how would you kill Bin Laden?
MadCow57
> I'd make him listen 24/7 to the banter of the inane right-wingers in this
newsgroup. He'd last...oh...an hour or so.< -- Harry Krause
>>Hey Harry- do you talk politics while screwing your wife, too?<<
MadCow57
> Uhhh here we go again with "Lefty Harry". What would YOU do Krause, invite
the bastard over for Thanksgiving and try to explain that what he did was a
"bad thing"?<
>>Uh, no. Osama bin Laden probably is guilty or at least heavily involved in
the 9-11 attacks, but it would be nice if we followed the "rules of law" we
tout so much and prove his complicity in a court. Perhaps our government
does have direct, substantial evidence tying bin Laden to the terror. If it
does, we're entitled to see it. Why should bin Laden be treated differently
prior to a trial than Tim McVeigh, the other right-wing mass murderer? <snip
crap> << -- Harry
MadCow57
>>I'm sure the Bush Administration doesn't want bin Laden around, but he is
infinitely more valuable alive than dead. Why, he could be made to reveal all
sorts of secrets, and some of them might, well they just might, embarrass
President Doofus.<< -- Harry Krause
Definitely off his meds again.
Mark Pilcher
>From: madc...@aol.com (MadCow57)
I understand that he's been "self medicating" ever since the election.
Delete ImtheNRA in order to spam me.
The Second Amendment isn't about deer hunting.
NOYB
against other US citizens is a crime. An act to destroy a nation by a group
of individuals with the support and funding of other nations is an act of
war. You really aren't that stupid, are you Harry?
"MadCow57" <madc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011124010144...@mb-fz.aol.com...
Richard Bonnett
world,
So she answered the question by saying...
Change Him To a Her and send him back to His World.
I thought that might not be adequate punishment .......
Harry Krause
May I assume from your cross-posting here, SaddCow, you'll no longer be
raising the "poor, poor pitiful me" defense or asking in your mooing voice
why "he" picks on "me?"
Much, much more amusing are your tales of being sexually harassed on the
job, which you regaled us with some years ago, or your anecdote of how your
relatives (your mother and sister, if I recall) went to your apartment while
you were in the hospital and "stole" all of your personal possessions, in
the hope you were about to die.
Now *that* is an amusing anecdote about a family and the dysfunctional
individuals in it, eh?
Ciao!
Boatindude
Don't you people have better things to do? Sounds kind of morbid to me.
- - -
Tom (boatindude)
1998 Carver Mariner 350
"No Worries"
Mass to Florida
Harry Krause
>
> Because an act committed by a US citizen living his entire life in the US
> against other US citizens is a crime. An act to destroy a nation by a group
> of individuals with the support and funding of other nations is an act of
> war. You really aren't that stupid, are you Harry?
>
Please. Just because The Idiot Who Is President is confused about
terminology doesn't mean all of us have to be.
The 9-11 "attacks" were acts of terrorism, acts of clandestine use of
violence, murder and bombings to achieve a political purpose. Terrorism is
well-defined in the U.S. Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and the
United Kingdom Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1976. Both stress the use of
violence to coerce or intimidate the civilian population in order to affect
government policy.
I know President Doof and his crew like to refer to what happened 9-11 as
"Acts of War," but they're only using those terms to rile up the simplefolk
like you and justify their erosion of civil liberties.
H.
Bartender
G
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFB12E...@mindspring.com...
Harry Krause
He got me riled, too. But I'd still prefer to see him captured alive and put
on trial. I want to see the evidence against him, I want to hear witnesses
who have other than hearsay evidence, I want to hear who he is tied in with,
what governments (several, I would guess, are our supposed allies) help him.
It's possible in such a *public* trial we wouldn't learn anything new, but,
we might. And what we learn might be very interesting.
The 9-11 terrorists who hit NYC committed their acts against *the people* of
the United States. I'm sure the people would like to know what happened and
why.
Killing bin Laden and his close associates closes that possibility. All we
are left with is the government's explanation. NOT good enough when 4000
civilians are killed.
JFG
the entire countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, into dust, now want to
jeopardize our ability to gather intelligence by letting everyone in the
world know exactly what our intelligence capabilities are.
I guess all of us should be glad that you do not have a job of any
responsibility and spend all of your time on USENET. If you were not such a
simpleton who is a complete failure in life, you could be very dangerous.
Do you ever realize how stupid you appear to most liberals, moderates and
conservatives?
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFC438...@mindspring.com...
Brett
I would make him read all of harry's posts, over and over and
over......
David Smalley
>
> Bartender wrote:
> >
> > Guess I'm just a simple folk . Osama Bin Hiden got me a little riled.
> He got me riled, too. But I'd still prefer to see him captured alive and put
> on trial. I want to see the evidence against him, I want to hear witnesses
> who have other than hearsay evidence, I want to hear who he is tied in with,
> what governments (several, I would guess, are our supposed allies) help him.
>
> It's possible in such a *public* trial we wouldn't learn anything new, but,
> we might. And what we learn might be very interesting.
Well Harry, it now sounds like you work for Al Queda. They are _most_
interested to learn the how and whys of US intelligence so they can
avoid getting caught in the future.
One of the reasons they were so successful on 911 is that they learned
what not to do from the various trials of their brethren.
But you knew all that.
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> > Bartender wrote:
> > >
> > > Guess I'm just a simple folk . Osama Bin Hiden got me a little riled.
>
> > He got me riled, too. But I'd still prefer to see him captured alive and put
> > on trial. I want to see the evidence against him, I want to hear witnesses
> > who have other than hearsay evidence, I want to hear who he is tied in with,
> > what governments (several, I would guess, are our supposed allies) help him.
> >
> > It's possible in such a *public* trial we wouldn't learn anything new, but,
> > we might. And what we learn might be very interesting.
>
> Well Harry, it now sounds like you work for Al Queda. They are _most_
> interested to learn the how and whys of US intelligence so they can
> avoid getting caught in the future.
1. The "how and why" of U.S. intel efforts apparently isn't worth a teaspoon
of warm spit. If it were, then 9-11 would have been prevented or at least
partially prevented. We don't *have* any good intel.
2. Perhaps you are willing to take the word of the Bush Administration on
whether it has "caught" the *responsible* terrorists, assuming it kills or
finds the body of bin Laden, but I'm not.
Harry Krause
>
> So you in your simplistic mind
Jim, you haven't had a single idea of any merit in at least 10 years. Why
not move out to your porch and wait for your anti-Alzheimer's meds?
Oh...and you *still* aren't following the traditional Catholic ethic. Last
time you commented on my question to you about it, you mumbled something
about your charitable giving. Perhaps you might want to talk to your priest
and find out what a good Catholic is supposed to be doing, in terms of the
traditional Catholic ethic. Or perhaps you'd prefer reading what several
Popes or bishops have written on the matter. Try to avoid simplistic "www"
cites, eh? There must be a good Catholic university in your area...go visit
its library. You have time time, right?
Steven Shelikoff
Harry, as usual, you're wrong yet again. They attacked the Pentagon,
not just civilians, making it as much an act of war as the attack on
Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. You really need to think a bit more before
spewing your BS.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
>
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> > >
> > > Bartender wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guess I'm just a simple folk . Osama Bin Hiden got me a little riled.
> >
> > > He got me riled, too. But I'd still prefer to see him captured alive and put
> > > on trial. I want to see the evidence against him, I want to hear witnesses
> > > who have other than hearsay evidence, I want to hear who he is tied in with,
> > > what governments (several, I would guess, are our supposed allies) help him.
> > >
> > > It's possible in such a *public* trial we wouldn't learn anything new, but,
> > > we might. And what we learn might be very interesting.
> >
> > Well Harry, it now sounds like you work for Al Queda. They are _most_
> > interested to learn the how and whys of US intelligence so they can
> > avoid getting caught in the future.
