments much good.
>
>
> It is irrelevant whether you drive a car or not. The nature of warfare
> has changed irrevocably with the advent of nuclear weapons that rogue
> states and terrorist groups are on the point of acquiring. Preemptive
> wars become absolutely necessary unless you enjoy the prospect of
> responding after several million Americans have been killed as a
> result of an atom bomb being detonated in the homeland. The Monroe
> doctrine is as dead as a door nail. This is the 21st century in case
> you haven't noticed.
>
So we abandon all hope of stopping them short of one long unilateral
campaign of succesive invasions to rid the world of terror? You cannot
rid the world of terror, no more than you can rid it of joy, anger, the
tooth fairy, or any other abstract construct, fool.
What we can do is try to justify a naked campaign of Empire building and
quasi theocratic genocide. Some bleeding liberal with a funny robe once
said something about an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.
You cannot invade your way to security or prosperity any more than you
can fornicate your way to virginity. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it,
the Romans managed it with Carthage, but failed with trans alpine gaul.
Your lack of historical perspective is shocking, but it is a symptom of
the idiocy you have grasped onto to justify why America has been
surpassed by tiny 'old European' countries in terms of the quality of
life of the average citizen. It should be no concern of yours, not being
an average citizen.
How is it that you consider our superiority as equivalent to the size of
our military? We are going to be sunk by the rest of the world's
economies without them (or us) ever firing a shot.
>
>
> Reagan had everything to do with bringing down the Soviet Union.
> Kennan's policy of containment was morphing into a policy of
> appeasement under the Democrats after Johnson. Carter was a disgrace
> to the Presidency. In any event, the Soviets were relatively sane
> compared to the Islamic fanatics. The Islamic extremists cannot be
> contained. They proved that on 9/11.
>
The Soviet Union collapsed of its own fraud, corruption and inertia,
much like Enron. Reagan's star wars and his 600 ship navy were an
expensive and foolish mistake. And when Clinton's armed forces took down
Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Star Wars or the size of our navy was not
an issue. It was far more than needed. What we don't have is enough
grunts on the ground, as the occupation of Iraq, and our current
pleading to the irrelevant U.N. plainly shows.
Bush wants America to use theatre nukes for fun and profit.
Once that genie is let out of the bottle, everyone will be developing
tiny nukes. So why are they wanting to re-introduce the shibboleth of
SDI? What we really will be needing is an anti rental car initiative,
cause if a nuke is popped on American soil, that will be the delivery
method.
Bush has made the world a lot less stable. If I doused you with
gasoline, tied you to a post, and invited people to throw lit matches at
you, I think no one would have a difficult time deciding I was guilty of
murder. Likewise, Bush will be seen by historians as a shallow,
sinister, and ultimately tragic puppet of short sighted corporatism.
>
> We need to stay in Iraq however long it takes. The payoff will be
> enormous if and when a more or less democratic society is established
> there. It will be the first one in the Arab World and will have
> enormous repercussions.
Assuming that Diebold and ESS are allowed to go forward, I suspect that
we will be in Iraq for about 2 years more. Then we will have to leave
most of the region, OR we will be there for 20, and destroy the Economy
so thouroughly that we can no longer invade or defend, just like the
Soviet Union. You and I are too old to be drafted, but in 2005 when Bush
is having to reinstate the draft (because no teenager or adult reservist
in their right mind is signing up anymore) you will see fighting in the
streets right here in 'Murika. Of course, the Gitmo death chambers will
be smokin by then.
>
>
> The Iraqi War was not about oil no matter how much you know about oil
> and the energy market. If you persist in thinking it was then you
> will never understand why we are in Iraq.
>
According to Bush it was about B-C weapons delivered by model airplanes,
no, wait, it was about Yellowcake and Niger, no he really meant
liberating Iraqis... which we did by disbanding their police and
declaring a five finger discount zone.
>
> No, when I am writing on this forum I am addressing any and all
> readers, not just the person I am responding to. You write in the
> style to which you are accustomed and I will write the way I want to.
> Otherwise, we should just be doing emails. What a horrible prospect
> that would be!
Eh bien, j'ai desir a utiliser un langue des une nation democratique.
Mais, je pense que tres peu de les types dans cette list parle la belle
langue. Alors.
>
>
>
> The faith that liberals put in the UN to solve problems is pitiful and
> pathetic. It would be hilarious if it didn't occasionally have such
> serious consequences.
Like the eradication of Smallpox, for example?
By the way, what did you think of Al Franken's
> face off with O'Reilly on C-Span awhile back. I learned that it is
> impossible for Franken to make a fool of himself because he defines
> the very word "fool". If you are taking him seriously then you are a
> lost soul.
I loved watching OReilly make an utter fool of himself.
But of course, he can go home to his two Peabody awards and console
himself...
He did more to hurt faux news than even Franken could have.
I like the judge's comment on dismissing the case-- "wholly without merit."
I think that should be Fox News' new slug.
And unlike Ann Coulter, Al Franken is a *deliberate* satirist.
>
>
> The only reason European oil prices are as high as they are is because
> of added taxes for social welfare benefits. Do you think we are going
> to do that?
>
>
Actually, you do pay fairly close to that right now, it is just that the
price of new chip and seal (called maintainence with an unusual humor
for DOT), highway building, and the policy that holds the price down at
the pump gets folded into local sales, income and property taxes.
But soon the gas tax will be reflecting the 87B and the 5B/month for
George's folly. So by next year this time, gas will be 3.50 a gallon at
the very least. I predict more like 4.20/gal.
>>>Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
>>>was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
>>>if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
>>>and engaging in oral sex with a slut.
ahh, more of the famous Ed Dolan fair and balanced approach.
We won decisively in three major theatres with Clinton's pansey-boy
military. I bet that galls like hell. What our military cannot do is
hold territory for the long haul, which is exactly what Bush is now
saying will be happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon probably Saudi
Arabia.
When this happens, be a Real Patriot(tm) and go sign up for a hitch, or
sign your kids up. That way it will not primarily be Hispanic and
African American boyz getting killed, like Vietnam.
And the Dems are always cutting
>>>spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
>>>finance welfare services for the undeserving poor.
The undeserving poor --- that says it all, I guess.
By the way, you
>>>moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
>>>medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
>>>Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
>>>are on.
>>>
>>
Somehow, coming from you, the term moron has very little sting.
>
> I was very much in favor of our intervention in the Balkan mess since
> the Europeans were derelict as always. I give Clinton a lot of credit
> for taking action when many others wanted to look the other way. Bush
> will be similarly cheered when the Iraqi War is over and we have
> established a democratic and prosperous Iraq. You are a defeatist when
> there is no reason to be a defeatist. We are going to win and we are
> going to prevail. If you could stop hating Bush for a few moments you
> would see that clearly.
The reasons the Europeans did not want to take action against Yugoslavia
are unfortunate consequences of lack of unity and the caution that
having World War III perched on your doorstep for forty years.
You talk a big game for coming from a country that did not have two
major wars roll across it in one century.
We are rapidly giving them a reason to unite though, so I guess Bush
is a uniter after all.
He has united the Islamic world, Europe and Russia, China and Japan. All
against us. Damn, that is effective leadership all right.
You are better prepared than most of your ilk, in that you already know
how to ride a bike. That will be a useful life skill, if Bush can
somehow successfully steal the 2004 election as well.
Because he ain't gonna win in the Middle East, and he ain't gonna fund
public transit. Ok, maybe if Halliburton gets to build it...
>
>
> Blix couldn't find his own ass. He had plenty of time as did the UN to
> bring Saddam to heel, and it just never happened. Perle by the way is
> a deep strategic thinker and it is people like him that is keeping
> America safe and secure from our enemies.
>
>
Perle is as deep as a puddle, and more transparent than glass. He has
made one hundred thousand enemies for each one he supposedly has
protected us against.
I will put Blix's record of finding WMD's over Bush's any day. He
actually *did* find some old stuff.
Here's the real dope -- Saddam bought a bunch of chemical stuff from
this creepy guy named Donald Rumsfeld back in 90 or 91. He killed a very
large number of teenage Iranian zealots, and some pesky Kurds.
After using most of it, he tried in vain to start producing his own
horror arsenal, but failed to accomplish much before we decieved him
into thinking we approved him invading Kuwait. Then we came in to take
it all, stopping only because 'old Europe' did not agree with our
ripping off Total oil's Iraqi holdings. Also the Russians were
negotiating with Saddam, and that would just not do at all.
Bush's handlers tried to buy off the Russians by building a pipeline
from Uzbekistan to India and China, letting them share in the Next Big
Market. All that stood in his way were the Taliban and al qaeda. Are you
up to speed now?
