Discussion:
Why are liberals so angry?
(too old to reply)
Cliff
2006-05-05 14:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Umberto Ramirez
2006-05-05 15:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Yes. We liberals believe we can avoid the scourge of fascism by
expunging every expression of Christianity, taking away the guns of law
abiding citizens, maintaining a dependence of foreign oil, allowing
illegal immigrants to vote, blaming a terrorists actions on a poor
childhood, redefining marriage, trying to get those who disagree with us
(like FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh) from expressing their opinions over the
airwaves, sympathizing with the viewpoint of Bush's enemies, and
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth. Only then can this great
country remain free.
Adam Albright
2006-05-05 16:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Umberto Ramirez
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Yes. We liberals believe we can avoid the scourge of fascism by
expunging every expression of Christianity, taking away the guns of law
abiding citizens, maintaining a dependence of foreign oil, allowing
illegal immigrants to vote, blaming a terrorists actions on a poor
childhood, redefining marriage, trying to get those who disagree with us
(like FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh) from expressing their opinions over the
airwaves, sympathizing with the viewpoint of Bush's enemies, and
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth. Only then can this great
country remain free.
The word fascism clearly defines the Bushie administration. Afterall
what VP held secret meetings with energy big wigs? What president
pisses on the Constitution and bypasses laws because he considers
himself king? Which administration allows corporations to rake in
obscene profits and refues to impose a windfall profits tax? Which
administration is in bed with special interests? Which president
begged the UN to go to war in Iraq and when told no, said just fuck
them, I'll start my own war anyway?

Can you name a old pudgy white guy that shot a friend in the face
because he was fall down drunk? Hint, that would be the current VP.
Can you name the president that wants to give illegal immigrants a
pass? That would be Bush. Can you name the political party in charge
that gave us a seven trillion dollar debit our children's children
will be paying off for decades to come? Yep that would be the
worthless Republican party.

Can you name the guy known as the "hammer" than got ran out of
Congress because he's just another sleazeball crook? Another worthless
Republican. Can you name the sleazeball lobbyist that visited the
white house hundreds of times that Bush pretends isn't his friend?
That would be the crook Abramoff. And who could forgot Bush's other
good pal Kenny Boy Lay currently on trial for raping Enron employees
and stockholders.

Yes be proud rightard nitwit you Repugs have given us so much.

Nixon the criminal, Bush the AWOL president, Abranoff the bribber, Tom
Delay another soon to be convicted crook, Newt Ginhrich,world class
sleaze and admitted wife cheater, Spiro Agnew, another crook. And you
know there are a lot more worthless Repug scum that could be added to
this list.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-05 17:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
Adam Albright
2006-05-05 18:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy. We
have scant details of what happened so far, but that never stops the
repug sleaze squad from their smear campaigns. At the same time you
say give Limbaugh a pass. Give Cheney a pass. Two drunks, one also an
admitted drug abuser.

You have no creditabily sir since you can't stop talking out of both
sides of your mouth at once. Of course in the upside down world of
retarted right wingers having a double standard is par for the course.

Do I attack Repugs? You're damn right. Only AFTER it is proven they
are dirty. Newt ADMITTED he fucked a bimbo on the side. So much for
Repug "family values". So did another lardass Repug Congressmen from
Illinois that felt duty bound to try to impeach Clinton, yet he gave
the laughable excuse while in his 30's his fucking of a bimbo while he
was married was just excess that should be overlooked and forgiven.

Bush made a big deal that he wanted the person that outed a CIA
employee to step forward. Later he admits HE IS THE SOURCE that leaked
information. Again the tried and threadbare Repug excuse. He's
president so he thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, laws or
no laws. King George does what he wants.

Americans are coming to understand that right wing Republicans are
SLEAZE. They lie constantly about everything. They piss on our
Constitution. They give huge tax breaks to the least deserving. They
start unnecessary wars that they go on bungle. When disaster stikes
either terrorists or nature, they fail totally then make feeble
excuses for their failures.

Americans no longer wonder, they squarely put all the responsibility
and blame for all that's gone wrong on the Republican Party. The good
news for America is the Repugs can't deny it IS their fault. After all
pretty hard to pretend you ain't responsible if you control the white
house, and both houses of Congress. The ball is in the Repug count and
the voters are about ready to give the Repugs a slam-dung the hell out
of office. I can hardly wait.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 02:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
Personally, I don't kick Clinton. My point has to do with you bringing
up Gingrich's cheating when you have defended Clinton's cheating in the
past. That makes you inconsistent (I'd do what you did, and call you a
hypocrite, but you misused the term). You criticize Gingrich for his
cheating, but you defend Clinton for his cheating. Your standards are
inconsistent.
Post by Adam Albright
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy.
Speaking of foaming at the mouth, that's how you come across in your
posts. Do you have ulcers yet? Is there steam coming out of your ears?
Post by Adam Albright
We have scant details of what happened so far, but that never stops
the repug sleaze squad from their smear campaigns. At the same time
you say give Limbaugh a pass. Give Cheney a pass. Two drunks, one
also an admitted drug abuser.
At the same time, you want to fry Limbaugh and Cheney. And for the
record, I have not commented on Kennedy -- it happend over 24 hours
ago, I've been on usenet a couple of times since then, including this
one, and I haven't jumped to any conclusions. If anything I probably
have more sympathy for him than you do. Was that you who stated a lack
of compassion for people who have problems with addiction?
Post by Adam Albright
You have no creditabily sir since you can't stop talking out of both
sides of your mouth at once. Of course in the upside down world of
retarted right wingers having a double standard is par for the course.
As I pointed out above, it applies to you as well -- because you're
critical of Gingrich while defending Clinton for similar behavior. Why
are you so quick to see a double standard in others when you have one
yourself?
Post by Adam Albright
Do I attack Repugs? You're damn right. Only AFTER it is proven they
are dirty. Newt ADMITTED he fucked a bimbo on the side. So much for
Repug "family values". So did another lardass Repug Congressmen from
Illinois that felt duty bound to try to impeach Clinton, yet he gave
the laughable excuse while in his 30's his fucking of a bimbo while he
was married was just excess that should be overlooked and forgiven.
Did you believe Clinton's excesses should be overlooked and forgiven?
Post by Adam Albright
Bush made a big deal that he wanted the person that outed a CIA
employee to step forward. Later he admits HE IS THE SOURCE that leaked
information. Again the tried and threadbare Repug excuse. He's
president so he thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, laws or
no laws. King George does what he wants.
Americans are coming to understand that right wing Republicans are
SLEAZE. They lie constantly about everything. They piss on our
Constitution. They give huge tax breaks to the least deserving. They
start unnecessary wars that they go on bungle. When disaster stikes
either terrorists or nature, they fail totally then make feeble
excuses for their failures.
Americans no longer wonder, they squarely put all the responsibility
and blame for all that's gone wrong on the Republican Party. The good
news for America is the Repugs can't deny it IS their fault. After all
pretty hard to pretend you ain't responsible if you control the white
house, and both houses of Congress. The ball is in the Repug count and
the voters are about ready to give the Repugs a slam-dung the hell out
of office. I can hardly wait.
I don't blame you. The way you're going, your ulcer must be killing you
already.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 03:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
Personally, I don't kick Clinton. My point has to do with you bringing
up Gingrich's cheating when you have defended Clinton's cheating in the
past. That makes you inconsistent (I'd do what you did, and call you a
hypocrite, but you misused the term). You criticize Gingrich for his
cheating, but you defend Clinton for his cheating. Your standards are
inconsistent.
You are full of shit. Check Goggle dumbass. I've been critical of
Clinton and his blow jobs in many posts.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy.
Speaking of foaming at the mouth, that's how you come across in your
posts. Do you have ulcers yet? Is there steam coming out of your ears?
That the best you got rightard? I'm sorry you get upset over the truth
about the disgusting scum that's running the country. Me ulcers? Heck
no, I enjoy belitting fools like you. Everyone needs a hobby. Smacking
rightards around is mine.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 03:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
Personally, I don't kick Clinton. My point has to do with you bringing
up Gingrich's cheating when you have defended Clinton's cheating in the
past. That makes you inconsistent (I'd do what you did, and call you a
hypocrite, but you misused the term). You criticize Gingrich for his
cheating, but you defend Clinton for his cheating. Your standards are
inconsistent.
You are full of shit. Check Goggle dumbass.
I did. The following is what came up, and it's what I based my remark
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Also Bill Clinton disgraced the office of the Presidency by
masterbating while he was sticking a cigar up Monica Lewinski's vag in
the OVAL OFFICE, right after a Easter Sunday church service. Clinton
also lied straight face to the American people and also under oath.
Oh what a surprise, another its Clinton's fault. It never ceases to
amaze me the power of the mighty Clinton penis.
I've been critical of Clinton and his blow jobs in many posts.
I didn't see those. Can you show me one?
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy.
Speaking of foaming at the mouth, that's how you come across in your
posts. Do you have ulcers yet? Is there steam coming out of your ears?
That the best you got rightard? I'm sorry you get upset over the truth
about the disgusting scum that's running the country.
I'm not upset. What gave you that idea? You must be projecting.
Post by Adam Albright
Me ulcers? Heck no, I enjoy belitting fools like you. Everyone
needs a hobby. Smacking rightards around is mine.
Hmm, that's what you live for? What a bitterly sad existence for you.
Morton Davis
2006-05-06 03:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
Personally, I don't kick Clinton. My point has to do with you bringing
up Gingrich's cheating when you have defended Clinton's cheating in the
past. That makes you inconsistent (I'd do what you did, and call you a
hypocrite, but you misused the term). You criticize Gingrich for his
cheating, but you defend Clinton for his cheating. Your standards are
inconsistent.
Post by Adam Albright
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy.
Speaking of foaming at the mouth, that's how you come across in your
posts. Do you have ulcers yet? Is there steam coming out of your ears?
Post by Adam Albright
We have scant details of what happened so far, but that never stops
the repug sleaze squad from their smear campaigns. At the same time
you say give Limbaugh a pass. Give Cheney a pass. Two drunks, one
also an admitted drug abuser.
At the same time, you want to fry Limbaugh and Cheney. And for the
record, I have not commented on Kennedy -- it happend over 24 hours
ago, I've been on usenet a couple of times since then, including this
one, and I haven't jumped to any conclusions. If anything I probably
have more sympathy for him than you do. Was that you who stated a lack
of compassion for people who have problems with addiction?
Post by Adam Albright
You have no creditabily sir since you can't stop talking out of both
sides of your mouth at once. Of course in the upside down world of
retarted right wingers having a double standard is par for the course.
As I pointed out above, it applies to you as well -- because you're
critical of Gingrich while defending Clinton for similar behavior. Why
are you so quick to see a double standard in others when you have one
yourself?
Post by Adam Albright
Do I attack Repugs? You're damn right. Only AFTER it is proven they
are dirty. Newt ADMITTED he fucked a bimbo on the side. So much for
Repug "family values". So did another lardass Repug Congressmen from
Illinois that felt duty bound to try to impeach Clinton, yet he gave
the laughable excuse while in his 30's his fucking of a bimbo while he
was married was just excess that should be overlooked and forgiven.
Did you believe Clinton's excesses should be overlooked and forgiven?
Post by Adam Albright
Bush made a big deal that he wanted the person that outed a CIA
employee to step forward. Later he admits HE IS THE SOURCE that leaked
information. Again the tried and threadbare Repug excuse. He's
president so he thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, laws or
no laws. King George does what he wants.
Americans are coming to understand that right wing Republicans are
SLEAZE. They lie constantly about everything. They piss on our
Constitution. They give huge tax breaks to the least deserving. They
start unnecessary wars that they go on bungle. When disaster stikes
either terrorists or nature, they fail totally then make feeble
excuses for their failures.
Americans no longer wonder, they squarely put all the responsibility
and blame for all that's gone wrong on the Republican Party. The good
news for America is the Repugs can't deny it IS their fault. After all
pretty hard to pretend you ain't responsible if you control the white
house, and both houses of Congress. The ball is in the Repug count and
the voters are about ready to give the Repugs a slam-dung the hell out
of office. I can hardly wait.
I don't blame you. The way you're going, your ulcer must be killing you
already.
His word patterns are similar to the Looney Tunes Tazmania Devil exvcept Taz
makes more sense.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 03:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
You know what I love about rightards? You all are such depenable
two-faced hyprocrites. For how long have you assholes kicked Clinton?
Personally, I don't kick Clinton. My point has to do with you bringing
up Gingrich's cheating when you have defended Clinton's cheating in the
past. That makes you inconsistent (I'd do what you did, and call you a
hypocrite, but you misused the term). You criticize Gingrich for his
cheating, but you defend Clinton for his cheating. Your standards are
inconsistent.
Post by Adam Albright
And already there must be a 100 posts in this newsgroup alone from
foaming at the mouth rightard morons making fun of another Kennedy.
Speaking of foaming at the mouth, that's how you come across in your
posts. Do you have ulcers yet? Is there steam coming out of your ears?
Post by Adam Albright
We have scant details of what happened so far, but that never stops
the repug sleaze squad from their smear campaigns. At the same time
you say give Limbaugh a pass. Give Cheney a pass. Two drunks, one
also an admitted drug abuser.
At the same time, you want to fry Limbaugh and Cheney. And for the
record, I have not commented on Kennedy -- it happend over 24 hours
ago, I've been on usenet a couple of times since then, including this
one, and I haven't jumped to any conclusions. If anything I probably
have more sympathy for him than you do. Was that you who stated a lack
of compassion for people who have problems with addiction?
Post by Adam Albright
You have no creditabily sir since you can't stop talking out of both
sides of your mouth at once. Of course in the upside down world of
retarted right wingers having a double standard is par for the course.
As I pointed out above, it applies to you as well -- because you're
critical of Gingrich while defending Clinton for similar behavior. Why
are you so quick to see a double standard in others when you have one
yourself?
Post by Adam Albright
Do I attack Repugs? You're damn right. Only AFTER it is proven they
are dirty. Newt ADMITTED he fucked a bimbo on the side. So much for
Repug "family values". So did another lardass Repug Congressmen from
Illinois that felt duty bound to try to impeach Clinton, yet he gave
the laughable excuse while in his 30's his fucking of a bimbo while he
was married was just excess that should be overlooked and forgiven.
Did you believe Clinton's excesses should be overlooked and forgiven?
Post by Adam Albright
Bush made a big deal that he wanted the person that outed a CIA
employee to step forward. Later he admits HE IS THE SOURCE that leaked
information. Again the tried and threadbare Repug excuse. He's
president so he thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, laws or
no laws. King George does what he wants.
Americans are coming to understand that right wing Republicans are
SLEAZE. They lie constantly about everything. They piss on our
Constitution. They give huge tax breaks to the least deserving. They
start unnecessary wars that they go on bungle. When disaster stikes
either terrorists or nature, they fail totally then make feeble
excuses for their failures.
Americans no longer wonder, they squarely put all the responsibility
and blame for all that's gone wrong on the Republican Party. The good
news for America is the Repugs can't deny it IS their fault. After all
pretty hard to pretend you ain't responsible if you control the white
house, and both houses of Congress. The ball is in the Repug count and
the voters are about ready to give the Repugs a slam-dung the hell out
of office. I can hardly wait.
I don't blame you. The way you're going, your ulcer must be killing you
already.
His word patterns are similar to the Looney Tunes Tazmania Devil exvcept Taz
makes more sense.
Heh, you're right! I hadn't thought of that, but you nailed it!
l***@yahoo.com
2006-05-06 01:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
Ummmm, you're kidding, right? Cuz Newt did do his girlfriend on his
office desk. Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.