>
> 1. The "how and why" of U.S. intel efforts apparently isn't worth a teaspoon
> of warm spit. If it were, then 9-11 would have been prevented or at least
> partially prevented. We don't *have* any good intel.
Harry, don't be so black and white, all or nothing. If we didn't have
any good intel, there would have been a lot more terrorist acts that
wouldn't have been prevented. Clinton would have been killed around 8
years ago if we didn't have good intel. We just don't have enough. And
here you want to jeopardize out capability to get intel by revealing
sources in a public trial after complaining that we don't have good
intel. You are sounding more and more moronic by the day. Maybe it's
time you took another break for a while and cleared your head.
> 2. Perhaps you are willing to take the word of the Bush Administration on
> whether it has "caught" the *responsible* terrorists, assuming it kills or
> finds the body of bin Laden, but I'm not.
They'll be a lot more than just the word of the Bush Administration on
whether it has caught or killed the responsible terrorists. Most of the
people in the government whose word you'll have to take are career
people, who've been through many administrations. Others are
non-government people. But I'm sure you won't be happy until you've
helped the terrorists conduct their next attack that hurts the country
while Bush is President.
Steve
Harry Krause
If there is another attack, it won't be because I helped the terrorists. It
will be because President Doof didn't know what he was doing.
Harry Krause
Terrorists also attack military targets, Steve. They're still acts of
terrorism. Bush is misusing the word, probably out of ignorance. Another of
his "crusade" slips...
Mark Pilcher
>May I assume from your cross-posting here, SaddCow, you'll no longer be
>raising the "poor, poor pitiful me" defense or asking in your mooing voice
>why "he" picks on "me?"
She's just pointing out your bankrupt political philosophy for what it is. I
guess you're afraid that your half-thought-out ideas can't stand the light of
day.
JFG
It is obvious that you resent Bush because he has been successful and your
life is devoid of meaning. Talk to your therapist about taking a few months
away from Usenet, it might help you control your obsessive compulsive
behavior.
Remember, OCD can be controlled through therapy and drugs, your life does
not have to be so dismal.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFF53E...@mindspring.com...
Steven Shelikoff
> will be because President Doof didn't know what he was doing.
You're trying your best to help the terrorists. We can only hope you
don't succeed.
Steve
JFG
Harry likes to talk about helping people and being compassionate liberal,
but if Harry's premise concerning MC is correct, any normal compassionate
person, either liberal or conservative, would be interested in helping her
not stalking her into alt.obit.
Harry,
As a compassionate individual, I want to help you. FYI:
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder. It is a
condition that can last throughout a person's life. People with OCD can
become trapped in a pattern of repetitive thoughts and behaviours that are
senseless and distressing, but extremely difficult to overcome. Their
symptoms can range from mild to severe, and when untreated, severe OCD can
destroy a person's ability to function at work, at school, or even at home.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder involves anxious thoughts (obsessions) or
rituals (compulsions) which you feel you can't control. People with OCD are
often plagued by persistent, unwelcome thoughts or images, or by the urgent
need to engage in certain rituals. For example, a person with OCD might be
obsessed with germs or dirt, and wash his or her hands over and over.
Another person may check things repeatedly or be preoccupied by thoughts of
violence and fear. Obsessive counting is often seen in people with OCD.
For many years, doctors thought that OCD was a rare disease, because they
saw very few patients with the condition. However, many sufferers were not
identified, because people with OCD will try to keep their repetitive
thoughts and behaviours secret, and so tend not to seek treatment. It is now
thought that about two people in a hundred are affected, meaning that OCD is
more common than mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or
panic disorder. OCD strikes people of all ethnic groups, and males and
females are equally affected.
OCD symptoms usually begin in the teenage years or early adulthood, but some
children develop the illness at earlier ages, even in the pre school years.
At least one-third of adults with OCD first developed the disease in
childhood. OCD tends to last for years, even decades. The symptoms may
become less severe from timeto time, and there may be long intervals when
the symptoms are mild, but for most individuals, the symptoms are chronic.
Symptoms of OCD
Obsessions
Obsessions are unwanted ideas or impulses that repeatedly well up in the
mind of the person with OCD. Sufferers often fear that harm may come to
themselves or a loved one, have unreasonable concerns about becoming
contaminated, or an excessive need to do things correctly or perfectly.
Again and again, the person experiences a disturbing thought, such as, "My
hands may be contaminated--I must wash them" or "I may have left the gas on"
or "I am going to injure my child." These distressing thoughts intrude on
the patients other thoughts, and cause anxiety. Sometimes the obsessions are
of a violent or a sexual nature, or concern illness.
Compulsions
In response to their obsessions, most people with OCD resort to repetitive
behaviours called compulsions. The most common of these are washing and
checking. Other compulsive behaviours include counting (often while
performing another compulsive action such as hand washing), repeating,
hoarding, and endlessly rearranging objects in an effort to keep them in
precise alignment with each other. Mental problems are also common, such as
mentally repeating phrases and list making. These behaviours are generally
intended to ward off harm to the person with OCD or others. Some people with
OCD have regimented rituals; others have rituals that are complex and
changing. Performing these rituals provides only temporary relief from
anxiety, but not performing them increases the person's anxiety.
Insight
People with OCD may realise that their obsessions and compulsions are
senseless and unrealistic (i.e., they show insight), especially when their
obsessional thoughts are under control. At other times they may be unsure
about their fears, or may even believe strongly that their thoughts are
reasonable.
Resistance
Most people with OCD struggle to banish their unwanted obsessive thoughts,
and to prevent themselves from engaging in compulsive behaviours. Many are
able to keep their obsessive-compulsive symptoms under control when they are
at work or school, but over months or years, their resistance may weaken.
When this happens, the symptoms may become so severe that time-consuming
rituals take over their lives, making it impossible for them to continue
activities outside the home.
Shame and secrecy
OCD sufferers often attempt to hide their disorder rather than seek help,
and they are often they are successful in concealing their
obsessive-compulsive symptoms from friends and co-workers. Unfortunately,
this means that people with OCD usually do not receive professional
psychiatric help until years after the onset of their disease. By that time,
they may have learned to work their lives, and those of their relatives and
friends, around the rituals.
People with OCD should not be confused with people who may be called
'compulsive' because they hold themselves to a high standard of performance
and are perfectionist and very organised in their work and recreational
activities. This type of compulsiveness often serves a valuable purpose,
contributing to a person's self-esteem and success on the job. In that
respect, it differs from the life-wrecking obsessions and rituals of the
person with OCD.
Illnesses which coexist with OCD
Some people with OCD may also suffer from depression, eating disorders,
substance abuse, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or other
anxiety disorders. When a person has other disorders, OCD is often more
difficult to diagnose and treat. Symptoms of OCD are also seen in other
brain disorders, such as Tourette's syndrome. Correct diagnosisand treatment
of these disorders is important for successful treatment of OCD.
In the past it was thought that OCD was caused by life experiences, but
there is now increasing evidence that biological factors are involved. and
that OCD is related to an abnormality in the function of circuits of nerve
cells in specific areas of the brain. OCD is not caused by family problems
or attitudes learned in childhood, such as an emphasis on cleanliness, or a
belief that certain thoughts are dangerous or unacceptable. Using techniques
which allow them to look at events in the brain in living people, such as
positron emission tomography (PET), doctors have compared people with and
without OCD. People with OCD have patterns of brain activity that differ
from people with other mental illnesses or people with no mental illness. In
addition, PET scans show that in patients with OCD, both behavioural therapy
and drugs produce changes in the brain. These changes may be an explanation
for the clinical improvements produced by both psychotherapy and medication.
Other studies of brain structure using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
showed that people with OCD had less white matter than normal subjects,
suggesting a widely distributed brain abnormality.
Other theories about the causes of OCD emphasise the importance of the
interaction between behaviour and the environment, and on beliefs and
attitudes, as well as how information is processed. Both the behavioural and
cognitive theories and the biological explanations are important
explanations of different aspects of how the illness might arise.