>
> It is your head that needs to be wrung through a wringer.
>
Bring it on. I can drop you like a rock with one side of my body half
spastic from a stroke.
>
> I would never even think about going to any reference of yours. Would
> you ever go to any reference of mine? Of course not. You won't even
> read Ann Coulter. But you will read a jackass like Franken. Go figure.
>
Uhh, Ed. You don't have any references linked to your replies.
Honestly, I tried Coulter's Treason, but find that it had more umph in
the original German.
I also read Hanna Arendt, who you probably have never heard of.
I suggest you try your hand at 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'
and look up your lineage.
>
>
> God! Eureka! Some freak who likes Kucinich! Why am I even writing to
> this guy?
>
>
I think I will quote your original witticism about laughing last.
Currently, George's numbers are so bad could not win if the Dems ran Mel
Carnahan against him. Read Kucinich's platform, it is lucid and
truthful, unlike anything that oozes from the undisclosed cellars of the
Reichstag these days.
>
>>Well, Clinton balanced the budget a wee bit better than either Bush.
>
>
> Yes, and I liked and respected Clinton a lot for that too (besides his
> intervention in the Balkans), but I wonder if Clinton would have been
> able to balance the budget without a Republican Congress to help.
Go back and look at Newt holding the budget process hostage because he
couldn't sit in the pilots seat on AF1. Newt was a spoiled brat in a
suit, much like George W. Bush. Only George didn't divorce his wife on
her deathbed, I will give him that much.
> Interesting question don't you think? I am hearing economists now who
> say that balancing the budget is not important, but I am like Arnold
> that way. I am a fiscal conservative. I think it is possible the
> entire country could end up like California, a state that the Dems
> have spent into the poor house.
>
I keep hearing nobel prize winning economists that say the the current
adminstration is looting America for private gain.
California -- a state that Enron (with the help of Ross Perot)
criminally looted under the watchful eye of their Republican Gov.
And Arnold is perhaps the saddest joke Rove ever played on his buddies.
I almost wept for Issa, watching him take one for a team that only let
him play because he paid for the ball.
>
> I could argue everyone of your incoherences above, but you are not
> rational. More importantly, you are not even focused. I won't kill
> file you but you may get my standard response in the future unless you
> become more intelligible. You could take a few lessons from Mr.
> Sherman in how not to ramble. In any event I do not have unlimited
> time and energy to engage in nonsense.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Hey Ed. You are the one who took the cheap shot at Lyndon. While I think
the gulf of tonkin thing was criminal, he may have had some really sucky
intel from Bush Sr. As for the rest, go right ahead and tell me all the
problems that head start, civil rights, and medicare caused America.
I am sure that it will prove interesting to me and the rest of the group.
So let's tally it up. I am insane, unfocused, and inane, (though really,
Ed, you of all people saying that...) irrational, and a traitor.
You, on the other hand are fair and balanced.
No, I prefer to think that you are a little Orwellian robot, more or
less devoid of any analysis of your own. Your double plus good inversion
of the English language is funny, but not in a deliberate way. And if I
am obscessed with OIL, then that puts me right in line with...
George Bush -- failed oilman
Dick Cheney -- Oilfield pimp, current unofficial CFO of Halliburton
Condi Rice -- Sweetheart of Unocal
Mike White -- former Enron criminal, now former Toy Soldier.
And you will be obsessed too, when the global oil economy is used as a
weapon far more devestating than a 757 against the US.
It will be a war that George started, smirking that adorable little
simian smirk and saying 'bring 'em on.'
Randy
D Tresenriter
century a couple of weeks ago and introduced myself as
Ed Dolan just to see if I could get a rise out of him.
Didn't work, but I confessed to being conservati ve and that
even I had kill filed Mr. Dolan, and I truly have.
BTW, Tom, didn't see you at today's No Baloney ride in
Peoria. I did see Mr. Balfour and did get to meet Mr. Stern.
Nice ride, but I digress...
Dennis Tresenriter
Groveland, Illinois
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ... What the Dems fear most in this world is a successful
> > Republican war president; it makes it just that much harder for them
> > to win elections.
>
> It is hard to win elections, when the electronic voting machines are
> owned by Republican supports, and the public is not allow to verify the
> function of the machines. There is the potential for the 2004 US
> elections to be as farcical as the one where Saddam Hussein was
> "re-elected" with 99% of the vote.
Both political parties have to agree to ballot procedures prior to an
election. Apparently, it is just when the election is over that one of
the parties starts to complain about something or other. It is usually
the party that has lost the election that is complaining. What else is
new under the sun?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df09192003.html
>
> September 19, 2003 | Daily Mislead Archive
> Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's
> Threat to the U.S.
>
>
> The Bush administration this week backed away from three major
> rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its
> assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United
> States and its allies.
>
> September 11th
> As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the
> question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just
> don't know."1 But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary
> Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any
> connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that
> Hussein was involved.2 Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen
> any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."3
What have they backed away from? They said they didn't know then and
they don't know now. There is no question that terrorists in general
were being harbored and supported by Iraq.
> Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks
> garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the
> widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's
> security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the
> CIA not to be credible.4
What Americans choose to believe is up to them.
> 'Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons Program'
> Recently, Cheney backed away from the assertion he made three days
> before the war began, that the strongest reason for going to war was
> that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
> weapons."5 But the International Atomic Energy Agency reported two weeks
> before that , "There was no indication of resumed nuclear activities."6
> And six months later on Meet the Press, Cheney said simply, "I misspoke."7
Cheney is being honest and forthright throughout. I do not have a
problem with what he has said in the past or what he is saying now.
> Weapons of Mass Destruction
> This week, Rumsfeld reversed earlier statements claiming that the U.S.
> knew where Iraq's weapons of destruction were located. When asked why
> the weapons hadn't been found, this past Tuesday Rumsfeld said, "What do
> you mean? You're talking about a country the size of California."8 Yet
> months ago, just two weeks into the war, Rumsfeld said, "We know where
> they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west,
> south and north somewhat."9
I do not see any inconsistency in Rumsfeld's statements either. These
WMD are quite small and can easily be hidden. Even that UN asshole
Blix couldn't find anything.
Someone went to a lot of work for nothing if you ask me.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > "Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<%1Sab.432$Ns3.61...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> >
> >>Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Ann Coulter knows how to write so as to entertain as well as to
> > inform, something that most liberal writers have forgotten how to do.
> > If you have not read Whittaker Chambers then I do not care to discuss
> > McCarthy with you as you will be hopelessly ignorant on the subject.
> > You can read your asshole supreme, Al Franken, and I will stick to Ann
> > Coulter.
>
> Whittiker Chambers was a 'reformed' communist lacky whose contribution
> to America was his ability to hide microfilm in a pumpkin, successfully
> throwing off the CIA. He also remained a Soviet Spy throughout his career.
> And he was no where near as funny as Al Franken.
> So let me get this straight, you call *me* a traitor?
Who would know better than a reformed communist who was and who wasn't
a spy and traitor? Whether you are a traitor or not doesn't matter to
me. All I know about you and all I need to know about you are that you
are an extremist liberal left-wing wacko nut.
> >
> >
> > No, by the time Gingrich came on the scene the Republicans had
> > undergone a metamorphosis and were no longer the same party that had
> > acquiesced as a permanent minority from the years after WWII to almost
> > the present. Yes, we had Republican presidents, but both houses of
> > Congress were always in control of the Democrats. They grew fat and
> > arrogant because of that. Gingrich marked the beginning of the change.
> >
> >
>
> They had indeed become a new party, well ok, an old party.
> But hey, their ideological forebearers gave us a lot of good things, the
> 1936 olympics and the Graf Zepplin, for example.
> As for arrogance, no one beats uncurious George.
Is everyone on this newsgroup taking note of this wacko nut?
>
> >
> > You are simply wrong on your facts. Bush won fair and square.
> >
>
> Was his Florida margin higher than 90 thousand? That is the number of
> mostly democratic voters Jeb's favorite company, Choicepoint incorrectly
> scrubbed from the voter list. 2000 was a debacle that will go down as a
> smelly stain on the history of American representitive govt. It is a
> sign of your deep indoctrination that you cannot allow yourself to see that.
>
> By the way, your endless, arrogant, purile, ad hominum attacks also
> do not do your more sincere attempts at arguments much good.
This coming from a jerk who likens Bush and the Republicans to the
Nazis?
