Democrat victory is victory for US enemies?
Fred Stone
Speak Up, Democrats
Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the U.S. election results. AQ's
chief in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, actually mocked Bush while praising
the Democrats' victory in the congressional mid-term contests. According
to an audio tape message attributed to Al-Mujahir, Americans had "voted
for something reasonable in the last elections."
Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the
Republican defeat at the polls "is actually an obvious victory for the
Iranian nation."
The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what
about the Democrats? Doesn't it behoove the Democrats to correct the
claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the
U.S.? Don't they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea
that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem
"reasonable"?
There's even a precedent for speaking out right away. Bill Clinton,
following his victory in 1992, addressed the enemies of the U.S. in one
of his first statements as the new president-elect. Couching his remarks
in terms of the transition from one president and party to another,
Clinton said, "The greatest mistake any adversary could make would be to
doubt America's resolve" as power changed hands.
Clinton reminded the world that "America has only one president at a
time," and added that, "even as America's administrations change,
America's fundamental interests do not." Clinton's own foreign policy
remains a matter of intense debate, of course, but his statement
reflected presidential stature, and was the right thing to say at the
right time.
Not that the Democratic leadership hasn't been talking, and perhaps
revealing its own stature. The Senate's Harry Reid was quoted today
talking about hearings into Iraq-related contracts, while the
presumptive House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, spoke of full voting
representation in the House for the overwhelmingly Democratic District
of Columbia.
Democrats don't have a party position on what to do in Iraq. But surely
they have a party position on whether they want to be embraced by the
likes of Al Qaeda and Iran. Don't they? Speak up, Democrats, or Al Qaeda
and the Iranian mullahs will find your silence only too eloquent.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Some days the impatience with Iraq just seems artificial — as though
the real argument is about something else entirely." - Dinocrat
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
J Forbes
Fred Stone wrote:
> http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
> Democrats don't have a party position on what to do in Iraq. But surely
> they have a party position on whether they want to be embraced by the
> likes of Al Qaeda and Iran. Don't they? Speak up, Democrats, or Al Qaeda
> and the Iranian mullahs will find your silence only too eloquent.
Perhaps the Democrat view is that we might be better off with those
folks as our friends, than as our enemies?
I guess that's incomprehensible to the right wingers.
Jim
IAAH
wrote:
>http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>
Gee, one might have thought that it would have behooved Republicans to
speak up against the egregious deceptions and disastrous policies of
the Bush administration, right?
But no, Fred. You couldn't do it. Instead you have to resort to
semi-literate blogs to recount your talking points for you.
Kate
wrote:
>http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
A democrat victory is only victory for US enemies if the democrats are
the enemies.
None of these people making specious statements have achieved anything
through their own actions and have nothing to boast about. That much
even you should realize, but I doubt you will.
IAAH
How odd is it that every statement by al Qaida and Iran for the last -
what, two years or so? has been met by the right with incessant
denunications and cries of 'Evil!', but now that they're speaking
about an election that the Republicans lost, suddenly what they say is
not only worth quoting, but somehow pivotal and profound?
The right is revealing what they really think - that terrorism is a
tool to be used to further their own power, not an evil to be fought.
towelie
> There's even a precedent for speaking out right away. Bill Clinton,
> following his victory in 1992, addressed the enemies of the U.S. in
> one of his first statements as the new president-elect. Couching his
> remarks in terms of the transition from one president and party to
> another, Clinton said, "The greatest mistake any adversary could make
> would be to doubt America's resolve" as power changed hands.
Your hero Dumbya even said something similar to this the day after the
elections. Something like "don't mistake our changing of power as a sign of
weakness."
--
More pain and misery in the history of mankind
Sometimes it seems more like the blind leading the blind
It brings upon us more of famine, death and war
You know religion has a lot to answer for
-Steve Harris
Fred Stone
news:1163218892....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
If you think that you can be friends with them, I give you Jimmy
Carter's experience with the Mullahs. Good fucking luck.
Fred Stone
news:45b16170....@news-west.newscene.com:
> A democrat victory is only victory for US enemies if the democrats are
> the enemies.
>
> None of these people making specious statements have achieved anything
> through their own actions and have nothing to boast about. That much
> even you should realize, but I doubt you will.
>
Nice way to ignore the content of the article, Kate. Want to try again?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Some days the impatience with Iraq just seems artificial — as though
the real argument is about something else entirely." - Dinocrat
--
Fred Stone
news:2K2dnfxtVbXo8cjY...@centurytel.net:
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> There's even a precedent for speaking out right away. Bill Clinton,
>> following his victory in 1992, addressed the enemies of the U.S. in
>> one of his first statements as the new president-elect. Couching his
>> remarks in terms of the transition from one president and party to
>> another, Clinton said, "The greatest mistake any adversary could make
>> would be to doubt America's resolve" as power changed hands.
>
> Your hero Dumbya even said something similar to this the day after the
> elections. Something like "don't mistake our changing of power as a
> sign of weakness."
>
You mean he said something worth quoting? Now why aren't *your* heroes
in the Democrat party saying anything similar?
Fester
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9877EC6F1...@66.150.105.47...
Remember, Bush is our Prez still, and what made sense for a Prez like
Clinton to state doesn't necessarily translate to what Congress should.
Certainly, while in the minority and during the campaign, the Dems made a
great deal of horrendous noise. Being out of power meant that they had the
liberty of making irresponsible remarks. That's changed, and at least some
of them know it. I've already heard them taking back much of their more
outrageous rhetoric. I'm willing to wait and see what they'll say and do
now that their words matter before passing judgment. While it sounds as
though Murtha, for example, hasn't wised up, it remains to be seen if the
Dem leadership listens to him and/or gives him any power.
Fred Stone
news:8Li5h.29058$HD6....@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
With *this* Congress, I think it does make sense for them to publicly
repudiate any sense that our enemies should take comfort from their
victory. There have been too many of those irresponsible statements, and
that their words matter more now doesn't mean that they didn't matter
much then.
Witziges Rätsel
*cavuto: a question mark after a statement so
placed to leave the stater innocent of actually
stating anything should an accusation ensue.
Geoff
>> Your hero Dumbya even said something similar to this the day after the
>> elections. Something like "don't mistake our changing of power as a
>> sign of weakness."
>
> You mean he said something worth quoting? Now why aren't *your* heroes
> in the Democrat party saying anything similar?
They will...when it's appropriate for he/she to do so...on 11/6/2008.
Geoff
news:G4l5h.433$8u1.13@trndny04...
What's the derivation? From Neil?
quibbler
fsto...@earthling.com says...
After days of sulking, it's sad that this "our enemies are happy about
the democratic victory" is all the better of a talking point that brain-
dead Fred was able to pull out of his rectum. It's interesting that now,
all of a sudden, Fred starts to take what Al Quaeda in Iraq (not
affiliated with Osama bin Laden, BTW) and the Iranian president are
saying as though it were reliable.
>
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
Fester
I don't want to read tea leaves, but one strong indicator of their direction
will be who they appoint to chair the house Intel committee. If they go
with Hastings over Harmon it will be a very bad sign.
Mark K. Bilbo
> The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what
> about the Democrats? Doesn't it behoove the Democrats to correct the
> claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the
> U.S.? Don't they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea
> that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem
> "reasonable"?
Why should we care what they think? Are they so important that we have to
hang on their every word?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
Mark K. Bilbo
It makes no sense at all unless you are so terrified of and enthralled
with the power of "Al Qaeda" that you hang on their every word.
Who cares what they think? Fuck them.
Peacenik
>
> Speak Up, Democrats
>
> Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the U.S. election results. AQ's
> chief in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, actually mocked Bush while praising
> the Democrats' victory in the congressional mid-term contests. According
> to an audio tape message attributed to Al-Mujahir, Americans had "voted
> for something reasonable in the last elections."
>
> Meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the
> Republican defeat at the polls "is actually an obvious victory for the
> Iranian nation."
People the world over are cheering the Democrats' victory. It means the end
of the Republican policies that are CREATING terrorists.
Cheer up. The grownups are in charge now.
Witziges Rätsel
Neil uses this tactic so frequently that Olbermann
gave it a name.
Witziges Rätsel
Correction to my previous response: It was Jon
Stewart who coined the term.
Kate
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:18:23 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what
>> about the Democrats? Doesn't it behoove the Democrats to correct the
>> claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the
>> U.S.? Don't they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea
>> that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem
>> "reasonable"?
>
>Why should we care what they think? Are they so important that we have to
>hang on their every word?
I care what they think about, since they can be dangerous. It's just
obvious that what they said is just a lame attempt at propaganda and
should be taken as such.
Not that Fred has any known ability to discern propaganda. He's now
quivering in his boots that Bin Laden might walk around his apartment
and think he's succeeded in something.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
>http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>
>Speak Up, Democrats
That's funny, our allies in in Europe are quite pleased. How many
troops have YOU sent to Afghanistan in comparison to how many THEY
have send?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2838 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1fbf97103...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <Xns9877EC6F1...@66.150.105.47>,
> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>> http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>>
>> Speak Up, Democrats
>
> After days of sulking, it's sad that this "our enemies are happy about
> the democratic victory" is all the better of a talking point that
> brain- dead Fred was able to pull out of his rectum. It's interesting
> that now, all of a sudden, Fred starts to take what Al Quaeda in Iraq
> (not affiliated with Osama bin Laden, BTW) and the Iranian president
> are saying as though it were reliable.