And Giuliani moved his girlfriend into Gracie Mansion (the Mayor of
New York's official residence) while his wife also lived there.

McCain used his influence to prevent his wife from going to jail for
stealing prescription drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief
organization.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 02:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
Ummmm, you're kidding, right? Cuz Newt did do his girlfriend on his
office desk. Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
And Giuliani moved his girlfriend into Gracie Mansion (the Mayor of
New York's official residence) while his wife also lived there.
McCain used his influence to prevent his wife from going to jail for
stealing prescription drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief
organization.
I'm going to have to start keeping a pail to throw-up in by my
computer desk. The mere act of reading both Newt and baldy Giuliani
attempting to have sex with a women at their age is enough to want to
make any decent person puke. If anybody has any story about Bob Dole
on Viagra getting a woody, PLEASE keep it to yourself. And I certainly
hope Gerald Ford isn't fooling around any more. Just thinking of sex
at his advanced age is enough to kill him.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 02:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
Ummmm, you're kidding, right? Cuz Newt did do his girlfriend on his
office desk.
What year was that? And it happened in the Speaker's office at the
Capitol? Really? In fact, was Gingrich even in Congress when that
happened? No.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My point
was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's cheating
while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 05:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Steven Douglas
Newt Ginhrich,world class sleaze and admitted wife cheater
That's the standard you use to judge our political leaders of the
1990s? Hmm, interesting. Did Newt cheat on his wife in the Speaker's
office at the Capitol while he should have been conducting business?
I'm sure that would have REALLY upset you -- just IMAGINE how angry
you'd be today if that had happened!!!!
Ummmm, you're kidding, right? Cuz Newt did do his girlfriend on his
office desk.
What year was that? And it happened in the Speaker's office at the
Capitol? Really? In fact, was Gingrich even in Congress when that
happened? No.
Rightards always end up looking stupid because they constantly try to
justify and make up excuses if some Repug does something wrong.

Oh Rush, give him a break, poor guy, he was in pain (wink) and he's
"only" abusing prescription drugs. Yea, yea, he said drug abusers
should have the book thrown at them, but for Rush, oh no, give him a
break. That's different.

Yes Newt screwed some bimbo while his wife had cancer, are you sure he
did the bitch at his office? Like it makes a difference WHERE he
fucks her.

Yea Chaney shot somebody in the face, drunk, oh no, that just was a
routine hunting accident and he didn't tell the press or president
because oh... he had to lie down for twelve hours first. Yea right...
to sober up.

Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of people
see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of endless
whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double standard.

Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem, like Kennedy today, before they
know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy. But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up with
a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My point
was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's cheating
while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm, I've
been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just
in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual
morals of a rabbit in heat. None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?

Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives. Bush lies and
arrogance has dropped the respect of the United States so low that our
soccer team is afraid to put a United States flag on their trailer at
a upcoming world meet. No other country is hated that much to restort
to having to hide what country they are from. Thank Bush for
disgracing America in the eyes of the entire world. You Repugs are a
real class act. Not!
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 05:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of people
see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of endless
whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything you wrote
in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph
above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up with
a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My point
was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's cheating
while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm, I've
been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just
in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual
morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 06:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Boy, the shit keeps pouring out of your mouth Douglas

Basically what you're saying is its OK that Bush gets to play God and
decide who dies. True, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. People died
under his rule. Ditto for dozens of other countires I could list that
have worse dictators that Bush has done zip about. Like North Korea
for example. Tell me why Bush hasn't seen fit to bring "democracy" to
the people of North Korea? They are suffering far worse then the
people in Iraq.

Bush by starting his Iraq war killed far more than Saddam. The
estimates are anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 killed since the
Texas chimpanzee began his war so he could puff out his chest and
blubber "I'm the war president".

Far worse, by Bush being the babbling idiot he is, he lost his best
and perhaps only chance to capture/kill bin Laden and his band of
thugs. You remember him. That was the guy that admitted he was
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How fast rightard monkeys forget we
had him surrounded in Afghanistan, but he rode off on a ass under
cover of darkness right under our noses making Bush look like a bigger
ass. Just imagine, the commander and chief of the world's only super
power with all the military might at his disposal can't even capture
what amounts to a band of bandits on donkeys and camels. Pathetic! So
then Cheney whispers in Bush's ear, now would be a good time to invade
Iraq on some made up excuse to take attention off how bad we blew it.

Get a clue fool. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush lied. What
else is new. The whole laundy list of excuses Bush gave for going to
war have all proved to be bogus starting with Iraq is a threat, they
got WMD's to the fairy tale Bush wanted to bring "democracy" to the
people.

Get your facts straight. The world hates Bush. Don't you ever pay
attention? Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the United
States then the past 20 administrations combined and everyone knows
it. Even money he will get impeached or be forced from office because
we both know the Repugs are headed for disaster in November.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 16:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Boy, the shit keeps pouring out of your mouth Douglas
Basically what you're saying is its OK that Bush gets to play God and
decide who dies.
No, he got authorization from Congress. Many prominent Democrats voted
to give Bush that authorization. In addition, Bush had Tony Blair and
the leaders of many other nations on his side. Libs keep talking like
Bush did this all by himself, but he had a lot of help from Democrats
and other world leaders.
Post by Adam Albright
True, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. People died
under his rule. Ditto for dozens of other countires I could list that
have worse dictators that Bush has done zip about. Like North Korea
for example. Tell me why Bush hasn't seen fit to bring "democracy" to
the people of North Korea? They are suffering far worse then the
people in Iraq.
I'd like to free the people of North Korea, but it would be a bit more
difficult since North Korea was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
That was one of the reasons to take out Saddam Hussein *before* he was
allowed to develop his nuclear weapons.
Post by Adam Albright
Bush by starting his Iraq war killed far more than Saddam. The
estimates are anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 killed since the
Texas chimpanzee began his war so he could puff out his chest and
blubber "I'm the war president".
Wrong. Saddam's mass graves contained around 300,000 dead Iraqis.
Additionally, there were all the Iraqis who suffered under the UN
sanctions all through the 90s. But you probably thought the sanctions
were working just fine, killing 5,000 Iraqi children per month
according to some humanitarian groups' claims being made prior to the
war.
Post by Adam Albright
Far worse, by Bush being the babbling idiot he is, he lost his best
and perhaps only chance to capture/kill bin Laden and his band of
thugs. You remember him. That was the guy that admitted he was
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How fast rightard monkeys forget we
had him surrounded in Afghanistan, but he rode off on a ass under
cover of darkness right under our noses making Bush look like a bigger
ass. Just imagine, the commander and chief of the world's only super
power with all the military might at his disposal can't even capture
what amounts to a band of bandits on donkeys and camels. Pathetic! So
then Cheney whispers in Bush's ear, now would be a good time to invade
Iraq on some made up excuse to take attention off how bad we blew it.
Get a clue fool. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush lied. What
else is new. The whole laundy list of excuses Bush gave for going to
war have all proved to be bogus starting with Iraq is a threat, they
got WMD's to the fairy tale Bush wanted to bring "democracy" to the
people.
You don't want democracy for Iraq? They've already held some elections
there, you know. Would you reverse that if you could?
Post by Adam Albright
Get your facts straight. The world hates Bush. Don't you ever pay
attention? Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the United
States then the past 20 administrations combined and everyone knows
it. Even money he will get impeached or be forced from office because
we both know the Repugs are headed for disaster in November.
Keep your hopes up. I know that's what you're living for, and I sure
wouldn't want your ulcer to get any worse than it already is.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 17:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Boy, the shit keeps pouring out of your mouth Douglas
Basically what you're saying is its OK that Bush gets to play God and
decide who dies.
No, he got authorization from Congress. Many prominent Democrats voted
to give Bush that authorization. In addition, Bush had Tony Blair and
the leaders of many other nations on his side. Libs keep talking like
Bush did this all by himself, but he had a lot of help from Democrats
and other world leaders.
That fairy tale won't fly. Bush LIED to Congress to get them to go
along. If Congress knew then what they know now, they never would have
given Bush authorization. That's not my words, that is what many in
Congress, both Repugs and Dems are on the record saying.