> >
> > It is irrelevant whether you drive a car or not. The nature of warfare
> > has changed irrevocably with the advent of nuclear weapons that rogue
> > states and terrorist groups are on the point of acquiring. Preemptive
> > wars become absolutely necessary unless you enjoy the prospect of
> > responding after several million Americans have been killed as a
> > result of an atom bomb being detonated in the homeland. The Monroe
> > doctrine is as dead as a door nail. This is the 21st century in case
> > you haven't noticed.
> >
>
> So we abandon all hope of stopping them short of one long unilateral
> campaign of succesive invasions to rid the world of terror? You cannot
> rid the world of terror, no more than you can rid it of joy, anger, the
> tooth fairy, or any other abstract construct, fool.
> What we can do is try to justify a naked campaign of Empire building and
> quasi theocratic genocide. Some bleeding liberal with a funny robe once
> said something about an eye for an eye leaving the whole world blind.
>
> You cannot invade your way to security or prosperity any more than you
> can fornicate your way to virginity. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it,
> the Romans managed it with Carthage, but failed with trans alpine gaul.
>
> Your lack of historical perspective is shocking, but it is a symptom of
> the idiocy you have grasped onto to justify why America has been
> surpassed by tiny 'old European' countries in terms of the quality of
> life of the average citizen. It should be no concern of yours, not being
> an average citizen.
The terrorists are soon going to be able to access nuclear weapons.
That is about the only reason we need concern ourselves with them.
Absent nuclear weapons, they can not do that much damage. But all it
is going to take to change the world forever is one nuclear weapon
going off in the US and killing maybe a million Americans and that
will be the absolute end of the Democratic Party and of all liberal
and progressive ideas. Is that what you want to see happen? Far better
to go to war with them now and kill them all before they acquire
nuclear weapons (North Korea would most likely sell it to them - and
these terrorists have the money to buy it). Obviously, you have not
thought through the implications of your pacifism and your defeatism,
but that is why we have big brains like Perle and others to think
about such matters.
>
> How is it that you consider our superiority as equivalent to the size of
> our military? We are going to be sunk by the rest of the world's
> economies without them (or us) ever firing a shot.
>
> >
> >
> > Reagan had everything to do with bringing down the Soviet Union.
> > Kennan's policy of containment was morphing into a policy of
> > appeasement under the Democrats after Johnson. Carter was a disgrace
> > to the Presidency. In any event, the Soviets were relatively sane
> > compared to the Islamic fanatics. The Islamic extremists cannot be
> > contained. They proved that on 9/11.
> >
>
> The Soviet Union collapsed of its own fraud, corruption and inertia,
> much like Enron. Reagan's star wars and his 600 ship navy were an
> expensive and foolish mistake. And when Clinton's armed forces took down
> Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Star Wars or the size of our navy was not
> an issue. It was far more than needed. What we don't have is enough
> grunts on the ground, as the occupation of Iraq, and our current
> pleading to the irrelevant U.N. plainly shows.
You are wrong on every single point in the above paragraph. The Soviet
Union would be with us today if it weren't for Reagan. We outspent
them on the military and that is what clearly brought them down. They
couldn't keep up with us. The siting of the Pershing missiles in
Europe was key and that was all Reagan's doing. You and your liberal
appeasers (mostly Democrats) were against that. Only Reagan had the
guts to call the Soviets an evil empire. Bush II has similar guts (I
hope) and will know how to deal with the terrorist threat and rogue
states. I really don't think some minor little asshole like Kucinich
would have a clue. But I am not worried about that. He could no more
be president than you or I could.
>
> Bush wants America to use theatre nukes for fun and profit.
> Once that genie is let out of the bottle, everyone will be developing
> tiny nukes. So why are they wanting to re-introduce the shibboleth of
> SDI? What we really will be needing is an anti rental car initiative,
> cause if a nuke is popped on American soil, that will be the delivery
> method.
That is probably what is going to happen sooner or later. What are you
going to do to prevent it - that is the question. Those tiny nukes are
being developed right now by rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
The question remains - what are you going to do about it?
> Bush has made the world a lot less stable. If I doused you with
> gasoline, tied you to a post, and invited people to throw lit matches at
> you, I think no one would have a difficult time deciding I was guilty of
> murder. Likewise, Bush will be seen by historians as a shallow,
> sinister, and ultimately tragic puppet of short sighted corporatism.
You have got it all backward, like you have got everything else
backward. But at least you are consistent, even if consistently wrong.
>
> >
> > We need to stay in Iraq however long it takes. The payoff will be
> > enormous if and when a more or less democratic society is established
> > there. It will be the first one in the Arab World and will have
> > enormous repercussions.
>
> Assuming that Diebold and ESS are allowed to go forward, I suspect that
> we will be in Iraq for about 2 years more. Then we will have to leave
> most of the region, OR we will be there for 20, and destroy the Economy
> so thouroughly that we can no longer invade or defend, just like the
> Soviet Union. You and I are too old to be drafted, but in 2005 when Bush
> is having to reinstate the draft (because no teenager or adult reservist
> in their right mind is signing up anymore) you will see fighting in the
> streets right here in 'Murika. Of course, the Gitmo death chambers will
> be smokin by then.
I think we may have to stay in Iraq about 5 years or so. That is not a
very long time. We are still in Europe and WWII has been over for 50
years. Also, what difference does it make where our military is
stationed anyway. I think I would rather see our military stationed
abroad where they can do some good rather then sitting here at home
where they just get into mischief.
> >
> > The Iraqi War was not about oil no matter how much you know about oil
> > and the energy market. If you persist in thinking it was then you
> > will never understand why we are in Iraq.
> >
>
> According to Bush it was about B-C weapons delivered by model airplanes,
> no, wait, it was about Yellowcake and Niger, no he really meant
> liberating Iraqis... which we did by disbanding their police and
> declaring a five finger discount zone.
You will never know why we are in Iraq. You have oil on the brain and
will never be able to make any sense out of our foreign policy.
> >
> > No, when I am writing on this forum I am addressing any and all
> > readers, not just the person I am responding to. You write in the
> > style to which you are accustomed and I will write the way I want to.
> > Otherwise, we should just be doing emails. What a horrible prospect
> > that would be!
>
> Eh bien, j'ai desir a utiliser un langue des une nation democratique.
> Mais, je pense que tres peu de les types dans cette list parle la belle
> langue. Alors.
Looks like fucking French to me. Maybe you should go over there and
participate in their democracy. But you are right about one thing -
there are no Frenchmen on this list as far as I can tell.
> >
> > The faith that liberals put in the UN to solve problems is pitiful and
> > pathetic. It would be hilarious if it didn't occasionally have such
> > serious consequences.
>
> Like the eradication of Smallpox, for example?
No, that falls under the heading of humanitarian and I have said
previously that that is what the UN is good at. What they are not good
at is peace making.
>
> By the way, what did you think of Al Franken's
> > face off with O'Reilly on C-Span awhile back. I learned that it is
> > impossible for Franken to make a fool of himself because he defines
> > the very word "fool". If you are taking him seriously then you are a
> > lost soul.
>
> I loved watching OReilly make an utter fool of himself.
> But of course, he can go home to his two Peabody awards and console
> himself...
>
> He did more to hurt faux news than even Franken could have.
> I like the judge's comment on dismissing the case-- "wholly without merit."
> I think that should be Fox News' new slug.
> And unlike Ann Coulter, Al Franken is a *deliberate* satirist.
Franken is about as satirical as you and I are. He means to carve up
conservatives types the same way Coulter means to carve up liberal
types. But I will grant you there is no accounting for sense of humor
- which is why I try to stay away from it.
> >
> > The only reason European oil prices are as high as they are is because
> > of added taxes for social welfare benefits. Do you think we are going
> > to do that?
> >
> >
>
> Actually, you do pay fairly close to that right now, it is just that the
> price of new chip and seal (called maintainence with an unusual humor
> for DOT), highway building, and the policy that holds the price down at
> the pump gets folded into local sales, income and property taxes.
>
> But soon the gas tax will be reflecting the 87B and the 5B/month for
> George's folly. So by next year this time, gas will be 3.50 a gallon at
> the very least. I predict more like 4.20/gal.
We shall see. I have never yet met an American who was not in favor of
spending however many dollars it takes in order to insure that he have
roads and highways on which to operate his motor vehicles. I am
actually on your side on this issue and I think we would all be better
off if we could get away from the infernal combustion engine.
>
> >>>Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
> >>>was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
> >>>if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
> >>>and engaging in oral sex with a slut.
>
> ahh, more of the famous Ed Dolan fair and balanced approach.
> We won decisively in three major theatres with Clinton's pansey-boy
> military. I bet that galls like hell. What our military cannot do is
> hold territory for the long haul, which is exactly what Bush is now
> saying will be happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon probably Saudi
> Arabia.