>
How exactly is this statement from them *not reliable?*
Fred Stone
news:rJSdnR-89PSZcMjY...@giganews.com:
Mark, why are you less afraid of a bunch of terrorists who have sworn to
kill us than you are of the President?
Fred Stone
news:ej4rnn$4v2$1...@news.seed.net.tw:
Dream on, Dreamer.
> Cheer up. The grownups are in charge now.
>
Oh, don't make me laugh.
Fred Stone
Heh. Kate thinks she can "discern" propaganda but she's still a liberal
Democrat who spews *their* propaganda out of every orifice.
Geoff
>> People the world over are cheering the Democrats' victory. It means
>> the end of the Republican policies that are CREATING terrorists.
>
> Dream on, Dreamer.
It's true. I've read articles from Canada, England, Ireland, and India
cheering the results and happily eulogizing the end of the Republican
Revolution as the utter failure that it was. The consensus in each article
was that the United States has lost all goodwill it had banked over the
years with a majority of the world and has effectively isolated itself from
even its traditional allies. It will probably take a decade to undo the
damage by Bush.
Then again, if you can show some articles showing where other countries are
disappointed that the Republicans lost, I will gladly retract my statement.
G-Ride
news:rJSdnR-89PSZcMjY...@giganews.com...
Exactly. Why does Fred and the rest of the "tough on terror" right-wing
crowd play right into the terrorists hands?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
IAAH
wrote:
When the Repubs. were in power, it was okay to ignore what terrorists
said. Now that they've lost the whip hand, they seem to want to
legitimize what comes from the terrorists propaganda machines, because
they hope it'll make the Dems. look bad.
In other words, they're trying to use fear of terrorism as a political
tactic.
And using fear as a political tactic is called what?
Mark K. Bilbo
They're *obsessed with them. We're supposed to reorganize our entire
society around the terrorists. It's all the reich whiners talk about. Al
Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda.
After a while, you gotta wonder...
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:30:12 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:18:23 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
>>
>>> The White House has declined to comment on these statements, but what
>>> about the Democrats? Doesn't it behoove the Democrats to correct the
>>> claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the
>>> U.S.? Don't they want to move quickly to disabuse Al Qaeda of the idea
>>> that Democrats represent something that these butchers deem
>>> "reasonable"?
>>
>>Why should we care what they think? Are they so important that we have to
>>hang on their every word?
>
> I care what they think about, since they can be dangerous. It's just
> obvious that what they said is just a lame attempt at propaganda and
> should be taken as such.
They're not going to say anything in public that isn't just propaganda.
Treating their commentary on our *elections with anything but derision is
appalling.
> Not that Fred has any known ability to discern propaganda. He's now
> quivering in his boots that Bin Laden might walk around his apartment
> and think he's succeeded in something.
I swear, the right wingers are so in awe of bin Laden, why don't they just
convert already?
Al Klein
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>On 11 Nov 2006 03:18:23 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>wrote:
>>http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>>Speak Up, Democrats
>That's funny, our allies in in Europe are quite pleased. How many
>troops have YOU sent to Afghanistan in comparison to how many THEY
>have send?
Fred would stroke out if he had to put on a uniform and fight.
Probably before he qualified for the Purple Heart.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
GoDrex
"G-Ride" <gride4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4rn41lF...@mid.individual.net...
because they hate our freedoms... ;)
Mark K. Bilbo
Because we're the most powerful nation on the entire freaking planet, not
to mention in all of human history, and peeing ourselves over a handful of
loons is absurd. In the last decade and change, worldwide, terrorists have
managed to kill about 10,000 US citizens for an average 40+ times *less*
than die in car wrecks each year. You're at least 40 times more likely to
die going to the grocery store than you are from a terrorist attack.
There have always been people that wanted to kill us. We spent decades
with thousands of nuclear armed ICBMs pointed at our heads. We're still
here.
Get a grip. What have those powerful boogeymen managed over the last 13
years now? Two attacks in the US on the WTC. Around three thousand dead
total. The same number who died last *month in auto accidents. About one
twentieth who died last month of heart trouble (around 58,000 per *month
die of heart conditions... per MONTH).
Bush, on the other hand, is undermining our Constitution. Our Constitution
can survive a terrorist attack on a few buildings. It can't survive an
unchecked, power hungry executive.
