| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Viejo Vizcacha" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2007 09:52:45 PM |
| Object: |
Failure is not an option. |
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
.
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
01 Apr 2007 10:01:03 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 06:53:16 AM |
|
|
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 01:00:13 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 12:50:06 PM |
|
|
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:NwbQh.26576$oV.11649@attbi_s21:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
Among other things. Remember?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 01:47:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:00:13 +0000, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
It turns out that Saddam did that himself. So, why are we still there?
Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 04:09:23 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.02.18.47.03.23428@stopspam.net:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:00:13 +0000, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon
Utopia wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
It turns out that Saddam did that himself.
It *turns out* that he was *supposed* to do that while the inspectors
were watching. He didn't.
So, why are we still
there? Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
Because we're going to be there for a long time.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 02:02:50 PM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:00:13 +0000, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
It turns out that Saddam did that himself. So, why are we still there?
Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
OIL.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 09:28:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:47:04 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
It turns out that Saddam did that himself. So, why are we still there?
Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
Because people might ask questions if the government just GAVE Cheney
a few billion a year.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 08:46:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:28:39 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:47:04 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
It turns out that Saddam did that himself. So, why are we still there?
Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
Because people might ask questions if the government just GAVE Cheney a
few billion a year.
It's not like the Bush Admin feels obliged to provide plausible
explanations for ANY of its decisions!
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 03:11:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:47:04 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:00:13 +0000, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 1, 10:52 pm, "Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It just comes standard with every Bush decision.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/27248.html
VV
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
The goal was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. Remember?
It turns out that Saddam did that himself. So, why are we still there?
Why are we building large, permanent military bases?
www.newamericancentury.org
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 01:17:08 PM |
|
|
On Apr 2, 7:53 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
I'll bite then. What the hell is the goal? As far as I can see
Bush's goal is to maintain status quo until he leaves office thereby
dumping his successor with the problem of how to clean up his
disaster. If Bush withdraws from Iraq without leaving behind a happy
peaceful pro-Western democracy the world will perceive as a loss and,
more specifically, it will be perceived as Bush's loss. Depending on
how badly the situation turns out it is possible that Bush will go
down in history as the worst president we've ever had. Not that I'm
wishing it on him. I would like to see a good result in Iraq, but
that seems entirely impossible now. Bush screwed this up bigtime.
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
02 Apr 2007 12:56:20 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1175537823.114654.215710@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 2, 7:53 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
I'll bite then. What the hell is the goal? As far as I can see
Bush's goal is to maintain status quo until he leaves office thereby
dumping his successor with the problem of how to clean up his
disaster.
The goal is what it has always been: a free, democratic Iraq that can
defend itself.
If Bush withdraws from Iraq without leaving behind a happy
peaceful pro-Western democracy the world will perceive as a loss and,
more specifically, it will be perceived as Bush's loss. Depending on
how badly the situation turns out it is possible that Bush will go
down in history as the worst president we've ever had. Not that I'm
wishing it on him. I would like to see a good result in Iraq, but
that seems entirely impossible now. Bush screwed this up bigtime.
Bush isn't going to withdraw from Iraq. He understands that this is a
long-term commitment, no matter how many Democrats weep bitter tears
over having to "inherit his disaster" if they get elected (fat chance if
they're percieved as willing to repeat their performance from Vietnam).
And it is not impossible that the Petraeus plan can succeed. No matter
how hard the MSM tries to convince people that every casualty is a sign
of impending doom, the majority of Iraqi people *want* to defeat the
terrorists and they *want* to be free from Iranian domination.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 11:37:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:56:20 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1175537823.114654.215710@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 2, 7:53 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
I'll bite then. What the hell is the goal? As far as I can see Bush's
goal is to maintain status quo until he leaves office thereby dumping
his successor with the problem of how to clean up his disaster.
The goal is what it has always been: a free, democratic Iraq that can
defend itself.
....as long as they don't elect an government that is unfriendly to the
USA.
If Bush withdraws from Iraq without leaving behind a happy peaceful
pro-Western democracy the world will perceive as a loss and, more
specifically, it will be perceived as Bush's loss. Depending on how
badly the situation turns out it is possible that Bush will go down in
history as the worst president we've ever had. Not that I'm wishing it
on him. I would like to see a good result in Iraq, but that seems
entirely impossible now. Bush screwed this up bigtime.
Bush isn't going to withdraw from Iraq. He understands that this is a
long-term commitment, no matter how many Democrats weep bitter tears
over having to "inherit his disaster" if they get elected (fat chance if
they're percieved as willing to repeat their performance from Vietnam).
And it is not impossible that the Petraeus plan can succeed. No matter
how hard the MSM tries to convince people that every casualty is a sign
of impending doom, the majority of Iraqi people *want* to defeat the
terrorists and they *want* to be free from Iranian domination.
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of there
PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of the biggest
assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits! You are mildly annoyed.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 11:02:38 AM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.16.37.27.581534@stopspam.net:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:56:20 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in
news:1175537823.114654.215710@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 2, 7:53 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1175482863.497826.205580@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Headline: "Kissinger says US victory in Iraq not possible"
How can you be victorious when you don't have an actual goal?
Kissinger defines "victory" as "total US control over the whole
territory".
That was never the goal in the first place.
I'll bite then. What the hell is the goal? As far as I can see
Bush's goal is to maintain status quo until he leaves office thereby
dumping his successor with the problem of how to clean up his
disaster.
The goal is what it has always been: a free, democratic Iraq that can
defend itself.
...as long as they don't elect an government that is unfriendly to the
USA.
We haven't bombed France yet.
If Bush withdraws from Iraq without leaving behind a happy peaceful
pro-Western democracy the world will perceive as a loss and, more
specifically, it will be perceived as Bush's loss. Depending on how
badly the situation turns out it is possible that Bush will go down
in history as the worst president we've ever had. Not that I'm
wishing it on him. I would like to see a good result in Iraq, but
that seems entirely impossible now. Bush screwed this up bigtime.
Bush isn't going to withdraw from Iraq. He understands that this is a
long-term commitment, no matter how many Democrats weep bitter tears
over having to "inherit his disaster" if they get elected (fat chance
if they're percieved as willing to repeat their performance from
Vietnam).
And it is not impossible that the Petraeus plan can succeed. No
matter how hard the MSM tries to convince people that every casualty
is a sign of impending doom, the majority of Iraqi people *want* to
defeat the terrorists and they *want* to be free from Iranian
domination.
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of the
biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go back, at
a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even as much as
they trust us now.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 05:08:19 PM |
|
|
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of there
PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of the biggest
assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go back, at a
great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even as much as they
trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all of
Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well done!"
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 05:39:47 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.22.08.18.271147@stopspam.net:
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of
the biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go back,
at a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even as much
as they trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all of
Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well done!"
If you think they'll be happy with that, you don't understand economics.
Oh, and here's a lovely picture of the leader of the dhimmicrats in
Syria. Note the headscarf.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/xhm10204031738
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
03 Apr 2007 10:12:28 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9907C7287BDF2freddybear@66.150.105.47...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.22.08.18.271147@stopspam.net:
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of
the biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go back,
at a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even as much
as they trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all of
Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well done!"
If you think they'll be happy with that, you don't understand economics.
Oh, and here's a lovely picture of the leader of the dhimmicrats in
Syria. Note the headscarf.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/xhm10204031738
What is there to note. Fredo? She was in a mosque, you fucking retard.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 06:08:28 AM |
|
|
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:57gjcsF2ckjckU1@mid.individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9907C7287BDF2freddybear@66.150.105.47...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.22.08.18.271147@stopspam.net:
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of
the biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go
back, at a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even
as much as they trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all
of Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well
done!"
If you think they'll be happy with that, you don't understand
economics.
Oh, and here's a lovely picture of the leader of the dhimmicrats in
Syria. Note the headscarf.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/xhm10204031738
What is there to note. Fredo? She was in a mosque, you fucking
retard.
What is she doing in Syria, you fucking traitor?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 12:59:02 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns990851F3A7DA4freddybear@66.150.105.47...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:57gjcsF2ckjckU1@mid.individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9907C7287BDF2freddybear@66.150.105.47...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.22.08.18.271147@stopspam.net:
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of
the biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go
back, at a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even
as much as they trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all
of Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well
done!"
If you think they'll be happy with that, you don't understand
economics.
Oh, and here's a lovely picture of the leader of the dhimmicrats in
Syria. Note the headscarf.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/xhm10204031738
What is there to note. Fredo? She was in a mosque, you fucking
retard.
What is she doing in Syria, you fucking traitor?
She is presumably talking w/ the Syrians. And it is noted that you now
define a 'traitor' as someone who asks you a question that you apparently
don't like.
Why are you avoiding yet another question, Fredo? You brought it up by
posting the picture link and saying that Pelosi's headscarf should be noted.
What are we supposed to 'note' about Pelosi wearing a headscarf while
visiting a mosque in Syria? Did you have a point?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 01:07:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 07:59:02 -1000, in alt.atheism , "G-Ride"
<gride42nospam@yahoo.com> in <57i7b6F2dgfdfU1@mid.individual.net>
wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns990851F3A7DA4freddybear@66.150.105.47...
"G-Ride" <gride42nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:57gjcsF2ckjckU1@mid.individual.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9907C7287BDF2freddybear@66.150.105.47...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.03.22.08.18.271147@stopspam.net:
Once the Dems get the White House back, in 2008, we will be out of
there PDQ. Bush will take his rightful place in history as one of
the biggest assholes ever to inhabit the White House.
And then after the mideast explodes into violence they will go
back, at a great disadvantage, and *NOBODY* will trust us, not even
as much as they trust us now.
Yes, but that will put the price of oil over $200 a barrel, and all
of Bush's friends will be patting him on the back, saying, "Well
done!"
If you think they'll be happy with that, you don't understand
economics.
Oh, and here's a lovely picture of the leader of the dhimmicrats in
Syria. Note the headscarf.
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/xhm10204031738
What is there to note. Fredo? She was in a mosque, you fucking
retard.
What is she doing in Syria, you fucking traitor?
She is presumably talking w/ the Syrians. And it is noted that you now
define a 'traitor' as someone who asks you a question that you apparently
don't like.
Why are you avoiding yet another question, Fredo? You brought it up by
posting the picture link and saying that Pelosi's headscarf should be noted.
What are we supposed to 'note' about Pelosi wearing a headscarf while
visiting a mosque in Syria? Did you have a point?
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 02:20:53 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan Act.
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 03:34:50 PM |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2007 19:20:53 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9908A572993A5freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan Act.
No, actually, it is not. But I am quite amazed that you have sunk so
low as to do this. Where did you get this little gem from?
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
So, then, was Laura Bush's and Condi Rice's.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 04:55:30 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:eq281311romi0dt602e9osvq7prm10s4qt@4ax.com:
On 04 Apr 2007 19:20:53 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9908A572993A5freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan
Act.
No, actually, it is not. But I am quite amazed that you have sunk so
low as to do this. Where did you get this little gem from?
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
So, then, was Laura Bush's and Condi Rice's.
Not.
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282
&Itemid=66
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of
Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim
world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that
men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity
because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any
expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The
ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political
rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a
confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a
symbol of their suppression.
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US
officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab
inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to
wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the
self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and
one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn
to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not
only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle
East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and
those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years
back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle
East is showing.
Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US
official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell
them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure
will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal
pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many
women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage
Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many
years to come.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 04:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan Act.
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid comment
I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
VV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 04:56:53 PM |
|
|
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175720788.468250.126930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous,
SecOfState or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good
manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan
Act. The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid comment
I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
Apparantly you're too stupid to look beyond CNN's limited reporting, my
old rodent:
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282
&Itemid=66
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of
Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim
world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that
men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity
because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any
expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The
ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political
rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a
confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a
symbol of their suppression.
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US
officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab
inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to
wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the
self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and
one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn
to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not
only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle
East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and
those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years
back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle
East is showing.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 08:01:46 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 5:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1175720788.468250.126930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous,
SecOfState or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good
manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan
Act. The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid comment
I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
Apparantly you're too stupid to look beyond CNN's limited reporting, my
old rodent:
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282
&Itemid=66
You are quoting a site of the Syrian Chalabi. That people have no
credibility. They are not a political party, but a group of Syrian
exiles financed, and supported by the same people who brought Chalabi
to the front pages.
VV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
05 Apr 2007 07:52:01 AM |
|
|
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175734906.141533.299650@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 5:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1175720788.468250.126930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous,
SecOfState or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is
good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the
Logan Act. The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid
comment I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
Apparantly you're too stupid to look beyond CNN's limited reporting,
my old rodent:
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
2
82 &Itemid=66
You are quoting a site of the Syrian Chalabi. That people have no
credibility. They are not a political party, but a group of Syrian
exiles financed, and supported by the same people who brought Chalabi
to the front pages.
It figures that you'd try to discredit Syrian reformists, you *liberal*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 04:22:52 PM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2007 14:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Viejo Vizcacha"
<nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> in
<1175720788.468250.126930@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan Act.
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid comment
I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
You don't understand: since Pelosi violated the Logan Act (something 3
people have been charged with in 200 years and no one convicted) that
makes her a dhimmi. I had no idea about the close connection between
U.S. law and Sharia, but Fred has better (well, different) thinking.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Viejo Vizcacha" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 05:40:55 PM |
|
|
On Apr 4, 5:22 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 14:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Viejo Vizcacha"
<nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> in
<1175720788.468250.126...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous, SecOfState
or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the Logan Act.
The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid comment
I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
You don't understand: since Pelosi violated the Logan Act (something 3
people have been charged with in 200 years and no one convicted) that
makes her a dhimmi. I had no idea about the close connection between
U.S. law and Sharia, but Fred has better (well, different) thinking.
--
Fred is wrong about all this, but most of us are wrong at one time or
another. That is not the worst part. The worst thing is the dishonesty
of Fred, when he criticizes Pelosi for doing the same thing that he
finds OK when Laura Bush does it.
VV
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Failure is not an option. |
04 Apr 2007 05:23:07 PM |
|
|
"Viejo Vizcacha" <nats_uglyman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1175726455.300003.17310@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 5:22 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 14:06:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Viejo Vizcacha"
<nats_ugly...@yahoo.com> in
<1175720788.468250.126...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:20 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote innews:k9q713pqaigceipjg0jq2hl00bhfacv13h@4ax.com:
Democrats wearing head scarves in a mosque is treasonous,
SecOfState or First Lady wearing a head scarf in a mosque is
good manners.
Democrats having their own foreign policy is a violation of the
Logan Act. The headscarf is just an example of Nancy's dhimmitude.
I want to believe that you are joking. This is the most stupid
comment I can read about this. What about Laura's dhimmitude then?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/22/laura.bush/index.html
Apparently you have no idea of proper behaviour in temples. I am a
proud atheist, yet I know how to show respect to people's feelings.
You don't understand: since Pelosi violated the Logan Act (something
3 people have been charged with in 200 years and no one convicted)
that makes her a dhimmi. I had no idea about the close connection
between U.S. law and Sharia, but Fred has better (well, different)
thinking.
--
Fred is wrong about all this, but most of us are wrong at one time or
another. That is not the worst part. The worst thing is the dishonesty
of Fred, when he criticizes Pelosi for doing the same thing that he
finds OK when Laura Bush does it.
Oh, but I'm not. Laura Bush didn't prance around Jerusalem in her hijab
showing off her dhimmitude to the world.
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282
&Itemid=66
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of
Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim
world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that
men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity
because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any
expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The
ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political
rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a
confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a
symbol of their suppression.
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US
officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab
inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to
wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the
self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and
one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn
to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not
only to oppression but also to lack of women's rights in the Middle
East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and
those who aspire for women's freedom in the Muslim countries many years
back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle
East is showing.
Assad could not have been happier because Syrian women, seeing a US
official confirming what their husbands, the Imams in the Mosques tell
them, and the society at large imposes on them through peer pressure
will see in her wearing a Hijab as a confirmation of the societal
pressures they are constantly under. No one will ever know how many
women took the Hijab on after seeing Pelosi wearing it. The damage
Speaker Pelosi is causing with her visit to Syria will be felt for many
years to come.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