By the way you clueless Rightard, what Congress authorized wasn't
close to what Bush actually did. He wasn't given a blank check. Just
once, get your facts straight.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
True, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. People died
under his rule. Ditto for dozens of other countires I could list that
have worse dictators that Bush has done zip about. Like North Korea
for example. Tell me why Bush hasn't seen fit to bring "democracy" to
the people of North Korea? They are suffering far worse then the
people in Iraq.
I'd like to free the people of North Korea, but it would be a bit more
difficult since North Korea was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
That was one of the reasons to take out Saddam Hussein *before* he was
allowed to develop his nuclear weapons.
Another fairy tale. Shocking, Bush is trying to use it again telling
us Iran is devoping nukes. Again the real problem, North Korea, who
admits having nukes and our intelligence confirms is blown off by the
chimp in the oval office and something we can just talk with them
about. You of course don't see the irony. If Bush is allowed to run
around trying to prevent states like Iraq and Iran from developing
nukes, the evil states like North Korea that ALREADY HAS THEM is
encouraged to make more (for their defense) fearing sooner or later
Bush will get around to attacking them and perhaps for spite sells
them to other states or terrorists.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Bush by starting his Iraq war killed far more than Saddam. The
estimates are anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 killed since the
Texas chimpanzee began his war so he could puff out his chest and
blubber "I'm the war president".
Wrong. Saddam's mass graves contained around 300,000 dead Iraqis.
Additionally, there were all the Iraqis who suffered under the UN
sanctions all through the 90s. But you probably thought the sanctions
were working just fine, killing 5,000 Iraqi children per month
according to some humanitarian groups' claims being made prior to the
war.
Oh my, news flash... Saddam killed people including many of his own
during another war. I'm shocked. You side-stepped how Bush plays God
and has killed over 100,000 in Iraq in some feeble and failed attempt
to bring "democracy". Are you a religious person? Do you think God
will forgive Bush for the killing of all the innocent women, children
and non combatants Bush's tanks, bombs and guns have killed?

I won't pretend to speak for God, that's something else Bush comes
close to trying. I would think God would not be happy with the killing
of anybody. Heck, I seem to remember a commandment, "thou shall not
kill".

Damn, did I miss a footnote in the bible where God gave religious
fakers and pretenders like Bush an exemption to his commandments? Do
you think Bush a believer in "end times" thinks God wants to use him
to bring end events about? Maybe instead of Bush wanting to be known
as the "war presidnet" he actually wants to be the last president.
Literally.

Well rightard defend the Bushie muder rampage.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Far worse, by Bush being the babbling idiot he is, he lost his best
and perhaps only chance to capture/kill bin Laden and his band of
thugs. You remember him. That was the guy that admitted he was
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How fast rightard monkeys forget we
had him surrounded in Afghanistan, but he rode off on a ass under
cover of darkness right under our noses making Bush look like a bigger
ass. Just imagine, the commander and chief of the world's only super
power with all the military might at his disposal can't even capture
what amounts to a band of bandits on donkeys and camels. Pathetic! So
then Cheney whispers in Bush's ear, now would be a good time to invade
Iraq on some made up excuse to take attention off how bad we blew it.
Get a clue fool. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush lied. What
else is new. The whole laundy list of excuses Bush gave for going to
war have all proved to be bogus starting with Iraq is a threat, they
got WMD's to the fairy tale Bush wanted to bring "democracy" to the
people.
You don't want democracy for Iraq? They've already held some elections
there, you know. Would you reverse that if you could?
You're funny! The elections were months ago. What's changed? Want the
truth? Can you handle the truth? Violence level:increased. Attacks on
American troops: more deadly. Now please make me laugh and tell me the
people of Iraq are better off. They still don't have electrical power
that stays on. There isn't enough fresh water. Human waste goes into
open sewers in the streets. They have next to zero oil capacity, which
hahahah was suppose to fund the war. Remember? It isn't safe to go
outside after dark. Kidnapping has run wild and is a daily happening.
If that's democracy, I don't think they want anything to do with it.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Get your facts straight. The world hates Bush. Don't you ever pay
attention? Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the United
States then the past 20 administrations combined and everyone knows
it. Even money he will get impeached or be forced from office because
we both know the Repugs are headed for disaster in November.
Keep your hopes up. I know that's what you're living for, and I sure
wouldn't want your ulcer to get any worse than it already is.
I enjoy watching rightards like you squirm and sweat. No ulcers here.
Another fact you are hopelessly wrong on. Crawl out from under your
rock once in awhile a read a newspaper. Science years ago said stomach
ulcers (which you imply I have) are mostly caused by a virus.

You're just another uninformed clueless rightard. You should have
learned by now how easily I crush you all under my feet without even
trying.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-07 04:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Boy, the shit keeps pouring out of your mouth Douglas
Basically what you're saying is its OK that Bush gets to play God and
decide who dies.
No, he got authorization from Congress. Many prominent Democrats voted
to give Bush that authorization. In addition, Bush had Tony Blair and
the leaders of many other nations on his side. Libs keep talking like
Bush did this all by himself, but he had a lot of help from Democrats
and other world leaders.
That fairy tale won't fly. Bush LIED to Congress to get them to go
along.
Ah, that tired old liberal spin. On January 18, 2004, Democratic Leader
Richard Gephardt told Tim Russert of NBC News Meet the Press that he
didn't rely on President
Bush for his intelligence:

REP. GEPHARDT: Now, I didn't listen to him about the weapons of
mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George Tenet, I talked
with his top people. I talked to former Clinton officials. I became
convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or components of
weapons that could wind up in the United States. We cannot have a
weapon of mass destruction used in the United States, and I'll do
anything in my power to prevent that from happening. [end quote]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3979910/

You see, the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMD. It was the
Clinton appointed CIA director, George Tenet, who told Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. Apparently he also told Democratic Leader
Gephardt that as well. In addition, the intelligence that was provided
to other members of Congress came from the CIA that was run by the
Clinton appointed CIA director.
Post by Adam Albright
By the way you clueless Rightard, what Congress authorized wasn't
close to what Bush actually did. He wasn't given a blank check. Just
once, get your facts straight.
More liberal spin. President Bush was given authorization to use
military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. What sort of
authorization do you think he was given?
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
True, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. People died
under his rule. Ditto for dozens of other countires I could list that
have worse dictators that Bush has done zip about. Like North Korea
for example. Tell me why Bush hasn't seen fit to bring "democracy" to
the people of North Korea? They are suffering far worse then the
people in Iraq.
I'd like to free the people of North Korea, but it would be a bit more
difficult since North Korea was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
That was one of the reasons to take out Saddam Hussein *before* he was
allowed to develop his nuclear weapons.
Another fairy tale. Shocking, Bush is trying to use it again telling
us Iran is devoping nukes. Again the real problem, North Korea, who
admits having nukes and our intelligence confirms is blown off by the
chimp in the oval office and something we can just talk with them
about.
Who was president when North Korea developed its nukes? And how was
that situation allowed to happen? Now, since North Korea already has
nukes, they can blow South Korea or Japan off the map if we get too
aggressive. It's really too bad we didn't take care of that problem
about ten or twelve years ago. But we didn't, so we're stuck with
"talking" to those guys at this point. Hopefully China will put enough
pressure on North Korea to keep them from doing something stupid with
their nukes.
Post by Adam Albright
You of course don't see the irony. If Bush is allowed to run
around trying to prevent states like Iraq and Iran from developing
nukes, the evil states like North Korea that ALREADY HAS THEM is
encouraged to make more (for their defense) fearing sooner or later
Bush will get around to attacking them and perhaps for spite sells
them to other states or terrorists.
I don't think we're going to attack them. It's going to take some
"talking" to get them in line at this point.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Bush by starting his Iraq war killed far more than Saddam. The
estimates are anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 killed since the
Texas chimpanzee began his war so he could puff out his chest and
blubber "I'm the war president".
Wrong. Saddam's mass graves contained around 300,000 dead Iraqis.
Additionally, there were all the Iraqis who suffered under the UN
sanctions all through the 90s. But you probably thought the sanctions
were working just fine, killing 5,000 Iraqi children per month
according to some humanitarian groups' claims being made prior to the
war.
Oh my, news flash... Saddam killed people including many of his own
during another war. I'm shocked. You side-stepped how Bush plays God
and has killed over 100,000 in Iraq
I disagree with that number. It's a grossly inflated estimate based on
bad data. The more reasonable number from the Iraqbodycount website is
based on actual counting. To reach 100,000 in three years, about 100
people a day would have had to die EVERYDAY. There is no evidence of
that number of dead EVERYDAY in Iraq. And the Iraqis who have been
dying for the past couple of years are being targeted and murdered by
the terrorist insurgency.
Post by Adam Albright
in some feeble and failed attempt
to bring "democracy". Are you a religious person? Do you think God
will forgive Bush for the killing of all the innocent women, children
and non combatants Bush's tanks, bombs and guns have killed?
How did you feel about the removal of Milosevic from power? I
subscribe to the philosophy that evil can only prosper when good men do
nothing. Unfortunately, innocent civilians were killed in bombing raids
during the war to remove Milosevic from power. I hate it when any
innocent person is killed in a war where the goal is to remove an evil
from the world. I don't presume to speak for God, but the Bible says
there is a time for war and a time for peace.
Post by Adam Albright
I won't pretend to speak for God, that's something else Bush comes
close to trying. I would think God would not be happy with the killing
of anybody. Heck, I seem to remember a commandment, "thou shall not
kill".
Actually, the correct translation is "thou shall not murder." Most
newer Bibles are correcting that translation, which has been tranlated
incorrectly in English for many years. You really should read more.
Post by Adam Albright
Damn, did I miss a footnote in the bible where God gave religious
fakers and pretenders like Bush an exemption to his commandments? Do
you think Bush a believer in "end times" thinks God wants to use him
to bring end events about? Maybe instead of Bush wanting to be known
as the "war presidnet" he actually wants to be the last president.
Literally.
I have no idea. Are you a mind reader?
Post by Adam Albright
Well rightard defend the Bushie muder rampage.
I disagree with that characterization. Instead, I'm thinking about all
the lives that will be saved because Saddam is no longer in power.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Far worse, by Bush being the babbling idiot he is, he lost his best
and perhaps only chance to capture/kill bin Laden and his band of
thugs. You remember him. That was the guy that admitted he was
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How fast rightard monkeys forget we
had him surrounded in Afghanistan, but he rode off on a ass under
cover of darkness right under our noses making Bush look like a bigger
ass. Just imagine, the commander and chief of the world's only super
power with all the military might at his disposal can't even capture
what amounts to a band of bandits on donkeys and camels. Pathetic! So
then Cheney whispers in Bush's ear, now would be a good time to invade
Iraq on some made up excuse to take attention off how bad we blew it.
Get a clue fool. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush lied. What
else is new. The whole laundy list of excuses Bush gave for going to
war have all proved to be bogus starting with Iraq is a threat, they
got WMD's to the fairy tale Bush wanted to bring "democracy" to the
people.
You don't want democracy for Iraq? They've already held some elections
there, you know. Would you reverse that if you could?
You're funny! The elections were months ago. What's changed? Want the
truth? Can you handle the truth? Violence level:increased. Attacks on
American troops: more deadly. Now please make me laugh and tell me the
people of Iraq are better off. They still don't have electrical power
that stays on. There isn't enough fresh water. Human waste goes into
open sewers in the streets. They have next to zero oil capacity, which
hahahah was suppose to fund the war. Remember? It isn't safe to go
outside after dark. Kidnapping has run wild and is a daily happening.
If that's democracy, I don't think they want anything to do with it.
Large parts of Iraq are secure. You're focusing on one part of Iraq,
and extrapolating it out to the entire country. Iraq is the size of
California. It would be like pointing to a high crime area in Los
Angeles, and saying it is representative of the entire State of
California.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Get your facts straight. The world hates Bush. Don't you ever pay
attention? Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the United
States then the past 20 administrations combined and everyone knows
it. Even money he will get impeached or be forced from office because
we both know the Repugs are headed for disaster in November.
Keep your hopes up. I know that's what you're living for, and I sure
wouldn't want your ulcer to get any worse than it already is.
I enjoy watching rightards like you squirm and sweat. No ulcers here.
Another fact you are hopelessly wrong on. Crawl out from under your
rock once in awhile a read a newspaper.
I read two newspapers daily.
Post by Adam Albright
Science years ago said stomach
ulcers (which you imply I have) are mostly caused by a virus.
Hmm, I looked it up, and it says bacterial infection. But stress can
make an existing ulcer worse. Interesting, thanks for the information.
I've never thought much about ulcers. I was led to believe (many years
ago) they were caused by stress. Amazing the things one can learn on
usenet.
Post by Adam Albright
You're just another uninformed clueless rightard. You should have
learned by now how easily I crush you all under my feet without even
trying.
And besides that, you're a delusional egotist as well.
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-06 13:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of people
see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of endless
whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double standard.
in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph
above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up with
a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My point
was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's cheating
while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm, I've
been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just
in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual
morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him? Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Post by Steven Douglas
But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
People are entitled to be judgemental about the
politicians they elect. You guys do it often enough
with the Clintons, but you just can't handle it when
it comes to YOUR tarnished idols?

