| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2006 09:09:07 PM |
| Object: |
Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
Ray Fischer and the Ayatollah are dancing the jig today
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52909
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but
it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," said Iranian
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in remarks reported by Iran's student
news agency today. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have
always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious
victory for the Iranian nation."
Khamenei is the senior cleric in power since 1989 and has the last word on
matters of state in Iran's system of Islamic rule. President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is in charge of day-to-day decision making.
"The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people
are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American
administration," Khamenei was quoted as saying. "With the scandalous defeat
of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's
threats are empty threats on an international scale."
--
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 02:03:58 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
Ray Fischer and the Ayatollah are dancing the jig today
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52909
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Of course they did! They hoped we'd "stand up" to the terrorist by
letting the Republicans keep control of the House and Senate - the
Republicans have been doing far more damage to the U.S. than all
the terrorists combined, plus the Republicans were pissing off the
rest of the world so much that it made it easier for the terrorists
to recruit.
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
Yawn. So the Iranians decided to declare victory. They'd have declared
victory no matter how the election turned out.
What will actually happen is that, with the Republicans repudiated by
the American public, some of the anger against the U.S. in the Muslim
world will be reduced, and we'll have less trouble with them than we'd
have otherwise: the Democrats will be effective at protecting us but
won't ***** people from other countries off as badly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
10 Nov 2006 09:34:10 PM |
|
|
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. Christopher" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
10 Nov 2006 10:18:14 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Valerie" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 12:45:27 AM |
|
|
"G. Christopher" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
Bush pandered to theocrats, psychopaths and scumbags as well, to Haggard and Dobson
and Robertson and Falwell,. to Enron, and to Rove.
They just happend to be American theocrats, psychopaths and scumbags.
--
"I remember how the meaning of words began to change. I remember how "different"
became dangerous. I still don't understand it, why they hate us so much. ...the
first time we kissed I knew I never wanted to kiss any other lips but hers again...
She grew Scarlet Carsons for me in our window box and our place always smelt of
roses. Those were the best years of my life...for three years I had roses, and
apologized to no one"
Valerie, in "V for Vendetta"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
10 Nov 2006 11:48:47 PM |
|
|
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
These terrorist read our websites, read our news, watch our news
programs, read the opinion polls, they know about how divided we are as
a nation...they are not stupid by any means. They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
And then to top it off, we have idiots like Barnes who just said the
other day that Al Qaida wants what's best for their region and that the
Democrats were whats best for their region...he is actually saying that
the Democrats are whats best for Al Qaida, a known terrorist
organization. Go figure.
Well, I hope that the Democrats are not stupid this time, and I am
certain they don't share the same view points as idiots like Barnes.
We will wait and see, like you said, "time will tell".
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 02:08:34 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
These terrorist read our websites, read our news, watch our news
programs, read the opinion polls, they know about how divided we are as
a nation...they are not stupid by any means. They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
You mean like they "cut-n-run" during World War II, the Korean War,
and the Vietnam War (which was a mistake, but it was Nixon who actually
cut and ran, taking 4 years to do it since he merely figured that he
had to be out of there by the next election).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 04:34:55 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 05:08:38 AM |
|
|
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine. I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for, they better
hope that the Democrats do the job they were elected to do. If the
deaths continue to rise in Iraq, then I hope that the liberals in here
get bashed as much as they tried to bash the Republicans. They better
hope their Democrats are "squeaky" clean and do no wrong. All eyes
will be watching, all ears will be listening.
The same liberals who did all the bashing, might find themselves on the
other end of the stick.
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
Or you might be one of thos al Qaida sympathizers like Barnes and think
that the Democrats are good for Al Qaida.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163243317.929390.284620@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for
them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies
tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and
ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like
they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some
more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
snip
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
I really don't care why you think it is bad. If you bothered to read what I
said you might have noted that I suggested that the Al Qaeda leadership
might be in for a surprise or two if they count on the Democrats running
away. Terrorism is an issue that must be resolved. Both parties and the
American p[eople understand this. Democrats have fought wars before and
won. Serious ones like WWi and WWII or have you forgotten?
Or you might be one of thos al Qaida sympathizers like Barnes and think
that the Democrats are good for Al Qaida.
read what I wrote for content next time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 07:18:54 PM |
|
|
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163243317.929390.284620@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for
them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies
tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and
ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like
they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some
more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
snip
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
I really don't care why you think it is bad. If you bothered to read what I
said you might have noted that I suggested that the Al Qaeda leadership
might be in for a surprise or two if they count on the Democrats running
away.
And I hope, for all our sakes, you are right.
Terrorism is an issue that must be resolved.
Absolutely and if anyone thinks for one minute that this fight isn't
going to last for our generation, and most likely our kids generation,
they are sadly mistaken.
Both parties and the
American p[eople understand this.
I hope you are right.
Democrats have fought wars before and
won. Serious ones like WWi and WWII or have you forgotten?
Yea, and Republicans have fought wars before and won. Serious ones like
WWI and WWII or have you forgotten?
Or you might be one of thos al Qaida sympathizers like Barnes and think
that the Democrats are good for Al Qaida.
read what I wrote for content next time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 08:23:10 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163294334.038738.272410@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163243317.929390.284620@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all
but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional
vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for
them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for
Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his
cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers-
as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy-
the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths
and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror
reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies
tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have
a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for
Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world
wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut
and
ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean
is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit
strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like
they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in
the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some
more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
snip
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
I really don't care why you think it is bad. If you bothered to read
what I
said you might have noted that I suggested that the Al Qaeda leadership
might be in for a surprise or two if they count on the Democrats running
away.
And I hope, for all our sakes, you are right.
Terrorism is an issue that must be resolved.
Absolutely and if anyone thinks for one minute that this fight isn't
going to last for our generation, and most likely our kids generation,
they are sadly mistaken.
Both parties and the
American p[eople understand this.
I hope you are right.
Democrats have fought wars before and
won. Serious ones like WWi and WWII or have you forgotten?
Yea, and Republicans have fought wars before and won. Serious ones like
WWI and WWII or have you forgotten?
If you are referring to the fact that there republicans among the soldiers
who actually fought those two wars I agree. I have never for a second
doubted that Republicans love their country, unfortunately I have repeatedly
heard Republicans state the opposite about Democrats.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 09:38:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:08:38 -0800, osprey wrote:
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
It's even worse you hang on their every word and attack US citizens and
election results because of the opinion of terrorists.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 05:18:55 AM |
|
|
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine. I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
they better
hope that the Democrats do the job they were elected to do. If the
deaths continue to rise in Iraq, then I hope that the liberals in here
get bashed as much as they tried to bash the Republicans.
The war was started under the Republicans. Everything happening in Iraq
is a consequence of the moron's actions.
They better
hope their Democrats are "squeaky" clean and do no wrong. All eyes
will be watching, all ears will be listening.
The same liberals who did all the bashing, might find themselves on the
other end of the stick.
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
They would have cheered no matter the result. Remember the "mission
accomplished" from the moron? or the "heckuva job" after Katrina?
That's how you can tell the intelligence level of politicians: when
they talk about victory, no matter the outcome.
Or you might be one of thos al Qaida sympathizers like Barnes and think
that the Democrats are good for Al Qaida.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 06:06:39 AM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine. I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
Taliban government in Afganistan dismantled, hundreds of thousands of
people in Afganistan liberated. The Taliban no longer rule as the
Government in Afganistan.
We could talk about the landmark Education Bill worked on by both sides
in Congress that Bush signed. But you did only ask for one, right?
Or the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
But you did ask for just one, right?
Or the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
President Bush and Russian President Putin Sign Nuclear Arms Treaty
But you did ask for just one, right?
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Corporate Corruption Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Executive order prescribing regulations relating to the safeguarding of
vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities of the United
States.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Homeland Security Act and Terrorism Insurance Act
But you did ask for just one, right?
National Defense Authorization Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
National Flood Insurance Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response
network to help find kidnapped children.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
But you did ask for just one, right?
There, that's one...there are some others. Bush is by far not the
greatest president in the world, and I don't recall saying he was. But
you asked for one accomplishment, so you have one.
Moving along...
they better
hope that the Democrats do the job they were elected to do. If the
deaths continue to rise in Iraq, then I hope that the liberals in here
get bashed as much as they tried to bash the Republicans.
The war was started under the Republicans. Everything happening in Iraq
is a consequence of the moron's actions.
It's going to be all about the Democrats now. Just like when we
pointed out that Clinton failed twice to get Bin Laden, how many times
did we hear from you liberals that Clinton wasn't the president any
longer and it's all the Republicans since they were in control. Well?
Now it's the Democrats in control. Better hope your boys get it right,
or just sit back and don't say a word.
They better
hope their Democrats are "squeaky" clean and do no wrong. All eyes
will be watching, all ears will be listening.
The same liberals who did all the bashing, might find themselves on the
other end of the stick.
In regards to Al Qaida, like I said, it's bad when a leader is praising
the Democrats. Ever wonder why?
They would have cheered no matter the result.
*****.
Remember the "mission
accomplished" from the moron?
Yea and?
or the "heckuva job" after Katrina?
Yea and? Thanks to the Democrat Governor in LA, a lot wasn't done and
the areas were not prepared. But you don't blame them at all do you?
That's how you can tell the intelligence level of politicians: when
they talk about victory, no matter the outcome.
Or you might be one of thos al Qaida sympathizers like Barnes and think
that the Democrats are good for Al Qaida.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 07:26:09 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163246799.649289.248990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all
but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional
vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for
them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called
the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for
Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n'
run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his
cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers-
as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy-
the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths
and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror
reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies
tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have
a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend
our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for
Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world
wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut
and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean
is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit
strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like
they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in
the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must
be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some
more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine. I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
Taliban government in Afganistan dismantled, hundreds of thousands of
people in Afganistan liberated. The Taliban no longer rule as the
Government in Afganistan.
That's true, they just control about 1/3 of the country outright and the
government's authority only extends as far as the Nato troops on the ground
can push it. Not unlike the situation when the Russinas were there I might
add. This is what happens when you do not finish what you atrat which is
exactly what Bush did. Bus declared victory there as he did in Iraq but the
fighting and dying has not stopped in either country.
We could talk about the landmark Education Bill worked on by both sides
in Congress that Bush signed. But you did only ask for one, right?
The one the Repulicans reneged on funding? Yes I recall it.
Or the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
But you did ask for just one, right?
don't make me laugh.
Or the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Ah yes, 700 miles or so of chain link fnece with no resolution of the
underlying problem, a sybolic bandaid and nothing more. I will give Bush
some credit here. He understands that it was one a symbolic act he wants to
do more. It was the rabid wing of the Republican party that stopped him
there.
President Bush and Russian President Putin Sign Nuclear Arms Treaty
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been in the works for eyars but yes it was nice ot see that finally signed.
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Don't make me laugh
Corporate Corruption Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Enron mean anything to you?
Executive order prescribing regulations relating to the safeguarding of
vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities of the United
States.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Security forces say our ports are pretty much wide oipen to this day so
let's just call that a nullity shall we?
Homeland Security Act and Terrorism Insurance Act
But you did ask for just one, right?
The one that makes me take my shoes off whne I fly? Don't make me laugh.
National Defense Authorization Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Trillions of dollars into a failed invasion with no end in sight. Money
being spent with nothing coming in to pay for it. Yes I recall that.
National Flood Insurance Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been around for years, Bush did not have anyhting to do with it.
Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response
network to help find kidnapped children.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Bush signed it but had nothing to do with it.
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Moremoney ot the rich and more burden on the midddle class. Yes I recall
that.
There, that's one...there are some others. Bush is by far not the
greatest president in the world, and I don't recall saying he was. But
you asked for one accomplishment, so you have one.
Moving along...
That you should do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 09:19:12 PM |
|
|
"Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:RKu5h.5325$l25.1672@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163246799.649289.248990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's
hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East
all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional
vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for
them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called
the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for
Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n'
run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his
cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple
fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy-
the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats,
psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror
reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies
tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make
sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats
have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend
our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for
Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world
wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut
and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you
mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit
strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas
like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in
the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must
be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some
more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine.
I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
Taliban government in Afganistan dismantled, hundreds of thousands of
people in Afganistan liberated. The Taliban no longer rule as the
Government in Afganistan.
That's true, they just control about 1/3 of the country outright and the
government's authority only extends as far as the Nato troops on the
ground can push it. Not unlike the situation when the Russinas were there
I might add. This is what happens when you do not finish what you atrat
which is exactly what Bush did. Bus declared victory there as he did in
Iraq but the fighting and dying has not stopped in either country.
We could talk about the landmark Education Bill worked on by both sides
in Congress that Bush signed. But you did only ask for one, right?
The one the Repulicans reneged on funding? Yes I recall it.
Or the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
But you did ask for just one, right?
don't make me laugh.
Or the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Ah yes, 700 miles or so of chain link fnece with no resolution of the
underlying problem, a sybolic bandaid and nothing more. I will give Bush
some credit here. He understands that it was one a symbolic act he wants
to do more. It was the rabid wing of the Republican party that stopped
him there.
President Bush and Russian President Putin Sign Nuclear Arms Treaty
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been in the works for eyars but yes it was nice ot see that finally
signed.
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Don't make me laugh
Corporate Corruption Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Enron mean anything to you?
Executive order prescribing regulations relating to the safeguarding of
vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities of the United
States.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Security forces say our ports are pretty much wide oipen to this day so
let's just call that a nullity shall we?
Homeland Security Act and Terrorism Insurance Act
But you did ask for just one, right?
The one that makes me take my shoes off whne I fly? Don't make me laugh.
National Defense Authorization Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Trillions of dollars into a failed invasion with no end in sight. Money
being spent with nothing coming in to pay for it. Yes I recall that.
National Flood Insurance Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been around for years, Bush did not have anyhting to do with it.
Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response
network to help find kidnapped children.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Bush signed it but had nothing to do with it.
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Moremoney ot the rich and more burden on the midddle class. Yes I recall
that.
There, that's one...there are some others. Bush is by far not the
greatest president in the world, and I don't recall saying he was. But
you asked for one accomplishment, so you have one.
Moving along...
That you should do.
Hey, you asked for just one and I gave you several. Even some that you agree
with. Now, if you have issues with the others, that's on you. All you
wanted though, was just one and you got it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
12 Nov 2006 10:57:08 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bvKdnX9QdK0lD8vYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:RKu5h.5325$l25.1672@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163246799.649289.248990@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Parsifal wrote:
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's
hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East
all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional
vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good
for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called
the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for
Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n'
run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his
cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple
fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic
election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign
policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats,
psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al
Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror
reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the
Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make
sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats
have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend
our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for
Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world
wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we
cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you
mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit
strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas
like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats
in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must
be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot
some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections
and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine.
I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve
some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
Taliban government in Afganistan dismantled, hundreds of thousands of
people in Afganistan liberated. The Taliban no longer rule as the
Government in Afganistan.
That's true, they just control about 1/3 of the country outright and the
government's authority only extends as far as the Nato troops on the
ground can push it. Not unlike the situation when the Russinas were
there I might add. This is what happens when you do not finish what you
atrat which is exactly what Bush did. Bus declared victory there as he
did in Iraq but the fighting and dying has not stopped in either country.
We could talk about the landmark Education Bill worked on by both sides
in Congress that Bush signed. But you did only ask for one, right?
The one the Repulicans reneged on funding? Yes I recall it.
Or the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
But you did ask for just one, right?
don't make me laugh.
Or the Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Ah yes, 700 miles or so of chain link fnece with no resolution of the
underlying problem, a sybolic bandaid and nothing more. I will give Bush
some credit here. He understands that it was one a symbolic act he wants
to do more. It was the rabid wing of the Republican party that stopped
him there.
President Bush and Russian President Putin Sign Nuclear Arms Treaty
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been in the works for eyars but yes it was nice ot see that finally
signed.
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Don't make me laugh
Corporate Corruption Bill
But you did ask for just one, right?
Enron mean anything to you?
Executive order prescribing regulations relating to the safeguarding of
vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities of the United
States.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Security forces say our ports are pretty much wide oipen to this day so
let's just call that a nullity shall we?
Homeland Security Act and Terrorism Insurance Act
But you did ask for just one, right?
The one that makes me take my shoes off whne I fly? Don't make me laugh.
National Defense Authorization Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Trillions of dollars into a failed invasion with no end in sight. Money
being spent with nothing coming in to pay for it. Yes I recall that.
National Flood Insurance Act.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Been around for years, Bush did not have anyhting to do with it.
Protect Act- Amber Alert Bill expanding nationwide a rapid-response
network to help find kidnapped children.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Bush signed it but had nothing to do with it.
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
But you did ask for just one, right?
Moremoney ot the rich and more burden on the midddle class. Yes I recall
that.
There, that's one...there are some others. Bush is by far not the
greatest president in the world, and I don't recall saying he was. But
you asked for one accomplishment, so you have one.
Moving along...
That you should do.
Hey, you asked for just one and I gave you several. Even some that you
agree with. Now, if you have issues with the others, that's on you. All
you wanted though, was just one and you got it.
actually I didn't ask for one or more than one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 08:27:45 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Parsifal wrote:
osprey schrieb:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals. Now, the Dem's have control and that's fine. I
have no problem with that. They lost control in the early 90's for a
reason, and lets hope they didn't forget that lesson they learned. I
hope Republicans learned their lesson as well.
But for all those liberals in this newsgroup who have sat in here and
bashed Bush for everything under the sun, granted he does deserve some
blame but not nearly as much as the liberals bash him for,
Please, provide us ONE accomplishment made by Bush.
Taliban government in Afganistan dismantled, hundreds of thousands of
people in Afganistan liberated. The Taliban no longer rule as the
Government in Afganistan.
You really are an ignorant idiot.
Five years later, U.S. and NATO troops are fighting a resurgent
Taliban at the highest scale since the government was toppled in
November 2001. Bin Laden remains at large, opium production is at
a record high, and Afghanistan resembles a feudal hodgepodge of
fiefdoms run by warlords instead of a centrally governed nation of
31 million people.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/17/MNGIHL7B4O1.DTL
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Valerie" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 09:36:33 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
It was worse when Bin Laden appeared on TV years ago and thanked the Republicans
for arming him and his men in Afghanistan when he was fighting the Russians.
Republicans armed him to begin with and helped to give hin stature.
By daemonizing him they turned the lot of then into Islamic Heroes.
Particularly while every bomb that we dropped in Iraq seemed to create a bomber.
--
"I remember how the meaning of words began to change. I remember how "different"
became dangerous. I still don't understand it, why they hate us so much. ...the
first time we kissed I knew I never wanted to kiss any other lips but hers
again... She grew Scarlet Carsons for me in our window box and our place always
smelt of roses. Those were the best years of my life...for three years I had
roses, and apologized to no one"
Valerie, in "V for Vendetta"
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 09:59:42 AM |
|
|
In article <4555EDF7.30FE816@VforVendetta.uk>, Valerie
<Valerie@VforVendetta.uk> wrote:
osprey wrote:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and
ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade
countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
It was worse when Bin Laden appeared on TV years ago and thanked the
Republicans
for arming him and his men in Afghanistan when he was fighting the Russians.
Republicans armed him to begin with and helped to give hin stature.
By daemonizing him they turned the lot of then into Islamic Heroes.
Particularly while every bomb that we dropped in Iraq seemed to create a bomber.
The simple fact is, Al Qaeda uses anything to propagandize their cause.
Only the true idiots of the world take what they say at face value.
Enter Osprey and the rest of the goose steppers on the Right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ayatollah: Thank Allah for Democrats' victory |
11 Nov 2006 05:30:14 PM |
|
|
Valerie wrote:
osprey wrote:
Juanjo wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1163224127.030429.154790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
G. Christopher wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Iran's supreme leader calls election 'defeat of Bush's hawkish
policies'
Before the elections, terrorist leaders in the Middle East all but
formally
endorsed a Democratic victory in the mid-term congressional vote.
Actually, "terrorists" have made it clear that Bush is good for them.
Terrorism is up under Bush.
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/9/131422/3518>
Now, the state sponsors of some of those groups have called the
Republican
defeat a victory for Iran.
They didn't say "victory," liar. And of course it is good for Iran.
Why shouldn't it be? It is good for the entire world.
Yes, It is good for Iran; The U.S. is now more likely to cut n' run
from Iraq, leaving it for the Ayatollah Assaholla and his cronies...
making Iran a major regional power. I remember the purple fingers- as
the brave Iraqi people tasting freedom in a real democratic election...
I hope they can survive a return to Clinton style foreign policy- the
pandering to and appeasing of the dictators, theocrats, psycopaths and
assorted scumbags of the world. Well, time will tell.
They were warned, that if the Democrats won this election Al Qaida
would consider this a victory and want to increase their terror reign.
Sorry dear, you mispoke. What you meant to say was that the Bushies tried
to use this scare tactic and it didn't work.
They know that in order
for them to get back into their operations they needed to make sure
that we had the weakest government possible, and the Democrats have a
very bad history when it comes to using military power to defend our
nation. The Democrats have a history of cut-n-run.
Al Qaeda may have a surprise or two in order for them. As for Democrats
always cutting and running, it seems to me I recall two major world wars
being fought under Democratic presidents and congresses. And we cut and ran
from Vietnam under Nixon and Ford both Republicans. If what you mean is
that the Democrats will not use the military willy nilly to invade countries
without some meaningful plan of attack and some idea of an exit strategy
then you are probably correct. Only a moron like Bush and the
neoconservatives could have thought up a half baked set of ideas like they
did and use them as the basis of a foreign policy. The Democrats in the
Congress are Americans just as much as the Republicans there. They
understand that some long term solution to the terrorist issue must be
found. But that doesn't mean Bush's brand of shoot, then shoot some more,
then just shoot a lot more and then stop to consider a strategy.
It's pretty bad when the Al Qaida leader is praising the elections and
thanking you liberals.
It was worse when Bin Laden appeared on TV years ago and thanked the Republicans
for arming him and his men in Afghanistan when he was fighting the Russians.
First, that's a lie.
Did we arm that Afganistan military? Yes we did. Did our Government
forsee what would become of the Taliban back then? No they did not.
Republicans armed him to begin with and helped to give hin stature.
By daemonizing him they turned the lot of then into Islamic Heroes.
Particularly while every bomb that we dropped in Iraq seemed to create a bomber.
--
"I remember how the meaning o | | | | | | | |