> When this happens, be a Real Patriot(tm) and go sign up for a hitch, or
> sign your kids up. That way it will not primarily be Hispanic and
> African American boyz getting killed, like Vietnam.
Clinton inherited a great military from Reagan and then ran it down
all the years he was in office. And just why is it that our military
can't hold territory for the long haul. It wouldn't be because of
people like you whining and complaining about it all the time would
it? Most young people who are in the military are there because they
want to be there. Thank God this country still produces young people
who want to defend this country from it's enemies. You and I are over
the hill and will soon be resting in the cemetery. We are not soldier
material anymore. But if my country called upon me to serve overseas
in a civilian capacity I would be honored to have the opportunity to
serve.
>
> And the Dems are always cutting
> >>>spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
> >>>finance welfare services for the undeserving poor.
>
> The undeserving poor --- that says it all, I guess.
There is the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Anyone who can't
recognize the difference is a liberal idiot, which is why you have
just said it all, I guess.
> By the way, you
> >>>moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
> >>>medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
> >>>Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
> >>>are on.
> >>>
> >>
>
> Somehow, coming from you, the term moron has very little sting.
>
> >
> > I was very much in favor of our intervention in the Balkan mess since
> > the Europeans were derelict as always. I give Clinton a lot of credit
> > for taking action when many others wanted to look the other way. Bush
> > will be similarly cheered when the Iraqi War is over and we have
> > established a democratic and prosperous Iraq. You are a defeatist when
> > there is no reason to be a defeatist. We are going to win and we are
> > going to prevail. If you could stop hating Bush for a few moments you
> > would see that clearly.
>
> The reasons the Europeans did not want to take action against Yugoslavia
> are unfortunate consequences of lack of unity and the caution that
> having World War III perched on your doorstep for forty years.
> You talk a big game for coming from a country that did not have two
> major wars roll across it in one century.
The Europeans are contemptible for not taking action in the Balkan
mess. There was no danger of a WW III. The fact is that they are not a
moral people and only care about themselves. Contrast their behavior
with ours and you will immediately see that we are the idealists in
the world who want to make the world better for everyone (or at least
we don't just stand by and allow genocide to take place when we can so
easily prevent it). But go ahead and make excuses for the Europeans.
You are a Frenchman at heart anyway (this is not a compliment).
> We are rapidly giving them a reason to unite though, so I guess Bush
> is a uniter after all.
> He has united the Islamic world, Europe and Russia, China and Japan. All
> against us. Damn, that is effective leadership all right.
The rest of the world united? You got to be kidding. Even the
Europeans couldn't unite on what to do about the Balkan mess.
> You are better prepared than most of your ilk, in that you already know
> how to ride a bike. That will be a useful life skill, if Bush can
> somehow successfully steal the 2004 election as well.
> Because he ain't gonna win in the Middle East, and he ain't gonna fund
> public transit. Ok, maybe if Halliburton gets to build it...
>
>
> >
> >
> > Blix couldn't find his own ass. He had plenty of time as did the UN to
> > bring Saddam to heel, and it just never happened. Perle by the way is
> > a deep strategic thinker and it is people like him that is keeping
> > America safe and secure from our enemies.
> >
> >
>
> Perle is as deep as a puddle, and more transparent than glass. He has
> made one hundred thousand enemies for each one he supposedly has
> protected us against.
>
> I will put Blix's record of finding WMD's over Bush's any day. He
> actually *did* find some old stuff.
> Here's the real dope -- Saddam bought a bunch of chemical stuff from
> this creepy guy named Donald Rumsfeld back in 90 or 91. He killed a very
> large number of teenage Iranian zealots, and some pesky Kurds.
> After using most of it, he tried in vain to start producing his own
> horror arsenal, but failed to accomplish much before we decieved him
> into thinking we approved him invading Kuwait. Then we came in to take
> it all, stopping only because 'old Europe' did not agree with our
> ripping off Total oil's Iraqi holdings. Also the Russians were
> negotiating with Saddam, and that would just not do at all.
Iran was the greater enemy at the time. Our siding with Iraq was a
case of real politik. You need to grow up and get real. You are living
in a fantasy world of heroes and villains.
> Bush's handlers tried to buy off the Russians by building a pipeline
> from Uzbekistan to India and China, letting them share in the Next Big
> Market. All that stood in his way were the Taliban and al qaeda. Are you
> up to speed now?
I will never be up to speed because I do not have oil on the brain
like you do.
> >
> > It is your head that needs to be wrung through a wringer.
> >
>
> Bring it on. I can drop you like a rock with one side of my body half
> spastic from a stroke.
I am sorry to hear about the stroke. I worry about that all the time
myself. Have you garnered any information on what one needs to do to
prevent stroke. I know I am at high risk. The docs at the VA don't
seem to have clue as to how to prevent one. I know about keeping the
cholesterol down and the importance of physical activity and I am
taking one aspirin a day. Anything else I should be doing (other than
having my head wrung through a wringer)?
> >
> > I would never even think about going to any reference of yours. Would
> > you ever go to any reference of mine? Of course not. You won't even
> > read Ann Coulter. But you will read a jackass like Franken. Go figure.
> >
> Uhh, Ed. You don't have any references linked to your replies.
> Honestly, I tried Coulter's Treason, but find that it had more umph in
> the original German.
>
> I also read Hanna Arendt, who you probably have never heard of.
> I suggest you try your hand at 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'
> and look up your lineage.
There is a time for enjoying liberty and there is time for hunkering
down when those liberties are threatened by external enemies. You seem
to think that we have no external enemies and that the biggest danger
to our liberties come from within. My reading of history leads me to
the conclusion that most societies are destroyed from without, not
from within. Maybe we are reading different histories.
> >
> >
> > God! Eureka! Some freak who likes Kucinich! Why am I even writing to
> > this guy?
> >
> >
>
> I think I will quote your original witticism about laughing last.
> Currently, George's numbers are so bad could not win if the Dems ran Mel
> Carnahan against him. Read Kucinich's platform, it is lucid and
> truthful, unlike anything that oozes from the undisclosed cellars of the
> Reichstag these days.
The fact that you never make any allusions to communism (Soviet
Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba) but always to Nazism, a
long dead ideology whereas we still have communists (Marxists they are
called in this country)among us, speaks volumes about where you are
coming from. You need to find a new metaphor for evil in the world.
> >
> >>Well, Clinton balanced the budget a wee bit better than either Bush.
> >
> >
> > Yes, and I liked and respected Clinton a lot for that too (besides his
> > intervention in the Balkans), but I wonder if Clinton would have been
> > able to balance the budget without a Republican Congress to help.
>
>
> Go back and look at Newt holding the budget process hostage because he
> couldn't sit in the pilots seat on AF1. Newt was a spoiled brat in a
> suit, much like George W. Bush. Only George didn't divorce his wife on
> her deathbed, I will give him that much.
There is no point in comparing the personal moralities of liberals and
conservatives. That would be truly a fool's errand. Gingrich is one of
the most intelligent politicos I have ever seen. But like all great
men, he was flawed.
>
> > Interesting question don't you think? I am hearing economists now who
> > say that balancing the budget is not important, but I am like Arnold
> > that way. I am a fiscal conservative. I think it is possible the
> > entire country could end up like California, a state that the Dems
> > have spent into the poor house.
> >
>
> I keep hearing nobel prize winning economists that say the the current
> adminstration is looting America for private gain.
> California -- a state that Enron (with the help of Ross Perot)
> criminally looted under the watchful eye of their Republican Gov.
> And Arnold is perhaps the saddest joke Rove ever played on his buddies.
> I almost wept for Issa, watching him take one for a team that only let
> him play because he paid for the ball.
Can't talk about Gray Davis can you? Apparently he is just an innocent
bystander in what is happening in Sacramento.
> >
> > I could argue everyone of your incoherences above, but you are not
> > rational. More importantly, you are not even focused. I won't kill
> > file you but you may get my standard response in the future unless you
> > become more intelligible. You could take a few lessons from Mr.
> > Sherman in how not to ramble. In any event I do not have unlimited
> > time and energy to engage in nonsense.
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> Hey Ed. You are the one who took the cheap shot at Lyndon. While I think
> the gulf of tonkin thing was criminal, he may have had some really sucky
> intel from Bush Sr. As for the rest, go right ahead and tell me all the
> problems that head start, civil rights, and medicare caused America.
> I am sure that it will prove interesting to me and the rest of the group.
I don't think much of head start, civil rights was inevitable Johnson
or no Johnson, and Medicare is social welfare for the aged as is
social security. Nothing wrong with that as long as we recognize it
for what it is. The Gulf of Tonkin thing was a stroke of genius and
the one thing that Johnson got right. But like most Dems, he did not
know how to follow through on something once embarked. He needed a
MacArthur for that.