Cry us a river, do.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-06 16:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of people
see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of endless
whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double standard.
in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph
above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up with
a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a hospital
bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My point
was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's cheating
while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm, I've
been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just
in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual
morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Carter
armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the Ayatollah was
considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that the Ayatollah would
try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other parts of the Middle East.
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was their
intention.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took office.
You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President Clinton had
already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from power. Thanks to
President Clinton, it was the policy of the US government that Saddam
be removed.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
People are entitled to be judgemental about the
politicians they elect. You guys do it often enough
with the Clintons, but you just can't handle it when
it comes to YOUR tarnished idols?
Bush is not my idol. I don't have idols. I do have heroes. Bush is not
one of them. Tony Blair is, however.
Adam Albright
2006-05-06 17:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Bush is not my idol. I don't have idols. I do have heroes. Bush is not
one of them. Tony Blair is, however.
Wow, so you admit to crawling up the ass of another proven liar and
warmonger. How precious.
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-06 19:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of
people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of
endless whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double
standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything you
wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the
paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up
with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a
hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My
point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's
cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm,
I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very
newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton
has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies
got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women --
wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their
parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Carter
armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the Ayatollah was
considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that the Ayatollah would
try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other parts of the Middle East.
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was their
intention.
Now you are just lying.


"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html


Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took office.
You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President Clinton had
already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from power. Thanks to
President Clinton, it was the policy of the US government that Saddam
be removed.
Show us what Bush did about Saddam and his WMD's
during his first year in office.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or
Osama bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
People are entitled to be judgemental about the
politicians they elect. You guys do it often enough
with the Clintons, but you just can't handle it when
it comes to YOUR tarnished idols?
Bush is not my idol. I don't have idols. I do have heroes. Bush is not
one of them. Tony Blair is, however.
"Bush's Poodle"?

Figures........
Steven Douglas
2006-05-07 05:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of
people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of
endless whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double
standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything you
wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the
paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up
with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a
hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My
point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's
cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm,
I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very
newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton
has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies
got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women --
wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their
parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Carter
armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the Ayatollah was
considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that the Ayatollah would
try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other parts of the Middle East.
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was their
intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran. He told
Saddam the Iranian regime would crumble quickly, and Saddam believed
it. Saddam got bogged down in a war Carter encouraged him to start
after a couple of years, and he asked for armaments to continue the war
Carter encouraged him to start.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took office.
You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President Clinton had
already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from power. Thanks to
President Clinton, it was the policy of the US government that Saddam
be removed.
Show us what Bush did about Saddam and his WMD's
during his first year in office.
I thought there were all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. But
I'm sure there were behind the scenes activities going on to try to
weaken Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, he couldn't be weakened when he
was ripping off the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or
Osama bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
People are entitled to be judgemental about the
politicians they elect. You guys do it often enough
with the Clintons, but you just can't handle it when
it comes to YOUR tarnished idols?
Bush is not my idol. I don't have idols. I do have heroes. Bush is not
one of them. Tony Blair is, however.
"Bush's Poodle"?
Figures........
I reject that description. Blair stood strong with Clinton as well.
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-07 05:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of
people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of
endless whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double
standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything you
wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the
paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up
with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a
hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My
point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's
cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And then
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm,
I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very
newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton
has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to do
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually took
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies
got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women --
wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their
parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Carter
armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the Ayatollah was
considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that the Ayatollah would
try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other parts of the Middle East.
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was their
intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
Post by Steven Douglas
He told
Saddam the Iranian regime would crumble quickly, and Saddam believed
it. Saddam got bogged down in a war Carter encouraged him to start
after a couple of years, and he asked for armaments to continue the war
Carter encouraged him to start.
You keep posting this crap without any
proof. Don't you have any proof for anything
you post?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took office.
You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President Clinton had
already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from power. Thanks to
President Clinton, it was the policy of the US government that Saddam
be removed.
Show us what Bush did about Saddam and his WMD's
during his first year in office.
I thought there were all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. But
I'm sure there were behind the scenes activities going on to try to
weaken Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, he couldn't be weakened when he
was ripping off the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.
You have been "sure" about many things that have
been proven wrong.



Mitchell Holman

"It’s extremely difficult to govern when you
control all three branches of government,"
John Feehery, Spokesman for GOP Speaker of
the House Dennis Hastert, May 23,2004
Steven Douglas
2006-05-08 04:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority of
people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a bunch of
endless whiners and finger pointers constantly applying a double
standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything you
wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it in the
paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come up
with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in a
hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich. My
point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out Gingrich's
cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't defended
Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle will confirm,
I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in this very
newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton
has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't you
wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies
got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women --
wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their
parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and Carter
armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the Ayatollah was
considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that the Ayatollah would
try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was their
intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
Post by Steven Douglas
He told
Saddam the Iranian regime would crumble quickly, and Saddam believed
it. Saddam got bogged down in a war Carter encouraged him to start
after a couple of years, and he asked for armaments to continue the war
Carter encouraged him to start.
You keep posting this crap without any
proof. Don't you have any proof for anything
you post?
I have evidence. Evidence is not necessarily proof. Are you flat out
denying the possiblity that the Carter administration took actions that
encouraged Saddam to attack Iran in 1980?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took office.
You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President Clinton had
already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from power. Thanks to
President Clinton, it was the policy of the US government that Saddam
be removed.
Show us what Bush did about Saddam and his WMD's
during his first year in office.
I thought there were all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. But
I'm sure there were behind the scenes activities going on to try to
weaken Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, he couldn't be weakened when he
was ripping off the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.
You have been "sure" about many things that have
been proven wrong.
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
Adam Albright
2006-05-08 04:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off. Also the same guy that was the anti-terrorist guy in the white
house for Bush Sr. and Clinton at cabinet level, was demoted by Rice
and was blocked direct access to Bush. In all the speeches Rice gave
as National Security Director NONE addressed the terroists threat.
They blew it off. Face it.

Then 9/11 happened.

This time there IS evidence. Bush totally ignored a memo warning that
terrorists desperate to attack in United States may use planes. That
was in August 01. Bush preferred to remain on vacation and did
nothing. Before that he and Missy Rice at a conference were warned
that France had nixed a plan by terrorists to fly into buildings. When
asked after 9/11 both Rice and Bush faked they didn't remember,
claiming nobody ever planned or used planes as weapons before.

