| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2003 12:53:59 PM |
| Object: |
See the Democrat's Plame ad |
http://tinyurl.com/rf78
--
"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and
has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the
visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation
to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment
upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security
argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism."
--Justice William Brennan
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 09:08:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:02:41 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> posted in alt.atheism:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
But that's not what the administration says, so Bill doesn't accept
it.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 12:24:18 AM |
|
|
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
Also remember that he used this method because the planned military invasion of
Afghanistan fell through because of the Musharraf coup in Pakistan. Without
Pakistani overflight rights and bases, there was no way to even get to
Afghanistan (unless we wanted to try going over Iranian air space which might
have been amusing...NOT). Clinton had a very difficult time dealing with a
military dictatorship and Musharraf had cut off all access. Bush, on the other
hand, finds it much easier to work with terrorist military dictatorships and he
was able to gain Pakistani support...presumably for an American blind eye
turned to Pakistani sales of nuclear technology to North Korea and ISI's
financial involvement in 9/11.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 09:06:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them.
And in Bush's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. So where's the difference,
again?
Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
And Bush basically preferred to throw cannon fodder at the problem,
which was really not very effective at the task.
So, again, aside from the number of deaths, what was the difference?
Remember, Afghanistan is still under the rule of the warlords, the
same as it was before we sent in the troops. bin Laden is still
unaccounted for, the same as before we sent in the troops. And the
Afghanis are still being oppressed every day, the same as before we
sent in the troops. So what was that difference, again?
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation
For whom? bin Laden's people are still free to attack us. Probably
from Pakistan, rather than from Afghanistan. The Afghanis are still
under the thumbs of the warlords. And thousands of people are dead as
a direct result of our actions in Afghanistan. So what was that
difference, again?
and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered.
Not "hampered", "moved".
We can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
As long as it's within the city limits of Kabul. So what was that
difference, again?
(BTW, next time you want to talk about Afghanistan, don't tell us what
stories the administration is telling, learn what's actually going on
in Afghanistan.)
--
"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 optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 10:04:45 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them.
And in Bush's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. So where's the difference,
again?
There are about ten thousand American military personnel in Afghanistan
keeping the pressure on al Qaeda and looking for terrorists including
bin Laden.
Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
And Bush basically preferred to throw cannon fodder at the problem,
which was really not very effective at the task.
Cannon fodder? The military has been extremely careful and makes every
effort to protect its people.
So, again, aside from the number of deaths, what was the difference?
I suspect that one difference is that many of the terrorists have been
captured or killed.
Remember, Afghanistan is still under the rule of the warlords, the
same as it was before we sent in the troops. bin Laden is still
unaccounted for, the same as before we sent in the troops. And the
Afghanis are still being oppressed every day, the same as before we
sent in the troops. So what was that difference, again?
You act like nothing has changed. There was a constant war over there.
Things have quieted down. Sure things aren't perfect.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation
For whom? bin Laden's people are still free to attack us.
If they come together in groups to train, they can be attacked in Iraq
and in Afghanistan. That's a change. Bush has a lot countries working
together to get at the terrorists. Think Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the
Philippines and more.
Probably
from Pakistan, rather than from Afghanistan. The Afghanis are still
under the thumbs of the warlords. And thousands of people are dead as
a direct result of our actions in Afghanistan. So what was that
difference, again?
The war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban was going on
before we got there. How is stopping that war worse than having it go on
and on?
and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered.
Not "hampered", "moved".
Moved where?
We can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
As long as it's within the city limits of Kabul. So what was that
difference, again?
We have people all over Afghanistan.
(BTW, next time you want to talk about Afghanistan, don't tell us what
stories the administration is telling, learn what's actually going on
in Afghanistan.)
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/18/pm_afghan031018
#begin quote
Afghanistan progress encouraging: Chrétien
Last Updated Mon, 20 Oct 2003 0:40:52
KABUL - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien praised the work of Canadian
soldiers Saturday during a four-hour visit to Afghanistan, calling their
presence essential to stabilize the war-torn country.
Inspecting the troops
The prime minister's heavily armed motorcade wound through the streets
of Kabul on the way to Camp Julien, Canada's base near the capital.
