 |
|
 |
|
Anonymous Wrote:
CliffB said
.......huge snips
Fix yer newsreader.
--
When one gains a political certainty akin to
a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final
tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:16:13 -0800 (PST), "I have paper mache legs." <...@yahoo.com
Wasn't Bill Kristol one of the idiots who pushed for the invasion of
Iraq? Hmmmm, I guess that discredits anything Kristol has to say. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 27 Jan 2009 15:03:56 GMT, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE <...@au.revoir.gov
"I have paper mache legs."
Gee. And wasn't it CTHILLARY's platform as well?
Pro-Invasion. Pro-Torture. Pro-Domestic Espionage.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president,
we will attack Iran"
Hillary'08
LIBs were determined to confirm
the single most evil creature to Absolute Power.
Now that they've done it. Is such consequence inconsequential?
Lest we forget what LIBs consider an Atrocity.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/16815.JPG
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/100149.jpg
Atrocities according to the LIBs.
---
LIB's plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as it's standard of
Value, making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of
Values which one is willing to Betray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:05:08 -0800 (PST), "I have paper mache legs." <...@yahoo.com
On Jan 27, 7:03 am, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
<...@au.revoir.gov
Haha. That's the best you got? No liberal considers Hilary a
liberal. She's a conservative with tendencies to lean extremely right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:09:38 -0800 (PST), SwampMidget <...@101click.com
omg would LOVE to see it!
Liberals aren't too interested in actual debates. It's all about
being snarky and wearing your politics as a fashion statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:17:40 -0800 (PST), "I have paper mache legs." <...@yahoo.com
On Jan 26, 2:09 pm, SwampMidget <...@101click.com
And yet, all of the conservatives who post here believe that debates
are one by calling their opponents names. You know who else debates
that way? Children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:45:51 -0800 (PST), Iomass <...@ymail.com
On Jan 26, 5:09 pm, SwampMidget <...@101click.com
That's because they don't listen to Limbaugh and parrot everything he
says.
That's why Republicans rule all three levels of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:11:03 -0800, "-a-" <...@gmail.com
Of course, saying, "we won the war" is about wearing your ignorance like a
kick-me tag.
"SwampMidget" <...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
If that's true, then Matt Damon won't have a problem taking Bill
Kristol up on that challenge then, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:57:10 -0800, "-a-" <...@gmail.com
There's not really a challenge. One is an award winning actor who professes
his political views courtesy of the first ammendment. The other is a
"journalist" who makes ignorant statements in writing.
The journalist OUGHT to be better versed in the subjects he's supposed to
write about for a living. Making a grandstand challenge against someone
outside of his field doesn't negate the stupidity of the original statement.
<...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
If that's true, then Matt Damon won't have a problem taking Bill
Kristol up on that challenge then, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:49:10 -0800 (PST), "bva...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
On Jan 26, 2:57 pm, "-a-" <...@gmail.comIn 1973, Bill Kristol received a B.A. from Harvard, graduating magna
cum laude in three years. In 1976, he worked as deputy issues director
for Patrick Moynihan's New York Democratic primary campaign for a U.S.
Senate seat. Kristol received a Ph.D. in government, also from
Harvard,
After teaching political philosophy and American politics at the
University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government,
Kristol went to work in government in 1985, serving as chief of staff
to Secretary of Education William Bennett during the Reagan
administration, and then as Chief of Staff to the Vice President under
Dan Quayle in the George H. W. Bush administration. The New Republic
dubbed Kristol "Dan Quayle's brain" upon being appointed the Vice
President's chief of staff.
He served as chairman of the Project for the Republican Future from
1993 to 1994, and as the director of the Bradley Project at the Lynde
and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee in 1993. Kristol first made
his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a
conservative think tank, and rose to fame as a conservative opinion
maker during the battle over the Clinton health care plan.
Kristol established, along with conservative John Podhoretz and with
financing from Rupert Murdoch, the conservative periodical The Weekly
Standard. Kristol is the current editor of The Weekly Standard.
He is currently a visiting professor at Harvard University, where he
is teaching a course in the school's Government Department with
Professor Harvey Mansfield entitled "The Mirror of Princes" on
Xenophon, a Greek philosopher and soldier known for his writings on
the history of his own times, the sayings of Socrates, and the life of
Greece. Kristol also taught a course entitled "Can America Be
Governed?" at the Kennedy School of Government. In addition to his
role as a political contributor on Fox News, Kristol was for a time a
semi-regular guest on the now cancelled World News Tonight on Sky
News. He is also a patron of the British think tank the Henry Jackson
Society, based at the University of Cambridge.
Kristol is interviewed in Why We Fight, a 2005 documentary film by
Eugene Jarecki on the military-industrial complex in the modern United
States.
On December 29, 2007, the New York Times announced that Kristol would
write a weekly column for its op-ed page, beginning on January 7,
2008. He had previously worked as a columnist for Time during 2007
Matt Damon, a college drop out, starred in "The Bourne Supremacy"
Oh, yeah, I'm looking forward to THIS debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:51:43 -0800 (PST), CliffB <...@gosympatico.ca
Good, it should be a walk in the park then for Damon and undoubtedly
he won't miss this opportunity to parade his superior abilities and
insights, and he must have accepted by now. It's also a matter of
honor as he has been tritely calling out Kristol et al for awhile now.
He's duty bound to hash this all out in fair and square debate once
and for all now that Kristol has finally responded. So when's the
date of the debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 27 Jan 2009 19:30:01 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
In alt.politics, CliffB had the audacity to say that:
Yes, Matt Damon is bound to accept this challenge and finally put the nail
in the coffin of the conservative cause. So, uh, when is the debate?
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:27:54 -0800 (PST), dead kennedy haters <...@aol.com
.
Yeah, the fact that Matt's limo is going to help as Bill Kristol wipes
the floor with him during the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:44:19 -0800 (PST), dead kennedy haters <...@aol.com
.
MATT DAMON - You're a penultimate rightwing chickenhawk - second only
to (DRAMATIC PAUSE) Limbaugh.
(Matt folds his arms in triumph, and waits for Bill Kristol to fold.)
BILL KRISTOL - (gentle laughter)
MATT DAMON - (louder) It said,you're a penultimate rightwing
chickenhawk.
.
BILL KRISTOL - Yes, I am - as is the President of the United States,
the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State ...
and yourself.
MATT DAMON (sputtering) huh - wha-- you --- I'm no...
BILL KRISTOL - Mr. Damon, have you ever served in the military?
MATT DAMON - HAVE YOU??? HUH??? Mr Chickenhawk, have YOU served????
BILL KRISTOL - No, I have not - but then, most Americans haven't.
What branch of the military did you serve, and what unit?
MATT DAMON - I won't be part of those fascists!!! I have scruples and
morals.
BILL KRISTOL - I see. But you support President Obama's decision not
to pull out of Iraq.
MATT DAMON - For 16 months!!!!! Then we're out!!!!
BILL KRISTOL,.- and that might actually happen (if Obama keeps his
word - far from a sure thing). But until then, you, a person who
never served in the military who supports war, are a full fledged
chickenhawk in good standing. Greetings, fellow Chickenhawk. Would
you like to see the secret Chickenhawk handshake? Would should we
send the chickenhawk decoder ring?
MATT DAMON - (sputters impotently) CALL MY AGENT!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
So if the actors views are so profound then he would have no problem
taking on what you view as a "lightweight" in front of an audience,
right? if Damon can beat Kristol's point of view, then he should agree
to the public debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:08:51 -0800, "-a-" <...@gmail.com
You're floundering.
This is not about "beating" a point of view. This is about a statement
Kristol made which proved to be as erroneous as, oh, I don't know, "mission
accomplished." While there's no question that Faux News has blurred the
notion of journalism (and I'm not even disputing that some members of the
actual ranks of journalsim have done their share of damages), feeling that
there's some boxing match to be had between an alleged member of the press
who wrote false statements and an actor who pointed them out suggests the
problem with having a dialogue in this country, when people such as yourself
feel that it's not about the correctness of statements, it's about who can
"beat" the other in the ring.
Idiocy..
<...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
So if the actors views are so profound then he would have no problem
taking on what you view as a "lightweight" in front of an audience,
right? if Damon can beat Kristol's point of view, then he should agree
to the public debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:49:13 -0800 (PST), Iomass <...@ymail.com
I've challenged Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and Bill O'Reilly
all to debates and so far they've proven their cowardice and fear of
me by running away and not responding.
Why are rightists such cowards and always afraid to stand up for what
they believe in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:29:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"SwampMidget" <...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
You mean you support neocon's like Bill Kristol? I for one would love to see
the debate yeah were winning the Iraq war but that doesn't mean it was
justified to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:48:31 -0800 (PST), dead kennedy haters <...@aol.com
.