What an upside, inside place this country has become when *I have to
lecture the "patriots" on the strength of our country...
Mark K. Bilbo
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1fbf97103...@news.readfreenews.net:
>
>> In article <Xns9877EC6F1...@66.150.105.47>,
>> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>>> http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>>>
>>> Speak Up, Democrats
>>
>> After days of sulking, it's sad that this "our enemies are happy about
>> the democratic victory" is all the better of a talking point that
>> brain- dead Fred was able to pull out of his rectum. It's interesting
>> that now, all of a sudden, Fred starts to take what Al Quaeda in Iraq
>> (not affiliated with Osama bin Laden, BTW) and the Iranian president
>> are saying as though it were reliable.
>>
>
> How exactly is this statement from them *not reliable?*
You have GOT to be kidding.
quibbler
gm...@com.mkbilbo says...
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:59:59 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
>
> > quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:MPG.1fbf97103...@news.readfreenews.net:
> >
> >> In article <Xns9877EC6F1...@66.150.105.47>,
> >> fsto...@earthling.com says...
> >>> http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
> >>>
> >>> Speak Up, Democrats
> >>
> >> After days of sulking, it's sad that this "our enemies are happy about
> >> the democratic victory" is all the better of a talking point that
> >> brain- dead Fred was able to pull out of his rectum. It's interesting
> >> that now, all of a sudden, Fred starts to take what Al Quaeda in Iraq
> >> (not affiliated with Osama bin Laden, BTW) and the Iranian president
> >> are saying as though it were reliable.
> >>
> >
> > How exactly is this statement from them *not reliable?*
>
> You have GOT to be kidding.
Fred's apparently trying to prove that he's even more disconnected from
reality than the muslim whackjobs that he rails against.
JTEM
Fred Stone wrote:
> Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the
> U.S. election results.
Al Qaida? The group headed by a close family
friend of Bush's?
Iran? The government that endorsed Bush in 2004?
*Duh*!
Why the fuck wouldn't Osama Bin Laden be upset
about the party that gave him $2 billion losing the
congress?
Why wouldn't Iran, the country Bush personally
protected be upset about the Democrats taking
congress?
Fred Stone
news:MPG.1fc0e7e82...@news.readfreenews.net:
> In article <xfKdnSIfKubRHcvY...@giganews.com>,
> gm...@com.mkbilbo says...
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:59:59 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
>>
>> > quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> > news:MPG.1fbf97103...@news.readfreenews.net:
>> >
>> >> In article <Xns9877EC6F1...@66.150.105.47>,
>> >> fsto...@earthling.com says...
>> >>> http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/speak-up-democrats.html
>> >>>
>> >>> Speak Up, Democrats
>> >>
>> >> After days of sulking, it's sad that this "our enemies are happy
>> >> about the democratic victory" is all the better of a talking point
>> >> that brain- dead Fred was able to pull out of his rectum. It's
>> >> interesting that now, all of a sudden, Fred starts to take what Al
>> >> Quaeda in Iraq (not affiliated with Osama bin Laden, BTW) and the
>> >> Iranian president are saying as though it were reliable.
>> >>
>> >
>> > How exactly is this statement from them *not reliable?*
>>
>> You have GOT to be kidding.
>
> Fred's apparently trying to prove that he's even more disconnected
> from reality than the muslim whackjobs that he rails against.
>
So far all I've got from *you* is an Argument by Assertion. Those Muslim
whackjobs just happen to be armed enemies of the United States, and they
just happen to be VERY HAPPY that the Democrats won back the Congress.
Now why do you suppose that would be? It couldn't be that the Democrats
have TOLD THEM, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that they will pull out of
Iraq and make concessions with Iran and give them the victories that
they have NOT been able to get from President Bush, now could it?
Geoff
> So far all I've got from *you* is an Argument by Assertion. Those Muslim
> whackjobs just happen to be armed enemies of the United States, and they
> just happen to be VERY HAPPY that the Democrats won back the Congress.
>
> Now why do you suppose that would be? It couldn't be that the Democrats
> have TOLD THEM, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that they will pull out of
> Iraq and make concessions with Iran and give them the victories that
> they have NOT been able to get from President Bush, now could it?
What the fuck cares what they think? Are we supposed to conduct our
democracy based on how we feel they might perceive the results? Are we
supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the current
administration and the Republican status quo just as a reaction to some
fucking sandeaters?
Yeah, that's great. Let's just give the Republicans carte blanche. It's
worked so well in the past.
Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly universal
opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and Senate is a positive
step.
