Religions > Atheism > Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yangs Place Here" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2004 12:41:28 AM |
| Object: |
Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's
*****!!!
Bush won the first count, Bush won the automatic recount, Bush won the
third count, the US SC puts an end to the fourth selective recount
ordered by the all left-wing liberal FL SC in four heavily democrat
counties ONLY, all the while the Gwhore team was trying to get
military absentee ballots THROWN OUT because Liberals HATE the
Military. Oh, but Bush stole the election!
Election Stats:
Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2,434
Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million
Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000
States won by Gore: 20
States won by Bush: 30
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1
Liberals constantly make asses of themselves!
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, selfish, intolerant,
bigoted and racist.
.
|
|
| User: "Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
08 Jul 2004 06:04:23 PM |
|
|
PLONK!!
"NO.23: Stirfried Clayton In Black Bean Sauce"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonyemail.com> wrote in message
news:40df752c$0$18671$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:25:06 GMT, A. Dulcimer
<ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:17:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net>, braving the raging
storm, scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004
07:51:34 GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
PLONK!!
Typical neo-con response to facts.
Come November , we're going to do a little PLONKING at the ballot box
then these conservative lunatics will fade back into the wood work.
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Bush beat Gore
Bush will beat Kerry
Well considering that the guy who is designing the electronic voting is a
fundamentalist Christian fanatic who has said Bush will win, no matter
what
he has to do to achieve it, then there is a chance of that happening.
However if there is a real democratic election, unlike the last one, then
Bush would be lucky to get enough votes to put him in charge of going and
picking up the pizzas!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 01:34:58 PM |
|
|
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Want to bet real money?
--
-Mr. N
***********************************
"For more than 50 years, presidents have engaged in foreign adventurism at
the cost of American lives without regard for the Constitution. But for the
first time we have a president who not only refuses to acknowledge the
Constitution, but also the War Powers Resolution which -- in my opinion --
improperly transferred constitutionally non-delegable powers from the
legislative to executive branch."
- Republican Representative Ron Paul, 1999
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diamante No Áspero 11D" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 11:27:20 AM |
|
|
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:25:06 GMT, A. Dulcimer
<ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:17:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net>, braving the raging
storm, scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004
07:51:34 GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
PLONK!!
Typical neo-con response to facts.
Come November , we're going to do a little PLONKING at the ballot box
then these conservative lunatics will fade back into the wood work.
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Bush beat Gore
Bush will beat Kerry
Let's hope the raving maniac baboon trips over a skateboard between now and
then and perhaps has a stroke while going down on Cheney's Mighty
Fists-O-Fury...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 12:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:25:06 GMT, A. Dulcimer
<ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:17:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net>, braving the raging
storm, scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004
07:51:34 GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
PLONK!!
Typical neo-con response to facts.
Come November , we're going to do a little PLONKING at the ballot box
then these conservative lunatics will fade back into the wood work.
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Bush beat Gore
Bush will beat Kerry
Let's hope the raving maniac baboon trips over a skateboard between now and
then and perhaps has a stroke while going down on Cheney's Mighty
Fists-O-Fury...
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 07:46:07 PM |
|
|
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael More
Truth Teller
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
28 Jun 2004 12:44:25 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:46:07 GMT, "gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael More
Truth Teller
This always seems to lack a cite, date and place.
_______
Vote Bush/Voldemort 2004!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
28 Jun 2004 02:23:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:44:25 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:46:07 GMT, "gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael More
Truth Teller
This always seems to lack a cite, date and place.
Would it really make any difference to you if it's a real quote from
him?
It's on his web site.
Do some searching.
_____
Vote Bush/Voldemort 2004!
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
28 Jun 2004 02:29:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:23:30 -0400, Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 05:44:25 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:46:07 GMT, "gammajoe8" <gammajoe@yafoo.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael More
Truth Teller
This always seems to lack a cite, date and place.
Would it really make any difference to you if it's a real quote from
him?
The real question is do you care if its a lie?
It's on his web site.
Do some searching.
_______
Vote Bush/Voldemort 2004!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bugman" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:25:06 GMT, A. Dulcimer
<ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:17:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net>, braving the raging
storm, scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004
07:51:34 GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
PLONK!!
Typical neo-con response to facts.