Face it, either Bush and Rice are deleberate liars or are totally
incompetent to perform the jobs they have. Yes, that is impeachable.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-08 05:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off.
If that is true, why didn't Al Gore make bin Laden an issue during the
2000 campaign? Why didn't he openly mock Bush for ignoring the danger
of bin Laden in his campaign? The fact is, NEITHER of them made bin
Laden the major issue he should have been. It's revisionist history for
the Clinton administration to try to say they made a big deal out of
bin Laden.
Post by Adam Albright
Also the same guy that was the anti-terrorist guy in the white
house for Bush Sr. and Clinton at cabinet level, was demoted by Rice
and was blocked direct access to Bush.
Who are you talking about? Richard Clarke? Clarke did the same job for
Bush that he had done for Clinton. If he didn't think the Bush
administration was doing enough about bin Laden, why didn't he speak
up? It was his DUTY to speak up, and I don't remember him speaking up
until the 9/11 Commission hearings, just as his book was about to go on
sale.
Post by Adam Albright
In all the speeches Rice gave
as National Security Director NONE addressed the terroists threat.
They blew it off. Face it.
So did the Clinton adminstration. I blame both sides equally.
Post by Adam Albright
Then 9/11 happened.
This time there IS evidence. Bush totally ignored a memo warning that
terrorists desperate to attack in United States may use planes. That
was in August 01.
That memo said the planes would come from overseas. It said nothing
about domestic planes. But I agree, the entire federal government was
not taking the terrorist threat seriously. We had a US Navy ship
attacked during the presidential election campaign, and neither Gore
nor Bush could make terrorism an issue. Blame both sides equally. The
same thing would have happened if Gore had been president.
Post by Adam Albright
Bush preferred to remain on vacation and did
nothing. Before that he and Missy Rice at a conference were warned
that France had nixed a plan by terrorists to fly into buildings. When
asked after 9/11 both Rice and Bush faked they didn't remember,
claiming nobody ever planned or used planes as weapons before.
Face it, either Bush and Rice are deleberate liars or are totally
incompetent to perform the jobs they have. Yes, that is impeachable.
Why didn't Richard Clarke speak up? Why didn't he tell the world how
Clinton and Gore had made bin Laden their number one priority, and that
Bush was ignoring what Clinton and Gore had made such a priority? If
9/11 had happened under a Gore administration, would you be calling for
his impeachment? Really ... would you?
Adam Albright
2006-05-08 15:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off.
If that is true, why didn't Al Gore make bin Laden an issue during the
2000 campaign? Why didn't he openly mock Bush for ignoring the danger
of bin Laden in his campaign? The fact is, NEITHER of them made bin
Laden the major issue he should have been. It's revisionist history for
the Clinton administration to try to say they made a big deal out of
bin Laden.
Did I say big deal? No, that's a rightard trying to color what I said.
The fact is they DID mention it and the bushies DID blow it off. No
revisionist history. Just what rightards choke on. The Truth.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Also the same guy that was the anti-terrorist guy in the white
house for Bush Sr. and Clinton at cabinet level, was demoted by Rice
and was blocked direct access to Bush.
Who are you talking about? Richard Clarke? Clarke did the same job for
Bush that he had done for Clinton.
Bingo, I'll give you a pat on the head for getting the name right.
Post by Steven Douglas
If he didn't think the Bush
administration was doing enough about bin Laden, why didn't he speak
up? It was his DUTY to speak up, and I don't remember him speaking up
until the 9/11 Commission hearings, just as his book was about to go on
sale.
Oh please, he did speak up to his superior Missy Rice. You clowns keep
trying to play silly games. Everybody knows Bush blew off everything
about terrorists PRIOR to 9/11 in part because Missy Rice stood in the
way as National Security Advisor. Now your excuse is Clarke should
have gone public? If he would have your rightrards would have bitched
your chapped asses off he didn't follow the chain of command. The same
whining you used about Brown of FEMA trying to tell Bush directly
which he did and look what happened when the hurricane struck. Bush
knew and the bozo Bush still did nothing to make sure that resources
were in place and people were out of danger. All he did was engage in
finger pointing. Typical Repugs. I guess you missed the video
conference call where we see Brown telling Bush this is a big one,
better get ready. What did Bush do? He listened and then went back to
thumbing through comic books I guess because he sure didn't do his job
as commander in chief. Just like Bush didn't after being told the
country was under attack on 9/11. What did Bush do? Finish listening
to My Pet Goat. Maybe you didn't see that tape either.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
In all the speeches Rice gave
as National Security Director NONE addressed the terroists threat.
They blew it off. Face it.
So did the Clinton adminstration. I blame both sides equally.
Repugs always blame past administrations even when their team is in
place. What nonsense.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Then 9/11 happened.
This time there IS evidence. Bush totally ignored a memo warning that
terrorists desperate to attack in United States may use planes. That
was in August 01.
That memo said the planes would come from overseas. It said nothing
about domestic planes. But I agree, the entire federal government was
not taking the terrorist threat seriously.
Planes used to fly into building. What difference does is make where
the planes come from? Who's the commander-in-chief in charge of the
military and the entire executive branch? Oh, oops, Bush. So you admit
Bush did nothing. We know.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-08 19:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off.
If that is true, why didn't Al Gore make bin Laden an issue during the
2000 campaign? Why didn't he openly mock Bush for ignoring the danger
of bin Laden in his campaign? The fact is, NEITHER of them made bin
Laden the major issue he should have been. It's revisionist history for
the Clinton administration to try to say they made a big deal out of
bin Laden.
Did I say big deal? No, that's a rightard trying to color what I said.
The fact is they DID mention it and the bushies DID blow it off. No
revisionist history. Just what rightards choke on. The Truth.
They mentioned it. Whoopy! Why didn't Al Gore make it a campaign issue?
He was the Vice President, and he knew the threat as well as Clinton. I
don't remember Clinton making bin Laden an issue, other than the few
cruise missles he fired after two embassies were bombed. And I don't
remember ANY response to the US Navy warship being attacked just before
the election. And Vice President Gore still didn't make Al Qaeda an
issue, or mention the seriousness of the threat. That tells me how
serious the White House under Clinton took the threat of bin Laden.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Also the same guy that was the anti-terrorist guy in the white
house for Bush Sr. and Clinton at cabinet level, was demoted by Rice
and was blocked direct access to Bush.
Who are you talking about? Richard Clarke? Clarke did the same job for
Bush that he had done for Clinton.
Bingo, I'll give you a pat on the head for getting the name right.
Post by Steven Douglas
If he didn't think the Bush
administration was doing enough about bin Laden, why didn't he speak
up? It was his DUTY to speak up, and I don't remember him speaking up
until the 9/11 Commission hearings, just as his book was about to go on
sale.
Oh please, he did speak up to his superior Missy Rice. You clowns keep
trying to play silly games. Everybody knows Bush blew off everything
about terrorists PRIOR to 9/11 in part because Missy Rice stood in the
way as National Security Advisor. Now your excuse is Clarke should
have gone public? If he would have your rightrards would have bitched
your chapped asses off he didn't follow the chain of command.
There are ways he could have raised the consciousness of everyone to
the threat we faced. Obviously he didn't get Gore to take it seriously
during the campaign, which tells me he never got Clinton to take it
seriously either. And then he failed to get Bush to take it seriously
as well. Face it, the entire country was asleep at the wheel under both
Clinton and the first 8 months of Bush's administration.
Post by Adam Albright
The same
whining you used about Brown of FEMA trying to tell Bush directly
which he did and look what happened when the hurricane struck. Bush
knew and the bozo Bush still did nothing to make sure that resources
were in place and people were out of danger.
The resources were in place, just as they were in place for Mississippi
and Alabama. I don't recall all the problems happening in those States
the way they did in Louisiana. Why is that? One reason is that the Red
Cross issued a statement saying it was Louisiana officials that blocked
aid from going in to New Orleans while all those people were huddled in
the Superdome.
Post by Adam Albright
All he did was engage in
finger pointing. Typical Repugs. I guess you missed the video
conference call where we see Brown telling Bush this is a big one,
better get ready. What did Bush do? He listened and then went back to
thumbing through comic books I guess because he sure didn't do his job
as commander in chief.
Wrong. He called the governor of Louisiana and asked her why the Mayor
of New Orleans hadn't ordered an evacuation. Then he urged the governor
to tell the mayor to order the evacuation. And even then, the mayor was
reluctant. The mayor left all those school buses sitting there to get
flooded while the people of New Orleans with no transportation had no
place to go except that Superdome. Bush said there were failures at all
levels of government (which means local, State, and Federal), but of
course that was spun into "all levels of Bush's government."
Post by Adam Albright
Just like Bush didn't after being told the
country was under attack on 9/11. What did Bush do? Finish listening
to My Pet Goat. Maybe you didn't see that tape either.
Yeah, of course I saw that tape. How could I not? The media loved
showing that tape. I would have gotten up very calmly and excused
myself. He said he didn't want to scare the children. Personally, I
don't know how he could continue to sit there. But he did. And
ultimately, it changed nothing. What was he going to do? Start the war
in Afghanistan seven minutes earlier?
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
In all the speeches Rice gave
as National Security Director NONE addressed the terroists threat.
They blew it off. Face it.
So did the Clinton adminstration. I blame both sides equally.
Repugs always blame past administrations even when their team is in
place. What nonsense.
I'm not blaming anyone. That's what you do. I'm saying it would have
been nice if either Clinton, Gore, or Bush had made the terror threat
*real* for the population of this country. But NONE of them did that.
Even when Clinton had several Al Qaeda attacks happen to this country
on his watch, he STILL didn't make it the major issue it should have
been. But I don't blame him. It just didn't happen. That's the way it
goes.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Then 9/11 happened.
This time there IS evidence. Bush totally ignored a memo warning that
terrorists desperate to attack in United States may use planes. That
was in August 01.
That memo said the planes would come from overseas. It said nothing
about domestic planes. But I agree, the entire federal government was
not taking the terrorist threat seriously.
Planes used to fly into building. What difference does is make where
the planes come from? Who's the commander-in-chief in charge of the
military and the entire executive branch? Oh, oops, Bush. So you admit
Bush did nothing. We know.
What was he supposed to do? Shoot down all incoming airplanes from
overseas?
Adam Albright
2006-05-08 21:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off.
If that is true, why didn't Al Gore make bin Laden an issue during the
2000 campaign? Why didn't he openly mock Bush for ignoring the danger
of bin Laden in his campaign? The fact is, NEITHER of them made bin
Laden the major issue he should have been. It's revisionist history for
the Clinton administration to try to say they made a big deal out of
bin Laden.
Did I say big deal? No, that's a rightard trying to color what I said.
The fact is they DID mention it and the bushies DID blow it off. No
revisionist history. Just what rightards choke on. The Truth.
They mentioned it. Whoopy! Why didn't Al Gore make it a campaign issue?
You know you try to appear way smarter than you actually are. We're
talking POST election nitwit. The outgoing Clinton administration
warned the incoming Bush administration about the treat possed by bin
Laden and terroists in general. Its called sharing intelligence. What
happened? Missy Rice blew it off. Bush did nothing. Now try to dance
around the facts again asswipe.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Oh please, he did speak up to his superior Missy Rice. You clowns keep
trying to play silly games. Everybody knows Bush blew off everything
about terrorists PRIOR to 9/11 in part because Missy Rice stood in the
way as National Security Advisor. Now your excuse is Clarke should
have gone public? If he would have your rightrards would have bitched
your chapped asses off he didn't follow the chain of command.
There are ways he could have raised the consciousness of everyone to
the threat we faced. Obviously he didn't get Gore to take it seriously
during the campaign, which tells me he never got Clinton to take it
seriously either. And then he failed to get Bush to take it seriously
as well. Face it, the entire country was asleep at the wheel under both
Clinton and the first 8 months of Bush's administration.
More feeble attempts to twist the truth. Under Clinton, Clarke has
ready access to the president. Under Bush, Clarke has to get past
Rice. Damn you're a idiot!
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
The same
whining you used about Brown of FEMA trying to tell Bush directly
which he did and look what happened when the hurricane struck. Bush
knew and the bozo Bush still did nothing to make sure that resources
were in place and people were out of danger.
The resources were in place, just as they were in place for Mississippi
and Alabama. I don't recall all the problems happening in those States
the way they did in Louisiana. Why is that? One reason is that the Red
Cross issued a statement saying it was Louisiana officials that blocked
aid from going in to New Orleans while all those people were huddled in
the Superdome.
Post by Adam Albright
All he did was engage in
finger pointing. Typical Repugs. I guess you missed the video
conference call where we see Brown telling Bush this is a big one,
better get ready. What did Bush do? He listened and then went back to
thumbing through comic books I guess because he sure didn't do his job
as commander in chief.
Wrong.
He called the governor of Louisiana and asked her why the Mayor
of New Orleans hadn't ordered an evacuation. Then he urged the governor
to tell the mayor to order the evacuation. And even then, the mayor was
reluctant. The mayor left all those school buses sitting there to get
flooded while the people of New Orleans with no transportation had no
place to go except that Superdome. Bush said there were failures at all
levels of government (which means local, State, and Federal), but of
course that was spun into "all levels of Bush's government."
Talk about trying to revisit history and pass the buck. All of
America, hell, all of the WORLD knows what happened. As expected
rightard morons attempt to spin it.

Bush was informed over the weekend a major hurricane was coming.
Brown, head of FEMA in a video conference told Bush and all his aids.
The head the Weather Bureau told Bush the same thing. Everybody tried
to tell Bush. The retard Bush nodded his head or some other feeble
acknowledgement that he understood. Sunday goes by. Bush does nothing.

It is obvious by late Sundady the hurricane caused major damage. As
commander in chief, as president, has Bush acted yet? Fuck no. Still
on one of his what seems like weekly vacations. What else is new. All
the cable news channels showing major flooding. Major damage all up
and the Gulf coast.

Bush act yet? FUCK NO!

Monday goes by. Even a world class dummy like Bush should have figured
out this wasn't just another hurricane, it was a monster killer that
cuased hundreds of billions in damage.

Bush act yet? FUCK NO!

Cable news channels, regular broadcast networks worldwide showing
water pouring into New Orleans flooding huge areas of city. Bush act
yet?

FUCK NO, he does not, still screwing around on vacation or whatever it
is Bush does, which is anything but serve as president.

People shown on roof tops, getting pulled off by National Guard
choppers. Does Bush mobilize the regular army to help? FUCK NO!

Moday goes by. Does Bush act? Fuck no!

Tueday, all television networks showing people going without water and
food squeezed in almost unlivable conditions in convention center and
sports dome.

Bush act yet? Fuck no!

Wednesday comes. Bush act? Fuck no!

Thursaday finally the Texas nitwit wakes up.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Just like Bush didn't after being told the
country was under attack on 9/11. What did Bush do? Finish listening
to My Pet Goat. Maybe you didn't see that tape either.
Yeah, of course I saw that tape. How could I not? The media loved
showing that tape.
And why wouldn't the media show that tape over and over? It showed a
confused stunned ineffective fool just sitting there doing nothing.
Told the country was under attack, does Bush leap into action like
you'd expect form any commander-in-chief? Fuck no! Bush stays to hear
end of My Pet Goat. Nobody that saw that tape will ever forget or
forgive Bush's failure.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-09 12:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq. Of course the Clinton administration had already
enacted a policy of regime change for Iraq, so it makes sense to me
that the Bush administration would discuss that policy.
That's really reaching. I remember that Clinton people told the
incoming Bushie people that bin Laden was a threat and Bush blew it
off.
If that is true, why didn't Al Gore make bin Laden an issue during the
2000 campaign? Why didn't he openly mock Bush for ignoring the danger
of bin Laden in his campaign? The fact is, NEITHER of them made bin
Laden the major issue he should have been. It's revisionist history for
the Clinton administration to try to say they made a big deal out of
bin Laden.
Did I say big deal? No, that's a rightard trying to color what I said.
The fact is they DID mention it and the bushies DID blow it off. No
revisionist history. Just what rightards choke on. The Truth.
They mentioned it. Whoopy! Why didn't Al Gore make it a campaign issue?
You know you try to appear way smarter than you actually are. We're
talking POST election nitwit. The outgoing Clinton administration
warned the incoming Bush administration about the treat possed by bin
Laden and terroists in general. Its called sharing intelligence. What
happened? Missy Rice blew it off. Bush did nothing. Now try to dance
around the facts again asswipe.
You know, you try to appear way more mature than you actually are. You
can hold up the facade for brief periods of time, but then you revert
to the silly name calling. And your silly name calling has no effect
other than giving you the appearance of having the maturity of a high
school senior with a *little* bit of knowledge.