He met with senior military officials and inspected Canada's troops, the
largest single contingent within the 32-nation International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF).
Saying it would likely be the last time he met them as prime minister,
Chrétien said the country is proud of their accomplishments and
recognizes the daily dangers they face.
"Over my time as prime minister, we have had to ask more and more of the
Canadian Forces. In the last 10 years, you have undertaken more
deployments to more regions than at any time in Canada's history," he
said.
"In each case, you were the best Canada could offer. In every case your
efforts brought very positive results."
Chrétien paid tribute to two Canadian soldiers killed earlier in the
month, saying the deaths should not dampen the resolve to secure and
rebuild the country.
BACKGROUND: Canadian units in Afghanistan
"We mourn them still and remain firm in our resolve to help rebuild
Afghanistan so that this country will never more be a victim of
terrorists and extremism," the prime minister said.
"We will not forget their sacrifice on behalf of peace and security in
this torn country."
Touring an armoured vehicle
On Oct. 2, 2003, Canadian soldiers Sgt. Robert Alan Short and Cpl.
Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger were killed when their Iltis jeep struck
a roadside explosive device on the outskirts of Kabul. Three more
Canadians were injured.
Chrétien walked past a row of the light-weight jeeps, but did not stop
to inspect any of them. Instead, he was given a tour of the armoured
vehicle which will now be used on high-risk patrols instead of the
Iltis.
PM meets Afghan leader
The prime minister also discussed security issues and the role of
Canadian troops with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Jean Chrétien with Hamid Karzai
The Afghan leader has called for more international assistance in
Afghanistan, including an expansion of ISAF.
FROM SEPT. 5, 2003: Afghan president calls on Canada to speed up
financial aid
FROM OCT. 27, 2003: Karzai asks Canada for more help
But he would not commit Canada to an expansion of ISAF, as he is
expected to step down as prime minister in February.
"That decision will be made by somebody else, I guess," he said.
With about 1,950 soldiers in the region, Canada has the largest
contingent in the 5,000-member security force. Their one-year term ends
in the summer of 2004. Canada has also committed $250 million in aid to
Afghanistan.
Chrétien left Afghanistan for Thailand, where he'll attend a two-day
Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit. He'll then spend four days in
China, and two in India.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:28:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:04:45 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them.
And in Bush's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. So where's the difference,
again?
There are about ten thousand American military personnel in Afghanistan
keeping the pressure on al Qaeda and looking for terrorists including
bin Laden.
And they're not actually capturing or killing bin Laden's people.
Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
And Bush basically preferred to throw cannon fodder at the problem,
which was really not very effective at the task.
Cannon fodder? The military has been extremely careful and makes every
effort to protect its people.
Which is why so many of them have died after the war ended.
So, again, aside from the number of deaths, what was the difference?
I suspect that one difference is that many of the terrorists have been
captured or killed.
You suspect wrongly. Afghanistan is still run by Afghani warlords.
Pakistan is still run by bin Laden's people. Saudi is still run by an
anti-American royal family. Iraq is still effectively run by those
who are killing our soldiers.
Remember, Afghanistan is still under the rule of the warlords, the
same as it was before we sent in the troops. bin Laden is still
unaccounted for, the same as before we sent in the troops. And the
Afghanis are still being oppressed every day, the same as before we
sent in the troops. So what was that difference, again?
You act like nothing has changed. There was a constant war over there.
Things have quieted down. Sure things aren't perfect.
Things in Afghanistan (with the single exception of Kabul) *haven't*
changed.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation
For whom? bin Laden's people are still free to attack us.
If they come together in groups to train, they can be attacked in Iraq
and in Afghanistan.
They're together in LARGE groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No
one's attacking them.
That's a change.
Where?
Bush has a lot countries working together to get at the terrorists.
Countries like France and Germany?
Think Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and more.
And what about those "countries working together to get at the
terrorists" you mentioned? Pakistan is *harboring* terrorists.
Probably
from Pakistan, rather than from Afghanistan. The Afghanis are still
under the thumbs of the warlords. And thousands of people are dead as
a direct result of our actions in Afghanistan. So what was that
difference, again?
The war between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban was going on
before we got there. How is stopping that war worse than having it go on
and on?