Fred Stone
news:IOqdnRz2ve0GUMrY...@comcast.com:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9879BEFBA...@66.150.105.47...
>
>> So far all I've got from *you* is an Argument by Assertion. Those
>> Muslim whackjobs just happen to be armed enemies of the United
>> States, and they just happen to be VERY HAPPY that the Democrats won
>> back the Congress.
>>
>> Now why do you suppose that would be? It couldn't be that the
>> Democrats have TOLD THEM, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that they will
>> pull out of Iraq and make concessions with Iran and give them the
>> victories that they have NOT been able to get from President Bush,
>> now could it?
>
> What the fuck cares what they think? Are we supposed to conduct our
> democracy based on how we feel they might perceive the results?
Are we supposed to *give them exactly what they want?*
Are we supposed to let them think that they're winning?
> Are we
> supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the current
> administration and the Republican status quo just as a reaction to
> some fucking sandeaters?
>
Nice strawman, asshole.
> Yeah, that's great. Let's just give the Republicans carte blanche.
> It's worked so well in the past.
>
Ahh, the sweet smell of total lunatic overreaction.
> Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly
> universal opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and Senate
> is a positive step.
>
Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that it's a
positive step.
towelie
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9878A2998...@66.150.105.47...
>
>>> People the world over are cheering the Democrats' victory. It means
>>> the end of the Republican policies that are CREATING terrorists.
>>
>> Dream on, Dreamer.
>
> It's true. I've read articles from Canada, England, Ireland, and India
> cheering the results and happily eulogizing the end of the Republican
> Revolution as the utter failure that it was. The consensus in each
> article was that the United States has lost all goodwill it had
> banked over the years with a majority of the world and has
> effectively isolated itself from even its traditional allies. It will
> probably take a decade to undo the damage by Bush.
Only a decade? You're more optimistic than I.
--
More pain and misery in the history of mankind
Sometimes it seems more like the blind leading the blind
It brings upon us more of famine, death and war
You know religion has a lot to answer for
-Steve Harris
Eris
>Al Qaeda and Iran are both gloating over the U.S. election results. AQ's
>chief in Iraq, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, actually mocked Bush while praising
>the Democrats' victory in the congressional mid-term contests. According
>to an audio tape message attributed to Al-Mujahir, Americans had "voted
>for something reasonable in the last elections."
Everyone hates an asshole.
Geoff
>> Are we
>> supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the current
>> administration and the Republican status quo just as a reaction to
>> some fucking sandeaters?
>
> Nice strawman, asshole.
Seems to me that's exactly what you were proposing. How the heck is that a
strawman? If it's not what you were proposing, why don't you tell us exactly
what would be the appropriate response by voters to the corruption and
incompetence of the Republicans and the administration.
>> Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly
>> universal opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and Senate
>> is a positive step.
>
> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that it's a
> positive step.
And the Canadians, the Irish, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the
Indians, the Salvadorans, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Italians, the
Czechs, the Belgians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans.
I'm trying to think who wouldn't think it was positive. Perhaps the
Israelis. That might be it.
JTEM
Fred Stone wrote:
> So far all I've got from *you* is an Argument by
> Assertion. Those Muslim whackjobs just
> happen to be armed enemies of the United
> States, and they just happen to be VERY
> HAPPY that the Democrats won back the
> Congress.
So you're comparing them to the American people, huh?
You're saying that the American people are no different
than the terrorists, that they both wanted to see a
Democratic controlled congress?
My, you certainly despise America...
towelie
>> Are we
>> supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the
>> current administration and the Republican status quo just as a
>> reaction to some fucking sandeaters?
>>
>
> Nice strawman, asshole.
then he wrote:
>> Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly
>> universal opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and
>> Senate is a positive step.
>>
>
> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that
> it's a positive step.
It's a strawman you created, Freddy.
JTEM
towelie wrote:
> Fred Stone wrote:
> > Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas
> > all agree that it's a positive step.
>
> It's a strawman you created, Freddy.
It's worse than that. It's utter contempt for the American
people who voted in the Democrats.
"The American people are no different than the terrorists!"
Apparently, In "Fred's" mind, the people are an enemy to
the state.
Fred Stone
news:wfudnaRmjORlZcrY...@comcast.com:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9879DDCDF...@66.150.105.47...
>
>>> Are we
>>> supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the
>>> current administration and the Republican status quo just as a
>>> reaction to some fucking sandeaters?
>>
>> Nice strawman, asshole.
>
> Seems to me that's exactly what you were proposing. How the heck is
> that a strawman? If it's not what you were proposing, why don't you
> tell us exactly what would be the appropriate response by voters to
> the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans and the
> administration.