>
> So let's tally it up. I am insane, unfocused, and inane, (though really,
> Ed, you of all people saying that...) irrational, and a traitor.
> You, on the other hand are fair and balanced.
I would appreciate it if you would get more focused especially. I am
not going to answer you from now on point by point as it has become
tedious and I only have so much time for this sort of thing. We need
to get our posts much shorter and not attempt to be so wide ranging
and rambling. No one except you and me is going to read any of this
and that is not my purpose. I want others to read what I have written
and I do not want to bore them to death. That unfortunately is what we
are now doing.
> No, I prefer to think that you are a little Orwellian robot, more or
> less devoid of any analysis of your own. Your double plus good inversion
> of the English language is funny, but not in a deliberate way. And if I
> am obscessed with OIL, then that puts me right in line with...
>
> George Bush -- failed oilman
> Dick Cheney -- Oilfield pimp, current unofficial CFO of Halliburton
> Condi Rice -- Sweetheart of Unocal
> Mike White -- former Enron criminal, now former Toy Soldier.
>
> And you will be obsessed too, when the global oil economy is used as a
> weapon far more devestating than a 757 against the US.
>
> It will be a war that George started, smirking that adorable little
> simian smirk and saying 'bring 'em on.'
That "bring 'em on" remark really resonated with our troops in Iraq
and with most Americans, but of course I just barely acknowledge that
liberals are Americans in any traditional sense. It would be nice if
you could get into the present century instead of residing in the
former century. The world has changed with 9/11 but you along with
your liberal cohorts haven't. You will have to be dragged kicking and
screaming into the 21st century.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> I'll take credit for that line. :-) I met Tom at the Springfield, IL
> century a couple of weeks ago and introduced myself as
> Ed Dolan just to see if I could get a rise out of him.
>
> Didn't work, but I confessed to being conservati ve and that
> even I had kill filed Mr. Dolan, and I truly have.
.........
Mr. Tresenriter is most likely a Republican and not a Conservative at
all. But I know where he is coming from . I use to be that way myself,
quiet and gentlemanly when confronted with liberal idiocies. No more!
Mr. Sherman and company have permanently cured me of any reticence I
might have had to speak my mind.
Why is it that liberals can say any idiotic thing that pops into their
heads but when a conservative does it is somehow not the thing to do.
Probably because conservatives, at least the traditional Republican
variety of it, have not done so in the past. Gingrich changed all that
and just in the nick of time too. Now it's tit for tat all the way,
and the traditional Republicans (Rockefeller variety) can go the way
of the dodo bird for all I care. We do not want two political parties
in this country who merely parrot one another.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > Carl <ca...@sick.of.spam> wrote in message news:<190920032153437559%ca...@sick.of.spam>...
> >
> > > In article <3F6B9E3D...@qconline.com>, Tom Sherman
> > > <tshe...@qconline.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edward Dilan must be educated Cox e writed:
>
> Now Mr. Dolan is deliberately misquoting me - not something an honest
> person would do.
You are editing me too severely as half the time I do not even know to
what you are referring. Try to strike a happy medium.
> > ... Carl, we hardly knew ye!...
>
> I met Carl this spring. I asked him about the seat on his bike [1], and
> did not mention politics at all.
That is good that you did not discuss politics with good old Carl as
that is the hallmark of a jerk. And we all know that you are not
really a jerk in real life like you are on this newsgroup, don't we?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
DH
leaving this thread.
I believe (though I couldn't find it this morning in this thread ... it's
too long) that Ed said something to the effect that he values human life
so much that he supports the death penalty. That's priceless. (When I was
in the military, I would have that discussion with the 'born agains' -
they were against abortion, but for the death penalty. Same reasoning -
life is precious. That brings back fond memories of many wasted hours of
arguing.)
I have the feeling this thread could go on for another two feet of screen
space and no one's opinions would change. If this discussion were in
public, voices would be raised so much that some neighbor would call the
police.
Have fun with your discussion. Maybe the Europeans will come to the aid
of the US and help out with the day to day chore of keeping the peace and
sharing the expenses (as long as the US is in charge of the oil). Hell,
maybe the Europeans will lose a life or two everyday as well. Right, it's
_only_ one or two lives per day for this great experiment in democracy.
We'll shove democracy down their little throats and they'll thank us for
it later.
I know it's just a, ahem, coincidence that Iraq is number two in world oil
reserves and Bush and Cheney had some ... minor connection with that
industry and that our economy is based on fossil fuel and that we don't
need to support the Kyoto treaty and the change in the weather is just
part of a cycle ... and so on and so on; just a big coincidence. I know
those WMD will be found sometime even if we have to invent them. The UN
was dragging its feet for over a decade trying to find them ... that was
all part of the plan, right Ed? We know where they are and they will turn
up just in time for the elections. Just another coincidence, right Ed?
You know Ed, I don't know you personally, but I'd be willing to bet you
are a loud in an argument and that your wife or kids leave the room when
you start up. (I see in this thread that personal attacks are accepted,
correct?)
Boys and girls, I'm off to a recumbent day in Tilburg, about 20 minutes
from my house. Maybe I'll find something I like and won't order that
Giant Revive after all.
Try to keep it down, the neighbors are trying to get some sleep.
Have fun ... see you later, all the best, Dave Horne - Helvoirt, The
Netherlands
Zippy the Pinhead
>"Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<3F6CCD6...@swbell.net>...
A long post, mostly consisting of casting pearls before swine.
He is an admirer of Reagan. He must know that one policy of Reagans
was that we don't negotiate with terrorists.
I wonder what Reagan would think about Ed's reasoned debating with
terrorists' sympathizers?
marika
>
> Who would know better than a reformed communist who was and who wasn't
> a spy and traitor?
double agents
blue diamond ring
Robert Haston
Ann Coulter. I will probably get around to her book because all the
Dittoheads I work with like it. Given its title is basically a catchy way
of saying "Revisionist Demonizing" I am not looking forward to much.
I just watched Coulter on TV saying how we should be patient in Iraq because
it took us 5 years to "rebuild" Japan (A country that had recently conquered
all of Asia). So how long - 10, 15, 20? Better yet - when have we ever
turned a country half as bad as Iraq into a functioning democracy? If it
falls apart and becomes another Iran or Afghanistan, do we attack it again?
No WMDs, so we only just pissed off the Moslems again. So we borrow 50
billion per year for military growth, another 50-90 billion a year (and get
50-90 dead Americans a year) for the occupation; and we have no proof that
we are or worse better off. Pretty poor investment in my book
One would think the Capitol's airport would be the safest place around. But
I saw tracers regularly and we got the occasional mortar attack. By the
time I left, we had artillery batteries firing back at targets 2-3 miles
away. I saw a missile shot at a cargo aircraft in broad daylight just
before I left. Maybe they are "roundin 'em up" like the boss says. Maybe
two volunteer for every one they take out. Who knows?
We worked the UN bombing. I bet the British UN worker I flew to the
hospital had plenty of "liberal ideological inanities" to say. But given he
had both legs crushed above the knee, one arm severely crushed, and serious
facial injuries, he had other things on his mind.
I'd like to ask all the amputees, paraplegics, and widows if they still
think it was worth it. It is never as simple as the talking heads on TV
want to act.
All I know is if they didn't have the oil, and we didn't need it, we
wouldn't be there; and the price of oil stopped dropping 20 years ago, and
started climbing 4 years ago.
That's why I ride a recumbent to work (and lots of other places). If we all
did, we at least would only be burdening our kids with 300 billion or so
debt this year. If we would have over the last 30 years, we would be energy
independent and debt-free. Time to shut up and go work on my tail fairing.
"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message
news:7d49e514.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:<YnFab.462$Mf5.81...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> .......
> > > Yes, I will freely admit that I do have a mind set when it comes to
> > > these treasonous liberals who would sell this country out; who would
> > > cut and run from our enemies; and who are altogether despicable.
> >
> > AHH There is the fair and balanced discourse you were saying you prefer
> > earlier. This is straight from the Ann Coulter playbook.
>
> You should read her instead of spouting your liberal ideological
> inanities. You might learn something.
>
> > They
> > > are the ones who are spewing hatred of our elected leaders and of our
> > > country - and in a time of war too. I am fed up with it and I am going
> > > to tell them exactly what I think of them when they foul the air with
> > > their lies and slanders.
> > >
> >
> > Rick Sanitarium, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanky, Bill Orally,
> > Jeb Bush, Sam Brown Nose, and the list goes on into the distance of
> > those who have Ann Coulterish sensibilities. The radical right displays
> > little restraint, fairness, or civility.