.
Actually, you wouldn't. In a reasoned debate over the cause of the
Iraq War, liberals tend to get beaten up pretty badly.
Recent history first: The idea that Saddam Hussein's regime was no
threat to America because, as it turned out, Iraq had no vast
stockpiles of WMDs is just false. Suppose, for the sake of argument,
that Bush knew -- contrary to the overwhelming consensus of foreign
and domestic intelligence services -- that Iraq possessed only
minuscule supplies of chemical agents left over from the 1980s and
1990s. Could there be any doubt that Saddam, who was doling out
$25,000 grants to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, was
willing to support international terrorism? How much nerve gas, handed
off to jihadis, constitutes an immediate danger?
And what about money as a WMD? How many truck bombs would a suitcase
of Saddam's cash put on the road? In its sealed indictment of Osama
bin Laden in 1998, the Clinton Justice Department had mentioned a
possible cooperation agreement between al Qaeda and Iraq. The charge
was later dropped for lack of corroborating evidence -- but Bush was
no doubt aware of the initial indictment. Was it really unthinkable,
in 2002, that Saddam would channel funds to Osama's organization?
If the notion that Saddam posed no threat to America is false, the
notion that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was illegal is downright
ludicrous. The cease-fire agreement Saddam signed in 1991 to remain in
power after the American-led coalition forces had routed his military
stipulated that Iraq must 1) provide full disclosure of all long range
missiles and WMDs; 2) allow United Nations weapons inspectors full and
free access to verify Iraq's disarmament; and 3) cease all support of
terrorism.
Since Saddam never lived up to these conditions -- hence, the 17
unanimous U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding he comply -- the
U.S. simply invoked its right, as the principal aggrieved party to the
1991 cease fire, to resume hostilities and oust Saddam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:52:22 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"dead kennedy haters" <...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Who said Saddam funded suicide bombings? Even if that's true so what? It had
nothing to do with protecting America.
For starters the charge was dropped, also Saddam had no links to al Qaeda.
It doesn't mean he wasn't a evil dictator though.
But the UN weapons inspectors were allowed to go into Iraq and found he had
no WMD's.
In the meantime thanks to Iraq Binladen and those who planned 911 are still
at large.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:14:15 +0100, Government Shill #2 <...@gmail.com
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:52:22 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.comwrote:
But the UN weapons inspectors didn't know that for sure before the war
started. They were not sure until some time after the war was finished. for
example:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Posted 3/2/2004 1:33 AM
U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today
says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any
significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have
seen the document.
What does Iraq have to do with Bin Laden being still at large? You think
there is nothing going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, eh Seon?
--
Shill #2
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:42:55 -0800 (PST), "bva...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
.
Then Obama should pull out immediately!!!!!
.
Why is Obama keeping America in this unjust, illegal war?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:02:54 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Government Shill #2" <...@4ax.com...
That proves Bush was wrong about WMD's.
If it wasn't for Iraq and Bush concentrating on capturing Saddam he would
have used those resources to defeat the Taliban and then go after Binladen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:53:36 -0500, Animal03 <...@yesterday.com
<sigh> seon the boy wonder........still as clueless as ever
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:43:32 -0800 (PST), "bva...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
.
Then Obama should pull us out of this illegal, immoral war
immediately!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:57:06 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
<...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I totally agree with you. I will continue criticising Obama every day he
keeps the US in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:56:07 -0800 (PST), dead kennedy haters <...@aol.com
< I will continue criticising Obama every day he keeps the US in
Iraq..
Oh, bullshit. Who do you think you're kidding? You're just a poodle
dog, who does what Obama orders.
Jump, poodle, bark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:40:57 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"dead kennedy haters" <...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Nope I'm serious Obama should pull the troops out of Iraq now. There is
nothing stopping him and until he does he is costing more soldiers life's.
Also your the one who pretty much lets Lord Limbaugh or Goddess Colter tell
you what to think like the sheeple you are.
"No they won't lie to me not on my own damn TV"- Willie Nelsion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:31:35 +0100, Government Shill #2 <...@gmail.com
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:02:54 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes. After the war was finished.
The Taliban was defeated. They have been after Bin Laden since 12/11/2001.
There are about 70,000 soldiers in Afghanistan at the moment. How many more
are required to find Bin Laden? If 70,000 can't find him why would 100,000
or 700,000 have a better chance? If anyone is going to find him it will be
1 special forces soldier in a turban, operating completely alone.
Besides which, Bin Laden is more than likely in Pakistan and the Pakistan
government is not going to let soldiers of any other country operate in
Pakistan, so your whole "If they weren't in Iraq they'd have caught
Binladen by now" bullshit just doesn't hold water.
--
Shill #2
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:49:22 -0800 (PST), CliffB <...@gosympatico.ca
On Jan 29, 11:31 am, Government Shill #2 <...@gmail.com
But it was a good enough applause line to help Obammy win an election.
That BS about chasing Bin laden down in Pakistan was never meant
seriously by Obammy. It was purely to make a political point. Now
Obammy is in the process of making love to the muslim world. He's a
pretty good seducer, but likely not good enough to make them lay down
their suicide vests and WMD pursuits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:00:03 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"CliffB" <...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
You do realise Obama recently bombed Pakistan don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:45:19 -0800 (PST), CliffB <...@gosympatico.ca
On Jan 29, 6:00 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
He's not doing anything Bush didn't do (this is just a continuation of
Bush policy) - and incidentally got ridiculed by Obama for it's being
ineffectual and/or otherwise incompetent. So, did Obama nail Bin laden
with his drone attack? Why hasn't he sent the troops into Pakistan and
follow through with his idle electioneering boast? Hmmm....maybe
because his election-season conceit and bravado is running up against
the realism of actually having to take responsibility for governance?
It did work as an election tactic though, to claim he would track ole
Bin'ny down no matter what. As if that symbolic blow (which may have
been achieved anyway already in Bush's term, except for the public
proof and announcement of laden's demise) is the means and end to
battling terror anyway. I'm sure playing paddy cake with the
islamics, doing nice, warm and fuzzy interviews with al Arabiya, etc,
will get the job done. Is he going to invade Pakistan in search of ole
Binny before or after he writes his letter of salutation to
Ahamahdhinihihjihad? Let's see, first close Guantanamo and get rid of
those pesky militant thugs vacationing there, then get the gays into
the military free and clear ( apriority as we've seen), then gut
military funding, then eventually track Bin laden down. Sounds like a
plan......
Oh wait, he wants to solve the Israeli/ Palestinian issue also as part
of the big plan. Hmmm, maybe divide Jerusalem and slice Israel in half
for the sake of a contiguous "Palestine", and the arab world and Hamas
and hizbullah will then be happily content and come around to our
father in faith Barak-- and THEN he'll invade Pakistan and get the
head of Bin laden on a pike in time for reelection season. Forgive my
skepticism - I know it's heresy right now to doubt the new idealized
prince of peace in the blessed Age of our Obama. so when's that
Pakistan invasion scheduled anyway? What, he's waiting on
"intelligence"? That should be a breeze since he obviously had the
answers during election season. Seemed simple enough! even McCain was
just a piker compared to rookie Obama's military acumen and wiles. Oh,
did I forget? --- he put the brilliant domestic bureacrat Leon panetta
in charge of the CIA, in order the "reofrm" i.e. denude the
organization. That should do wonders for his US intelligence gathering
and spy services.Hhe might though, have some half brothers in the
general population over yonder Islamia way. maybe he'll give one of
them a ring to gather some intelligence. He doesn't seem to give these
relatives much of the time of day though, as we've seen. He will claim
to have them though in interviews with the arab press.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:46:04 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"CliffB" <...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
First there is NOTHING wrong with being gay. There is nothing wrong with a
openly gay man wanting to defend his country, got that? The only people who
would have a problem with that are phony Christians who hate anyone who
isn't like them. Or are they jealous they are free to live their life when
they have to do everything a book which they know deep down is BS says.
Second Obama says he wants to increase the defense budget. I think as time
goes by you will find that he is just like your hero Lord Bush.
The only people who care that Obama might have family outside the US are
xenophobes. I don't know why Bush waited to invade Pakistan or why Obama
invaded. The Iraq war had nothing to do with 911 but there is overwhelming
evidence those who planned 911 are in Pakistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:29:53 -0800 (PST), CliffB <...@gosympatico.ca
On Jan 30, 12:46 am, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
Of course not. My point is it's beside the point. They're in there
anyway no doubt just as they're in the genreal population. No big
deal. But why the posturing, high priority for Obama? It does recall
the odd Clinton prioritizing of the same issue, on which he spent
valuable influence soon after he took office. Is it really that
paramount to the Democrat party that they want to go right back to the
well? (maybe Bam thinks Bin laden will be scared out of his cave by a
rampaging chorus line? OK, sorry, don't mean to make fun........)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:45:04 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"CliffB" <...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Ah I see your point. I don't see why it is so important as well as you said
they are gay's in the army already. Why not focus on ending the Iraq war
instead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:59:10 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Government Shill #2" <...@4ax.com...
Yeah I think the US should invade Pakistan the problem is they actually have
nuclear weapons. See the hypocrisy? Pakistan actually harbors those
responsible for 911 yet Iran is the threat. Also if the Taliban were
defeated there would be peace in Afghanistan I actually want us to win
there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 30 Jan 2009 06:15:01 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
Following a large swig of Johnny Walker Red, Seon Ferguson pounded
out this gem...
It's not good business to be invading one of the few friendly regimes in
Hells Kitchen, which is the Middle East. Bin Ladin is obviously not doing
anything now but is the Man on the Oatmeal Box, the trademark so to speak of
an orgsnization which is largely broken up and in disarray. Killing him
would score a public relations point, but little else.
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:47:19 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Rockinghorse Winner" <...@deadtime.com...
It would bring justice to those killed on 911. I completely support going
after the cowards who did that. Also I wouldn't call Pakistan a friendly
regime if it won't go after al-Qaida.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 30 Jan 2009 07:30:04 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
Following a large swig of Johnny Walker Red, Seon Ferguson pounded
out this gem...
Yes, it would bring justice. Whether that is worth an assault on a country
which helped us logistically in the Iraq war, and is not hostile to us, is a
call the Obama admin will have to make. But I would be extremely surprised
if they did anything to strain relations with Islamabd, at least once
American troops begin drawing down in Iraq. The last thing you want is riots
on the streets of Islamabd just as your fighting force is leaving the
region.
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:36:01 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Rockinghorse Winner" <...@deadtime.com...
Well we have to do something to capture Binladen. It's weird on one hand I
want Obama to pull US troops out of Iraq right now on the other I want him
to succeed where Bush failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 30 Jan 2009 08:10:05 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
Following a large swig of Johnny Walker Red, Seon Ferguson pounded
out this gem...
One sure way of Obama suceeding where Bush failed is to get the drawdown
done, keep Iraq pacified and gradually get a handle once again on
Afghanistan. If he does this, he will be seen as successful in the Persian
gulf.
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:56:22 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Rockinghorse Winner" <...@deadtime.com...
Well you may just get your wish. I'm starting to lose faith in the messiah.
I'll probably get shunned by my fellow "liberals" for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 30 Jan 2009 18:16:34 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
Following a large swig of Johnny Walker Red, Seon Ferguson pounded
out this gem...
Nah, they'd understand when they see the trillion dollar budget deficit
clear the Senate.
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:00:25 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Rockinghorse Winner" <...@deadtime.com...
The one started when Bush was in charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:35:39 -0500, Animal03 <...@yesterday.com
Too cluless to understand who creates the budgets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:02:29 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"Animal03" <...@newsfe12.iad...
Yes but my point was we shouldn't play the blame game and focus on how to
fix things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:11:00 -0600, "charliekilo" <...@hotmail.com
"Seon Ferguson" <...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
The last budget Bush signed project a deficit around $300 billion...bad
enough but Obama and Congress want to add another $800B to $1 trillion more.
From bad to devastating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 30 Jan 2009 23:30:05 GMT, Rockinghorse Winner <...@deadtime.com
Following a large swig of Johnny Walker Red, charliekilo pounded
out this gem...
If you think consumer sentiment is bad now, wait until Joe Sixpack reads the
12 zeros in the newspaper. It's going to cause an economy attack. Mark my
words.
*R* *H*
--
Watch out -- I'm postin' here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:28:59 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"charliekilo" <...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
Yeah but republicans also voted for the bailout. My point is both sides are
to blame and we should stop playing the name game and focus on what will
help. What will help anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:36:34 -0600, "charliekilo" <...@hotmail.com
"Seon Ferguson" <...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
The $800B -- $1 trillion additional doesn't include the bailout. Yes,
Republicans were included in the bailout but none so far have supported the
"stimulus plan" which will only stimulate growth and power of the federal
government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 08:33:49 +1100, "Seon Ferguson" <...@gmail.com
"charliekilo" <...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Which is why for the first time since Ron Paul I am actually grateful for
the republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|