>
No, it's what the *DEMOCRATS* need to do, which is to repudiate any idea
that the *ENEMIES* of the United States might have that just because
Congress changed parties means that the US is willing to LOSE THE WAR.
>>> Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly
>>> universal opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and
>>> Senate is a positive step.
>>
>> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that
>> it's a positive step.
>
> And the Canadians, the Irish, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the
> Indians, the Salvadorans, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Italians, the
> Czechs, the Belgians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans.
>
Oh, yes, the *NORTH* Koreans.
> I'm trying to think who wouldn't think it was positive. Perhaps the
> Israelis. That might be it.
>
Oh, just about anybody who depends on the US for support for their
national security. The Taiwanese, the *SOUTH* Koreans, the Germans, the
Belgians, the French, the Spanish, the English, the Dutch...
Fred Stone
news:39CdnYmw3J9umsXY...@centurytel.net:
> Fred Stone wrote:
>>> Are we
>>> supposed to condone the incompetence and the corruption of the
>>> current administration and the Republican status quo just as a
>>> reaction to some fucking sandeaters?
>>>
>>
>> Nice strawman, asshole.
>
> then he wrote:
>
>>> Guess what, Fred? Aside from you neocon crybabies, there is nearly
>>> universal opinion that the Democrats victories in the House and
>>> Senate is a positive step.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that
>> it's a positive step.
>
> It's a strawman you created, Freddy.
>
No, towelhead, it's not one that I created. They said so themselves. Now
it's up to the Democrats to prove them wrong.
Fred Stone
news:Nvmdne9blq7ocsrY...@centurytel.net:
> Geoff wrote:
>> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9878A2998...@66.150.105.47...
>>
>>>> People the world over are cheering the Democrats' victory. It means
>>>> the end of the Republican policies that are CREATING terrorists.
>>>
>>> Dream on, Dreamer.
>>
>> It's true. I've read articles from Canada, England, Ireland, and
India
>> cheering the results and happily eulogizing the end of the Republican
>> Revolution as the utter failure that it was. The consensus in each
>> article was that the United States has lost all goodwill it had
>> banked over the years with a majority of the world and has
>> effectively isolated itself from even its traditional allies. It will
>> probably take a decade to undo the damage by Bush.
>
> Only a decade? You're more optimistic than I.
>
We don't *need* the goodwill that we "banked" with the world's dictators
and tyrants and their appeasers and enablers at the UN and the EU.
Geoff
>> Seems to me that's exactly what you were proposing. How the heck is
>> that a strawman? If it's not what you were proposing, why don't you
>> tell us exactly what would be the appropriate response by voters to
>> the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans and the
>> administration.
>
> No, it's what the *DEMOCRATS* need to do, which is to repudiate any idea
> that the *ENEMIES* of the United States might have that just because
> Congress changed parties means that the US is willing to LOSE THE WAR.
The war is over, man. The US won. Didn't you hear? Mission Accomplished.
Seriously, though, the US did win the war. We just lost the occupation. Now
it's a civil war.
As regards what you expect of the Democrats: first, they're 60 days away
from assuming power...second, the responsibility for managing the occupation
lies with the executive branch...Congress merely provides funding and
oversight, neither of which the Republican majority has done very well..
>>> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that
>>> it's a positive step.
>>
>> And the Canadians, the Irish, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the
>> Indians, the Salvadorans, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Italians, the
>> Czechs, the Belgians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans.
>
> Oh, yes, the *NORTH* Koreans.
North and South...the South Koreans want to deal with the North via dialogue
and diplomacy. Bush wants to starve them. The South Koreans are definitely
not in agreement with US Far East policy. Sorry.
>> I'm trying to think who wouldn't think it was positive. Perhaps the
>> Israelis. That might be it.
>
> Oh, just about anybody who depends on the US for support for their
> national security. The Taiwanese, the *SOUTH* Koreans, the Germans, the
> Belgians, the French, the Spanish, the English, the Dutch...
The only people in your list that possibly might be in Bush's camp are the
Taiwanese.
Geoff
>
> We don't *need* the goodwill that we "banked" with the world's dictators
> and tyrants and their appeasers and enablers at the UN and the EU.
Strawman.
Do we need goodwill with our traditional allies? How's that going, Fred?
Fred Stone
news:ibidnVwTBcCh78XY...@comcast.com:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987A4A710...@66.150.105.47...
>
>>> Seems to me that's exactly what you were proposing. How the heck is
>>> that a strawman? If it's not what you were proposing, why don't you
>>> tell us exactly what would be the appropriate response by voters to
>>> the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans and the
>>> administration.
>>
>> No, it's what the *DEMOCRATS* need to do, which is to repudiate any
>> idea that the *ENEMIES* of the United States might have that just
>> because Congress changed parties means that the US is willing to LOSE
>> THE WAR.
>
> The war is over, man. The US won. Didn't you hear? Mission
> Accomplished. Seriously, though, the US did win the war. We just lost
> the occupation. Now it's a civil war.
>
Oh, we lost, huh? So we better let the whole of Iraq go straight to
hell.
> As regards what you expect of the Democrats: first, they're 60 days
> away from assuming power...second, the responsibility for managing the
> occupation lies with the executive branch...Congress merely provides
> funding and oversight, neither of which the Republican majority has
> done very well..
>
And the expectations are still there: that when the Democrats take over
they will act to end US participation in the war, just like they did in
Vietnam, with just as disastrous effects for our allies.
>>>> Yeah, the Iranians and the al Qaedas and the Hamas all agree that
>>>> it's a positive step.
>>>
>>> And the Canadians, the Irish, the Brits, the French, the Germans,
>>> the Indians, the Salvadorans, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the
>>> Italians, the Czechs, the Belgians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the
>>> Koreans.
>>
>> Oh, yes, the *NORTH* Koreans.
>
> North and South...the South Koreans want to deal with the North via
> dialogue and diplomacy. Bush wants to starve them. The South Koreans
> are definitely not in agreement with US Far East policy. Sorry.
>
Their own leadership wants to starve them. They could grow enough food
to feed themselves if they weren't spending every dime on their
military. *BUSH* isn't the problem, Kim Jong-Il is the problem.
>>> I'm trying to think who wouldn't think it was positive. Perhaps the
>>> Israelis. That might be it.
>>
>> Oh, just about anybody who depends on the US for support for their
>> national security. The Taiwanese, the *SOUTH* Koreans, the Germans,
>> the Belgians, the French, the Spanish, the English, the Dutch...
>
> The only people in your list that possibly might be in Bush's camp are
> the Taiwanese.
>
Don't kid yourself, all those countries are solidly with the US on
national security issues. Not a one of them wants to see the mideast
dissolve into total chaos, which is what WILL happen if we pull out of
Iraq.
Fred Stone
G-Ride
news:v9ncl2dl4g4egt4kg...@4ax.com...
Business as usual for the Bush junta?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
Kate
Fred is starting to remind me of the Black Knight. He's been proven
wrong so many times it's like he's got no limbs left, yet he's always
still up for a knee cap bite, even without a single tooth in his head.
Fred Stone
news:45bb4fd5....@news-west.newscene.com:
Katie darlin, spewing out the latest propaganda line from the Democratic
Party does not constitute proof that I'm wrong about anything.
JTEM
Fred Stone wrote:
> Katie darlin, spewing out the latest propaganda
> line from the Democratic Party does not
> constitute proof that I'm wrong about anything.
What, is she going off with that "There were no
WMDs" lie.... AGAIN?
Sheesh!
Clearly these... these... *Liberals* have abandoned
reasoned debate for mindless propaganda!
DarkAngel
JTEM wrote:
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
> > Katie darlin, spewing out the latest propaganda
> > line from the Democratic Party does not
> > constitute proof that I'm wrong about anything.
>
> What, is she going off with that "There were no
> WMDs" lie.... AGAIN?
I hear Al Quaida swooped down and smuggled them out of Iraq by stuffing
it up their butts while the American troops were busy building
schools...
---
No Gods. No Masters.
Fred Stone
news:1163601195.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Laugh it up, jackass.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
DarkAngel
Fred Stone wrote:
> "DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1163601195.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > JTEM wrote:
> >> Fred Stone wrote:
> >>
> >> > Katie darlin, spewing out the latest propaganda
> >> > line from the Democratic Party does not
> >> > constitute proof that I'm wrong about anything.
> >>
> >> What, is she going off with that "There were no
> >> WMDs" lie.... AGAIN?
> >
> > I hear Al Quaida swooped down and smuggled them out of Iraq by
> > stuffing it up their butts while the American troops were busy
> > building schools...
> >
>
> Laugh it up, jackass.
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
Oh please. That's a fucking joke, right? The Bush administration
propped up this war by asserting that Saddam was a clear and present
danger *to the United States*, they put up the specter of a supposed
nuclear weapons program, and you're trying to tell us this was all
about a bunch of ammunitions? You know full well that the justification
of war happened because the GOP scared the people shitless about the
idea that Saddam had The Bomb, or was going to have it soon. People
didn't agree to that shit war to stop him from having a bit of ammo, no
matter what international treaties this technically violates.