Come November , we're going to do a little PLONKING at the ballot box
then these conservative lunatics will fade back into the wood work.
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Bush beat Gore
Bush will beat Kerry
Let's hope the raving maniac baboon trips over a skateboard between now
and
then and perhaps has a stroke while going down on Cheney's Mighty
Fists-O-Fury...
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
Lots of people do. So what? Are you going to report him to the FBI?
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 06:51:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:51:46 -0500, "Bugman" <jmposing@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Julian D." <jules@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:vpvtd0dqisjdm3d0f6tu2a8p2104kud4kt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:27:20 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"Scott in Florida" <NotInThisLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:98std0hhudeb38tmfpa438a53sckbgofkr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:25:06 GMT, A. Dulcimer
<ADulcimer@network23.net> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 14:17:59 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net>, braving the raging
storm, scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004
07:51:34 GMT and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
PLONK!!
Typical neo-con response to facts.
Come November , we're going to do a little PLONKING at the ballot box
then these conservative lunatics will fade back into the wood work.
The exact opposite will happen in November...
Bush beat Gore
Bush will beat Kerry
Let's hope the raving maniac baboon trips over a skateboard between now
and
then and perhaps has a stroke while going down on Cheney's Mighty
Fists-O-Fury...
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
Lots of people do. So what? Are you going to report him to the FBI?
No.
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 03:36:19 PM |
|
|
Great Lord Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:09:34
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
Oh, I do. I hope he trips on his lies and hurts himself.
Feel free to whine to the Secret Service about the mean old liberal
who doesn't like Bush. BTW: I used to be a sniper too! Scary stuff,
huh?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 06:51:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:36:19 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:09:34
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
Oh, I do. I hope he trips on his lies and hurts himself.
Feel free to whine to the Secret Service about the mean old liberal
who doesn't like Bush. BTW: I used to be a sniper too! Scary stuff,
huh?
That's not for me to decide.
JD
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation
are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They
are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will
grow and they will win."
Michael Moore
America-Hater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
27 Jun 2004 09:54:51 PM |
|
|
Great Lord Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:51:31
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:36:19 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:09:34
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
Sounds like you wish the President harm.
Oh, I do. I hope he trips on his lies and hurts himself.
Feel free to whine to the Secret Service about the mean old liberal
who doesn't like Bush. BTW: I used to be a sniper too! Scary stuff,
huh?
That's not for me to decide.
So go whine to the Secret Service.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diamante No Áspero 11D" |
|
| Title: Send these murderers to prison |
27 Jun 2004 12:18:46 PM |
|
|
Send these murderers to prison for war crimes committed by Bush, Cheney,
Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, and the rest of "It's Not About Oil
Corp.'.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Rising death toll undermines the White House's rosy picture of Afghanistan
By Peter Symonds
31 January 2004
A series of incidents in Afghanistan over the past week has highlighted the
continuing resistance to the US-led occupation of the country and the
mounting number of casualties. Far from being the "success story" that the
Bush administration would like to claim, the country remains wracked by
ongoing civil war, immense social problems and a lack of basic democratic
rights.
Two soldiers from the 5,500-strong International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) were killed in Kabul in separate attacks this week. On Tuesday, a
Canadian soldier, Corporal Jamie Murphy, died and three others were injured
when a suicide bomber jumped in front of their vehicle. The following day a
British soldier, Private Jonathan Kitulagoda, was killed and four others
wounded, two seriously, when a suicide bomber in a taxi drew alongside their
jeep and detonated explosives. About 10 civilians, including a French aid
worker, were also wounded in the attacks.
A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for both blasts and declared that
it was "just the beginning." "More such attacks will take place. Hundreds of
our men are ready to carry out such attacks," he said. Such attacks while
relatively frequent in Iraq have been rare in Afghanistan. One of the few
instances occurred six months ago, when four German ISAF soldiers were
killed near the spot where the British troops died.
On Thursday, seven US soldiers died when an ammunition dump exploded in the
southern town of Ghazni. Another soldier is missing and three more were
wounded. The cause of the explosion remains unclear. According to initial
reports, the troops were trying to move the weapons when the cache
detonated. The US military has instigated an inquiry to determine whether
the dump had been booby-trapped or not.