>
> We have taken a leaf from your playbook and will never again make the
> mistake of giving any quarter in the interests of civility since
> extremist liberals never have and never will. Turnabout is fair play.
> It is all about hatred at first sight from now on. The days when the
> Republicans were cast as the permanent minority party and the "loyal"
> opposition are over forever. It is your turn to play that role now.
> Try to learn how to be "loyal". Just because you can't get your way
> anymore doesn't mean you have to act like a child.
>
> > > I mean to fight hatred with hatred. That turning the other cheek crap
> > > is for chumps.
> >
> > Then don't be surprised when you discover yourself in the middle of a
> > civil war that your side is losing. There are more people that identify
> > themselves as liberal, when you compare progressive platforms to
> > neoconservatism.
>
> Then why the hell is Bush President and why the hell do the
> Republicans control both houses of Congress? You are nuts! What you
> need to compare is not "progressive" with "neoconservative", but
> liberal with conservative. Most Americans today are overwhelmingly
> conservative, especially when it comes to national defense and
> security issues. You liberals had better get your heads screwed on
> straight or you are going to go the way of the dodo bird.
>
> > > The Islamic extremists hate us and mean to kill us and
> > > kill our country. And the treasonous liberals will not support the war
> > > as it needs to be supported in order for us to prevail.
> >
> > There was very little support for the oil rape of Iraq before hand, and
> > it settled down to a dubious grumble and dulsitory flag waving during.
>
> You are an oil nut and will not be rational on the subject. Therefore
> anything you write with the word "oil" in it is not worth the paper it
> is written on and I certainly will not waste my time reading it or
> responding to it.
>
> > Now, in full debacle and mid-quagmire, with 5 billion a month going into
> > Iraq, and precious little oil coming out, with a soldier killed
> > everyday, Bush goes hat in hand to the UN begging for assistance.
> > He also comes to middle class America and tells them they need to cough
> > up 87Billion to stabilize Iraq. Tell me again how this was smarter than
> > inspectors, Ed.
>
> The inspectors were getting us nowhere. Maybe you like things to drag
> on forever with no conclusion ever in sight except a worsening
> situation for our side (the good guys) but most Americans like
> decisive action before we all die of boredom or get blown up in a
> nuclear bombing.
>
> > Note the arrival of the clue bus. If WMD were our raison d'être for
> > being there, we can leave, because we didn't find any.
> >
> > If Saddam was our reason, we can leave because, as you say, he is no
> > longer in power.
> >
> > If liberating the Iraqi people was the reason, see above.
> >
> > Why aren't we leaving?
>
> See Message 57 in thread Re: Is there a moderator here? where I answer
> questions like this. We, of course, cannot just leave Iraq until the
> job is done. But that is what you treasonous extremist liberals would
> like us to do - to cut our losses and run. Another Mogadishu or Beirut
> example to set before the world. No thanks! Been there, done that!
>
> >
> > The only reason we stay is the oil, which is the only real reason we
> > went there in the first place, just as when we told Saddam in 91 that he
> > could settle the border dispute with kuwait however he wanted to... and
> > then invaded Iraq after rescuing another dictator in Kuwait.
> >
> > The whole game plan of this pirate crew was to steal the Middle East's
> > oil and gut the last of the New Deal for fun and profit.
>
> You are not rational on the oil question. You are a complete and utter
> nut! However, you do make a good point on Bush I being out to lunch on
> the Kuwait border question. We should have made plain to Saddam that
> any invasion of Kuwait would be repulsed by the full might of our
> military forces in no uncertain terms. Believe it or not, I was not a
> great fan of Bush I but Bush II is not his father and has shown
> courage and imagination in dealing with our enemies that I don't
> believe Bush I was capable of. Thank God a new generation comes along,
> well ....every generation.
>
> > This has as much to do with the average American's safety or well being
> > as Bush's massive tax relief for the rich.
> >
> > Just how
> > > stupid would you like me to get? There is nothing that the foreign
> > > press can say about us that we cannot say about ourselves. And I sure
> > > as hell do not want to listen to a lot of Brit and Euro crap on this
> > > newsgroup about how this country is not down to their miserable low
> > > standards. European diplomacy was the world's greatest failure in this
> > > century just past. If they want to criticize, let them look inward.
> > > For heaven's sake, they couldn't even take care of the Balkan mess
> > > which was in their own back yard.
> > >
> >
> > Ed, I think you would be hard pressed to sound more stupid than these
> > comments. We spend a lot more for the military than most of the rest of
> > the world combined, but we can't manage to pump Iraqi oil. I don't think
> > we are in a great position to say that Europe made the wrong choice.
>
> This guy has got oil on the brain. Instead of blathering about oil,
> why don't you address my complaint that Europe couldn't even take care
> of the Balkan mess, but that America had to solve it for them with our
> military forces.
>
> > Welcome to the Internet Ed. If you don't want to be a part of an
> > International community, I recommend the Klan. It would actually be a
> > favor to the non American audience, as well as the informed Americans if
> > you confined yourself to Free Republic where the discourse is more to
> > your liking.
>
> Now you are just being stupid again! But I do say screw the UN all the
> way to hell and back. We need them like we need an anthrax attack.
> Those who put the safety and security of America and the Free World in
> the hands of the UN are worse than fools; they are anti-American.
>
> > In case you didn't actually pay attention, Old Europe showed up by the
> > busload for Afghanistan, a place that only people who really love you
> > would dress up like G.I. Jacques or Hans and march into. PS, they are
> > still there in Afghanistan, and Ed Dolan is not... So quoting your hero
> > Orally, I suggest you shut up.
>
> Yes, that is all that Old Europe and the g.d. UN is good for these
> days is picking up the pieces and humanitarian aid. Isn't that what I
> have been saying all along? Glad you agree with me!
>
> >
> > >
> > > There is such a thing as being too critical and being too submissive
> > > to criticism. We need to defend ourselves and stand up for ourselves.
> > > These other nations (and the treasonous liberals among us) do not have
> > > our interests at heart. Far from it. France I no longer regard as an
> > > erstwhile ally, but as a newly acquired enemy. They are not for us.
> > > They are against us. We should have the brains to at least be against
> > > them too. You are entirely too accommodating to criticism in this time
> > > of national peril to suit me.
>
> > Trust me Ed, you are not in danger of being too submissive to criticism.
> > To be like that, you actually have to listen to it.
> >
> > The biggest peril, in this time of supposed national peril is G. W. Bush
> > and his Oily Pirate Ship of State. The sooner his boys are in
> > Leavenworth, the sooner we will be safe as a nation again.
>
> Oilamania in full flower! What a nut! I am rolling on the floor with
> laughter!
>
> > George was the guy who told the FBI to stand down, the INS to stand
> > down, did not listen to anyone who warned him about al qaeda, and then
> > had his goons twist arms at the CIA for a good reason to attack Iraq,
> > when they could not give Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, or Bush the
> > justification, they lied like a rug. Mind you, his dad trained Osama,
> > maybe that is the cause of his reluctance to actually kill him. But he
> > will actually kill Saddam, because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy, maybe
> > THAT is why will murdered thousands of Iraqis?
>
> Clinton was the one who let everything slide for all the years that he
> was in office. There should not have been a terrorist problem at all
> if he had taken us to war against them instead of sitting on his ass
> and engaging in oral sex with a slut. And the Dems are always cutting
> spending on the military and the intelligence services in order to
> finance welfare services for the undeserving poor. By the way, you
> moron, killing in war is not the same as murdering. We give soldiers
> medals for that in case you didn't know it. You have us confused with
> Al-Qaeda and Hamas. But in any event it is good to know which side you
> are on.
>
> > Now you and your cretinous buddies will not admit that the WMD issue was
> > crap, and that strangely, after a decade of economic sanctions and
> > having inspectors on the ground in Iraq for most of that period, the
> > Iraqis simply did not have either an arsenal of ABC weapons
> > OR the method to disperse them. George was wrong, and he knew he was
> > wrong-- where I come from it is called a lie.\
>
> Yep, they had them and everyone in the world knew they had them
> including Clinton and the UN. But since we can't find them, they must
> not have had them. Is that your logic? Not very persuasive if you ask
> me, but I realize you are grinding an ax for a position and you could
> care less about the truth. But what will happen to your argument if
> and when we find the WMD? You will simply go on to some other equally
> specious argument because you are against America having a forceful
> and effective foreign policy, especially if it is being provided by
> Bush and the Republicans. If the policy is successful it means almost
> for sure that the Dems are going to lose the next election big time.
>
> > Bill Clinton lied about a stained dress and we impeached him.
> > George Bush lied about a blood stained country and we are not going to
> > let it pass. Hell, just standing there and allowing the looting of the
> > Baghdad museum alone was unforgivable, and that was a minor tragedy
> > compared to what we have put Iraq through to satisfy Richard Perle's
> > dreams of Empire and Dick Cheney's dreams of avarice.
>
> Now you are being infantile! Apparently international politics is like
> a Hollywood movie to you. You need to stop watching West Wing on TV.
>
> > Because of those lies George Bush is unelectable.
> > Even with the astounding job he has done with our economy left out of
> > the picture, he is toast, and so is NeoConservatism... Would someone ask
> > Grover to turn the light out when he leaves the building?
> >
> > The fountain of bile is going to dry up on American TV network news,
> > because everybody now knows how they helped push the lie that was the
> > Iraqi war.
> > It's ok Ed, you can keep listening to Rush on AM radio while our one
> > term wonder takes the whole PNAC wing of the Republican party down with
> > him. His coattails are attached to concrete overshoes.
>
> Yep, it is all about the big lie, and you and the other extremist
> liberals are the ones telling it. The American people are going to see
> through your lies and slanders and your Dem candidate, whoever he may
> turn out to be (I hope it is Dean), will be soundly defeated a la
> McGovern, another defeatist bastard from the far left who did not
> deserve to be an American.
>
> > Shadenfreude-- it is so sweet watching Bush and gang suffer.
> > I only regret that fixing this mess will be so painful, expensive, and
long.
Edward Dolan
> The rest of you can play your word games and call each other names; I'm
> leaving this thread.
>
> I believe (though I couldn't find it this morning in this thread ... it's
> too long) that Ed said something to the effect that he values human life
> so much that he supports the death penalty. That's priceless. (When I was
> in the military, I would have that discussion with the 'born agains' -
> they were against abortion, but for the death penalty. Same reasoning -
> life is precious. That brings back fond memories of many wasted hours of
> arguing.)
Your logic is as screwed up as your political views, but that is
probably because logic is closely associated with how to think about
anything.
> I have the feeling this thread could go on for another two feet of screen
> space and no one's opinions would change. If this discussion were in
> public, voices would be raised so much that some neighbor would call the
> police.
>
> Have fun with your discussion. Maybe the Europeans will come to the aid
> of the US and help out with the day to day chore of keeping the peace and
> sharing the expenses (as long as the US is in charge of the oil). Hell,
> maybe the Europeans will lose a life or two everyday as well. Right, it's
> _only_ one or two lives per day for this great experiment in democracy.
> We'll shove democracy down their little throats and they'll thank us for
> it later.
Right, just like the Europeans came to the aid of the Bosnians who
were being slaughtered by the Serbs. We all know what the Europeans
are capable of - and that is watching genocide being done right under
their noses. The fact is that the Europeans are not capable of any
kind of military action anymore unless it is cleaning up a small mess
in their former colonies in Africa (something la belle France is
always doing). DH exhibits the typical elitist liberal contempt and
disdain for the peoples of the third world. They are not worthy of
democracy so why bother with them.
> I know it's just a, ahem, coincidence that Iraq is number two in world oil
> reserves and Bush and Cheney had some ... minor connection with that
> industry and that our economy is based on fossil fuel and that we don't
> need to support the Kyoto treaty and the change in the weather is just
> part of a cycle ... and so on and so on; just a big coincidence. I know
> those WMD will be found sometime even if we have to invent them. The UN
> was dragging its feet for over a decade trying to find them ... that was
> all part of the plan, right Ed? We know where they are and they will turn
> up just in time for the elections. Just another coincidence, right Ed?
Iraq had every opportunity to cooperate with the conditions that were
imposed on it as a result of the First Gulf War. The Middle East is
sitting on most of the world's oil and would not be a vital concern to
the West if it were not for this fact. But the kingdoms of the Middle
East could not possibly pose a threat to the West either if they had
not gotten wealthy as a result of selling their oil to the West. How
would Iraq ever have been able to have a weapons of mass destruction
program if not for their oil wealth. But to think that we took down
Iraq because we wanted their oil is childish and ridiculous. Iraq is
going to end up costing us much more that we are ever going to get out
of them.
Everyone in the world knew that Iraq had WMD - except liberal
extremist left-wing wacko nuts. Like Zippy says, that is because you
are on their side. You must really hate the West and yourselves to
think that.
> You know Ed, I don't know you personally, but I'd be willing to bet you
> are a loud in an argument and that your wife or kids leave the room when
> you start up. (I see in this thread that personal attacks are accepted,
> correct?)
You are right. You do not know me personally and you never will. You
stay on your side of the ocean and I will stay on my side, and let us
hope that we will never meet. It would be hatred at first sight I am
sure.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> I just got back from 70 days in Iraq. I've read both sides and listened to
> Ann Coulter. I will probably get around to her book because all the
> Dittoheads I work with like it. Given its title is basically a catchy way
> of saying "Revisionist Demonizing" I am not looking forward to much.
Believe it or not, I have been so busy defending Bush on this
newsgroup that even I have not gotten around to reading Coulter's
book. But unlike you, I am greatly looking forward to it. So far I
have just seen her on the TV talk shows where she can hardly get a
word in edge wise because her opponents are jumping all over her. That
is always a very good sign. She has no doubt touched on a raw nerve in
the liberal psyche.
> I just watched Coulter on TV saying how we should be patient in Iraq because
> it took us 5 years to "rebuild" Japan (A country that had recently conquered
> all of Asia). So how long - 10, 15, 20? Better yet - when have we ever
> turned a country half as bad as Iraq into a functioning democracy? If it
> falls apart and becomes another Iran or Afghanistan, do we attack it again?
> No WMDs, so we only just pissed off the Moslems again. So we borrow 50
> billion per year for military growth, another 50-90 billion a year (and get
> 50-90 dead Americans a year) for the occupation; and we have no proof that
> we are or worse better off. Pretty poor investment in my book
Coulter answered your question that you ask above. Don't you even read
what you have written? By the way, the war is not over yet, so a
summing up is a bit premature, don't you think?
> One would think the Capitol's airport would be the safest place around. But
> I saw tracers regularly and we got the occasional mortar attack. By the
> time I left, we had artillery batteries firing back at targets 2-3 miles
> away. I saw a missile shot at a cargo aircraft in broad daylight just
> before I left. Maybe they are "roundin 'em up" like the boss says. Maybe
> two volunteer for every one they take out. Who knows?
>
> We worked the UN bombing. I bet the British UN worker I flew to the
> hospital had plenty of "liberal ideological inanities" to say. But given he
> had both legs crushed above the knee, one arm severely crushed, and serious
> facial injuries, he had other things on his mind.
>
> I'd like to ask all the amputees, paraplegics, and widows if they still
> think it was worth it. It is never as simple as the talking heads on TV
> want to act.
I am always being criticized because I make light of war casualties,
but maybe that is because I understand that war is all about killing
and maiming. I believe you could be criticized for making "heavy"
about war casualties. You believe this war was not necessary; I
believe that the war was necessary. Funny how that colors our views
about casualties, don't you think?
> All I know is if they didn't have the oil, and we didn't need it, we
> wouldn't be there; and the price of oil stopped dropping 20 years ago, and
> started climbing 4 years ago.
I have answered this dilemma elsewhere in another post and I am tired
of repeating myself.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
DH
> stay on your side of the ocean and I will stay on my side, and let us
> hope that we will never meet. It would be hatred at first sight I am
> sure.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Ed, my feelings are hurt. Some of my best friends are arm chair warriors.
Mikael Seierup
troll more effectively under the monikker Ed Dolan.
(Apologies to whoever of you two that feels the most insulted
if this is not the case)
At any rate if you people didn't rise to his bait there'd be no problem.
Just my 2 centavos
Mikael
Ian
I am definitely going to look up (hunt down?) Ed if/when I get to Minnesota
next.
--
Ian
Edward Dolan
> On 20 Sep 2003 23:44:47 -0700, edo...@iw.net (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >"Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<3F6CCD6...@swbell.net>...
>
> A long post, mostly consisting of casting pearls before swine.
>
> He is an admirer of Reagan. He must know that one policy of Reagan's
> was that we don't negotiate with terrorists.
>
> I wonder what Reagan would think about Ed's reasoned debating with
> terrorists' sympathizers?