Drug treatment
Drugs which affect the actions of the neurotransmitter serotonin (5-HT) in
the brain can significantly reduce the symptoms of OCD. Several drugs
(clomipramine, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, and paroxetine) have
been proven effective. More than three-quarters of patients are helped by
these medications at least a little, and in more than a half of patients,
medications relieve symptoms of OCD by reducing the frequency and severity
of the obsessions and compulsions. Improvement usually takes at least three
weeks or longer. If a patient does not respond well to one of these
medications, or has unacceptable side effects, another drug may give a
better response. Medications help in controlling the symptoms of OCD, but
often, if the patient stops taking their medication, a relapse of symptoms
will follow. Even after symptoms have subsided, most people will need to
continue with medication indefinitely, perhaps with a lowered dosage.
Behaviour therapy
Traditional psychotherapy, aimed at helping the patient develop insight into
his or her problem, is generally not helpful for OCD. However, a specific
behaviour therapy approach called 'exposure and response prevention' is
effective for many people. In this approach, the patient deliberately and
voluntarily confronts the feared object or idea, either directly or by
imagination. At the same time the patient is strongly encouraged to refrain
from ritualising, with support and structure provided by the therapist, and
possibly by others who the patient recruits for assistance. For example, a
compulsive hand washer may be encouraged to touch an object believed to be
contaminated, and then urged to avoid washing for several hours until the
anxiety provoked has decreased. Treatment then proceeds on a step-by-step
basis, guided by the patient's ability to tolerate the anxiety and control
the rituals. As treatment progresses, most patients gradually experience
less anxiety from the obsessive thoughts and are able to resist the
compulsive urges.
Studies of behaviour therapy for OCD have found it to be a successful
treatment for the majority of patients who complete it. It is helpful for
the patient to be highly motivated and have a positive, determined attitude.
The positive effects of behaviour therapy remain once treatment has ended.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) may be effective for OCD. This form of
behaviour therapy emphasises changing the OCD sufferer's beliefs and
thinking patterns.
The effect of OCD on families
OCD affects not only the individual sufferer but also their relatives and
friends. Families often have a difficult time accepting the fact that the
person with OCD cannot stop the distressing behaviour. If relatives show
their anger and resentment, this may lead to an increase in the OCD
behaviour. Otherwise, to keep the peace, they may assist in the rituals or
give constant reassurance. However, families can learn ways to encourage the
person with OCD to persist with the behaviour therapy and/or medication
programs.
--
Jim
"Mark Pilcher" <mark...@aol.comImtheNRA> wrote in message
news:20011124145034...@mb-fx.aol.com...
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> > >
> > > NOYB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Because an act committed by a US citizen living his entire life in the US
> > > > against other US citizens is a crime. An act to destroy a nation by a group
> > > > of individuals with the support and funding of other nations is an act of
> > > > war. You really aren't that stupid, are you Harry?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please. Just because The Idiot Who Is President is confused about
> > > terminology doesn't mean all of us have to be.
> > >
> > > The 9-11 "attacks" were acts of terrorism, acts of clandestine use of
> > > violence, murder and bombings to achieve a political purpose. Terrorism is
> > > well-defined in the U.S. Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and the
> > > United Kingdom Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1976. Both stress the use of
> > > violence to coerce or intimidate the civilian population in order to affect
> > > government policy.
> > >
> > > I know President Doof and his crew like to refer to what happened 9-11 as
> > > "Acts of War," but they're only using those terms to rile up the simplefolk
> > > like you and justify their erosion of civil liberties.
> >
> > Harry, as usual, you're wrong yet again. They attacked the Pentagon,
> > not just civilians, making it as much an act of war as the attack on
> > Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. You really need to think a bit more before
> > spewing your BS.
>
> terrorism. Bush is misusing the word, probably out of ignorance. Another of
> his "crusade" slips...
You're right and the rest of the world is wrong Harry. Sheesh, what an
ego. <sarcasm>Yes, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist attack and not an act
of war. So was the attack on the Pentagon.</sarcasm> You're so funny
in your meager attempts to help the terrorists. We can only hope you
don't succeed.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
>
> You're trying your best to help the terrorists.
>
Sure, Steve...whatever your right-wing mind tells you.
Harry Krause
>
> Harry,
> It is obvious that you resent Bush because he has been successful and your
> life is devoid of meaning.
When Gallows posts here, it is as if one of the hollow men speaketh...*
What a giggle...
*No, Jim. Not the movie.
These hollow men:
The Hollow Men
Eliot, Thomas Stearns (1888-1965)
MISTAH KURTZ -- HE DEAD.
A penny for the Old Guy
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Funny how old Thomas Stearns had your number and never met you...
Steven Shelikoff
Ha! That's funny. Abbie Hoffman was right-wing compared to you.
Steve
Harry Krause
No, Steve, Pearl Harbor was a military attack and an act of war.
The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were terrorist attacks.
Bush adopted the term "act of war" to describe them either out of stupidity,
which I suspect, or because his string pullers thought the term had more
panache and would enable them to fudge around with some quasi War Powers Act
b.s.
We've been down that road before.
There is plenty of literature available that differentiates between
terrorism and acts of war.
Steven Shelikoff
And it all points out that the attack on the Pentagon was as much an act
of war as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Lately, you've really are
slipping in your ability to think. Just because *you* forgot about the
Pentagon and only thought of the WTC attacks when presenting your
definition of terrorism above, doesn't mean everyone else is as absent
minded as you. And the fact that you think they are shows what an
enormous ego you have. It's fun to watch you kick and struggle to
defend such an obviously wrong position, wrong even by your own standard
set above.
You really need to take a break for a while and clear your mind.
Steve
Harry Krause
Oh, come on, Steve. Hey, I was man enough to admit my guy, President Bill,
shouldn't have lied about getting extra-curricular blowjobs. Be man enough
to admit your guy is the least intellectually capable president in your
lifetime.
He's a doof.
Steven Shelikoff
Ok, I'll take your changing of the subject as an admission of being
wrong. That's the way you usually do it.
As for Bush being the least intellectually capable president in my
lifetime, when I see real evidence of that, I'll be glad to admit it.
I'm not going to just take your word for it.
> He's a doof.
... who, so far, has done much better at filling the job description of
being president than Clinton or Carter, two people who I'm sure you
regard as being much more intelligent than Bush. I'm ever hopeful that
at some point you'll let it go, and we won't have to put up with at
least three more years of your single/simple minded rants and raves.
Steve
bb
<hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>1. The "how and why" of U.S. intel efforts apparently isn't worth a teaspoon
>of warm spit. If it were, then 9-11 would have been prevented or at least
>partially prevented. We don't *have* any good intel.
Well, it was prevented on the Clinton watch. I could be the Bush clan
just let their guard down.
bb
David Smalley
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
> > Oh, come on, Steve. Hey, I was man enough to admit my guy, President Bill,
> > shouldn't have lied about getting extra-curricular blowjobs. Be man enough
> > to admit your guy is the least intellectually capable president in your
> > lifetime.
>
> Ok, I'll take your changing of the subject as an admission of being
> wrong. That's the way you usually do it.
<chuckle>
Methinks the nail has been struck squarely on the head.
> As for Bush being the least intellectually capable president in my
> lifetime, when I see real evidence of that, I'll be glad to admit it.
> I'm not going to just take your word for it.
>
> > He's a doof.
>
> ... who, so far, has done much better at filling the job description of
> being president than Clinton or Carter, two people who I'm sure you
> regard as being much more intelligent than Bush.
What does that say for "I'll Bore", who had far worse grades than the
sprout?
I'm ever hopeful that
> at some point you'll let it go, and we won't have to put up with at
> least three more years of your single/simple minded rants and raves.
You are a far more patient man than I.