Bill, over here, THIS world, not your fantasy.
and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered.
Not "hampered", "moved".
Moved where?
To Pakistan in bin Laden's case. To Afghanistan in other cases.
We can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
As long as it's within the city limits of Kabul. So what was that
difference, again?
We have people all over Afghanistan.
In the vicinity of Kabul. The rest of the country is still run by the
warlords that have been running it for decades.
(BTW, next time you want to talk about Afghanistan, don't tell us what
stories the administration is telling, learn what's actually going on
in Afghanistan.)
[press release snipped]
You really have to learn how to read. I said DON'T tell us what the
administration's saying.
Oh, and how about that difference between before and now? You still
haven't shown any.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:42:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
In case you haven't noticed, Putsch's efforts aren't very effective at
the task, either, but cost hundreds of billions more.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
We remember 9/11, which is why we find it curios the administration
won't do a full investigation, and why they haven't captured bin
Laden.
-
"...too many whites are getting away with drug use."
-- Rush Limbaugh, on his short lived TV show
October 5, 1995
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 10:49:59 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:42:01 -0700, The Fair and Balanced Weasel
<zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
In case you haven't noticed, Putsch's efforts aren't very effective at
the task, either, but cost hundreds of billions more.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
We remember 9/11, which is why we find it curios the administration
won't do a full investigation, and why they haven't captured bin
Laden.
I remember telling my father-in-law in Sept, 2001 that I thought,
without a doubt, that bin Laden would be captured or dead within a
year of the WTC attacks. I am simply astounded at Bush's utter
incompetence. If anyone with honor were in the White House, bin Laden
would not still be at large planning attacks against the US. The
President should have made the arrest of bin Laden one of his very top
priorities, and he should have been railing at his military and
intelligence every day for not finding him. And he should have
allocated whatever resources necessary to the task of bringing to
justice the main threat to America.
But Nooooooooo - Bush instead dropped the ball, forgot about bin Laden
and attacked a country that was not a threat to the US and had nothing
to do with the attacks on the US.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:41:16 AM |
|
|
"SemiScholar" <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote in message
news:mp08pvs80rcf741k4chntib7aaifvegcbo@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:42:01 -0700, The Fair and Balanced Weasel
<zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
In case you haven't noticed, Putsch's efforts aren't very effective at
the task, either, but cost hundreds of billions more.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
We remember 9/11, which is why we find it curios the administration
won't do a full investigation, and why they haven't captured bin
Laden.
I remember telling my father-in-law in Sept, 2001 that I thought,
without a doubt, that bin Laden would be captured or dead within a
year of the WTC attacks. I am simply astounded at Bush's utter
incompetence. If anyone with honor were in the White House, bin Laden
would not still be at large planning attacks against the US. The
President should have made the arrest of bin Laden one of his very top
priorities, and he should have been railing at his military and
intelligence every day for not finding him. And he should have
allocated whatever resources necessary to the task of bringing to
justice the main threat to America.
But Nooooooooo - Bush instead dropped the ball, forgot about bin Laden
and attacked a country that was not a threat to the US and had nothing
to do with the attacks on the US.
With OBL dead, it would be hard to keep the public's support for invading
Iraq. They had to keep his death a secret. He presumably died on or
arround Sept 7th, 2001, months before the Iraq invasion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:20:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:41:16 -0700, "z" <zee@hotmail.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
With OBL dead, it would be hard to keep the public's support for invading
Iraq. They had to keep his death a secret. He presumably died on or
arround Sept 7th, 2001, months before the Iraq invasion.
And Santa really does live at the North Pole.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 11:46:46 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tqtbpvogng3ddf6hn915qa6biou1n4anl9@Pern.rk...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:41:16 -0700, "z" <zee@hotmail.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
With OBL dead, it would be hard to keep the public's support for invading
Iraq. They had to keep his death a secret. He presumably died on or
arround Sept 7th, 2001, months before the Iraq invasion.
And Santa really does live at the North Pole.
--
While I really don't know about Santa, I do know from the last dated photos
OBL, he was in complete kidney failure, and death was immenent. There's
just no mistaking that look. Yellow is one thing, but grey-yellow is
usually seen when a patient is terminal. Dialysis no longer works. Even
if there was a matched kidney laying around, a transplant wouldn't have
worked (even if they had power to whatever cave, etc...to do this difficult
surgery) he looked to me like he'd passed the point of no return.
(Remember --his followers immediately sent word to him to not make any more
videos, that his condition looked so bad it would scare off the recruits.)
His physical problems were compounding into a mess..... (Interesting to do
some searches on his health.()
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 09:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:49:59 -0500, SemiScholar
<noemail@spambegone.com> posted in alt.atheism:
But Nooooooooo - Bush instead dropped the ball, forgot about bin Laden
and attacked a country that was not a threat to the US and had nothing
to do with the attacks on the US.
Because Bush didn't need bin Laden, he needed a victory.
Remember, Bush isn't about substance, he's about show. All hat and
ten yards wide.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Weasel who says, \Oh, THATS why they call him Rush!" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 12:21:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:49:59 -0500, SemiScholar
<noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:42:01 -0700, The Fair and Balanced Weasel
<zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:48:17 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
In case you haven't noticed, Putsch's efforts aren't very effective at
the task, either, but cost hundreds of billions more.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
We remember 9/11, which is why we find it curios the administration
won't do a full investigation, and why they haven't captured bin
Laden.
I remember telling my father-in-law in Sept, 2001 that I thought,
without a doubt, that bin Laden would be captured or dead within a
year of the WTC attacks. I am simply astounded at Bush's utter
incompetence. If anyone with honor were in the White House, bin Laden
would not still be at large planning attacks against the US. The
President should have made the arrest of bin Laden one of his very top
priorities, and he should have been railing at his military and
intelligence every day for not finding him. And he should have
allocated whatever resources necessary to the task of bringing to
justice the main threat to America.
But Nooooooooo - Bush instead dropped the ball, forgot about bin Laden
and attacked a country that was not a threat to the US and had nothing
to do with the attacks on the US.
I would have been utterly flabbergasted if someone had said that we
would be getting taunting videotapes from him over two years later.
You would think we would have the greatest sustained manhunt in
history going, and let's face it: billionaires who stand 6'5" and
weight 130 pounds aren't exactly inconspicuous. He can't put on a
Grouch Marx disguise and run around Paris unnoticed.
What's even more amazing are all the hyper patriots who rose to arms
in the wake of 9/11 who are now strangely cavalier about the fact that
bin Laden hasn't been captured, or that the government refuses to have
a full public investigation of how exactly 9/11 happened.
*******************
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Colin Powell,Cairo on February 24, 2001
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
-- Condoleezza Rice, July, 2001
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zepps_essays@yahoogroups.com/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 09:11:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:21:29 -0700, "The Weasel who says, \"Oh, THAT'S
why they call him Rush!\"" <zepp@zeppscommentaries.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
What's even more amazing are all the hyper patriots who rose to arms
in the wake of 9/11 who are now strangely cavalier about the fact that
bin Laden hasn't been captured, or that the government refuses to have
a full public investigation of how exactly 9/11 happened.
But they'll tell you how well we did in getting rid of Hussein. And
how well we're doing in turning Iraq into a democracy. (Never mind
that most Iraqis would rather see all our soldiers dead, and are doing
their best to make it happen.)
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 10:08:47 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:21:29 -0700, "The Weasel who says, \"Oh, THAT'S
why they call him Rush!\"" <zepp@zeppscommentaries.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
What's even more amazing are all the hyper patriots who rose to arms
in the wake of 9/11 who are now strangely cavalier about the fact that
bin Laden hasn't been captured, or that the government refuses to have
a full public investigation of how exactly 9/11 happened.
But they'll tell you how well we did in getting rid of Hussein. And
how well we're doing in turning Iraq into a democracy. (Never mind
that most Iraqis would rather see all our soldiers dead, and are doing
their best to make it happen.)
That's not what the Iraqis said in the recent poll of Baghdad resident,
the area where most of the issues have been.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:19:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:08:47 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
But they'll tell you how well we did in getting rid of Hussein. And
how well we're doing in turning Iraq into a democracy. (Never mind
that most Iraqis would rather see all our soldiers dead, and are doing
their best to make it happen.)
That's not what the Iraqis said in the recent poll of Baghdad resident,
the area where most of the issues have been.