Of course the Clinton administration *mentioned* bin Laden. A US Navy
warship had just recently been attacked. US Embassies had been attacked
only a couple of years before. The Clinton administration would have
been derelict in their duties if they hadn't *mentioned* bin Laden. But
I saw no evidence that the Clinton administration was taking bin Laden
anymore seriously than Bush did before 9/11. If they had, Gore would
have made it an issue during his presidential campaign. Instead, during
the three debates, the two candidates spent a total of 90 seconds
talking about terrorism. Of course the Clinton administration
*mentioned* bin Laden. I wish the Clinton/Gore administration had made
it a big campaign issue. They could have showed how Bush was igoring
the issue BEFORE the election. Instead, they ignored it as an issue as
well.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Oh please, he did speak up to his superior Missy Rice. You clowns keep
trying to play silly games. Everybody knows Bush blew off everything
about terrorists PRIOR to 9/11 in part because Missy Rice stood in the
way as National Security Advisor. Now your excuse is Clarke should
have gone public? If he would have your rightrards would have bitched
your chapped asses off he didn't follow the chain of command.
There are ways he could have raised the consciousness of everyone to
the threat we faced. Obviously he didn't get Gore to take it seriously
during the campaign, which tells me he never got Clinton to take it
seriously either. And then he failed to get Bush to take it seriously
as well. Face it, the entire country was asleep at the wheel under both
Clinton and the first 8 months of Bush's administration.
More feeble attempts to twist the truth. Under Clinton, Clarke has
ready access to the president. Under Bush, Clarke has to get past
Rice. Damn you're a idiot!
Damn you're immature. So what if Clarke had ready access to Clinton?
What did Clinton do about bin Laden?
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
The same
whining you used about Brown of FEMA trying to tell Bush directly
which he did and look what happened when the hurricane struck. Bush
knew and the bozo Bush still did nothing to make sure that resources
were in place and people were out of danger.
The resources were in place, just as they were in place for Mississippi
and Alabama. I don't recall all the problems happening in those States
the way they did in Louisiana. Why is that? One reason is that the Red
Cross issued a statement saying it was Louisiana officials that blocked
aid from going in to New Orleans while all those people were huddled in
the Superdome.
Post by Adam Albright
All he did was engage in
finger pointing. Typical Repugs. I guess you missed the video
conference call where we see Brown telling Bush this is a big one,
better get ready. What did Bush do? He listened and then went back to
thumbing through comic books I guess because he sure didn't do his job
as commander in chief.
Wrong.
He called the governor of Louisiana and asked her why the Mayor
of New Orleans hadn't ordered an evacuation. Then he urged the governor
to tell the mayor to order the evacuation. And even then, the mayor was
reluctant. The mayor left all those school buses sitting there to get
flooded while the people of New Orleans with no transportation had no
place to go except that Superdome. Bush said there were failures at all
levels of government (which means local, State, and Federal), but of
course that was spun into "all levels of Bush's government."
Talk about trying to revisit history and pass the buck. All of
America, hell, all of the WORLD knows what happened. As expected
rightard morons attempt to spin it.
I told you what happened. The mayor left school buses sitting in a
parking lot where they got flooded out after the hurricane. Those buses
could have been used to evacuate many of those people who got stranded
at the Superdome, but the mayor left them behind and caused the
enormity of the disaster at the Superdome. Notice the other States
affected didn't have that kind of human disaster? And FEMA was able to
help those States, because those States had effective leadership. It
isn't the responsibility of the Federal government to do the jobs of
local officials. Local officials also have responsibilities.
Post by Adam Albright
Bush was informed over the weekend a major hurricane was coming.
Brown, head of FEMA in a video conference told Bush and all his aids.
The head the Weather Bureau told Bush the same thing. Everybody tried
to tell Bush. The retard Bush nodded his head or some other feeble
acknowledgement that he understood. Sunday goes by. Bush does nothing.
It is obvious by late Sundady the hurricane caused major damage. As
commander in chief, as president, has Bush acted yet? Fuck no. Still
on one of his what seems like weekly vacations. What else is new. All
the cable news channels showing major flooding. Major damage all up
and the Gulf coast.
Bush act yet? FUCK NO!
Monday goes by. Even a world class dummy like Bush should have figured
out this wasn't just another hurricane, it was a monster killer that
cuased hundreds of billions in damage.
Bush act yet? FUCK NO!
Cable news channels, regular broadcast networks worldwide showing
water pouring into New Orleans flooding huge areas of city. Bush act
yet?
FUCK NO, he does not, still screwing around on vacation or whatever it
is Bush does, which is anything but serve as president.
He wasn't on vacation. If Bush hadn't told the governor of Louisiana to
tell the mayor to evacuate the city of New Orleans, the depths of the
human disaster in New Orleans would have been far worse.
Post by Adam Albright
People shown on roof tops, getting pulled off by National Guard
choppers. Does Bush mobilize the regular army to help? FUCK NO!
Moday goes by. Does Bush act? Fuck no!
Tueday, all television networks showing people going without water and
food squeezed in almost unlivable conditions in convention center and
sports dome.
Bush act yet? Fuck no!
Wednesday comes. Bush act? Fuck no!
Thursaday finally the Texas nitwit wakes up.
The Red Cross has said in an official statement that it was the STATE
officials who blocked the Red Cross from taking supplies into New
Orleans. And your repeated use of the *F* word above just *really*
gives you an aura of depth and class. Are you graduating from high
school this year?
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Just like Bush didn't after being told the
country was under attack on 9/11. What did Bush do? Finish listening
to My Pet Goat. Maybe you didn't see that tape either.
Yeah, of course I saw that tape. How could I not? The media loved
showing that tape.
And why wouldn't the media show that tape over and over? It showed a
confused stunned ineffective fool just sitting there doing nothing.
Told the country was under attack, does Bush leap into action like
you'd expect form any commander-in-chief? Fuck no! Bush stays to hear
end of My Pet Goat. Nobody that saw that tape will ever forget or
forgive Bush's failure.
What failure occurred because he sat there for seven minutes? As I
said, I would not have sat there the way he did, but I really don't
know what difference it makes in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you
can illuminate me with more of your profanity strewn and immature style
of discussion.
Adam Albright
2006-05-09 14:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
You know you try to appear way smarter than you actually are. We're
talking POST election nitwit. The outgoing Clinton administration
warned the incoming Bush administration about the treat possed by bin
Laden and terroists in general. Its called sharing intelligence. What
happened? Missy Rice blew it off. Bush did nothing. Now try to dance
around the facts again asswipe.
You know, you try to appear way more mature than you actually are. You
can hold up the facade for brief periods of time, but then you revert
to the silly name calling. And your silly name calling has no effect
other than giving you the appearance of having the maturity of a high
school senior with a *little* bit of knowledge.
Duly noted you didn't have a single word to dispute the facts I
offered. Whatever else you babbled I didn't bother reading. No point,
likey another rehash of typical rightard noise we've head a hundred
times before, probably blaming Clinton and Dems for everything all the
way back to the Great Flood mentioned in the bible.
Joseph Welch
2006-05-09 15:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
What did Clinton do about bin Laden?
More than Bush has done.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-08 05:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority
of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a
bunch of endless whiners and finger pointers constantly
applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything
you wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it
in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come
up with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in
a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich.
My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out
Gingrich's cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle
will confirm, I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in
this very newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it
again. Clinton has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't
you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield
lies got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women
-- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped
while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while
their parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis
from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and
Carter armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the
Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that
the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other
parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was
their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
He told
Saddam the Iranian regime would crumble quickly, and Saddam believed
it. Saddam got bogged down in a war Carter encouraged him to start
after a couple of years, and he asked for armaments to continue the
war Carter encouraged him to start.
You keep posting this crap without any
proof. Don't you have any proof for anything
you post?
I have evidence. Evidence is not necessarily proof. Are you flat out
denying the possiblity that the Carter administration took actions that
encouraged Saddam to attack Iran in 1980?
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam,
contrary to your posted claim. And the posted
proof proves it. Your "possibility" is just so
much speculation.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Where was it back
when Cheney was doing a fine business helping Saddam
rebuild his country? Where was it for the entire first
year of the Bush administration?
Now that's odd -- keep hearing from libs that removing Saddam from
power was all Bush was thinking about from the moment he took
office. You're saying that's not true? The fact is, President
Clinton had already set a policy goal of removing Saddam from
power. Thanks to President Clinton, it was the policy of the US
government that Saddam be removed.
Show us what Bush did about Saddam and his WMD's
during his first year in office.
I thought there were all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. But
I'm sure there were behind the scenes activities going on to try to
weaken Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, he couldn't be weakened when
he was ripping off the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.
You have been "sure" about many things that have
been proven wrong.
I've heard many leftists say the first thing Bush did when he took
office was instruct his aides to come up with ideas to enable regime
change in Iraq.
Take that up with them. In the meantime show
us the proof of your claims or stop posting them
as fact.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-08 05:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The majority
of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T E S and a
bunch of endless whiners and finger pointers constantly
applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you everything
you wrote in the paragraph above precisely BECAUSE you wrote it
in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to come
up with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying in
a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like Gingrich.
My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in pointing out
Gingrich's cheating while he defended Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as Goggle
will confirm, I've been very critical of Clinton's cheating in
this very newsgroup. Just in case you missed them I'll say it
again. Clinton has the sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Don't
you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield
lies got us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the
corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women
-- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped
while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children --
children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while
their parents were forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis
from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter who
encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni, and
Carter armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the
Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that
the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic Revolution to other
parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that was
their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United States
in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American "tilt"
toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter administration
furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated reports of Iran's
military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to invade. Author
Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian president Abol
Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his government
described "conversations in France between several deposed Iranian
generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American and
Israeli military experts."(207) President Carter's hope was that Iran's
dire need for spare parts would force it to deal with the United States
and free the 52 American hostages it still held. When the war began,
the Carter administration criticized the invasion to "soften up" the
Iranians. But the plan did not work because Iran turned to Vietnam for
parts, which the U.S. military had left behind. [end quoting]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf."

Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran. Hussein
biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did take place,
but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not Brzezinski. Former
Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington directly encouraged
Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume there was a U.S. green
light because there was no explicit red light." [end quoting]

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c33335175cc184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-08 15:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The
majority of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T
E S and a bunch of endless whiners and finger pointers
constantly applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you
everything you wrote in the paragraph above precisely
BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to
come up with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying
in a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like
Gingrich. My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in
pointing out Gingrich's cheating while he defended
Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as
Goggle will confirm, I've been very critical of Clinton's
cheating in this very newsgroup. Just in case you missed
them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual morals of a
rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Don't you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex.
Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got us in a unnecessary war
that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to
the corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless
lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless
women -- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being
raped while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children
-- children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured
while their parents were forced to watch. It saves countless
Iraqis from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter
who encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni,
and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the
Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that
the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic Revolution to
other parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that
was their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United States
in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American "tilt"
toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter administration
furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated reports of Iran's
military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to invade. Author
Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian president Abol
Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his government
described "conversations in France between several deposed Iranian
generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American and
Israeli military experts."(207) President Carter's hope was that Iran's
dire need for spare parts would force it to deal with the United States
and free the 52 American hostages it still held. When the war began,
the Carter administration criticized the invasion to "soften up" the
Iranians. But the plan did not work because Iran turned to Vietnam for
parts, which the U.S. military had left behind. [end quoting]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf."
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran. Hussein
biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did take place,
but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not Brzezinski. Former
Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington directly encouraged
Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume there was a U.S. green
light because there was no explicit red light." [end quoting]
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c33335175cc
184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
That is a lot of documentation, but none of even
mentions Carter arming Saddam (as you claimed) much
less proves it.
Steven Douglas
2006-05-08 19:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The
majority of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I T
E S and a bunch of endless whiners and finger pointers
constantly applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you
everything you wrote in the paragraph above precisely
BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch the
guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager to
come up with a shit load of excuses why that's different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good ol'
Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was lying
in a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like
Gingrich. My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in
pointing out Gingrich's cheating while he defended
Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so what".
And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as
Goggle will confirm, I've been very critical of Clinton's
cheating in this very newsgroup. Just in case you missed
them I'll say it again. Clinton has the sexual morals of a
rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it
have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he
actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Don't you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex.
Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got us in a unnecessary war
that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to
the corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless
lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless
women -- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from being
raped while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless children
-- children of Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured
while their parents were forced to watch. It saves countless
Iraqis from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter
who encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah Khomeni,
and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible. At the time, the
Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the fear was that
the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic Revolution to
other parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that
was their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United States
in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American "tilt"
toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter administration
furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated reports of Iran's
military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to invade. Author
Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian president Abol
Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his government
described "conversations in France between several deposed Iranian
generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American and
Israeli military experts."(207) President Carter's hope was that Iran's
dire need for spare parts would force it to deal with the United States
and free the 52 American hostages it still held. When the war began,
the Carter administration criticized the invasion to "soften up" the
Iranians. But the plan did not work because Iran turned to Vietnam for
parts, which the U.S. military had left behind. [end quoting]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf."
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran. Hussein
biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did take place,
but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not Brzezinski. Former
Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington directly encouraged
Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume there was a U.S. green
light because there was no explicit red light." [end quoting]
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c33335175cc
184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
That is a lot of documentation, but none of even
mentions Carter arming Saddam (as you claimed) much
less proves it.
No wonder we have such difficulty communicating. You don't bother to
read what I actually write, you assume whatever you want to and
attribute it to me. I didn't say it was proof, I said it was evidence.
And I didn't say Carter armed Saddam, I said he encouraged Saddam to
attack Iran.
Mitchell Holman
2006-05-08 21:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The
majority of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I
T E S and a bunch of endless whiners and finger
pointers constantly applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you
everything you wrote in the paragraph above precisely
BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch
the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager
to come up with a shit load of excuses why that's
different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good
ol' Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was
lying in a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like
Gingrich. My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in
pointing out Gingrich's cheating while he defended
Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so
what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as
Goggle will confirm, I've been very critical of
Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just in case
you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the
sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it
have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he
actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Don't you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex.
Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got us in a unnecessary
war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due
to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved
countless lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless
women -- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from
being raped while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless
children -- children of Saddam's opponents -- from being
tortured while their parents were forced to watch. It
saves countless Iraqis from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter
who encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah
Khomeni, and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible.
.....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


At the
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
time, the Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the
fear was that the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic
Revolution to other parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that
was their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United
States in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American
"tilt" toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter
administration furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated
reports of Iran's military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to
invade. Author Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian
president Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his
government described "conversations in France between several deposed
Iranian generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American
and Israeli military experts."(207) President Carter's hope was that
Iran's dire need for spare parts would force it to deal with the
United States and free the 52 American hostages it still held. When
the war began, the Carter administration criticized the invasion to
"soften up" the Iranians. But the plan did not work because Iran
turned to Vietnam for parts, which the U.S. military had left behind.
[end quoting]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf."
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran.
Hussein biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did
take place, but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not
Brzezinski. Former Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington
directly encouraged Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume
there was a U.S. green light because there was no explicit red
light." [end quoting]
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c3333517
5cc 184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
That is a lot of documentation, but none of even
mentions Carter arming Saddam (as you claimed) much
less proves it.
No wonder we have such difficulty communicating. You don't bother to
read what I actually write, you assume whatever you want to and
attribute it to me. I didn't say it was proof, I said it was evidence.
And I didn't say Carter armed Saddam, I said he encouraged Saddam to
attack Iran.
"....and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible."

Your quote, from above.

And your "evidence" of that is.........?
Steven Douglas
2006-05-09 12:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
Here's a new flash for you and other rightards. The
majority of people see you all as lying H Y P P O C R I
T E S and a bunch of endless whiners and finger
pointers constantly applying a double standard.
And you do exactly the same thing, which makes you
everything you wrote in the paragraph above precisely
BECAUSE you wrote it in the paragraph above.
Post by Adam Albright
Rightards can't wait to jump on a Dem,
Leftards can't wait to jump on a Republican
Post by Adam Albright
like Kennedy today,
Like Rush the other day
Post by Adam Albright
before they know all the facts they are ready to lynch
the guy.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
But a Repug gets
caught doing the same or worse you are ready and eager
to come up with a shit load of excuses why that's
different.
Ditto.
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Of course, there is that additional detail of good
ol' Newt giving his wife divorce papers while she was
lying in a hospital bed being treated for cancer.
Yeah yeah, we all know that. So what? I don't like
Gingrich. My point was to show Adam's inconsistency in
pointing out Gingrich's cheating while he defended
Clinton's cheating.
Your just confirmed my point. Your response is a "so
what". And
then
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
you try and fail to paint me as inconsistant. I haven't
defended Clinton's cheating, in fact several times as
Goggle will confirm, I've been very critical of
Clinton's cheating in this very newsgroup. Just in case
you missed them I'll say it again. Clinton has the
sexual morals of a rabbit in heat.
Then why do you point out Gingrich's morals? What does it
have to
do
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
with doing his job?
Post by Adam Albright
None the less he understood, knew and
performed the duties of the office of president and he
actually
took
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Adam Albright
his oath of office to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Don't you wish Bush could say that?
Bush can say that.
Post by Adam Albright
Yes Clinton lied about having sex.
Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got us in a unnecessary
war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due
to the corrupt UN Oil for Food program. It saved
countless lives that
would
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
have wound up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless
women -- wives of Saddam's political opponents -- from
being raped while
their
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
husbands were forced to watch. It saved countless
children -- children of Saddam's opponents -- from being
tortured while their parents were forced to watch. It
saves countless Iraqis from
starving
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
due to the UN sanctions.
Where was this dreck about the evils of Saddam
back when Reagan was arming him?
Actually, that started under Carter. It was President Carter
who encouraged Saddam to go to war with the Ayatollah
Khomeni, and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible.
.....................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At the
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
time, the Ayatollah was considered a bigger threat, and the
fear was that the Ayatollah would try to spread his Islamic
Revolution to other parts of the Middle
East.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Steven Douglas
The Ayatollah and his followers had made no secret that that
was their intention.
Now you are just lying.
"In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on
its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by
the SD as "terrorist." Despite intelligence reports
that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist
list, and "apparently without consulting Congress",
the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State
terrorism sponsorship list in 1982. The removal made
Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology."
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Carter slapped an arms embargo on Saddam, it was
REAGAN who lifted it.
It was Carter who encouraged Saddam to start the war with Iran.
You don't say. Proof?
<crickets>
[quoting] When the war broke out, the United States declared its
neutrality. But that did not stop the U.S. government from aiding
Iraq's war effort to keep Iran, which had humiliated the United
States in the hostage crisis, from prevailing. In fact, the American
"tilt" toward Iraq began before the invasion. The Carter
administration furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated
reports of Iran's military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to
invade. Author Dilip Hiro has written that according to then Iranian
president Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, secret documents purchased by his
government described "conversations in France between several deposed
Iranian generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives and American
and Israeli military experts."(207) President Carter's hope was that
Iran's dire need for spare parts would force it to deal with the
United States and free the 52 American hostages it still held. When
the war began, the Carter administration criticized the invasion to
"soften up" the Iranians. But the plan did not work because Iran
turned to Vietnam for parts, which the U.S. military had left behind.
[end quoting]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
[quoting] There is much evidence that the Carter administration
encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in order to weaken the Islamic
revolution and protect its oil-sheikh allies. Carter's National
Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt that "Iraq was poised to
succeed Iran as the principal pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf."
Author Kenneth R. Timmermann and former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr argue separately that Brzezinski met with Hussein in July
1980 in Amman, Jordan, to discuss joint efforts to oppose Iran.
Hussein biographer Said Aburish writes that the Amman meeting did
take place, but that Hussein met with three CIA agents, not
Brzezinski. Former Carter official Gary Sick denies that Washington
directly encouraged Iraq's attack, but instead let "Saddam assume
there was a U.S. green light because there was no explicit red
light." [end quoting]
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=c3333517
5cc 184e56416dbb1d1ebc595
That is a lot of documentation, but none of even
mentions Carter arming Saddam (as you claimed) much
less proves it.
No wonder we have such difficulty communicating. You don't bother to
read what I actually write, you assume whatever you want to and
attribute it to me. I didn't say it was proof, I said it was evidence.
And I didn't say Carter armed Saddam, I said he encouraged Saddam to
attack Iran.
"....and Carter armed Saddam to make it possible."
Your quote, from above.
And your "evidence" of that is.........?
For years I have been under the mistaken impression that President
Carter armed both the Mujahideen and Saddam. As I was researching
Carter's encouragement toward Saddam to attack Iran, I realized I was
misinformed about Carter having armed Saddam. Carter did begin the
arming of the Mujahideen after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But
the arming of Saddam came later, under Reagan, as I also pointed out in
this thread. My apologies to President Carter for my inadvertent
statement that he armed Saddam. The evidence shows he encouraged Saddam
to attack Iran, but he did not arm Saddam. I stand corrected.
Jeffrey Turner
2006-05-05 17:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Umberto Ramirez
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Yes. We liberals believe we can avoid the scourge of fascism by
expunging every expression of Christianity,
Yeah, there's hardly a church on every street corner in America.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
taking away the guns of law
abiding citizens,
Someone took your guns away? Why do I suspect you're not really
law-abiding?
Post by Umberto Ramirez
maintaining a dependence of foreign oil,
Oh, you mean the year's worth of supply you'll get from the
caribou? What are you doing to need less oil?
Post by Umberto Ramirez
allowing
illegal immigrants to vote,
I'll have to check your immigration status with the Cherokee.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
blaming a terrorists actions on a poor
childhood,
No, it seems most of them were middle class or better. But U.S.
support for the Saudi dictatorship (and apartheid Israel) might
have played a part.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
redefining marriage,
Yes, wasn't Loving v. Virginia a bad ruling.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
trying to get those who disagree with us
(like FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh) from expressing their opinions over the
airwaves,
Oh, yeah, haven't seen them on the airwaves in years.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
sympathizing with the viewpoint of Bush's enemies, and
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth. Only then can this great
country remain free.
You been out in the sun too long?