I am a great admirer of Reagan. I will admit he made a few missteps
during his 8 years in office but I think that is because he was coming
down with Alzheimer's Disease toward the end of his 2nd term. Reagan
would never negotiate with terrorists. His instincts were always right
and that is why he was a great president. But he was no Nixon with
regard to the complexities of international affairs. We need the
Machiavelli types as well as the heroic types in our presidents. Bush
II may be a combination of both types, but that has yet to be played
out fully. Let us hope.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
I am not just an arm chair warrior. I spent four long years in the
Navy. But I do not want the military making the decisions on whether
to go to war or not. They are not competent to do that. Look at the
examples of Powell and Clark. They might have been OK as generals, but
neither one would make a good commander-in-chief. Ike was good but he
was a kind of civilian type general to begin with. I think MacArthur
would have been no good.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
Mikael, I have had that thought myself many times. But it means that I
have vacated the field and rampant liberalism will then reign supreme
without any opposition whatever. The thought is too horrible to
contemplate. As much as it pains me to hang in here (you don't think I
enjoy this do you?) and as much as it might pain some of you more sane
types to have to put up with it, I simply don't see how we can escape
the trap that we have gotten ourselves into. The liberals on this
newsgroup will continue to do their thing because it is their nature
to do it whether I am here or not. No, I am afraid I must stay -
unless we can all agree to a peace treaty whereby no one will post any
political subjects to this forum. How likely do you think that is?
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> DH must be edykated coz e writed:
Are you edykated DH?
All these guys that have kill filed me still seem to find me somehow.
Ian, if and when you ever come to Minnesota I will show you a land
that is glorious and magnificent and full of hard working people who
are the salt of the earth (this is not called the Heartland for
nothing). We will go out on our bikes together on two lane black tops
and never meet any other vehicles and peruse the corn and soybean
fields as far as the eye can see. You will learn that the American
Heartland is not like Europe. There is miles and miles of nothing
everywhere you look. Just don't come in the wintertime when it is the
most miserable place in the world.
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> Yes, and I liked and respected Clinton a lot for that too (besides his
> intervention in the Balkans), but I wonder if Clinton would have been
> able to balance the budget without a Republican Congress to help.
> Interesting question don't you think? I am hearing economists now who
> say that balancing the budget is not important, but I am like Arnold
> that way. I am a fiscal conservative. I think it is possible the
> entire country could end up like California, a state that the Dems
The vast majority of the US government's debt is financed by the very
wealthy (as no one else could afford to do so). Running deficits is a
way to transfer money from taxes to the wealthy in the form of interest
on the national debt. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the
Reagan and Bush II administrations have run huge deficits, as this is a
subsidy to their political supporters.
As they say, "follow the money".
Tom Sherman
D Tresenriter wrote:
>
> I'll take credit for that line. :-) I met Tom at the Springfield, IL
> century a couple of weeks ago and introduced myself as
> Ed Dolan just to see if I could get a rise out of him.
>
> Didn't work, but I confessed to being conservati ve and that
> even I had kill filed Mr. Dolan, and I truly have.
>
> BTW, Tom, didn't see you at today's No Baloney ride in
> Peoria. I did see Mr. Balfour and did get to meet Mr. Stern.
> Nice ride, but I digress...
I ended up spending the weekend in Chicago, though I did ride as far
north as Wisconsin on the North Shore Century.
I hope to make it back to Forgottonia for the ride in Macomb on
Saturday.
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "Randy N." <tc...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<3F6CCD6...@swbell.net>...
> ...
> > They had indeed become a new party, well ok, an old party.
> > But hey, their ideological forebearers gave us a lot of good things, the
> > 1936 olympics and the Graf Zepplin, for example.
> > As for arrogance, no one beats uncurious George.
>
Significant evidence has come to light that George Herbert Walker and
his son-in-law, Prescott Bush made a considerable portion of their
family fortune by working with German industrialists who were financial
backers of the Nationalist Socialist Party. Some of the family fortune
most likely came from concentration camp slave labor.
Prescott Bush was forced to make amends by sending his son George
Herbert Walker Bush off the Navy during WW2. [1]
[1] Where G. H. W. Bush had a distinguished combat record, unlike his
draft-dodging son G. W. Bush, who did not even fulfill his National
Guard tour of duty.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
"If you kill one person, it is murder. If you kill a hundred thousand,
Mikael Seierup
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> I am a great admirer of Reagan. I will admit he made a few missteps
> during his 8 years in office but I think that is because he was coming
> down with Alzheimer's Disease toward the end of his 2nd term. Reagan
> would never negotiate with terrorists. His instincts were always right
> and that is why he was a great president. But he was no Nixon with
> regard to the complexities of international affairs. We need the
> Machiavelli types as well as the heroic types in our presidents. Bush
> II may be a combination of both types, but that has yet to be played
> out fully. Let us hope.
As crooked as Nixon, but as dimwitted as post-Alzheimer's onset Reagan?
DH
during the Vietnam war while he served in the Texas National Guard. That
point somehow gets overlooked by those mudslinging liberals.
Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> At least now we know how Mr. Sherman got to be the most prolific
> poster on this newsgroup. His posts generally run only a few
> sentences. His post here is only one sentence. He has so little to say
> but has got to say it anyway. I think if I had so little to say I
> would just not say it. But that's me and not him. I think he must be
> trolling for our sympathies. But Mr. Sherman knows how to curry favor
> with others on this newsgroup. I would not stoop that low myself, but
> like I said, that's me and not him.
When I get low I am not stooping, but rather I am reclined approximately
38 degrees from the horizontal.
Tom Sherman - Vive la France
Tom Sherman
DH wrote:
> ...
> Boys and girls, I'm off to a recumbent day in Tilburg, about 20 minutes
> from my house. Maybe I'll find something I like and won't order that
> Giant Revive after all.
>
> Try to keep it down, the neighbors are trying to get some sleep.
>
> Have fun ... see you later, all the best, Dave Horne - Helvoirt, The
> Netherlands
Why would anyone in a place as flat and windy as The Netherlands ride
anything but a lowracer or semi-lowracer? Especially considering variety
of domestically produced bikes to choose from?
Mikael Seierup
"Tom Sherman" skrev
> Why would anyone in a place as flat and windy as The Netherlands ride
> anything but a lowracer or semi-lowracer? Especially considering variety
> of domestically produced bikes to choose from?
I'd go for a faired trike. Flat, windy and wet might sum it up better.
Mikael
DH
> anything but a lowracer or semi-lowracer? Especially considering variety
> of domestically produced bikes to choose from?
>
> Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers
Is it proper to discuss biking in a political thread?
I'm making my effort to lower my center of gravity. These changes have to
be gradual ... in stages. I will first move to a sitting bike and then,
maybe, move to a recumbent. It's going to be a while before my center of
gravity gets low enough for a lowracer.
Tom Sherman
Mikael Seierup wrote:
>
> Oh Gawd. Someone invoked the nazis. Time to killfile this thread.
Godwin's Rule only applies to situation where one poster compares
another poster to Hitler (or other suitable mass murdering tyrant).
Tom Sherman
There are no production statistics that I am aware of, but I strongly
suspect that The Netherlands is the leading country in velomobile
production.
Mikael Seierup
"Tom Sherman" skrev...
> > I'd go for a faired trike. Flat, windy and wet might sum it up better.
>
> There are no production statistics that I am aware of, but I strongly
> suspect that The Netherlands is the leading country in velomobile
> production.
I would imagine that the Alleweder still holds the title
of most popular velomobile in terms of numbers built.
M.
Mikael Seierup
"Tom Sherman" skrev...
Hmmm. Your clock set correctly?
Your posts show up with the time one hour behind.
M.
Tom Sherman
Windoze 97 at work. For some reason the clock on my computer loses time
in one-hour increments at irregular intervals.
And for this, Bill Gates becomes the richest man in the world?
Denis Rivest
To Tom Sherman and Ed Dolan:
Hey Guys; chill out!
A well thought out argument is one thing, but you're going beyond that.
Could we have some maturity here? If possible???
Please!
Denis Rivest
RANS Stratus
Robert Haston
news:7d49e514.03092...@posting.google.com...
> I am always being criticized because I make light of war casualties,
> but maybe that is because I understand that war is all about killing
> and maiming.
So Mr. Expert, how many casualties have you seen (and heard, smelled, or
touched) personally? How many people you know personally have died in
Afghanistan or Iraq?
I only count one in each category in the last year. I definitely
understand war is about killing and maiming. I also understand that often
that is all it is about.
Tom Sherman
Robert Haston wrote:
> ...
> I only count one in each category in the last year. I definitely
> understand war is about killing and maiming. I also understand that often
> that is all it is about.
"A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very
easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over
expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without
discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the
syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors
are an abundant source of gain." - Anatole France
Tom Sherman