Bill, if you keep believing everything the administration says you'll
become even more stupid than you already are. Do you really expect
them to admit that the Iraq invasion was the worst idea the US has had
in decades?
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avend
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 11:02:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:08:47 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
But they'll tell you how well we did in getting rid of Hussein. And
how well we're doing in turning Iraq into a democracy. (Never mind
that most Iraqis would rather see all our soldiers dead, and are doing
their best to make it happen.)
That's not what the Iraqis said in the recent poll of Baghdad resident,
the area where most of the issues have been.
Bill, if you keep believing everything the administration says you'll
become even more stupid than you already are. Do you really expect
them to admit that the Iraq invasion was the worst idea the US has had
in decades?
I am pretty sure the poll was done by an independent group, Gallup, I
think it was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
22 Oct 2003 08:48:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:02:03 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:08:47 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
That's not what the Iraqis said in the recent poll of Baghdad resident,
the area where most of the issues have been.
Bill, if you keep believing everything the administration says you'll
become even more stupid than you already are. Do you really expect
them to admit that the Iraq invasion was the worst idea the US has had
in decades?
I am pretty sure the poll was done by an independent group, Gallup, I
think it was.
That's what the administration says.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
22 Oct 2003 11:19:34 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:02:03 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:08:47 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
That's not what the Iraqis said in the recent poll of Baghdad resident,
the area where most of the issues have been.
Bill, if you keep believing everything the administration says you'll
become even more stupid than you already are. Do you really expect
them to admit that the Iraq invasion was the worst idea the US has had
in decades?
I am pretty sure the poll was done by an independent group, Gallup, I
think it was.
That's what the administration says.
It's a Gallup poll reported by AP and other news organizations. Are you
going to claim that they are all in on the scam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
23 Oct 2003 07:28:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:19:34 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
It's a Gallup poll reported by AP and other news organizations. Are you
going to claim that they are all in on the scam?
Who decides which people get to go to Iraq?
Who decides where they can go once they get there?
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 06:07:31 AM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Jeffraham Prestonian" <toucan@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:-L2dnaxph94DrQ-iRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Her husband did that.
No, Clinton's penis did that.
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:27:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:07:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
And your pacifier.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avend
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:41:29 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jgl6pv47hajglngtdnsunn97b0rr2rn564@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:07:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
And your pacifier.
HJARF!<
He's used that phrase in a half-dozen posts today.
Jim
--
Memekiller
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 11:52:10 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jgl6pv47hajglngtdnsunn97b0rr2rn564@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:07:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
And your pacifier.
HJARF!<
He's used that phrase in a half-dozen posts today.
I used the phrase because it is clearly true. OTOH, I don't bring up
Clinton's penis therefore it isn't my pacifier. BTW, bringing up
Clinton's actions while president isn't bringing up his penis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 12:04:15 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9369FA.2DB061D6@backpacker.com...
Clave wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jgl6pv47hajglngtdnsunn97b0rr2rn564@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:07:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
And your pacifier.
HJARF!<
He's used that phrase in a half-dozen posts today.
I used the phrase because...
Because you were told in an e-mail to try to make it a meme, most likely.
Good luck with that.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 12:43:30 AM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9369FA.2DB061D6@backpacker.com...
Clave wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jgl6pv47hajglngtdnsunn97b0rr2rn564@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:07:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Clinton's penis is both your sword and your shield.
And your pacifier.
HJARF!<
He's used that phrase in a half-dozen posts today.
I used the phrase because...
Because you were told in an e-mail to try to make it a meme, most likely.
In an e-mail?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 12:16:20 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
Not according to any of the stories I read.
I'm calling "*****" on you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 03:16:43 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qMCdnWhFPM7mgA-iRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
Not according to any of the stories I read.
That is called keeping your head up your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 01:41:54 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
That is called keeping your head up your *****.
Thank you. And, oh, congratulations on that pubic hair.
Post again when the second one arrives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:24:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:16:43 -0800, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
That is called keeping your head up your *****.
Which you have plenty of experience with, eh, Dana?
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 10:43:29 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
--
"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect
to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional
power against his neighbors."
--Colin Powell, February 24, 2001
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