Must be nice of Bush to have so many witless idiots around so he
doesn't have to move the goalposts himself.
Fred Stone
news:1163625927.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> "DarkAngel" <drkan...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1163601195.3...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > JTEM wrote:
>> >> Fred Stone wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Katie darlin, spewing out the latest propaganda
>> >> > line from the Democratic Party does not
>> >> > constitute proof that I'm wrong about anything.
>> >>
>> >> What, is she going off with that "There were no
>> >> WMDs" lie.... AGAIN?
>> >
>> > I hear Al Quaida swooped down and smuggled them out of Iraq by
>> > stuffing it up their butts while the American troops were busy
>> > building schools...
>> >
>>
>> Laugh it up, jackass.
>> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html
>
> Oh please. That's a fucking joke, right? The Bush administration
> propped up this war by asserting that Saddam was a clear and present
> danger *to the United States*, they put up the specter of a supposed
> nuclear weapons program, and you're trying to tell us this was all
> about a bunch of ammunitions? You know full well that the
> justification of war happened because the GOP scared the people
> shitless about the idea that Saddam had The Bomb, or was going to have
> it soon.
Or would have it as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which even the
New York Times agrees is likely now that they "discovered" the plans on
the Internet. And you know perfectly well that your ideological brothers
were whining about lifting the sanctions.
> People didn't agree to that shit war to stop him from having
> a bit of ammo, no matter what international treaties this technically
> violates.
>
No, they agreed to the war for a nice long list of reasons, embodied in
a Congressional Resolution that a whole bunch of Democrats voted for.
And then they started to lie about how Bush lied in order to justify
taking back their votes.
> Must be nice of Bush to have so many witless idiots around so he
> doesn't have to move the goalposts himself.
>
Must be nice to be a liberal and have such an easily revised memory.
Embarrased by a bad decision? Just pretend that somebody lied to you!
Mark K. Bilbo
Is *that why they were walking funny?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H. L. Mencken
Geoff
>> The war is over, man. The US won. Didn't you hear? Mission
>> Accomplished. Seriously, though, the US did win the war. We just lost
>> the occupation. Now it's a civil war.
>
> Oh, we lost, huh? So we better let the whole of Iraq go straight to
> hell.
Of course, I never said that. Your boy Bush made a clusterfuck of
everything. And he, and all his necon cheerleaders including yourself,
cannot admit error. "Full steam ahead," says Cheney and it's bought hook,
line, and sinker by you Administration apologists as if it were a strategy.
>> As regards what you expect of the Democrats: first, they're 60 days
>> away from assuming power...second, the responsibility for managing the
>> occupation lies with the executive branch...Congress merely provides
>> funding and oversight, neither of which the Republican majority has
>> done very well..
>>
>
> And the expectations are still there: that when the Democrats take over
> they will act to end US participation in the war, just like they did in
> Vietnam, with just as disastrous effects for our allies.
Holy fuck. Revisionist history. Nixon was elected in '68 vowing to get us
out of the war.
>> North and South...the South Koreans want to deal with the North via
>> dialogue and diplomacy. Bush wants to starve them. The South Koreans
>> are definitely not in agreement with US Far East policy. Sorry.
>
> Their own leadership wants to starve them. They could grow enough food
> to feed themselves if they weren't spending every dime on their
> military. *BUSH* isn't the problem, Kim Jong-Il is the problem.
Bush and Kim are both part of the problem. Ask anyone in South Korea.
>
> Don't kid yourself, all those countries are solidly with the US on
> national security issues.
And how does that counter my contention that most countries view the Dems
victory as positive? Bush is regarded as a failure wordwide.
> Not a one of them wants to see the mideast
> dissolve into total chaos, which is what WILL happen if we pull out of
> Iraq.
Strawman.
Geoff
news:45bb4fd5.2342921031@news-west.newscene.com...
> Fred is starting to remind me of the Black Knight. He's been proven
> wrong so many times it's like he's got no limbs left, yet he's always
> still up for a knee cap bite, even without a single tooth in his head.
"It's just a flesh wound!"
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987AC5439...@66.150.105.47...
>
>>> The war is over, man. The US won. Didn't you hear? Mission
>>> Accomplished. Seriously, though, the US did win the war. We just lost
>>> the occupation. Now it's a civil war.
>>
>> Oh, we lost, huh? So we better let the whole of Iraq go straight to
>> hell.
>
> Of course, I never said that.
And it's additionally ironic given that the whole of Iraq has gone pretty
much straight to hell...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and
the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever
before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions
may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln