| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2006 05:49:31 PM |
| Object: |
Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone call to
my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 05:00:44 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone call to
my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
Bush has every right to know I made a phone call to your cousin Akhbar
without breaking the law, he just has to justify it later to a judge.
I can think of no good reason for wanting to do it without having to
get later permission from a judge.
so - as usual - you are wrong Bush-breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 05:27:00 PM |
|
|
"Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> wrote in
news:1156197644.607454.128710@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
Bush has every right to know I made a phone call to your cousin Akhbar
without breaking the law, he just has to justify it later to a judge.
I can think of no good reason for wanting to do it without having to
get later permission from a judge.
so - as usual - you are wrong Bush-breath.
No problem, Kate, you can justify it to the judge at *your* trial.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
20 Aug 2006 09:49:53 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone call to
my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
If they need to wiretap someone - they could use leagal wiretaps?
The argument that the President of the US *has to* break the law - to
protect the country (and its laws!) is a very poor one.
(The terrorists made me do it!)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
22 Aug 2006 04:44:54 PM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in
news:1156128593.827843.25040@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
If they need to wiretap someone - they could use leagal wiretaps?
If they want to wiretap someone they *do* use legal wiretaps. The NSA
program that you're all so upset about isn't *wiretapping*.
The argument that the President of the US *has to* break the law - to
protect the country (and its laws!) is a very poor one.
You don't even understand what you're complaining about.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 04:42:03 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone call to
my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et al eat
it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives and you,
brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The terrorists want to
take away our freedom, and you hand it over gladly. Jackass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 05:25:19 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et al eat
it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives and you,
brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The terrorists want to
take away our freedom, and you hand it over gladly. Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 07:00:13 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et al eat
it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives and you,
brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The terrorists want to
take away our freedom, and you hand it over gladly. Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
Is that what I said? Moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
21 Aug 2006 09:46:07 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156204813.056692.166580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et al
eat it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives and
you, brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The terrorists
want to take away our freedom, and you hand it over gladly.
Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
Is that what I said? Moron
So what *are* you saying? Don't change anything? Just go on about
things as if nothing happened? What *are* you saying?
--
Fred Stone
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
22 Aug 2006 04:56:43 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156204813.056692.166580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a phone
call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et al
eat it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives and
you, brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The terrorists
want to take away our freedom, and you hand it over gladly.
Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
Is that what I said? Moron
So what *are* you saying? Don't change anything? Just go on about
things as if nothing happened? What *are* you saying?
I'm saying that:
- One does not foster goodwill with bombs.
- One does not inspire confidence by saying one thing and doing
another, as with the search for Osama vs war in Iraq.
- One does not promote human rights by detaining, indefinitely, without
charge hundreds of people.
- One does not promote cooperation and feelings of unity by sayng "You
are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."
- One does not foment trust by constantly lying about Iraq and its roll
in 9/11.
- One doe not instill confidence by bungling the reasons for a war.
- One does not preserve the rule by breaking it with illegal wire-taps
nor the outrageous use of signing statements (more than twice as often
as every other president combined).
- One does not foster international cooperation by ignoring the will of
the rest of the world as with numerous treaties.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as with
stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
- One does not promote kindness through torture.
- One does not advance the ideal of sovereignty by the unprovoked
invasion of another country.
- One does not protect freedom by invading the rights of innocent
citizens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
22 Aug 2006 04:49:18 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156204813.056692.166580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a
phone call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et
al eat it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives
and you, brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The
terrorists want to take away our freedom, and you hand it over
gladly. Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
Is that what I said? Moron
So what *are* you saying? Don't change anything? Just go on about
things as if nothing happened? What *are* you saying?
I'm saying that:
- One does not foster goodwill with bombs.
Tell that to the terrorists.
- One does not inspire confidence by saying one thing and doing
another, as with the search for Osama vs war in Iraq.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and the French.
- One does not promote human rights by detaining, indefinitely,
without charge hundreds of people.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and to Saddam.
- One does not promote cooperation and feelings of unity by sayng "You
are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."
- One does not foment trust by constantly lying about Iraq and its
roll in 9/11.
Tell that to the Democrats.
- One doe not instill confidence by bungling the reasons for a war.
Tell that to the intelligence services of the French, the Germans, the
Italians, the British, and to the diplomats at the UN.
- One does not preserve the rule by breaking it with illegal wire-taps
nor the outrageous use of signing statements (more than twice as often
as every other president combined).
You need to learn to count.
- One does not foster international cooperation by ignoring the will
of the rest of the world as with numerous treaties.
Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as with
stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
- One does not promote kindness through torture.
Tell *THAT* to Saddam Hussein.
- One does not advance the ideal of sovereignty by the unprovoked
invasion of another country.
Tell *THAT ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
- One does not protect freedom by invading the rights of innocent
citizens.
Tell *THIS ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
25 Aug 2006 01:16:45 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156204813.056692.166580@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156196523.757115.230420@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sure, hey, terrorism isn't such a terrible risk.
Not worth the chance that the Feds might know that I made a
phone call to my cousin Akhbar, right?
Right?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X6612289D
Hey dumb-*****. Terrorists want to make us afraid, and Shrub et
al eat it up. The terrorists want to make us change our lives
and you, brain-dead Shrubbies do it without question. The
terrorists want to take away our freedom, and you hand it over
gladly. Jackass.
So the answer is to just pretend that they don't exist? Riiiiight.
Is that what I said? Moron
So what *are* you saying? Don't change anything? Just go on about
things as if nothing happened? What *are* you saying?
I'm saying that:
- One does not foster goodwill with bombs.
Tell that to the terrorists.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not inspire confidence by saying one thing and doing
another, as with the search for Osama vs war in Iraq.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and the French.
- One does not promote human rights by detaining, indefinitely,
without charge hundreds of people.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and to Saddam.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not promote cooperation and feelings of unity by sayng "You
are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."
- One does not foment trust by constantly lying about Iraq and its
roll in 9/11.
Tell that to the Democrats.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One doe not instill confidence by bungling the reasons for a war.
Tell that to the intelligence services of the French, the Germans, the
Italians, the British, and to the diplomats at the UN.
Ever hear the one about 'the buck stops here'?
- One does not preserve the rule by breaking it with illegal wire-taps
nor the outrageous use of signing statements (more than twice as often
as every other president combined).
You need to learn to count.
My bad. It's 'only' more than all other presidents combined.
'Bush has vetoed only one bill, on stem cell research, but written
exceptions to some 800 bills, more than all previous presidents
combined.'
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1155027931575
- One does not foster international cooperation by ignoring the will
of the rest of the world as with numerous treaties.
Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as with
stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds for
stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
- One does not promote kindness through torture.
Tell *THAT* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not advance the ideal of sovereignty by the unprovoked
invasion of another country.
Tell *THAT ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not protect freedom by invading the rights of innocent
citizens.
Tell *THIS ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
You know, Shrub and Saddam seem to have much in common. Thanks for
making that quite evident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
25 Aug 2006 12:28:06 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as
with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds for
stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In fact the
same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained about not getting
federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop research because there was
plenty of private funding available.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school curricula, so
what he supports is irrelevant.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
26 Aug 2006 11:53:12 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
....un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
- One does not foster goodwill with bombs.
Tell that to the terrorists.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not inspire confidence by saying one thing and doing
another, as with the search for Osama vs war in Iraq.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and the French.
- One does not promote human rights by detaining, indefinitely,
without charge hundreds of people.
Tell *that* to the Iranians and to Saddam.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not promote cooperation and feelings of unity by sayng "You
are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."
- One does not foment trust by constantly lying about Iraq and its
roll in 9/11.
Tell that to the Democrats.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One doe not instill confidence by bungling the reasons for a war.
Tell that to the intelligence services of the French, the Germans, the
Italians, the British, and to the diplomats at the UN.
Ever hear the one about 'the buck stops here'?
- One does not preserve the rule by breaking it with illegal wire-taps
nor the outrageous use of signing statements (more than twice as often
as every other president combined).
You need to learn to count.
My bad. It's 'only' more than all other presidents combined.
'Bush has vetoed only one bill, on stem cell research, but written
exceptions to some 800 bills, more than all previous presidents
combined.'
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1155027931575
- One does not foster international cooperation by ignoring the will
of the rest of the world as with numerous treaties.
Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as with
stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds for
stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
- One does not promote kindness through torture.
Tell *THAT* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not advance the ideal of sovereignty by the unprovoked
invasion of another country.
Tell *THAT ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
- One does not protect freedom by invading the rights of innocent
citizens.
Tell *THIS ONE TOO* to Saddam Hussein.
As soon as you tell it to Shrub.
You know, Shrub and Saddam seem to have much in common. Thanks for
making that quite evident.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it, as
with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds for
stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In fact the
same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained about not getting
federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop research because there was
plenty of private funding available.
Right. And the government certainly wouldn't want to promote science.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school curricula, so
what he supports is irrelevant.
And ignorant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
27 Aug 2006 05:18:21 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it,
as with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds
for stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In
fact the same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained
about not getting federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop research
because there was plenty of private funding available.
Right. And the government certainly wouldn't want to promote science.
And that was a very cogent response.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school
curricula, so what he supports is irrelevant.
And ignorant.
And still irrelevant.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
27 Aug 2006 07:11:00 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact* same
things as Saddam specious?
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding it,
as with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal funds
for stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In
fact the same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained
about not getting federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop research
because there was plenty of private funding available.
Right. And the government certainly wouldn't want to promote science.
And that was a very cogent response.
Thank you.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school
curricula, so what he supports is irrelevant.
And ignorant.
And still irrelevant.
Right. Showing the ignorance and bias of our president is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
27 Aug 2006 07:19:19 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact* same
things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding
it, as with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal
funds for stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't
you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In
fact the same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained
about not getting federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop
research because there was plenty of private funding available.
Right. And the government certainly wouldn't want to promote
science.
And that was a very cogent response.
Thank you.
Once again, you demonstrate how shallow you are.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school
curricula, so what he supports is irrelevant.
And ignorant.
And still irrelevant.
Right. Showing the ignorance and bias of our president is irrelevant.
It is when it comes to things that he doesn't have any influence over.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
28 Aug 2006 05:27:08 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact* same
things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
- One does not encourage advances in science by forbidding
it, as with stem cells, nor ignoring it, as with ID.
???
Over your head Fred? You do know that Shrub blocked federal
funds for stem cell research and supports teaching ID, don't
you?
Blocking Federal funds is not the same as forbidding research. In
fact the same witnesses at a Congressional hearing who complained
about not getting federal funds said that it *wouldn't* stop
research because there was plenty of private funding available.
Right. And the government certainly wouldn't want to promote
science.
And that was a very cogent response.
Thank you.
Once again, you demonstrate how shallow you are.
No. It shows how stupid you are.
The federal government doesn't have any control over school
curricula, so what he supports is irrelevant.
And ignorant.
And still irrelevant.
Right. Showing the ignorance and bias of our president is irrelevant.
It is when it comes to things that he doesn't have any influence over.
Right. And the president has no influence whatsoever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
28 Aug 2006 05:19:54 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1156804028.851362.314920
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact* same
things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites, imprisoned
and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed, raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court trials.
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait).
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
29 Aug 2006 07:18:45 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in news:1156804028.851362.314920
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact* same
things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites, imprisoned
and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed, raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court trials.
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait).
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
BTW: where are those WMDs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
29 Aug 2006 07:06:42 AM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156804028.851362.314920 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact*
same things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed, raped,
murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait).
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any of
my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
29 Aug 2006 06:27:17 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156804028.851362.314920 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact*
same things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed, raped,
murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any of
my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring it
up here.
3) Only an idiot would think that you won this discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
29 Aug 2006 08:15:20 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights. So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death, and your side is still the losers
they've always been. "Where's the WMD" is the battle-cry of the Retreat-
and-Defeat Battalion of the ad-Hominem Martyr's Brigade.
3) Only an idiot would think that you won this discussion.
Only a totally unpatriotic amoral loser or a liberal (but I'm being
redundant) would think they "won" by (falsely) proclaiming the President
of the United States to be on the same moral level as Saddam Hussein.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"It is staggering that anyone could be so self-infatuated as to single
out their own particular policy preferences as "anti-war." Anyone who is
not a sadist or an idiot is anti-war. The only serious issue is how best
to limit, deter or conclude war. But responsibility for confronting this
issue is evaded by those preoccupied with the moral preening of being
"anti-war.""
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
30 Aug 2006 05:09:12 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Do tell, Fred. (This should be good)
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights.
1) I never said that they were Americans
2) So you have no problem with the indefinite detention, without
charge, of hundreds of *innocent* people?
So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
1) Which side is that Fred?
2) Wrong. As usual. Shrub et al *lost*. They were forced to apply
the Geneva Convention
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Do tell. (I can hardly wait)
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death,
And you lose *every time*.
and your side
Which side is that Fred?
....snip...
Only a totally unpatriotic amoral loser or a liberal (but I'm being
redundant) would think they "won" by (falsely) proclaiming the President
of the United States to be on the same moral level as Saddam Hussein.
And there it is folks. Anyone that opposes the bogus war is
'unpatriotic'. Moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
30 Aug 2006 04:47:30 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156975752.216574.42410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
Only a totally unpatriotic amoral loser or a liberal (but I'm being
redundant) would think they "won" by (falsely) proclaiming the
President of the United States to be on the same moral level as
Saddam Hussein.
And there it is folks. Anyone that opposes the bogus war is
'unpatriotic'. Moron
Nice strawman you got there, Andres. Now read what I wrote again, this time
for comprehension.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"It is staggering that anyone could be so self-infatuated as to single
out their own particular policy preferences as "anti-war." Anyone who is
not a sadist or an idiot is anti-war. The only serious issue is how best
to limit, deter or conclude war. But responsibility for confronting this
issue is evaded by those preoccupied with the moral preening of being
"anti-war.""
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
30 Aug 2006 05:51:45 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156975752.216574.42410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
....un-snip Fred's attempt to avoid questions...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Do tell, Fred. (This should be good)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights.
1) I never said that they were Americans
2) So you have no problem with the indefinite detention, without
charge, of hundreds of *innocent* people?
So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
1) Which side is that Fred?
2) Wrong. As usual. Shrub et al *lost*. They were forced to apply
the Geneva Convention
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Do tell. (I can hardly wait)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death,
And you lose *every time*.
and your side
Which side is that Fred?
....snip...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
30 Aug 2006 07:17:01 PM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156975752.216574.42410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
...un-snip Fred's attempt to avoid questions...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Do tell, Fred. (This should be good)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights.
1) I never said that they were Americans
2) So you have no problem with the indefinite detention, without
charge, of hundreds of *innocent* people?
So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
1) Which side is that Fred?
2) Wrong. As usual. Shrub et al *lost*. They were forced to apply
the Geneva Convention
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Do tell. (I can hardly wait)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death,
And you lose *every time*.
and your side
Which side is that Fred?
...snip...
Still waiting Fred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
31 Aug 2006 06:20:34 AM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote:
Andres64 wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156975752.216574.42410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
...un-snip Fred's attempt to avoid questions...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Do tell, Fred. (This should be good)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights.
1) I never said that they were Americans
2) So you have no problem with the indefinite detention, without
charge, of hundreds of *innocent* people?
So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
1) Which side is that Fred?
2) Wrong. As usual. Shrub et al *lost*. They were forced to apply
the Geneva Convention
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Do tell. (I can hardly wait)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death,
And you lose *every time*.
and your side
Which side is that Fred?
...snip...
Still waiting Fred.
What's wrong Fred. Cat got your tongue?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
31 Aug 2006 05:13:48 PM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote:
Andres64 wrote:
Andres64 wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156975752.216574.42410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
...un-snip Fred's attempt to avoid questions...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156894036.930507.246730@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Because that bill had other problems.
Do tell, Fred. (This should be good)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Spying on own *innocent* citizens: Shrub/saddam
Saddam: secret police and neighborhood informants.
Bush: querying a database of phone call records.
Imprisoning indefinitely and without charge: Shrub Saddam
Saddam: Thousands of Kurds, TENS of thousnands of Shi'ites,
imprisoned and *actually* tortured, starved to death, gassed,
raped, murdered.
Bush: *one* person, who has been charged and had several court
trials.
FYI: there are hunderds of prisoners at Guantanamo alone. So, either
you knew that *fact* and are a liar, or you didn't know it, and are
'just' ignorant. Which is it?
FYI: those aren't American citizens, and therefore don't have any
Constitutional rights.
1) I never said that they were Americans
2) So you have no problem with the indefinite detention, without
charge, of hundreds of *innocent* people?
So either you don't know doodly about our
Constitution or you're being disingenuous or just plain damn stupid.
BTW: that's already been through our courts and your side lost.
1) Which side is that Fred?
2) Wrong. As usual. Shrub et al *lost*. They were forced to apply
the Geneva Convention
Invading a sovereign country without provocation: Shrub/Saddam
Saddam: Invaded Iran without provocation. Invaded Kuwait without
provocation.
Bush: Invaded Iraq ten years after SADDAM violated the cease-fire
agreement that ended the First Gulf War (that resulted from
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait).
You mean the cease-fire than banned WMDs (which Saddam didn't have)?
No, I mean the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War.
Do tell. (I can hardly wait)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now does *THAT* tell you how shallow you are, Andres?
No. It proves that you're a liar or an idiot, or both.
Ooooh, what a cogent response. Not a single word of rebuttal to any
of my points, just call me names, yeah, that'll put me in my place.
You're so predictable. Don't you people ever learn?
BTW: where are those WMDs?
And quick, change the subject, that always works. Distract attention
from the beating you just took.
1) Only an idiot would think that WMDs are off-topic when discussing
Saddam/Iraq
Only a liberal would think that changing the subject is not changing the
subject.
Nice dodge. Now answer the question
2) You ignored this point in the other thread (as usual), so I bring
it up here.
The "point" has been done to death,
And you lose *every time*.
and your side
Which side is that Fred?
...snip...
Still waiting Fred.
What's wrong Fred. Cat got your tongue?
And still waiting. We all know that you're dodging the questions Fred.
Just admit it and I'll stop.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Sure, terrorism isn't such a great risk |
29 Aug 2006 08:25:53 PM |
|
|
Andres64 wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156853925.692618.318520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156804028.851362.314920 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156723860.853298.71890@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156654392.233344.103680@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156529801.313058.88940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1156283803.031716.274410
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
:
<snip the inane moral equivalency *****>
...un-snip perfect comparisons between Shrub and Saddam:
Resnip specious moral equivalency *****.
Do tell Fred, how is showing that Shrub has done the *exact*
same things as Saddam specious?
Exact? The only "exact" thing about it is the shallowness of your
comparisons.
Wrong. As usual.
OK, let's see just how "wrong" I am, Andres.
Remember, you asked for it.
Torture: Shrub & Saddam
Saddam: feeding prisoners into plastics shredders, feet first.
Bush: turning off the air conditioning.
If that's all that Shrub does, why did he refuse to sign the bill
banning torture without a signing statement, which, btw, he has used
more than every other president combined?
Spying on own * | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