Harry Krause
>
> > Oh, come on, Steve. Hey, I was man enough to admit my guy, President Bill,
> > shouldn't have lied about getting extra-curricular blowjobs. Be man enough
> > to admit your guy is the least intellectually capable president in your
> > lifetime.
>
> Ok, I'll take your changing of the subject as an admission of being
> wrong.
You'd be wrong.
>
> As for Bush being the least intellectually capable president in my
> lifetime, when I see real evidence of that, I'll be glad to admit it.
> I'm not going to just take your word for it.
Oh? Which president in your lifetime was less intellectually capable than
Bush?
>
> > He's a doof.
>
> ... who, so far, has done much better at filling the job description of
> being president than Clinton or Carter, two people who I'm sure you
> regard as being much more intelligent than Bush.
I think Clinton was a far superior president. Carter's presidency was a
disappointment and was sandbagged in the end by Reagan.
I'm ever hopeful that
> at some point you'll let it go, and we won't have to put up with at
> least three more years of your single/simple minded rants and raves.
>
Let what go? My belief Bush is a dummy? He *is* a dummy.
Harry Krause
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > Harry Krause wrote:
>
> > > Oh, come on, Steve. Hey, I was man enough to admit my guy, President Bill,
> > > shouldn't have lied about getting extra-curricular blowjobs. Be man enough
> > > to admit your guy is the least intellectually capable president in your
> > > lifetime.
> >
> > Ok, I'll take your changing of the subject as an admission of being
> > wrong. That's the way you usually do it.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Methinks the nail has been struck squarely on the head.
Methinks as usual you'd be wrong. Virtually every assumption you have made
about me has been wrong.
You are batting .001.
Steve
Albright.....wait a minute...those are some perfect examples why women
SHOULD wear those Moslem potato bags over their heads.....never mind....
Harry Krause
And why your father should have worn one over his...
Calif Bill
put on trial. Now you have a Pre-martyr, and think of the hijackings,
kidnappings, bombings, to get OSB to be release. Much better for OSB to be
dead. Attacked and killed by some wild boars in his cave, would be even
better.
Bill
Harry Krause wrote in message <3BFFC438...@mindspring.com>...
>Bartender wrote:
>>
>> Guess I'm just a simple folk . Osama Bin Hiden got me a little riled.
>> G
>>
>> "Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:3BFFB12E...@mindspring.com...
>> > H.
>
>
>
>He got me riled, too. But I'd still prefer to see him captured alive and
put
>on trial. I want to see the evidence against him, I want to hear witnesses
>who have other than hearsay evidence, I want to hear who he is tied in
with,
>what governments (several, I would guess, are our supposed allies) help
him.
>
>It's possible in such a *public* trial we wouldn't learn anything new, but,
>we might. And what we learn might be very interesting.
>
>The 9-11 terrorists who hit NYC committed their acts against *the people*
of
>the United States. I'm sure the people would like to know what happened and
>why.
>
>Killing bin Laden and his close associates closes that possibility. All we
>are left with is the government's explanation. NOT good enough when 4000
>civilians are killed.
Harry Krause
> > He's a doof.
>
> ... who, so far, has done much better at filling the job description of
> being president than Clinton or Carter,
Yeah, right...
Highest unemployment in nearly 20 years...
Between 4000 and 5000 dead in the worst terrorist attack ever on the US
Economy in the crapper
Anthrax
An attorney general eroding civil liberties almost every day
We're far worse off as a nation than we were a year ago.
Harry Krause
>
> One of the worse things to happen would be for OSB to be captured alive and
> put on trial.
Indeed...we might gain access to all sorts of ugly information the Bush
administration would rather keep hidden.
Maybe.
Steve
I'd expect something like that from a tupperware "boater..."
Harry Krause
Tupperware boater? That must be an LA term.
Steven Shelikoff
By your standard, FDR and Lincoln were two of the worst Presidents we've
ever had. Yeah, you really know how to judge a President, NOT! We can
all be thankful that your opinions mean nothing, because they are always
so wrong.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
> >
> > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > > > He's a doof.
> > >
> > > ... who, so far, has done much better at filling the job description of
> > > being president than Clinton or Carter,
> >
> > Yeah, right...
> >
> > Highest unemployment in nearly 20 years...
> > Between 4000 and 5000 dead in the worst terrorist attack ever on the US
> > Economy in the crapper
> > Anthrax
> > An attorney general eroding civil liberties almost every day
> >
> > We're far worse off as a nation than we were a year ago.
>
> By your standard, FDR and Lincoln were two of the worst Presidents we've
> ever had.
I have lots of criteria for judging a President. We've been discussing
Bush's lack of intellectuality. You're obviously trying to wiggle off the
hook now. Yes, Roosevelt and Lincoln had some severe trials as President,
but they were up to the job. President Doof...ain't.
Butch Ammon
Excuse me..... How can you put all the blame on Bush? It's not HIS fault. If
Al Gore had won, and the same tragedys happend, would you blame him?
Sometimes I don't quite understand your point of view. Instead of getting into
a heated debate, I'll just sigh, roll my eyes, and utter a sarcastic
"Whatever". It's an attitude perfected by my teenage daughters!
Wasn't there at least *one* republican POTUS that you admired? I understand
you are a Democrat, and that's cool. But, from what I see, friend, you are a
Democrat to the BONE. I still prefer "fence sitting" where I an neither
Democrat nor Republican. I look at the positive sides of both characters and
go with my heart when voting. Other times, I'll just simply wing it.
Butch Ammon
My web page:
http://members.aol.com/ammonc/butch.html
Calif Bill
Bill
Harry Krause wrote in message <3C000EBE...@mindspring.com>...
David Smalley
How does that go..."Methinks he protesteth too much"?
Further proof that I am most likely right.
Steven Shelikoff
Well, there you have it. All your bluster about civil rights is just a
smokescreen. The real reason you want a public trial for bin Laden is
that you're so bitter about what happened to Clinton (of his own making
BTW) that you're willing to sacrifice American lives just to go on a
fishing expedition to see if some dirt can be dug up on Bush.
You are truly one sick individual.
Steve
Steven Shelikoff
If we were discussing Bush's lack of intellectuality, then why did *YOU*
bring up your criteria above which places FDR and Lincoln as among our
worst Presidents? Harry, you're really loosing it, publicly. Time to
take a break from the newsgroups for some reflection. And yes, so far
President Bush has done an admirable job of being up to similar severe
trials as President that Roosevelt and Lincoln faced.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
> >
> >We're far worse off as a nation than we were a year ago.
> >
> >
>
> Excuse me..... How can you put all the blame on Bush? It's not HIS fault. If
> Al Gore had won, and the same tragedys happend, would you blame him?
You were in the Coast Guard, right? Let's say you were serving aboard a
ship. About 10 months ago, the ship got a new captain. At the time the new
captain took over, there were a few minor maintenance problems aboard, there
was the possibility of rocky waters ahead and there was also the possibility
of serious threats to the safety of ship and crew.
The new captain didn't want to bother himself with learning about these
problems in detail by either investigating or reading detailed reports.
Instead, he depended upon his staff to let him know what they thought he
needed to know.
Instead of addressing the maintenance problems directly, he tried to twiddle
with techniques didn't work when his father was running the ship. Instead of
learning all he could about the charts and waters he was about to enter, he
worked short hours and took long vacations. Instead of addressing any of the
serious threats, he decided to "withdraw" from the stage, even though the
ship he commanded was a principal on the world stage.
So, 10 months later, the maintenance problems turn into disaster, the rocky
waters turned into reefs onto which his ship slammed and those serious
threats, they were lobbing shells into his superstructure.
A board of inquiry was held.
Who do you think will be blamed? The captain who retired 10 months earlier
or the current captain?
> Wasn't there at least *one* republican POTUS that you admired?
Sure. I admired Dick Nixon for many years. I like Gerry Ford. I thought
Reagan was horrible for the country, I thought Bush senior wasted four of
our years and I think his son is too stupid to serve in the office to
whichhe was annointed.
I understand
> you are a Democrat, and that's cool. But, from what I see, friend, you are a
> Democrat to the BONE.
That must be was I was offered three jobs by Republican presidents.
Butch Ammon
>If
>> Al Gore had won, and the same tragedys happend, would you blame him?
>
>You were in the Coast Guard, right? Let's say you were serving aboard a
>ship. About 10 months ago, the ship got a new captain. At the time the new
>captain took over, there were a few minor maintenance problems aboard, there
>was the possibility of rocky waters ahead and there was also the possibility
>of serious threats to the safety of ship and crew.
>
>The new captain didn't want to bother himself with learning about these
>problems in detail by either investigating or reading detailed reports.
>Instead, he depended upon his staff to let him know what they thought he
>needed to know.
>
>Instead of addressing the maintenance problems directly, he tried to twiddle
>with techniques didn't work when his father was running the ship. Instead of
>learning all he could about the charts and waters he was about to enter, he
>worked short hours and took long vacations. Instead of addressing any of the
>serious threats, he decided to "withdraw" from the stage, even though the
>ship he commanded was a principal on the world stage.
>
>So, 10 months later, the maintenance problems turn into disaster, the rocky
>waters turned into reefs onto which his ship slammed and those serious
>threats, they were lobbing shells into his superstructure.
>
>A board of inquiry was held.
>
>Who do you think will be blamed? The captain who retired 10 months earlier
>or the current captain?
>
Er, uh, yeah..... But, your analogy was of a Captain of a CG Cutter. In order
to be a CO of a USCG Cutter, you really have to possess incredible leadership
ability and seamanship knowledge.
Perhaps look at the USCG getting a new Commandant. If Admiral Loy retired, and
the USCG got a new Admiral, he would only be recommended for the duties of
Commandant if he had the knowledge, dedication to duty, and excellent
leadership skills.
A leader knows when to allow others to do their jobs and not poke his nose into
every single affair - that is micro-managing. Bush may lack certain knowledge,
but as our POTUS, he is constantly surrounded by people smarter than him.
But if Al Gore was the POTUS and all the tragedies still happend, would you pin
the blame on him?
Harry Krause
My analogy, which was written in great haste, was about the captain of a
ship, the person who is held responsible.
> A leader knows when to allow others to do their jobs and not poke his nose into
> every single affair - that is micro-managing. Bush may lack certain knowledge,
> but as our POTUS, he is constantly surrounded by people smarter than him.
There's no question Bush is surrounded by people smarter than he is. They'd
have to be, eh? And I'm not suggesting he be a micromanager. What I am
saying is that he was intellectually *uninterested* in his new job, and did
not devote the time or effort to what the job requires, nor does he *want*
to know. There have been all sorts of reports about his refusal to fully
engage in his work. Hell, if he gives a news conference and if there are any
questions for which he has not intensely prepped, he ends up babbling
nonsense.
>
> But if Al Gore was the POTUS and all the tragedies still happend, would you pin
> the blame on him?
Let's try this again. Bush is the annointed head of state. If anything goes
wrong on his watch, *he* is accountable for it. He is the captain of the
ship. If nothing bad happens and there are even modest accomplishments, he
is doing his job. He might even get another tour of duty.
And of course I would have held Gore to the same standard. My feeling,
however, is that Gore wouldn't have wasted the first nine months of his
presidency, as Bush did, and come out of the bathroom with nothing but his
**** in his hand, as Bush as, to date. My feeling is that Gore would have
been more engaged in foreign policy. 9-11 might not have even happened. It
is a possibility, you know.
What America did not need, and what Bush wasted all his time on, was a $300
tax "advance" rebate. What the Americans out of work right now don't need is
more tax dollars going to corporations trying to avoid paying their fair
share. Corporate tax credits that that directly relate to creation of jobs
in the United States? Sure. Corporate tax breaks for the rich when we have
the highest unemployment in nearly 20 years? Absolutely not.
JFG
Certainly you can see that Harry has a severe case of untreated Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder, the thing that amazes me is that his illogical thought
process seem to be mimicking that of a schizophrenic.
cc from www.psychiatry24x7.com
Schizophrenia is a devastating mental illness, and is probably the most
distressing and disabling of the severe mental disorders. The first signs of
schizophrenia typically emerge in adolescence or young adulthood. The
effects of the illness are confusing and often shocking to families and
friends. People with schizophrenia suffer from difficulties in their thought
processes, which lead to hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, and
unusual speech or behaviour. All these symptoms mean that people affected
with the illness become limited in their ability to interact with other
people, and often withdraw from the outside world. Contrary to popular
belief, people with schizophrenia do not have 'split personalities', and the
great majority of people who suffer from schizophrenia are not dangerous to
others. People with schizophrenia are far more likely to be victims of
violence and crime than to commit violent acts themselves.
--
Jim
"Butch Ammon" <amm...@aol.com123> wrote in message
news:20011124165208...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Buzz Busby
>
> Indeed...we might gain access to all sorts of ugly information the Bush
> administration would rather keep hidden.
> Maybe.
Nope. That's the problem with capturing Osama alive and sending him to
trial. None of the pertinent evidence would be de-classified and used in
the trial, and Osama would walk. Not to mention the "Dream Team" of lawyers
he would have assembled to defend him. Osama would get away with it, and
the American people would look rediculous.
MadCow57
morbid to me.<< -- Boatindude
Not at all. It's really about biography and baseball. (Baseball is
permanently on-topic on alt.obits. Newbies complain, but get straightened out
pretty fast.)
Harry Krause
We already look ridiculous.
I appreciate what you are posting here, but do you see the problems inherent
in what you are saying about a country that touts itself as the world's
greatest democracy?
There's little doubt bin Laden is a terrorist, but, then, so is Yassar
Arafat, and the latter is welcomed by governments all over the world.
If our government isn't willing or able to present substantial
incontrovertible proof that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key
man behind 9-11, then why should I believe he is? Because the Bush
Administration *says* so?
Thanks, but no thanks.
Steven Shelikoff
> We already look ridiculous.
>
> I appreciate what you are posting here, but do you see the problems inherent
> in what you are saying about a country that touts itself as the world's
> greatest democracy?
>
> There's little doubt bin Laden is a terrorist, but, then, so is Yassar
> Arafat, and the latter is welcomed by governments all over the world.
>
> If our government isn't willing or able to present substantial
> incontrovertible proof that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key
> man behind 9-11, then why should I believe he is? Because the Bush
> Administration *says* so?
>
> Thanks, but no thanks.
Our government has already presented substantial, incontrovertible proof
that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key man behind 9-11, to
the people who need to be convinced, such as Tony Blair. I don't think
anyone gives a good rats ass what *you* are convinced of, especially now
that we know your ulterior motive. Probably the worst thing that can
happen is to make that proof public, jeopardizing many lives in the
process. Information learned by al Queda in past public trials of their
members is one of the big reasons why the tragedies on 9/11 were not
stopped.
You couldn't care less about justice for bin Laden, civil liberties, or
whether our country looks like the world's greatest democracy or just
ridiculous. You want to encourage future successful terrorist attacks
if it means making the Bush administration look bad. You say you don't
"hate" Bush, but here's proof that you do. Only a deep hatred for Bush
would lead you to the opinion that embarrassing him is more important
than saving innocent lives.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
> > We already look ridiculous.
> >
> > I appreciate what you are posting here, but do you see the problems inherent
> > in what you are saying about a country that touts itself as the world's
> > greatest democracy?
> >
> > There's little doubt bin Laden is a terrorist, but, then, so is Yassar
> > Arafat, and the latter is welcomed by governments all over the world.
> >
> > If our government isn't willing or able to present substantial
> > incontrovertible proof that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key
> > man behind 9-11, then why should I believe he is? Because the Bush
> > Administration *says* so?
> >
> > Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> Our government has already presented substantial, incontrovertible proof
> that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key man behind 9-11, to
> the people who need to be convinced, such as Tony Blair.
I've read what Blair released. I doubt it would meet the standards of
evidence needed for conviction under our criminal justice system.
Probably the worst thing that can
> happen is to make that proof public, jeopardizing many lives in the
> process. Information learned by al Queda in past public trials of their
> members is one of the big reasons why the tragedies on 9/11 were not
> stopped.
So, you are in favor of secret trials or, in this case, no trials at all,
eh? Oh, and where is the proof of your point that "Information learned by al
Queda in past public trials of their members is one of the big reasons why
the tragedies on 9/11 were not stopped."?
> You couldn't care less about justice for bin Laden, civil liberties, or
> whether our country looks like the world's greatest democracy or just
> ridiculous.
Absurd. We have a criminal justice system here. Or we don't have a system
here. We shouldn't have it both ways.
You want to encourage future successful terrorist attacks
> if it means making the Bush administration look bad.
Absurd. You need to cut back on your coffee. The Bush Administration was
"looking bad" prior to 9-11 and it will look bad again, once the
warmongering fervor dies down or we suffer another serious attack or the
economy continues to tank or there is a serious bio/chem outbreak. My
preference is for no more terrorist attacks, for the country to return to
whatever normal is in the future and for Bush to finish out his term and get
back to Texas and his booze, drugs, dirty business deals, naps and video
games. Perhaps Texas might name him Executioner General, in honor of his
great accomplishments for that state.
You say you don't
> "hate" Bush, but here's proof that you do. Only a deep hatred for Bush
> would lead you to the opinion that embarrassing him is more important
> than saving innocent lives.
You right-wingers and the hate word...you guys are soooo binary. No one
needs to embarrass Bush. He'll take care of that all on his own. On a
personal level, I wish him well. He's an affable doof.
I just hope America survives his term. And his AG.
Donny
wrote:
>A lady friend of mine recognized how cruel they treat women in Bin Laden's
>world,
>So she answered the question by saying...
>Change Him To a Her and send him back to His World.
>
>I thought that might not be adequate punishment .......
You can't kill him outright, he'd be a martyr, and his needs would be
met by 49 virgins in heaven for eternity, if I heard that one right.
His clan would rejoice, and be inspired.
You can't put him in prison. From what I've heard about the place, you
can pretty much run things from the inside just about as well as the
outside. I think it would further insite his brethrens violence, also.
Here's my tupence; A frontal labotomy would render him docile, right?
A sex change , (with implants), would show him the other side. Before
you send him back, send him to our house for dinner, we'll show him
how great the American way of life is.
(Just make sure he's tied well <g>).
______
___I____\____
_____(__________/_______
>
>
>MadCow57 wrote:
>
>> This thread is going on over at alt.obituaries. Here's an amusing excerpt:
>>
>> > I'd make him listen 24/7 to the banter of the inane right-wingers in this
>> newsgroup. He'd last...oh...an hour or so.< -- Harry Krause
>>
>> >>Hey Harry- do you talk politics while screwing your wife, too?<<
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> >
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> > > We already look ridiculous.
> > >
> > > I appreciate what you are posting here, but do you see the problems inherent
> > > in what you are saying about a country that touts itself as the world's
> > > greatest democracy?
> > >
> > > There's little doubt bin Laden is a terrorist, but, then, so is Yassar
> > > Arafat, and the latter is welcomed by governments all over the world.
> > >
> > > If our government isn't willing or able to present substantial
> > > incontrovertible proof that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key
> > > man behind 9-11, then why should I believe he is? Because the Bush
> > > Administration *says* so?
> > >
> > > Thanks, but no thanks.
> >
> > Our government has already presented substantial, incontrovertible proof
> > that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key man behind 9-11, to
> > the people who need to be convinced, such as Tony Blair.
>
> I've read what Blair released. I doubt it would meet the standards of
> evidence needed for conviction under our criminal justice system.
I believe *you* doubt it, regardless of what it contained. Blinders
have that effect.
> Probably the worst thing that can
> > happen is to make that proof public, jeopardizing many lives in the
> > process. Information learned by al Queda in past public trials of their
> > members is one of the big reasons why the tragedies on 9/11 were not
> > stopped.
>
> So, you are in favor of secret trials or, in this case, no trials at all,
> eh? Oh, and where is the proof of your point that "Information learned by al
> Queda in past public trials of their members is one of the big reasons why
> the tragedies on 9/11 were not stopped."?
I'd like to see him become a martyr. But if he is captured alive, there
are several options, none of which include bringing him back to the US
for trial. Two good ones are: since he committed his crimes in
Afghanistan, try him in Afghanistan under Afghan law; or since he
committed an act of war against the US and would be a prisoner of war,
try him in a closed military court. Your choice.
Oh, the proof of the point that "Information learned by al Queda in past
public trials of their members is one of the big reasons why the
tragedies on 9/11 were not stopped." is all over the place. You'd have
to be blind not to find it with some simple web searches.
> > You couldn't care less about justice for bin Laden, civil liberties, or
> > whether our country looks like the world's greatest democracy or just
> > ridiculous.
>
> Absurd. We have a criminal justice system here. Or we don't have a system
> here. We shouldn't have it both ways.
Absurd. We have a criminal justice system here that should not be
applied to foreign war criminals. It should be for US citizens and for
crimes committed under US jurisdiction only. There are no "both ways"
about it.
> You want to encourage future successful terrorist attacks
> > if it means making the Bush administration look bad.
>
> Absurd. You need to cut back on your coffee. The Bush Administration was
> "looking bad" prior to 9-11 and it will look bad again, once the
> warmongering fervor dies down or we suffer another serious attack or the
> economy continues to tank or there is a serious bio/chem outbreak. My
If that's the case, and in your opinion the Bush Administration was
"looking bad" without the need to go on a fishing expedition by publicly
trying bin Laden in the US, then why do you want to risk American lives
to do so when there's no other need for it?
[...]
> You say you don't
> > "hate" Bush, but here's proof that you do. Only a deep hatred for Bush
> > would lead you to the opinion that embarrassing him is more important
> > than saving innocent lives.
>
> You right-wingers and the hate word...you guys are soooo binary. No one
> needs to embarrass Bush. He'll take care of that all on his own. On a
> personal level, I wish him well. He's an affable doof.
You fit the definition of hate very well. You are so obsessed with
trying to dig up dirt on Bush that you'd be willing to risk lives to do
it. *That* is hatred, no question about it. If you didn't hate him,
you'd let him take care of embarrassing himself all on his own, without
you trying to kill Americans in the process.
> I just hope America survives his term. And his AG.
We survived Clinton and Reno. That's a good sign.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
> You fit the definition of hate very well. You are so obsessed with
> trying to dig up dirt on Bush that you'd be willing to risk lives to do
> it. *That* is hatred, no question about it. If you didn't hate him,
> you'd let him take care of embarrassing himself all on his own, without
> you trying to kill Americans in the process.
Oh...you mean in addition to the 4000-5000 already killed, eh?
Steven Shelikoff
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:11:49 GMT, Richard Bonnett <Tall...@Home.Com>
> wrote:
>
> >A lady friend of mine recognized how cruel they treat women in Bin Laden's
> >world,
> >So she answered the question by saying...
> >Change Him To a Her and send him back to His World.
> >
> >I thought that might not be adequate punishment .......
>
> You can't kill him outright, he'd be a martyr, and his needs would be
> met by 49 virgins in heaven for eternity, if I heard that one right.
When he's dead, you smear him with pig's blood and bury him with ham in
his mouth. That way, he can't make it to his heaven. And you do the
same thing to every suicide terrorist who dies in the name of Islam, and
make it publicly known that this will be done every time.
Steve
Harry Krause
Some imam will reinterpret the Koran to allow that if the "infidel" does it
to a "devout" moslem terrorist.
JFG
The US government spends millions on research for Mental Health, if you are
not willing to take advantage of their efforts they and the rest of us in
here really don't give a damn what you believe.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C00F971...@mindspring.com...
Steven Shelikoff
Yes, in addition to them.
Steve
Harry Krause
>
> Harry,
> The US government spends millions on research for Mental Health, if you are
> not willing to take advantage of their efforts they and the rest of us in
> here really don't give a damn what you believe.
>
> --
>
> Jim
Once more, Jim...why do you persist in believing I care what you think about
anything?
To me, you are no more significant than the occasional pile of dog poop one
encounters while walking on a public sidewalk. You either step over or
around it, but never in it. Its smell passes quickly.
The only possible conclusion: you have nothing worth posting about anything
of significance, you have no ideas or opinions of your own and yet you feel
you have to participate in the only way you know how, by tossing flaccid
insults my way or, when he is here, Skipper's way.
You're just Konservatrash, Jim. And not even quality Konservatrash.
Bartender
g
"MadCow57" <madc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011125032352...@mb-fr.aol.com...
David Smalley
More spin. Last I heard the "count" was down around 3700, and I'll bet
it's much closer to 2000 when this foolishness is all said and done.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> JFG wrote:
> >
> > Harry,
> > The US government spends millions on research for Mental Health, if you are
> > not willing to take advantage of their efforts they and the rest of us in
> > here really don't give a damn what you believe.
>
> anything?
It's obvious you care. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep replying.
Steve
JFG
I am glad you see the similarities between you and Skip. That is the first
step in getting help. Both of you find some silly asinine opinions and
think if you repeat them often enough that it actually matters. Skip's
folly is Bayliner and the best value boat, yours is your illogical
political, economic and social theories. They are so illogical you can not
even find a democrat of any stature who would endorse them.
Now that you have acknowledge your mental illness the next step is to seek
help. If you need assistance in finding a compete doctor in your area let
me know, I would love to help you progress to the next step in your
recovery.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C011946...@mindspring.com...
Harry Krause
>
> Harry,
> I am glad you see the similarities between you and Skip.
I'll keep you in mind, Gallows, if ever the need arises to consult an idiot
of the Konservatrash variety.
JFG
help you get your life back in balance.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C01466F...@mindspring.com...
RGrew176
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:16:26 -0500, Harry Krause
><hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>1. The "how and why" of U.S. intel efforts apparently isn't worth a teaspoon
>>of warm spit. If it were, then 9-11 would have been prevented or at least
>>partially prevented. We don't *have* any good intel.
>
>Well, it was prevented on the Clinton watch. I could be the Bush clan
>just let their guard down.
>
>bb
>
Again I state, if my memory is correct it seems that the first attack on the
WTC happened under Clinton. Does that mean the Clinton clan let their guard
down too?
141 days to go..
RGrew176
>No, Steve, Pearl Harbor was a military attack and an act of war.
>The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were terrorist attacks.
>
>
>Bush adopted the term "act of war" to describe them either out of stupidity,
>which I suspect, or because his string pullers thought the term had more
>panache and would enable them to fudge around with some quasi War Powers Act
>b.s.
>We've been down that road before.
Gulf of Tonkin resolution comes to mind. LBJ sure took us down the primrose
path with that one.
141 days to go..
Harry Krause
Indeed he did. That's one of the examples I had in mind.
David Smalley
JFG
Harry,
You do understand that no one really gives a damn what you are willing to
accept, and no one no even the most right wing democrat would want to give
someone with your history of mental illness any information. If you were
given the information instead of using that info to help rectify the
problem, you would just spend another 10 hrs a day reviewing and critiquing
the info.
Harry, remember Mental Illness is treatable all you have to do is ask for
help.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFE3FA...@mindspring.com...
> David Smalley wrote:
> >
> > Harry Krause wrote:
> > >
>
> 2. Perhaps you are willing to take the word of the Bush Administration on
> whether it has "caught" the *responsible* terrorists, assuming it kills or
> finds the body of bin Laden, but I'm not.
NOYB
Harry Krause <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3BFFB12E...@mindspring.com...
> NOYB wrote:
> >
> > Because an act committed by a US citizen living his entire life in the
US
> > against other US citizens is a crime. An act to destroy a nation by a
group
> > of individuals with the support and funding of other nations is an act
of
> > war. You really aren't that stupid, are you Harry?
> >
>
> Please. Just because The Idiot Who Is President is confused about
> terminology doesn't mean all of us have to be.
>
> The 9-11 "attacks" were acts of terrorism, acts of clandestine use of
> violence, murder and bombings to achieve a political purpose. Terrorism is
> well-defined in the U.S. Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and the
> United Kingdom Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1976. Both stress the use of
> violence to coerce or intimidate the civilian population in order to
affect
> government policy.
>
> I know President Doof and his crew like to refer to what happened 9-11 as
> "Acts of War," but they're only using those terms to rile up the
simplefolk
> like you and justify their erosion of civil liberties.
>
> H.
NOYB
I''ve explained this to you before, but let me do it again since you have
trouble comprehending. Al-Qaeda is a "company" that trains hard-line
Islamics to wage terrorist attacks on Israel and the West...kind of like a
temp service The "company's" CEO is Bin Laden. It's training headquarters
are in Afghanistan. New "employees" from around the world go there to
train. Al-Qaeda then "temps" these people out to nations that want to wage
war on Israel and the West, but do so in secrecy.....Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Yemedn, Sudan, etc.....possibly even Saudi Arabia. The Bush
Administration's plan is to take out the training facility in order to
disrupt the flow of new "employees." That is the "supply route" for the
other countries I mentioned before. The next obvious step would be to go
after the contries themselves. Saudi Arabia and Sudan may be just as
guilty as Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran, but rest-assured that Iraq will be
our primary whipping boy...they will be used as an example to the other
"friendly" Muslim nations. Look at Bush's ultimatum to Saddam just issued
today....let our inspectors back in...or else. If that isn't a prelude of
future miltary action there, I don't know what is. Countries such as Saudi
Arabia that speak publicly about being our ally, but act privately
otherwise, will be put on notice. No military action will be necessary as
long as they comply with our privately issued mandates. The whole plan
seems so simple and obvious to me, yet the simple minds like yourself keep
whining about "doing nothing more than bombing Afghanistan."
Harry Krause <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C00F971...@mindspring.com...
NOYB
"You're Mark Wahlberg (Bush) on the Andrea Gale and George Clooney (Clinton)
hands you the helm and says there's a small squall brewing ahead."
Harry Krause <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C002AD6...@mindspring.com...
> Butch Ammon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >We're far worse off as a nation than we were a year ago.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Excuse me..... How can you put all the blame on Bush? It's not HIS
fault. If
> > Al Gore had won, and the same tragedys happend, would you blame him?
>
> You were in the Coast Guard, right? Let's say you were serving aboard a
> ship. About 10 months ago, the ship got a new captain. At the time the new
> captain took over, there were a few minor maintenance problems aboard,
there
> was the possibility of rocky waters ahead and there was also the
possibility
> of serious threats to the safety of ship and crew.
>
> The new captain didn't want to bother himself with learning about these
> problems in detail by either investigating or reading detailed reports.
> Instead, he depended upon his staff to let him know what they thought he
> needed to know.
>
> Instead of addressing the maintenance problems directly, he tried to
twiddle
> with techniques didn't work when his father was running the ship. Instead
of
> learning all he could about the charts and waters he was about to enter,
he
> worked short hours and took long vacations. Instead of addressing any of
the
> serious threats, he decided to "withdraw" from the stage, even though the
> ship he commanded was a principal on the world stage.
>
> So, 10 months later, the maintenance problems turn into disaster, the
rocky
> waters turned into reefs onto which his ship slammed and those serious
> threats, they were lobbing shells into his superstructure.
>
> A board of inquiry was held.
>
> Who do you think will be blamed? The captain who retired 10 months earlier
> or the current captain?
>
>
> > Wasn't there at least *one* republican POTUS that you admired?
>
>
> Sure. I admired Dick Nixon for many years. I like Gerry Ford. I thought
> Reagan was horrible for the country, I thought Bush senior wasted four of
> our years and I think his son is too stupid to serve in the office to
> whichhe was annointed.
>
>
> I understand
> > you are a Democrat, and that's cool. But, from what I see, friend, you
are a
> > Democrat to the BONE.
>
> That must be was I was offered three jobs by Republican presidents.
Leggester
BGC
supporter. Why keep trying you 190 degrees rhetoric.
"Steve" <nitr...@exis.net> wrote in message news:3C0038...@exis.net...
> Hillary, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, Madeline Murray
> Albright.....wait a minute...those are some perfect examples why women
> SHOULD wear those Moslem potato bags over their heads.....never mind....
Bert Robbins
"bb" <blac...@work.com> wrote in message
news:8b200uouuat42srf1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:16:26 -0500, Harry Krause
> <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> >1. The "how and why" of U.S. intel efforts apparently isn't worth a
teaspoon
> >of warm spit. If it were, then 9-11 would have been prevented or at least
> >partially prevented. We don't *have* any good intel.
>
> Well, it was prevented on the Clinton watch. I could be the Bush clan
> just let their guard down.
>
> bb
Clinton prevented the first attack on the WTC?
Clinton prevented the attack on the Kobar Towers?
Clinton prevented the simultaneous attacks on the embassies?
Clinton prevented the attack on the USS Cole?
"bb" please think before you post.
Bert
Harry Krause
>
> Harry,
> I''ve explained this to you before, but let me do it again since you have
> trouble comprehending. Al-Qaeda is a "company" that trains hard-line
> Islamics to wage terrorist attacks on Israel and the West...kind of like a
> temp service The "company's" CEO is Bin Laden. I
Hey, if you want to buy into The Doof's simple-minded, jingoistic
braggadocio, go for it.
Me, I think The Doof's words today are going to result in the deaths of many
more Americans and, cynic that I am, I think that is what The Doof wants.
I'm beginning to believe the simpleton wants to provoke another big attack
on Americans in the hope he might catch a few dozen lunatic Islamists in the
act.
The guy is unbelieveable. He cuts commercials telling Americans to travel,
shop, act normally, and then he ratchets up the rhetoric and tells us that
more Americans are going to die. And probably because of his actions.
He hasn't a chance of "wiping out" Islamist terrorism. All he is going to do
is infuriate more and more and more Moslems.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the dumb SOB sued by some civilian survivors
of the next Bush Administation intel failure and you know what, the POTUS
can be sued.
JFG
discussion, Harry misses his little buddy Skip.
--
Jim
"NOYB" <no...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:eCvM7.198538$3d2.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Harry Krause
>
> Please define "war" for us then Harry.
Sheesh.
War may be defined as a sustained struggle of a scale and duration that
threatens the existence of the government of a state or an equivalent
juridical person, and typically is waged between large numbers of forces
that are armed, wear a distinctive insignia and are subject to military
discipline under a responsible command.
There is plenty that has been written over the last 5000 years concerning
the definition of war. What happened to us is not an act of war. Bush simply
is using a rhetorical device to further the agenda his advisors want.
JFG
What has your doctor said about your new obsessions? It sounds like you
need to have your medications adjusted. It really sounds like you are
worried about the black helicopters. But remember, just because you are
paranoid, doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you. ;)
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C02D770...@mindspring.com...
David Smalley
> ... you know what, the POTUS
> can be sued.
Only for civil actions not related to his office.
But you knew that.
Harry Krause
>
> Harry Krause wrote:
>
> > ... you know what, the POTUS
> > can be sued.
>
> Only for civil actions not related to his office.
>
> But you knew that.
>
>
Oh, I think the door has been opened a crack...
We'll see.
JFG
hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between
opposing forces or for a particular end "
Looks like you are wrong again. Now take two pills and call the doctor in
the morning.
--
Jim
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C02D8E2...@mindspring.com...
Don White
Texas to 'slop' Mark's hogs for another week.
Then I'd strap an empty six gun on his hip and send him into a Texas
roadhouse. If he survived all that I'd give him to Chuck Heston and his
NRA mob to do as they see fit.
MadCow57 wrote:
>
> This thread is going on over at alt.obituaries. Here's an amusing excerpt:
>
> > I'd make him listen 24/7 to the banter of the inane right-wingers in this
> newsgroup. He'd last...oh...an hour or so.< -- Harry Krause
>
> >>Hey Harry- do you talk politics while screwing your wife, too?<<
Wayne Canino
No? It's the worst *single* attack in the history of this nation. It
eclipses even Pearl harbor.
Only this time, the enemy is Militant Islam as opposed to a single
geographic "country". I didn't need Bush to tell me it was war. Remember -
I went on a special boating trip to Lake Sunnapee to have this happen. I
decided it was war in my hotel room....
-W
PS: Clue to Harry.... You are becoming a *squeak toy* to the more sardonic
members.
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>What happened to us is not an act of war. Bush simply
Smiler ;-)
You can't put him on trial, 'cos you'd never find an unbiased jury.
So the only thing left is to give him a sex change AND MAKE HIM SUFFER AS A
WOMAN WITH NO RIGHTS OR OPINIONS!
That would be the only "fair" thin to do
"BGC" <mer...@jacksonville.net> wrote in message
news:JVzM7.3872$Xk4.6...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
NOYB
> NOYB wrote:
> >
> > Please define "war" for us then Harry.
>
>
> Sheesh.
>
> War may be defined as a sustained struggle of a scale and duration
First attack on the WTC's was 1993...that'd be about 8 years now.
>that
> threatens the existence of the government of a state or an equivalent
> juridical person,
Like trying to crash into the White House? Or like hitting the Pentagon?
>and typically is waged between large numbers of forces
Pretty much describes Al-Qaeda.
> that are armed, wear a distinctive insignia
Like turbans?
>and are subject to military
> discipline
al Qaeda will kill the members and their families if they desert.
>under a responsible command.
Bin Laden.
>
> There is plenty that has been written over the last 5000 years concerning
> the definition of war. What happened to us is not an act of war.
Only to the truly ignorant...and Taliban supporters. Which are you?
Don White
Buzz Busby
> We already look ridiculous.
>
> I appreciate what you are posting here, but do you see the problems
inherent
> in what you are saying about a country that touts itself as the world's
> greatest democracy?
Unfortunately,.... yes.
> There's little doubt bin Laden is a terrorist, but, then, so is Yassar
> Arafat, and the latter is welcomed by governments all over the world.
Perhaps Osama should have worked a tad more on his people skills over the
years. Seems to pay-off for others.
> If our government isn't willing or able to present substantial
> incontrovertible proof that bin Laden is the mastermind, financier and key
> man behind 9-11, then why should I believe he is? Because the Bush
> Administration *says* so?
I know. That's one of the many things that make it such a terrible
situation. It's times like these that make me glad to be an arm-chair
quarterback, watching things unfold, so I can simply critisize afterwards.
:-) I have the benefit of using hindsight before I make my final judgement
on the actions of the administration. For now, it's good to NOT be the
king! MuHuHaHa!
> Thanks, but no thanks.
Aye! I think we might even be able to agree that this is one F'ed-up
situation that will never have a happy ending. No matter how or when it
ends.
Buzz Busby
>
> More spin. Last I heard the "count" was down around 3700, and I'll bet
> it's much closer to 2000 when this foolishness is all said and done.
I sure hope so. I hope it's even less than that. But even if the total
death toll was1, that is 1 too many.