Religions > Atheism > Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rump Ranger" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 07:32:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
moorehead wrote:
Rump Ranger wrote:
Let's see if I can figure this out. Deserters are "cowards" simply
because they don't believe in the lies of the government but yet
the
same people who would gladly lynch one of them believes George Bush
is
a great President. Yet he was a deserter.
It's amazing. The level of cognitive dissonance among these people
is
beyond belief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6693-2004Sep8_2.html
Records Say Bush Balked at Order
National Guard Commander Suspended Him From Flying, Papers Show
Um, this is a joke, right? You're pulling our legs? You're
attempting
some sort of internet/usenet version of punk'd?
The real joke is Bush supporters in the military voting for a deserter
to take office.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
21 Jan 2005 08:45:36 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2005 23:32:18 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com>
wrote:
moorehead wrote:
Rump Ranger wrote:
Let's see if I can figure this out. Deserters are "cowards" simply
because they don't believe in the lies of the government but yet
the
same people who would gladly lynch one of them believes George Bush
is
a great President. Yet he was a deserter.
It's amazing. The level of cognitive dissonance among these people
is
beyond belief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6693-2004Sep8_2.html
Records Say Bush Balked at Order
National Guard Commander Suspended Him From Flying, Papers Show
Um, this is a joke, right? You're pulling our legs? You're
attempting
some sort of internet/usenet version of punk'd?
The real joke is Bush supporters in the military voting for a deserter
to take office.
***** Johnson's merely a brainless troll.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "moorehead" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
20 Jan 2005 02:07:49 PM |
|
|
Rump Ranger wrote:
moorehead wrote:
Rump Ranger wrote:
Let's see if I can figure this out. Deserters are "cowards"
simply
because they don't believe in the lies of the government but yet
the
same people who would gladly lynch one of them believes George
Bush
is
a great President. Yet he was a deserter.
It's amazing. The level of cognitive dissonance among these
people
is
beyond belief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6693-2004Sep8_2.html
Records Say Bush Balked at Order
National Guard Commander Suspended Him From Flying, Papers Show
Um, this is a joke, right? You're pulling our legs? You're
attempting
some sort of internet/usenet version of punk'd?
The real joke is Bush supporters in the military voting for a
deserter
to take office.
No, seriously - I can't tell for sure by your post whether or not your
are joking, so I'll just ask - were you really NOT aware that the
"documents" cited in that 4 month old article were proven to be
forgeries within a matter of hours after Rather did the hit piece on
the president, nearly taking down CBS news with him? Were you really
NOT aware of the commission that found CBS negligent in running the
story using forged documents? Were you NOT aware that several CBS news
people, to include Mary Mapes the producer of the story, were fired and
that Rather has turned in his resignation papers himself? If you were
not aware, may I ask if you've been living in a cave for the last 4
months?
Oh, and lest I forget - Bush was not a deserter. He served honorably.
Unless you have proof otherwise.....
mj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meh" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support onefor President? |
20 Jan 2005 06:27:03 PM |
|
|
It should be noted that the Bush AWOL story wasn't broken by CBS in
2004. It was broken in 2000 by the Boston Globe during the first Bush
election.
The CBS story provided additional allegations in the form of the Killian
memo, a source which was later questioned, though not disproven. It's
not that the memo was proven to be fake, it's that CBS wasn't able to
prove that it wasn't fake.
The CBS controversy doesn't invalidate the main story -- that Bush
skipped out large periods of service in 1972-73 (gaps in his record,
dodgy payroll records), that he avoided his physical, that nobody who
served on the air force base he was supposedly at remembers ever seeing him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
20 Jan 2005 07:21:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:27:03 GMT, Meh <meh@meh.meh> wrote:
The CBS controversy doesn't invalidate the main story -- that Bush
skipped out large periods of service in 1972-73 (gaps in his record,
dodgy payroll records), that he avoided his physical, that nobody who
served on the air force base he was supposedly at remembers ever seeing him.