--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
n***@hotmail.com
2006-05-05 19:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Umberto Ramirez
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Yes. We liberals believe we can avoid the scourge of fascism by
expunging every expression of Christianity, taking away the guns of law
abiding citizens, maintaining a dependence of foreign oil, allowing
illegal immigrants to vote, blaming a terrorists actions on a poor
childhood, redefining marriage, trying to get those who disagree with us
(like FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh) from expressing their opinions over the
airwaves, sympathizing with the viewpoint of Bush's enemies, and
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth. Only then can this great
country remain free.
ah, if only some hot young (female) teacher had tried to "rape" me...

but you do make some good points.

so what do we do? wait for some republicans with common sense to show
up?

don't hold yer (perhaps) garlicky breath
reality
2006-05-06 00:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@hotmail.com
Post by Umberto Ramirez
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth. Only then can this great
country remain free.
ah, if only some hot young (female) teacher had tried to "rape" me...
I've never heard of a more victimless crime than that hot blonde piece
of ass Debra Lafave giving up BJs and her skanky little cunny to a
horny schoolboy.
Joseph Welch
2006-05-05 20:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Umberto Ramirez
Yes. We liberals believe we can avoid the scourge of fascism by
expunging every expression of Christianity
Hmm. If you want to do that, you're no liberal. Liberals believe in
freedom of religion, and religious expression. Most liberals are themselves
Christians.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
taking away the guns of law abiding citizens
If you believe that, then you're no liberal. Liberals believe in all parts
of the Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
maintaining a dependence of foreign oil,
If you believe that, you're no liberal. Liberals have been arguing for
years that America needs to reduce it's dependence on foreign oil, and for
the federal government to support conservation and investment in alternative
energy sources.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
allowing illegal immigrants to vote
If you believe that, you're no liberal. Liberals believe that citizenship
is important, and necessary for the right to vote.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
blaming a terrorists actions on a poor childhood
If you believe that, you're no liberal. In fact - I don't know anyone who
would believe such a ridiculous thing.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
redefining marriage
If you believe that, you're no liberal. Marriage can't be "redefined".
Post by Umberto Ramirez
trying to get those who disagree with us (like FOXNews and Rush Limbaugh)
from expressing their opinions over the
airwaves
If you believe that, you're no liberal. Liberals believe in freedom of
speech, and that even the most lying, disgusting, unAmerican scumbags in the
world have a right to spout their bullshit over Americas airwaves.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
sympathizing with the viewpoint of Bush's enemies
Hmm - how does one "sympathize with a viewpoint" exactly? Bush's enemies
believe (as right-wing conservatives do) that homosexuality is a sin, that
abortion should be illegal, and that religous doctrine should be encoded in
law.
Post by Umberto Ramirez
allowing hot young teachers to rape our youth.
Well now that only makes sense. Who would want UGLY teachers raping our
youth?

Get help, right-wing pig-fucker.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
* US *
2006-05-06 13:15:06 UTC
Permalink
They hate Americans for their freedoms.
Z
2006-05-05 15:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Why are the Republicans so silent on the Democrat's "Culture of Special
privilege" ?

The Kennedys can drive drunk, kill lovers while drunk, wreck cars while
drunk, & they never get charged. WHY? Are they above the law. It is OK
with the Republicans in Congress.

Rep. Mollohan can give taxpayer "earmarks" to his business partner worth
$millions & it is OK with the Republicans in Congress.

How deep is the "Culture of Special Privilege" in the Democrat party?


Z
Joshua Aaron
2006-05-05 15:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Gee Z.

You appear to have two examples for your culture of special privelege
while, right now, there is the increasing Abramoff payoff scandal
sweeping about every Republican in the house and Senate. We have a lame
duck Republican President who continues to shun the will of the people
on several fronts: Iraq, Immigration reform, and reasonable energy
policies, to name a few.

The Republicans are not silent. They are visible, loud, and lousy at
managing our country. I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but,
what other choice is an American to make? The will of the people will
be understand after a house cleaning this November.
Jesse Spencer
2006-05-05 19:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Aaron
The Republicans are not silent. They are visible, loud, and lousy at
managing our country. I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but,
what other choice is an American to make? The will of the people will
be understand after a house cleaning this November.
The arguments seen in these groups reflect our countries ideological
divide. The arguments of both sides are usually wrong and extreme.

The political situation largely reflects this. Far right and far left
loons dominate the Congress. No centrist has a chance in Presidential
primaries.

That great silent majority of people with common sense viewpoints has
little representation.
t***@gmail.com
2006-05-07 02:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Jesse Spencer said: "No centrist has a chance in Presidential
primaries. That great silent majority of people with common sense
viewpoints has little representation."


Unfortunately, you may be right. I do wonder when we will effectively
evolve as a nation and pursue some cohesive reason for being one of the
world's greatest civilizations.
Ronald O'Neal
2006-05-05 16:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning America into a
fascist country.
Bush is not worse than Stalin. I am not focused on socialism.

My motivation is the fact that we have the most incompetent, un-lettered,
and incapable president seated in the White House.

The man thinks like a child.

RO
Evil
2006-05-07 03:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Bush is not worse than Stalin. I am not focused on socialism.

My motivation is the fact that we have the most incompetent,
un-lettered,
and incapable president seated in the White House.

You have some brain cells. I am not against those who disagree but
those who get too worked up. There is pleanty to disagree with but
much of the criticizm is not accurate or obscures legimite problems
that are out there. I am not fully satisfied with everything, no one
is perfect, but the way things are working out to me better than what
would have been if the opposition had won. Politics is like that if
you like a guy but they are better than the alternitiave. For me the
Democrats would be worse. I don't think things are that bad.
Definatly not as bad as all the angry stuff I have read.
Adam Albright
2006-05-07 03:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ronald O'Neal
Bush is not worse than Stalin. I am not focused on socialism.
My motivation is the fact that we have the most incompetent,
un-lettered,
and incapable president seated in the White House.
You have some brain cells. I am not against those who disagree but
those who get too worked up. There is pleanty to disagree with but
much of the criticizm is not accurate or obscures legimite problems
that are out there. I am not fully satisfied with everything, no one
is perfect, but the way things are working out to me better than what
would have been if the opposition had won. Politics is like that if
you like a guy but they are better than the alternitiave. For me the
Democrats would be worse. I don't think things are that bad.
Definatly not as bad as all the angry stuff I have read.
Things aren't that bad? I'm sure they told the people on the Titanic
the same thing just before it went under.

Reality check:

Iraq war spining out of control. No end in sight.

Gasoline prices through the roof, Bush says, can't fix it.

Karl Rove fabericated "issue" designed to rattle the Repug base over
the phony immigration problem backfiring big time. Two looney
solutions, build a hundreds mile long wall or lets have "guest"
workers.

Bottom line, things haven't "worked out" at all. Remember a short time
ago Bushie crowd was talking about building his legacy. Now Bush is
lucky if he isn't removed from office via impeachment before the end
of his term.

Take your blinders off. The Repugs are on a sinking ship, they know it
and all the rats are running for their political lives to abandon the
ship called Bush. Little Georgie can't steer the ship of state, he's
too dumb to even steer a row boat.
Clay
2006-05-05 17:58:23 UTC
Permalink
horatioclaytracepukieorionchildmolestors wrote:
...
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
If you don't know why were angry, you have your head in the sand.
First of all... you're ignorant.

<LOL>

-C-
o***@aol.com
2006-05-05 19:13:52 UTC
Permalink
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Post by Clay
...
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
If you don't know why were angry, you have your head in the sand.
First of all... you're ignorant.
<LOL>
-C-
j***@aol.com
2006-05-05 19:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Their hysterical ovulations?

How frigging stupid are you?
Joseph Welch
2006-05-05 23:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Their hysterical ovulations?
How frigging stupid are you?
Stupid enough to vote for Bush, of course.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Tartarus Sanctus
2006-05-06 07:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Their hysterical ovulations?
How frigging stupid are you?
More stupid than Clay, amazingly. And gayer too.
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
j***@aol.com
2006-05-06 09:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tartarus Sanctus
Post by j***@aol.com
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Their hysterical ovulations?
How frigging stupid are you?
More stupid than Clay, amazingly. And gayer too.
--
Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus
I don't know. Clay's pretty stupid. I'll agree with the gayer part,
though. And Omar's also apparently more gutless. Clay will keep
swinging. He'll look like a totally clueless retard while doing so and
most likely will fall on his face, but he'll keep after you. This Omar
clown is a pussy.
OrionCA
2006-05-06 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
I don't know. Clay's pretty stupid. I'll agree with the gayer part,
Your homophobia is duly noted.
--
In 1995 Congress passed a bill opening a small portion of
ANWR to oil exploration and development. Bill Clinton
vetoed the bill, saying it would take 10 years to start
producing oil from ANWR so it wsn't needed.

Pop Quiz, Class: "What's 1995 plus 10 years?"

Thanks, Legacy-Boy.
j***@aol.com
2006-05-06 21:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by j***@aol.com
I don't know. Clay's pretty stupid. I'll agree with the gayer part,
Your homophobia is duly noted.
No, that's your stupidity.

Does it say anywhere that Clay being gayer than Omar is bad? Fuckwit.
TruthNow
2006-05-05 20:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Post by Clay
...
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
If you don't know why were angry, you have your head in the sand.
First of all... you're ignorant.
<LOL>
-C-
Anytime corrupt Traitors inhabit the WH all REAL Americans should be angry.
Joseph Welch
2006-05-05 23:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Conservatives on the other hand, are true Patriots. Conservatives believe
in the diversity that is America. Conservatives believe in having a nation
where discourse, disagreement and debate are good things.

Conservatives, like all Good Americans, believe that no law-abiding person
in the United States is inherently "better" than any other, embodying the
founding value that all are created equal, and endowed by their creator by
certain inalienable rights.

Conservatives always listen to and carefully consider opposing points of
view. Conservatives are kind to their neighbors, even when those neighbors
practice a different religion than they do, are a different color than they
are, or have different beliefs than they do.

Conservatives are also highly intelligent, and witty debaters. When they do
openly disagree with someone (rare among these diplomatic folk), it is done
respectfully, thoughtfully, and in a way that promotes open discussion and
debate leading to greater understanding by all.

Oh -- I'm sorry. I thought this was April 1.

Nevermind.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
a***@aol.com
2006-05-06 11:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph Welch
Post by o***@aol.com
It's no secret. They've been repeatedly and hilariously destroyed by
people they consider inferior, and their hysterical ovulations
resulting from these resounding, neverending defeats only turns more
people away from their cause.
Conservatives on the other hand, are true Patriots. Conservatives believe
in the diversity that is America. Conservatives believe in having a nation
where discourse, disagreement and debate are good things.
Conservatives, like all Good Americans, believe that no law-abiding person
in the United States is inherently "better" than any other, embodying the
founding value that all are created equal, and endowed by their creator by
certain inalienable rights.
Conservatives always listen to and carefully consider opposing points of
view. Conservatives are kind to their neighbors, even when those neighbors
practice a different religion than they do, are a different color than they
are, or have different beliefs than they do.
Conservatives are also highly intelligent, and witty debaters. When they do
openly disagree with someone (rare among these diplomatic folk), it is done
respectfully, thoughtfully, and in a way that promotes open discussion and
debate leading to greater understanding by all.
Now we have A group of bio-mechanically enhanced conservatives led by
Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and a young man born on
September 11, 2001 out to set the world right!:

http://www.accstudios.com/
Evil
2006-05-06 01:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
If you don't know why were angry, you have your head in the sand.
First of all... you're ignorant.

Duh, if I knew the answer I wouldn't have answered the question.
Evil
2006-05-06 01:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Why are liberals so crude and angry? Why do they see injustice at
avery turn? They think Bush is worse than Stallin. What is this
fixation with socialism?
If you don't know why were angry, you have your head in the sand.
First of all... you're ignorant.

Duh, if I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked the question.
T***@aol.com
2006-05-05 18:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Cliff wrote:<<Many of us are angry because we believe Bush is turning
America into a
fascist country.>>
Crazy liberal. Bush respects our laws and doesn't just do as he
pleases. Whoops!

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to
disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that

he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it
conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and
regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress
be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower"
protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against
political interference in federally funded research.


Read the rest at:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush...



No reason to veto any laws if you just ignore the ones you don't like.

And don't forget Cheney. He is watching out for the "Jackal."
Next up Hookergate. At least Clinton didn't have to pay for it - leave
that for conservatives.

Topset72
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...