The death toll for US troops involved in the occupation of Afghanistan,
which reached 100 earlier in the month, is now 107. Only 16 soldiers were
killed in the initial ousting of the Taliban regime in late 2001-10 of those
died in a helicopter crash in the Philippines, which was considered part of
the Pentagon's Operation Enduring Freedom. Separate from the ISAF, the US
military provides 9,000 of the 11,000 troops that are under its command and
operate throughout Afghanistan suppressing opposition.
The casualty rate among Afghan troops supporting the US and among civilians
is far higher. Overall more than 140 people have been killed or injured just
this month. At least 15 people were killed and another 58 injured, many of
them schoolchildren, in a bomb attack near a military base in the southern
city of Kandahar in early January.
In other cases, indiscriminate attacks by the US military have been
responsible. Afghan officials recently alleged that 11 civilians, including
three women and four children, were killed in a raid by a US attack
helicopter on the village of Saghatho in southern Afghanistan on the night
of January 18. Local district chief Abdul Rahman explained that the
villagers had fled fearing arrest following a raid by US ground forces. They
were attacked from the air as they reached a river. "They were simple
villagers. They were not Taliban," he declared angrily. The US military has
dismissed the accusations, saying the men were armed.
Aid agencies have been warning for some time that the deteriorating security
situation is undermining their work in Afghanistan. A number of aid workers
have been killed or injured in attacks by opposition forces. The UN has
decided that over half of the country's provinces are too dangerous for its
workers. Plans to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in June are
also in doubt. US State Department coordinator for Afghanistan William
Taylor hinted this week for the first time that there were difficulties in
meeting the deadline.
UN spokesman Farham Haq, however, was far more emphatic, declaring: "UN
officials don't think a June deadline is realistic." A review published by
the British Agencies Afghanistan Group (BAAG) this week found that just over
half a million voters had been registered since the process began in late
December. In some areas, voter registration was as low as 11 percent. "It is
clear that the UN will have great difficulty meeting its target of total
registration by June 2004," the report concluded.
But as veteran journalist Ahmed Rashid noted in a lengthy article entitled
"The Mess in Afghanistan" in the latest issue of the New York Review of
Books, the Bush administration is cynically pressing ahead with the poll,
along with other measures, in order to bolster its image prior to the
American elections. Reporting a conversation with a senior US official in
Kabul last year, Rashid wrote:
"With no turning point in Iraq in sight, he said, no accomplishment that
might help the President's approval rating in an election year, Bush's
advisers decided that Afghanistan needed to be turned into a success story.
If Osama bin Laden could not be caught, at least there should be an Afghan
presidential election that could be publicised as a major step forward in
the war against terrorism. For that to happen, more money was needed,
reconstruction had to be accelerated, and the creation of new Afghan
security forces speeded up."
Last year the White House sought and obtained an additional $1.2 billion in
aid for Afghanistan-more than doubling the figure it had pledged earlier.
President Bush is expected shortly to ask for an extra $1 billion in his
2005 budget request. After confining the ISAF largely to Kabul for more than
two years, Washington is now pressing its European allies to commit more
troops to Afghanistan and to expand their activities.
It is no accident that Afghanistan featured prominently in Bush's recent
State of the Union speech. After boasting about the upcoming elections, the
flourishing business activity and improving health care and education, he
declared: "With the help from the new Afghan army, our coalition is leading
aggressive raids against the surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free and
proud and fighting terror-and America is honoured to be their friend."
It is also no coincidence that, as well as insisting that the Afghan poll
proceed on time, Washington is also preparing a new military offensive aimed
at capturing Osama bin Laden. According to the Chicago Tribune this week,
the Pentagon has issued orders to prepare equipment and supplies for "a
spring offensive". Citing a senior defence official, Associated Press
reported that Pentagon officials had determined a couple of months ago that
it was important to capture bin Laden, "more for the symbolism than for his
military value."
All stops, it appears, are being pulled out in Afghanistan to reelect Bush.
The reality, however, is far different and underscores the fact that Bush's
fatuous statements have nothing to do with the well-being of the Afghan
people.
The "new Afghan army" is more show than substance. According to the BAAG
review cited above, the Afghan Defence Ministry recently announced that
about 3,000 soldiers from the Afghan National Army (ANA) being trained by US
and European instructors have deserted after completing training. Armed
Afghan militia who have been fighting alongside US forces have suffered far
higher casualty rates-around 10 percent have been killed-compared to
coalition troops. The ANA soldiers clearly fear they will be used as
expendable cannon fodder as well as being targetted by the armed
anti-government forces.
Outside Kabul, most of the country is under the control of a patchwork of
rival warlords, tribal chiefs and militia commanders who coexist with US
military forces and with the US-backed puppet regime headed by President
Hamid Karzai. Many are notorious for the brutal and anti-democratic methods
used to rule their fiefdoms. Attempts by the US military to strengthen Kabul's
writ by sending small Provincial Reconstruction Teams of between 60 and 100
personnel to key regional centres have quickly proven inadequate.
Much of the foreign aid that was pledged to Afghanistan has been slow in
coming. American academic Barnett Rubin estimated that only $110 million
worth of reconstruction projects had been completed in the country as of
November 2003, out of a total UN aid disbursement of $2.9 billion from
December 2001. Governor Pashtun of Kandahar told journalist Ahmed Rashid:
"We are trapped in a vicious cycle. If there is no money for reconstruction
there can be no peace, and without peace and a stable law-and-order
situation, there can be no reconstruction."
Washington's disinterest in the country's deep-seating social problems,
along with the impact of US military operations, is continuing to fuel
opposition. At present, this finds its most obvious expression in support
for right-wing Islamist forces and ongoing armed attacks on the US military
and its allies. For all of the Bush administration's efforts to paint a rosy
picture in Afghanistan, nothing can hide the fact that the US is engaged in
the neo-colonial occupation of the country in pursuit of its own strategic
and economic aims.
See Also:
US forces kill 11 more civilians in Afghanistan
[20 January 2004]
US-imposed "democracy" in Afghanistan
Loya jirga rubber-stamps autocratic regime
[8 January 2004]
.
|
|
|
| User: "OrionCA" |
|
| Title: Re: Send these murderers to prison |
27 Jun 2004 03:45:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:18:46 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
<snip lunatic rant>
Waddaminit- it was such a lunatic rant there's not thing to respond
to.
--
"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic
almost be to promote those terms to the level
of respectability. To describe this film as a piece
of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that
would never again rise above the excremental. To
describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing
would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister
exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an
exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of
abject political cowardice masking itself as a
demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
- Christopher Hitchens on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Diamante No Áspero 11D" |
|
| Title: Re: Send these murderers to prison |
27 Jun 2004 04:05:13 PM |
|
|
"OrionCA" <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1ecud011eis8rh83putafjf13j2pbqso3q@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:18:46 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
<snip lunatic rant>
Waddaminit- it was such a lunatic rant there's not thing to respond
to.
--
There's no response to murderers beyond sticking them in prison forever.
I suppose a week in an Iron Maiden would be effective at stopping them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OrionCA" |
|
| Title: Re: Send these murderers to prison |
27 Jun 2004 05:30:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:05:13 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
"OrionCA" <orionca@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1ecud011eis8rh83putafjf13j2pbqso3q@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:18:46 GMT, "Diamante No Áspero 11D"
<MaïsDeFente@De.Jimmy> wrote:
<snip lunatic rant>
Waddaminit- it was such a lunatic rant there's not thing to respond
to.
--
There's no response to murderers beyond sticking them in prison forever.
I suppose a week in an Iron Maiden would be effective at stopping them.
Oh, yeah; you're 2 fries short of a Happy Meal..
<plonk>
--
"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic
almost be to promote those terms to the level
of respectability. To describe this film as a piece
of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that
would never again rise above the excremental. To
describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing
would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister
exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an
exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of
abject political cowardice masking itself as a
demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
- Christopher Hitchens on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
05 Jun 2004 11:51:06 AM |
|
|
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:57:25 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:upo2c09l6jtn4ljna020a1un6ci2cdigsf@4ax.com...
I don't think you understand the word literally.
Anyway, the man is getting passionate about defeating Bush. Four
years ago, all I heard from the right was jokes about how stiff he
was. Now, you whine about how he's using that old-time fire to get
Democrats motivated.
Face it. Bush won by a thread last time, and all it takes is 30,000
switch votes in two states and he is out on his *****.
You uber-Libs are a hoot! I'm not whining about Algore, I'm celebrating the
fact that we don't have the whack-job in office. Be serious, could you
honestly think for 1 second that we would have been better of with psycho on
9/11?
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
As for your electoral math, keep on dreaming the impossible dream. Your
optimism is based upon faulty assumptions such as Jean getting all the votes
that the maniacal one got in '00. You just don't understand, Bush is a
*popular* President. In your mind we shouldn't have gone to war, but you
fail to realize that 2/3 of Americans disagree with you. In your mind the
economy is terrible, but you fail to realize that we've been growing at a
robust clip. So keep on dreaming while you can. Your wake up call is
scheduled for 4 months form now.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
05 Jun 2004 01:28:05 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:57:25 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:upo2c09l6jtn4ljna020a1un6ci2cdigsf@4ax.com...
I don't think you understand the word literally.
Anyway, the man is getting passionate about defeating Bush. Four
years ago, all I heard from the right was jokes about how stiff he
was. Now, you whine about how he's using that old-time fire to get
Democrats motivated.
Face it. Bush won by a thread last time, and all it takes is 30,000
switch votes in two states and he is out on his *****.
You uber-Libs are a hoot! I'm not whining about Algore, I'm celebrating
the
fact that we don't have the whack-job in office. Be serious, could you
honestly think for 1 second that we would have been better of with psycho
on
9/11?
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
As for your electoral math, keep on dreaming the impossible dream. Your
optimism is based upon faulty assumptions such as Jean getting all the
votes
that the maniacal one got in '00. You just don't understand, Bush is a
*popular* President. In your mind we shouldn't have gone to war, but you
fail to realize that 2/3 of Americans disagree with you. In your mind
the
economy is terrible, but you fail to realize that we've been growing at a
robust clip. So keep on dreaming while you can. Your wake up call is
scheduled for 4 months form now.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is a t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib. Witht he economy do well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly. Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick A Payne" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
05 Jun 2004 05:28:58 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Vgowc.17234$2o2.928315@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:57:25 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:upo2c09l6jtn4ljna020a1un6ci2cdigsf@4ax.com...
I don't think you understand the word literally.
Anyway, the man is getting passionate about defeating Bush. Four
years ago, all I heard from the right was jokes about how stiff he
was. Now, you whine about how he's using that old-time fire to get
Democrats motivated.
Face it. Bush won by a thread last time, and all it takes is 30,000
switch votes in two states and he is out on his *****.
You uber-Libs are a hoot! I'm not whining about Algore, I'm
celebrating
the
fact that we don't have the whack-job in office. Be serious, could you
honestly think for 1 second that we would have been better of with
psycho
on
9/11?
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
As for your electoral math, keep on dreaming the impossible dream.
Your
optimism is based upon faulty assumptions such as Jean getting all the
votes
that the maniacal one got in '00. You just don't understand, Bush is a
*popular* President. In your mind we shouldn't have gone to war, but
you
fail to realize that 2/3 of Americans disagree with you. In your mind
the
economy is terrible, but you fail to realize that we've been growing at
a
robust clip. So keep on dreaming while you can. Your wake up call is
scheduled for 4 months form now.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is a
t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib.
Trivialities? You don't see Abu Ghraib as symptomatic of an ill-concieved,
poorly planned, insufficiently thought-out plan for post war Iraq. People
in the adminstration literally [proper usage of the word I might add]
thought they would be greeted with rose petals and everything would just
fall into place.
And they weren't just pranks. People were sexually abused and beaten. The
media hasn't even shown us the worst of it. It should have been called Abu
Ghraib JAIL. 80% of the people held there had not had a trial yet or were
eventually released. The majority of the people were NOT POWs or
terrorists.
Witht he economy do well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly.
Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
Actually nothing has to change. The country obviously hasn't since Bush
first lost the 2000 election as it is still split 50/50 and he will lose
this one as well. Except this time the Supreme court won't be able to bail
him out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
11 Jun 2004 09:21:06 PM |
|
|
PLONK!
"Patrick A Payne" <pa45trick71@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KOrwc.49900$eY2.3917@attbi_s02...
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Vgowc.17234$2o2.928315@twister.southeast.rr.com...
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:57:25 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:upo2c09l6jtn4ljna020a1un6ci2cdigsf@4ax.com...
I don't think you understand the word literally.
Anyway, the man is getting passionate about defeating Bush. Four
years ago, all I heard from the right was jokes about how stiff he
was. Now, you whine about how he's using that old-time fire to get
Democrats motivated.
Face it. Bush won by a thread last time, and all it takes is 30,000
switch votes in two states and he is out on his *****.
You uber-Libs are a hoot! I'm not whining about Algore, I'm
celebrating
the
fact that we don't have the whack-job in office. Be serious, could
you
honestly think for 1 second that we would have been better of with
psycho
on
9/11?
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're
in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
As for your electoral math, keep on dreaming the impossible dream.
Your
optimism is based upon faulty assumptions such as Jean getting all
the
votes
that the maniacal one got in '00. You just don't understand, Bush is
a
*popular* President. In your mind we shouldn't have gone to war, but
you
fail to realize that 2/3 of Americans disagree with you. In your
mind
the
economy is terrible, but you fail to realize that we've been growing
at
a
robust clip. So keep on dreaming while you can. Your wake up call
is
scheduled for 4 months form now.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will
stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is
a
t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting
hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib.
Trivialities? You don't see Abu Ghraib as symptomatic of an
ill-concieved,
poorly planned, insufficiently thought-out plan for post war Iraq. People
in the adminstration literally [proper usage of the word I might add]
thought they would be greeted with rose petals and everything would just
fall into place.
And they weren't just pranks. People were sexually abused and beaten.
The
media hasn't even shown us the worst of it. It should have been called
Abu
Ghraib JAIL. 80% of the people held there had not had a trial yet or
were
eventually released. The majority of the people were NOT POWs or
terrorists.
Witht he economy do well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly.
Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most
of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a
lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
Actually nothing has to change. The country obviously hasn't since Bush
first lost the 2000 election as it is still split 50/50 and he will lose
this one as well. Except this time the Supreme court won't be able to
bail
him out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
06 Jun 2004 11:57:28 AM |
|
|
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:28:05 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
"John" Kerry. Second graders make fun of people's names like that.
Care to elevate the level of debate around here?
The number of people approving of the Iraq invasion is dropping..
especially since it seems that we've quietly dropped the search for
WMD, the announced reason for the invasion in the first place!
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is a t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib. Witht he economy do well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly. Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
OK, show me the numbers: In what states that voted for Gore in 2000 do
you now see a lead for Bush in 2004? I've gone out and done my
research. You do the same.
As for a stable Iraqi government.. I think that the biggest problem is
keeping one alive at this point! Iraq will continue to be a millstone
until American troops are no longer being killed there. Vietnam took
out Johnson, Iraq will take out Bush. Americans are essentially
isolationist. We like hanging out here behind two oceans.
You also forget the Nader factor. Last time around, he was the Green
Party candidate, and was a big factor. This time, his impact is far
lower as an independant who is seen by many of his own '00 supporters
as "the man who put Bush in the White House." Bush won't get the
Naderite boost he did in 2000.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
06 Jun 2004 06:31:25 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ri6c0lrrotm61oepeuehj1nfuhk76aouf@4ax.com...
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:28:05 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're
in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
"John" Kerry. Second graders make fun of people's names like that.
Care to elevate the level of debate around here?
I call him Jean, of course, because of his slavish devotion to "world
government," to include a compulsion to kiss French *****.
The number of people approving of the Iraq invasion is dropping..
especially since it seems that we've quietly dropped the search for
WMD, the announced reason for the invasion in the first place!
The search has not been dropped. Perhaps you noticed that we ahve confirmed
the presence of Sarin in an IED recently. Perhaps you heard about a bunch
of it showing up in Jordan when that conspiracy was foiled. And yeah, the
Al Qaeda terrorists involved admitted to hatching their plot in saddam's
Iraq.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will
stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is a
t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting
hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib. Witht he economy do
well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly.
Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a
lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
OK, show me the numbers: In what states that voted for Gore in 2000 do
you now see a lead for Bush in 2004? I've gone out and done my
research. You do the same.
As I said, Bush is at his low point, due to the incessant nagging about
silliness like Abu Grhaib. I see him only getting stronger from a position
ahead as it stands:
http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004eca.html
As for a stable Iraqi government.. I think that the biggest problem is
keeping one alive at this point! Iraq will continue to be a millstone
until American troops are no longer being killed there. Vietnam took
out Johnson, Iraq will take out Bush. Americans are essentially
isolationist. We like hanging out here behind two oceans.
Yep, playing the ol' Nam card. Every conflict that one doesn't like is Nam.
Nam, Nam, Nam. It's so much easier raising the specter of past mistakes
than to actually analyze current conditions.
You also forget the Nader factor. Last time around, he was the Green
Party candidate, and was a big factor. This time, his impact is far
lower as an independant who is seen by many of his own '00 supporters
as "the man who put Bush in the White House." Bush won't get the
Naderite boost he did in 2000.
He won't need it. In '00 he was an unknown running agaisnt the Veep. Now
he's the incumbent, and the challenger is going to do more than just
complain about him. Jean has given nobody any reason to vote *for him*.
All he does is carp without presenting an alternative.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
06 Jun 2004 02:28:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:57:28 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Great Lord "Fester" <not@home.com>, braving the raging storm, scaled
the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:28:05 GMT
and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:qhs3c05up9nrm2b6cpjgnns4rpjcf1iff3@4ax.com...
Ultra-lib? Where do you get that? I strongly support the war in
Afghanistan. Iraq I consider a mistake on the level of Hitler invading
Russia. I'm a veteran myself.
That you're a veteran is commendable, but doe not validate your opinion.
Jean Kerry is also a veteran, but his politics are wrong-headed in the
extreme. You may consider the liberation of Iraq a mistake, but you're in
the minority on that opinion. (I'm a peacetime veteran myself)
"John" Kerry. Second graders make fun of people's names like that.
Care to elevate the level of debate around here?
The number of people approving of the Iraq invasion is dropping..
especially since it seems that we've quietly dropped the search for
WMD, the announced reason for the invasion in the first place!
Bush named numerous reasons for the invasion. You must have missed
them. The WMD angle was pushed primarily on the UN as it was their
responsibility to enforce the resolutions concerning the declaration,
destruction, and compliance of Hussein in showing PROOF that they were
all destroyed.
No, based on two states.
In Florida we have:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
A difference of 537 votes. If 538 people change their minds this time
around, or if more Democrats get out to vote and we don't have a
repeat of the election fiascos, Kerry gets Florida's 25 Electoral
College votes. Nader got 97,488. A shift of a mere .5% to the
Democrats gives Florida to the Blue side of the map.
In New Hampshire (4 Electoral votes), we had the following:
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Only 7,211 votes. In 2000, Nader ran strong in NH, getting 22,198
votes. This time around, he is nowhere near as popular. So if
everything stays the same otherwise, all we need is about a third of
the Naderites to change their minds. Since he's not running under the
Green Party banner this time around, that is very doable.
In 2000, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266. If either of these
states had shifted to the blue side, Gore would have won the election.
Bush's popularity is slipping rapidly. His over all rating has slipped
below 50% in the major polls. As for Iraq.. in recent polls, only 41%
approve of his handling of that situation.
As I said, you are assming that the states that were blue in '00 will stay
blue in '04, with the addition of Fl and NH. You're dreaming. Bush is a t
a low point in his Presidency, having been subject to unrelenting hounding
of such trivialities as pranks at the Abu Grhaib. Witht he economy do well,
all of Jean's hopes are pinned on the Iraqis failure to form an effective
government. We are seeing signs that they are progressing rapidly. Without
that, Bush's popularity will return the levels it has been at for most of
his administration. Face the facts, this election has nothing to do with
Jean Kerry. It si strictly Bush v ABB and the news will have to get a lot
worse for the incumbent to lose.
OK, show me the numbers: In what states that voted for Gore in 2000 do
you now see a lead for Bush in 2004? I've gone out and done my
research. You do the same.
As for a stable Iraqi government.. I think that the biggest problem is
keeping one alive at this point! Iraq will continue to be a millstone
until American troops are no longer being killed there. Vietnam took
out Johnson, Iraq will take out Bush. Americans are essentially
isolationist. We like hanging out here behind two oceans.
You also forget the Nader factor. Last time around, he was the Green
Party candidate, and was a big factor. This time, his impact is far
lower as an independant who is seen by many of his own '00 supporters
as "the man who put Bush in the White House." Bush won't get the
Naderite boost he did in 2000.
JD
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological
and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that
on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . "
-Bill Clinton
Larry King Live
July 22, 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore'sass!!! |
06 Jun 2004 06:49:09 PM |
|
|
"Julian D." wrote:
Bush named numerous reasons for the invasion.
Yes, twenty-seven, apparently, being introduced and dropped
as this administration saw what persuaded and didn't. It is our
patriotic duty, I am told, to believe that, _this_ time,
we're being told the _real_ reason.
By the way, WMD seems to be the only rationale offered that
made even a shred of sense as The Reason We Have To Go To War
Right This Instant.
See:
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm
“Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002”
Devon M. Largio
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Political Science
University of Illinois
----
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "Julian D." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
06 Jun 2004 08:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 19:49:09 -0400, Jim Burns <burns.87@osu.edu>
wrote:
"Julian D." wrote:
Bush named numerous reasons for the invasion.
Yes, twenty-seven, apparently, being introduced and dropped
as this administration saw what persuaded and didn't. It is our
patriotic duty, I am told, to believe that, _this_ time,
we're being told the _real_ reason.
By the way, WMD seems to be the only rationale offered that
made even a shred of sense as The Reason We Have To Go To War
Right This Instant.
Hussein's attempt at assassinating Bush Sr. was reason enough.
Hussein's ignoring the cease-fire agreements was good enough.
US troops died kicking Husssein out of Kuwait. To have allowed
Hussein to ignore the cease-fire agreements would be like spitting on
their graves.
It was a cease-fire. The Gulf War never ended.
See:
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm
“Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002”
Devon M. Largio
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Political Science
University of Illinois
----
Jim Burns
JD
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological
and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that
on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . "
-Bill Clinton
Larry King Live
July 22, 2003
"The United Nations should have control over most of our foreign
military operations. I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United
Nations." --
-- John F*ing Kerry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
11 Jun 2004 09:20:31 PM |
|
|
PLONK!
Thanks for playing.
Buck
"Jim Burns" <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:40C3AD75.2922B6E7@osu.edu...
"Julian D." wrote:
Bush named numerous reasons for the invasion.
Yes, twenty-seven, apparently, being introduced and dropped
as this administration saw what persuaded and didn't. It is our
patriotic duty, I am told, to believe that, _this_ time,
we're being told the _real_ reason.
By the way, WMD seems to be the only rationale offered that
made even a shred of sense as The Reason We Have To Go To War
Right This Instant.
See:
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm
"Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002"
Devon M. Largio
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Political Science
University of Illinois
----
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberals still can't get over it that George Bush kicked Al Gore's *****!!! |
06 Jun 2004 06:14:59 PM |
|
|
Great Lord Julian D. <jules@ersatz.com>, braving the raging storm,
scaled the mighty crag called alt.atheism on Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:28:00
-0400 and screamed this to the uncaring Gods.
Bush named numerous reasons for the invasion. You must have missed
them. The WMD angle was pushed primarily on the UN as it was their
responsibility to enforce the resolutions concerning the declaration,
destruction, and compliance of Hussein in showing PROOF that they were
all destroyed.
Really? The State of the Union address, where Bush made his final
case for war, read (in part) as follows:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean
Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A
brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to
terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to
dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed
to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years,
he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his
country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these
weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized
world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave
Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter
contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The
108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a
scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of
California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime
is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its
banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and
destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had
biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax
-- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted
for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials
sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin --
enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he
has destroyed it.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill
untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given
no evidence that he has destroyed them.
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently
turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying
their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining
29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he
has destroyed them.
"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had
several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce
germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade
inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's
given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that
Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program,
had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different
methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has
learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for
nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained
these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is
deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that
thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and
materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and
monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the
inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
"Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United
Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists
inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been
coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources
indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate
with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with
their families.
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent
enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass
destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible
use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or
attack.
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the
Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress
and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from
intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without
fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam
Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and
shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19
hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by
Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate
slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have
ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that
day never comes. (Applause.)
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since
when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted
to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and
restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an
option. (Applause.)
"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has
already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced
confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents
are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued
other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock,
burning with hot irons, dripp | | | | | |