Have you ever considered getting a life?
--
I have gone where others feared to go.
I have done what others failed to do.
Count on me.
I am a Soldier.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
23 Jan 2005 08:24:58 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2005 06:07:49 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
No, seriously - I can't tell for sure by your post whether or not your
are joking, so I'll just ask - were you really NOT aware that the
"documents" cited in that 4 month old article were proven to be
forgeries within a matter of hours
There's a difference between "asserted to be" and "proven to be". All
that was proved was that CNS couldn't prove that their allegations
weren't false.
Oh, and lest I forget - Bush was not a deserter.
According to the military definition of the word, he was. He wasn't
at his assigned post for long periods of time - long enough periods
for him to be a deserter.
He served honorably.
Desertion isn't honorable.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "moorehead" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
28 Jan 2005 10:33:16 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 06:07:49 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
No, seriously - I can't tell for sure by your post whether or not
your
are joking, so I'll just ask - were you really NOT aware that the
"documents" cited in that 4 month old article were proven to be
forgeries within a matter of hours
There's a difference between "asserted to be" and "proven to be".
All
that was proved was that CNS couldn't prove that their allegations
weren't false.
Virtually every document expert on the planet, as well as numerous
typography and font experts stated with an amount of certainty that
would have been accepted in a court of law that the documents were
forged. That, and any moron who looked at them could tell they were
forged.
Oh, and lest I forget - Bush was not a deserter.
According to the military definition of the word, he was. He wasn't
at his assigned post for long periods of time - long enough periods
for him to be a deserter.
Wrong again. President Bush wasn't in the active duty military, he was
a reserve, and the attendence requirements are completely different.
He was required to attend a certain minimum number of drills each year,
which he did. His pay records are available on the web - google them
up. He completed all the drills required of him. He wasn't a
deserter. Deserters do no get honorable discharges - Bush got an
honorable discharge.
He served honorably.
Desertion isn't honorable.
He wasn't a deserter. He served honorably.
mj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 05:09:01 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2005 14:33:16 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
According to the military definition of the word, he was. He wasn't
at his assigned post for long periods of time - long enough periods
for him to be a deserter.
Wrong again. President Bush wasn't in the active duty military, he was
a reserve, and the attendence requirements are completely different.
He was required to attend a certain minimum number of drills each year,
which he did. His pay records are available on the web - google them
up.
http://www.awolbush.com/
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
24 Jan 2005 02:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:24:58 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
Oh, and lest I forget - Bush was not a deserter.
According to the military definition of the word, he was. He wasn't
at his assigned post for long periods of time - long enough periods
for him to be a deserter.
Wrong. In fact it is impossible for anybody on reserve status to
desert per the military definition. (I take it you never looked up
the military definition of the term 'deserter' before you posted
this?)
In the future I suggest that you remove the military newsgroups when
you want to display your ignorance of military matters. What you said
may sound good to people who are dumb enough to listen to Chomshy, but
makes you look like an idiot to people who know the subject.
BTW, are you aware that the troops deployed in Iraq simply did not
care what either Bush or Kerry did in the early 70s?
--
I have gone where others feared to go.
I have done what others failed to do.
Count on me.
I am a Soldier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
24 Jan 2005 08:50:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:07:50 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> said in alt.atheism:
BTW, are you aware that the troops deployed in Iraq simply did not
care what either Bush or Kerry did in the early 70s?
Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well, and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Berkowitz" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
24 Jan 2005 08:56:52 PM |
|
|
In article <cpnav054u8nnm03mp03cc35v6a9rct9ds1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:07:50 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> said in alt.atheism:
BTW, are you aware that the troops deployed in Iraq simply did not
care what either Bush or Kerry did in the early 70s?
Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well, and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?
Whether you are right or wrong in your analysis, exactly what actions do
you want to be taken? Or are you simply venting?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
25 Jan 2005 01:16:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:52 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> said in alt.atheism:
In article <cpnav054u8nnm03mp03cc35v6a9rct9ds1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well, and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?
Whether you are right or wrong in your analysis, exactly what actions do
you want to be taken? Or are you simply venting?
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Next we stop the "we have a god-given duty to force democracy on the
entire world" crap.
Third, we stop trying to be the worst bullies in human history.
Those will do for starters.
Straightening up our own country, laws, economy, etc., would also be
nice.
--
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "moorehead" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
28 Jan 2005 10:39:13 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:56:52 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
<hcb@gettcomm.com> said in alt.atheism:
In article <cpnav054u8nnm03mp03cc35v6a9rct9ds1@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I know some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan quite well,
and
most of our troops today are knee-jerk neocons. Others simply
aren't
interested in fighting Halliburton's war. You think that the fact
that almost no current troops are anti-Bush means anything more
than
that people who are anti-Bush wouldn't become troops?
Whether you are right or wrong in your analysis, exactly what
actions do
you want to be taken? Or are you simply venting?
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave, we'll leave too. Until then, we
should remain, killing as many as possible.
Next we stop the "we have a god-given duty to force democracy on the
entire world" crap.
You think the Afghans who voted for the first time last October were
"forced"? Not according to the video feeds I watched of the long lines
of people anxiously waiting to vote. I suspect it will be the same for
Iraq, although I'm reasonably certain terrorists will attempt some form
of violence and mayhem. Why do Bush haters continually and
fundamentally underestimate the desire of people, ALL people, to want
to be free and elect their own leaders?
Third, we stop trying to be the worst bullies in human history.
You obviously haven't read much history.
Those will do for starters.
Straightening up our own country, laws, economy, etc., would also be
nice.
I think a great start towards "straightening up our own country" would
be to hold all those liberals who threatened to move to a different
country if Bush was elected to their word.
mj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starshine Moonbeam" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 05:42:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1106951953.018450.315310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
moorehead (moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com) dropped a +5 bundle of words...
As soon as the terrorists leave, we'll leave too. Until then, we
should remain, killing as many as possible.
Which ones are the terrorists?
--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhans
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 07:41:35 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R*
country,
not ours.
America owns the world, don't you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 10:21:45 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 11:41:35 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
America owns the world, don't you know?
Watch _The Sand Pebbles_. You aren't saying anything new.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tank Fixer" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 08:26:28 PM |
|
|
In article <jj6mv09lp6sbdtquh5ggh89c599ljncbsg@4ax.com>,
on Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT,
Al Klein rukbat@pern.invalid attempted to say .....
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
Gee, I didn't know Jordanians were from Iraq.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 10:22:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:26:28 GMT, Tank Fixer
<paul.deekat.carrier@us.army.mil> said in alt.atheism:
In article <jj6mv09lp6sbdtquh5ggh89c599ljncbsg@4ax.com>,
on Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT,
Al Klein rukbat@pern.invalid attempted to say .....
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
Gee, I didn't know Jordanians were from Iraq.
I didn't know Americans were.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
30 Jan 2005 05:57:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:22:14 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:26:28 GMT, Tank Fixer
<paul.deekat.carrier@us.army.mil> said in alt.atheism:
In article <jj6mv09lp6sbdtquh5ggh89c599ljncbsg@4ax.com>,
on Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT,
Al Klein rukbat@pern.invalid attempted to say .....
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
Gee, I didn't know Jordanians were from Iraq.
I didn't know Americans were.
Considering that you think that car-bombing a mosque is the act of an
'insurgent.' You appear to be a typical knee-jerk America hater.
Interesting who you regard people who blew up that mosque as your
heroes.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
31 Jan 2005 12:08:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:57:42 +0300, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> said in alt.atheism:
You appear to be a typical knee-jerk America hater.
And you seem to be more a follower of Decatur than of Schurz.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 06:02:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque recently?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 09:39:46 PM |
|
|
--
Al Klein
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's
*T*H*E*I*R* country, not ours.
Colin Campbell
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque
recently?
Doubtless he calls them patriots, and compares them to the
minute men. Don't you know that "George Washington was also a
terrorist".
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NXr+sPWh/P1DguY5k+lT96ivYJ8glnsrThmDSWiy
40JZXrD+33vLL8HpeBHNqjsxNVms2r2e06rvNVspu
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 10:21:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:39:46 -0800, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> said in alt.atheism:
Doubtless he calls them patriots, and compares them to the
minute men. Don't you know that "George Washington was also a
terrorist".
Washington waged war against the constituted authority. What do you
call someone who does that?
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution."
- Theodosuis Dobzhans
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doogie Howitzer" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 09:14:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:02:51 -0800, Colin Campbell wrote
(in article <bn9mv0l8obr9qe1q9q264hqgv19f4to1rn@4ax.com>):
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:10:20 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2005 14:39:13 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
First, we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As soon as the terrorists leave
We *A*R*E* the terrorists in Iraq, dumbass. It's *T*H*E*I*R* country,
not ours.
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque recently?
in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
--
Bush has the power, ***** has the pull and Dr. "White"
Rice does the Reich-wing RIGHT, she parrots...
Is this a great cuntry or what!!! Uhhhh, not anymore...
.
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 09:41:22 PM |
|
|
--
Colin Campbell
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque
recently?
Doogie Howitzer
in·sur·gent   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-sûrjnt)
George Washington was an insurgent. People who car bomb
mosques and disembowel aid workers are terrorists
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1vxDNtq8ADnrDHAdDDAItGuZ+R8B+61KtPdRqKbr
473IDr8sZ0/mOrPAU0HUhLfX/rH07hRmUbGOvyc8s
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 10:01:37 PM |
|
|
James A. Donald wrote:
--
Colin Campbell
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque
recently?
Doogie Howitzer
in=B7sur=B7gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-s=FBrjnt)
George Washington was an insurgent. People who car bomb
mosques and disembowel aid workers are terrorists
Then again, Washington didn't do anything when mobs tarred and
feathered Tories, did he?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "THOM" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
30 Jan 2005 10:22:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:41:22 -0800, James A. Donald
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
--
Colin Campbell
So what do you call the people who car-bombed the mosque
recently?
Doogie Howitzer
in·sur·gent   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-sûrjnt)
George Washington was an insurgent. People who car bomb
mosques and disembowel aid workers are terrorists
you seem to leave out the horrible things the Tories did during the
revolutionary war. Burnings, murders of the families of patriots etc
etc. I'd say Americas first terrorists were the right wing.
THOM
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
1vxDNtq8ADnrDHAdDDAItGuZ+R8B+61KtPdRqKbr
473IDr8sZ0/mOrPAU0HUhLfX/rH07hRmUbGOvyc8s
http://www.jim.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 05:23:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:14:57 -0800, Doogie Howitzer
<fl@ulence_abounds.com> said in alt.atheism:
in·sur·gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
Since the government was the Baathist party, we're the insurgents.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 08:05:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:14:57 -0800, Doogie Howitzer
<fl@ulence_abounds.com> said in alt.atheism:
in=B7sur=B7gent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-s=FBrjnt)
adj.
1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.
2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
Since the government was the Baathist party, we're the insurgents.
But it's different when we become the new dictators. What I found
funny about that spectacle of worship know as the Presidential
Innaugeration was that Bush said he's not imposing American values by
force on other peoples. His speech was quite Orwellian in it's
unintentional irony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: If deserters are "cowards", how can the military support one for President? |
29 Jan 2005 10:20:17 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 12:05:18 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
But it's different when we become the new dictators. What I found
funny about that spectacle of worship know as the Presidential
Innaugeration was that Bush said he's not imposing American values by
force on other peoples.
He probably actually believes that, more's the horror.
His speech was quite Orwellian in it's unintentional irony.
I keep saying that Orwell wasn't wrong, he was just a bit premature.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
