Iraq vs. Vietnam



 Religions > Atheism > Iraq vs. Vietnam

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Fear gan dia"
Date: 27 Oct 2004 04:18:36 PM
Object: Iraq vs. Vietnam
Spotted on Atrios:
Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
VISUALIZE PRESIDENT KERRY
.

User: "paul"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 29 Oct 2004 01:01:19 PM

VISUALIZE PRESIDENT KERRY

oooh, I did, and was sick to my stomach from it.
paul
arizona
"Fear gan dia" <lbnbrxrbxqrn@xdxbnhhtlqbx.com> wrote in message
news:418010ac.001@xdxbnhhtlqbx.com...

Spotted on Atrios:

Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?

A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
VISUALIZE PRESIDENT KERRY

.
User: "Doorman"

Title: The vile spewers of mindless blather thread 29 Oct 2004 07:09:39 PM
If you are a fellow American patriot and lover of the First Amendment, then
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence.
Especially if you remember the old days of thoughtful discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are many alternatives. For example, there are many more
"refined" forums on the Web where polite discussions can be found. Even
better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical world. For
example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like Fahrenheit 9/11.
Lots of good books still being published. (Michael Moore has two new ones.)
You could write a letter for your local paper--you'll reach more "normal"
people and probably have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the
political campaigns--I confess I've already made eight donations. Just
remember that big money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money
than anyone, and that if money alone decides elections then the American
republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved ***** Cheney: "Go f*ck yourself.
When selecting "featured" posts for this mindless blather thread, the
following factors are considered:
1. Ad hominem evasion of real issues.
2. Stone-headed fanaticism.
3. Generalized hate speech, such as racism.
4. Spinning diversion or trivialization of issues.
5. Blatant lies or hypocrisy.
6. Overt trolling, such as extensive cross-posting.
7. Incomprehensible writing.
8. Vicious negative emotionalism, especially amusing personal attacks.
Sorry to get a bit lengthy, but the election is upon us, and it's harder to
shorten it up than to just let this message grow for the last few days. So
here are a few production "rules" for the mindless blather thread "game".
(But being an optimist, I'm quite looking forward to the game-ending
election and hoping the trolls will quickly crawl back under their rocks.)
Notes:
For the purposes of this thread, the freshest original parts are usually
sufficient, but use the last entry on the References: header line if you
want to see the full context.
In response to a polite query (obviously not from a troll), there are
several reasons to remove links:
1. Nasty trolls linking to Trojan installers, etc.
2. Greedy trolls dreaming of clickthrough revenue.
3. Stupid trolls with stupid Web pages.
4. Rude trolls with secret links to any of the above.
paul <nospam.riever@cox.net> wrote:
<old stuff snip>

oooh, I did, and was sick to my stomach from it.

paul
arizona

<snip>
--
Dubya is so bad at security that they decided to block their OWN
campaign Web site from international access. Security by obscurity
doesn't work, so Dubya is trying stupidity?
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Forms of government:
Democracy: People enthusiastically ruling themselves.
Oligarchy: Rich and powerful extending themselves.
Theocracy: Fanatics like the Iranian model?
Hate-ocracy: How else to describe Rushbaugh's dittoheads?
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.


User: "HappyHippo"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 27 Oct 2004 08:20:05 PM
Fear gan dia wrote:

Spotted on Atrios:

Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?

A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

http://www.8ung.at/k8t4ever/Spiegel17_2004.jpg
Greetings from 'Old Europe'
.
User: "mclark"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 28 Oct 2004 11:25:25 PM
HappyHippo <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Fear gan dia wrote:

Spotted on Atrios:

Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?

A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

http://www.8ung.at/k8t4ever/Spiegel17_2004.jpg

Greetings from 'Old Europe'

Try:
http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
John Kerry's initial reaction to 9/11:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/6/92357.shtml
M. Clark
.
User: "Doorman"

Title: The vile spewers of mindless meta-blather thread 29 Oct 2004 09:12:41 AM
Remember: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
For the sake of diversion, a brief summary derived from my observations of
the trolls, mostly in alt.fan.michael-moore. Dubya's turkey with four right
wings?
I divide the trolls into the haters (subdivided into Busheviks, Rusheviks,
and other fringes), reconstructionists (religious fanatics), pure sophists,
and the oligarchs of BushCo.
The haters are the most visible troll faction and the craziest. For example,
the obvious #1 generic Bushevik troll has nothing but noise. Lots of
handles, random subject changes, extreme cross-posting, no attempt to
discuss anything. Just lots of noise to jam any signal. The Rushevik trolls
are the dittohead fans of ol' Rushbaugh. Most of the hater factions are
smaller, and their loyalties are dispersed, though most of them are clearly
in the Bushevik camp. The main exception is the Howard Stern vulgarians.
Some of the religious fanatic trolls are also haters, but some are just
reconstructionists. They basically want to reconstruct America more along
the lines of Iran, except without the "progressive" Muslem stuff. The
amazing self-contradiction is their claim that America needs more religion,
when it's already the most religious developed nation. Though there are
plenty of devoutly religious people who oppose Dubya, I've never noticed one
who was aggressive enough about it to qualify as a troll.
Another group of trolls has to be regarded as pure sophists. Intellectual
dishonesty as a way of life? Apparently they just want to argue, so they
deliberately seek people with strong opinions with whom they can have big
"fights". Most of them appear to be crazy legends in their own minds, but a
few rise to a level of tediousness sufficient to make you wonder if they are
failed lawyers, or perhaps even practicing jailhouse lawyers writing from
prison. As of this writing, there are perhaps two to five of them active in
alt.fan.michael-moore. They tend to come and go, but the most
self-contradictory and amusing one only arrived a few days ago--starting out
his active participation with a post explaining why he would just
immediately go away. Yes, trolls in this category are probably the champion
liars and hypocrites (though not as rude as the haters), but they can be
entertaining to tease.
Most conspicuous by their absence are the only rational supporters of
Dubya--the super-rich oligarchs of BushCo who actually make money from
Bush/Cheney's oligarchic class-war policies. If any of them are present,
they certainly conceal themselves well. Certainly not to imply that all rich
people are Busheviks, but I think the Busheviks among them tend to be the
greedy, short-sighted, and foolish ones.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled blather:
mclark <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote:
<old stuff snip>

Try:

<tripe link snip>

John Kerry's initial reaction to 9/11:

<snip>

M. Clark

--
Dubya is so bad at security that they decided to block their OWN
campaign Web site from international access. Security by obscurity
doesn't work, so Dubya is trying stupidity?
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Forms of government:
Democracy: People enthusiastically ruling themselves.
Oligarchy: Rich and powerful extending themselves.
Theocracy: Fanatics like the Iranian model?
Hate-ocracy: How else to describe Rushbaugh's dittoheads?
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.
User: "mclark"

Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless meta-blather thread 30 Oct 2004 12:12:13 AM
original newsgroup list restored
Doorman <speakers.corner@hyde.park.uk> wrote:

Remember: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!

For the sake of diversion, a brief summary derived from my observations of
the trolls, mostly in alt.fan.michael-moore. Dubya's turkey with four right
wings?

I divide the trolls into the haters (subdivided into Busheviks, Rusheviks,
and other fringes), reconstructionists (religious fanatics), pure sophists,
and the oligarchs of BushCo.

The haters are the most visible troll faction and the craziest. For example,
the obvious #1 generic Bushevik troll has nothing but noise. Lots of
handles, random subject changes, extreme cross-posting, no attempt to
discuss anything. Just lots of noise to jam any signal. The Rushevik trolls
are the dittohead fans of ol' Rushbaugh. Most of the hater factions are
smaller, and their loyalties are dispersed, though most of them are clearly
in the Bushevik camp. The main exception is the Howard Stern vulgarians.

Some of the religious fanatic trolls are also haters, but some are just
reconstructionists. They basically want to reconstruct America more along
the lines of Iran, except without the "progressive" Muslem stuff. The
amazing self-contradiction is their claim that America needs more religion,
when it's already the most religious developed nation. Though there are
plenty of devoutly religious people who oppose Dubya, I've never noticed one
who was aggressive enough about it to qualify as a troll.

Another group of trolls has to be regarded as pure sophists. Intellectual
dishonesty as a way of life? Apparently they just want to argue, so they
deliberately seek people with strong opinions with whom they can have big
"fights". Most of them appear to be crazy legends in their own minds, but a
few rise to a level of tediousness sufficient to make you wonder if they are
failed lawyers, or perhaps even practicing jailhouse lawyers writing from
prison. As of this writing, there are perhaps two to five of them active in
alt.fan.michael-moore. They tend to come and go, but the most
self-contradictory and amusing one only arrived a few days ago--starting out
his active participation with a post explaining why he would just
immediately go away. Yes, trolls in this category are probably the champion
liars and hypocrites (though not as rude as the haters), but they can be
entertaining to tease.

Most conspicuous by their absence are the only rational supporters of
Dubya--the super-rich oligarchs of BushCo who actually make money from
Bush/Cheney's oligarchic class-war policies. If any of them are present,
they certainly conceal themselves well. Certainly not to imply that all rich
people are Busheviks, but I think the Busheviks among them tend to be the
greedy, short-sighted, and foolish ones.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blather:

mclark <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote:
<old stuff snip>

Try:

<tripe link snip>

Note that John Kerry does most of the talking in the link you snipped.
M. Clark

John Kerry's initial reaction to 9/11:

<snip>

M. Clark

.




User: "Michael"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 28 Oct 2004 06:08:29 AM
Fear gan dia wrote:

Spotted on Atrios:

Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?

The body count. Look at the charts here:
http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/

A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.

Bush has a plan for getting the oil out of Iraq, not the troops.

--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
VISUALIZE PRESIDENT KERRY

.

User: "Fraudbasher"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 27 Oct 2004 11:32:08 PM
To Interested Parties:
There is nothing more important than supporting troops at war. We understand
that because we have commanded Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen. We
know that President Bush understands this obligation to the men and women of
our armed forces. He increased pay and military funding prior to September
11th and has given our troops the support they need in the War on Terror.
In contrast, Senator Kerry has a record of votes against military spending.
In his first Senate race at the height of the Cold War, Senator Kerry
advocated a comprehensive reduction in our armed forces, and his record
since has reflected that priority.
Senator Kerry has repeatedly voted against military spending and support for
troops, but no vote was as egregious as his vote against the troops
currently fighting in the War on Terror. In October of 2003, after voting to
send troops to war, Senator Kerry was given a chance to vote to support our
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with supplies like body armor and ammunition.
He voted no.
Just weeks earlier, Senator Kerry said that a no vote on the funding would
be "irresponsible" and would amount to a vote to "abandon our troops." And
yet, that is exactly what Senator Kerry did.
We now know from Senator Biden and from Senator Kerry's own staff that this
vote against the troops was cast out of political expediency as a way to
stall the momentum of Governor Dean. Senator Kerry voted against troops in
combat for his own political benefit.
A candidate who sends troops into harm's way and then denies them the
supplies they need to do the job cannot lead our nation in the War on
Terror.
Sincerely,
Rear Adm. John Adams
Rear Adm. Donald S. Albright, Jr.
Lt. Gen. Teddy Allen
Brig. Gen. Dwayne Alons
Lt. Gen. Charles Bagnal
Brig. Gen. John Bahnsen
Rear Adm. Stephen Baker
Maj. Gen. John Barry
Rear Adm. Timothy Beard
Rear Adm. Frances Buckley
Brig. Gen. Richard Bundy
Brig. Gen. Carl Butterworth
Rear Adm. Joseph Callo, Jr.
Vice Adm. Kent Carroll
Brig. Gen. Robert Chadwick
Vice Adm. Edward Clexton, Jr.
Lt. Gen. ! John Conaway
Maj. Gen. Boyd Cook
Lt. Gen. Charles Cooper
Rear Adm. Frank Corley
Rear Adm. Michael Coyle
Maj. Gen. John D'Araujo, Jr.
Gen. John Davis
Vice Adm. George Davis VI
Gen. John Deane, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Gene Deegan
Rear Adm. Jeremiah Denton, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Neil Eddins
Rear Adm. Ernest Elliot
Rear Adm. Paul Engel
Maj. Gen. Merrill Evans
Rear Adm. Edward Feightner
Rear Adm. Kenneth Fisher
Maj. Gen. John France
Maj. Gen. Joseph Franklin
Rear Adm. J. Cameron Fraser, Jr.
Rear Adm. Ala n Gemmill
Lt Gen William Ginn, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Harold Glasgow
Maj. Gen. Richard Goddard
Rear Adm. Fred Golove
Rear Adm. William Gureck
Rear Adm. Wallace Guthrie
Rear Adm. Frank Haak
Lt. Gen. Robert Hails
Maj. Gen. Jack Hancock
Vice Adm. Patrick Hannifin
Rear Adm. Whitney Hansen
Vice Adm. Peter Hekman, Jr.
Rear Adm. Grant Hollett, Jr.
Rear Adm. Bobby Hollingsworth
Lt. Gen. John Hudson
Brig. Gen. Oscar Hurt
Lt. Gen. James Johnson, Jr.
Gen. P.X. Kelley
Adm. Robert Kelly
Adm. George Kinnear
Rear Adm. J. Koenig
Brig. Gen. Peter Lash
Rear Adm. Paul Lautermilch
Maj. Gen. James Livingston
Rear Adm. Walter Locke
Rear Adm. Noah Long Jr.
! Rear Adm. Joseph Loughran
Rear Adm. Thomas Lynch
Maj. Gen. William Lyon
Adm. James Lyons
Maj. Gen. Clark Martin
Rear Adm. Fredrick Metz
Brig. Gen. Thomas Mikolajcik
Rear Adm. John Moriarty
Rear Adm. Thomas Morris
Maj. Gen. Jam! es Mukoyama
< /FONT>Lt. Gen. Carol Mutter
Brig. Gen. Michael Neil
Maj. Gen. Stanley Newman
Vice Adm. John Nicholson
Lt. Gen. John Norton
Brig. Gen. Thomas O'Brien Jr.
Rear Adm. Robert Owens
Lt. Gen. Dave Palmer
Vice Adm. John Parker, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Jeremiah Pearson III
Vice Adm. Douglas Plate
Rear Adm. Don Primeau
Brig. Gen. John Quinn
Rear Adm. Conrad Rorie
Lt. Gen. Donald Rosenblum
Vice Adm. Robert Schoultz
Rear Adm. Luther Schriefer Jr.
Brig. Gen. Dennis SchulstadRear Adm. Jud Scott
Rear Adm. Kenneth Sears
Rear Adm. Joel Sipes
Rear Adm. Robert Smith III
Adm. Leighton Smith Jr.
Maj. Gen. Frank Smoker Jr.
Brig. Gen. William Spruance
Gen. Carl Stiner
Vice Adm. Edward Straw
Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner, Jr.
Maj. Gen. Larry Taylor
Lt. Gen. David Teal
Rear Adm. William Thompson
Vice Adm. Howard Thorsen
Vice Adm. Nils Thunman
Brig. Gen. William Tiernan
Rear Adm. Ernest Tissot
Rear Adm. Paul Tomb
Brig. Gen. Guy Townsend
Vice Adm. Jerry Tuttle
Maj. Gen. Glen Van *****
Brig. Gen. Guy VanderLinden
Rear Adm. Lloyd Vasey
Maj. Gen. Russell Violett
Rear Adm. Edward Walker, Jr.
Rear Adm. Lemuel Warfield
Maj. Gen. ! Gary Wattnem
Rear Adm. Harvey Weatherson
Maj. Gen. William Webb
Adm. Steven White
.
User: "John Popelish"

Title: Re: Iraq vs. Vietnam 28 Oct 2004 10:39:45 AM
Fraudbasher wrote:


To Interested Parties:

There is nothing more important than supporting troops at war.

(snip)
I disagree. There is at least one thing more important.
You must never send troops on a fools errand.
--
John Popelish
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER