In article <BtSdnVdLYMClpXui4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Tax cuts worked

Trillions of dollars in debt. We're still paying a quarter of

a

trillion dollars every year on Reagan's giveaway.

You must LOVE paying taxes.

I will pay my fair share of taxes like anyone else.

Which is why you support shoving your debts off onto your children

and

their children. In fact YOU are still paying taxes on Reagan's
giveaways. You're just too damn stupid to realize it.

My children will grow to invest and create their own retirement.

And they will pay off your debts.

And NOT
depend on Government to solve all their problems like you think

children

should.

This, from the guy who works for the government and collects a

*****

10% "disability" from the Air Force.

I don't like being over
taxed,

Yes you do. That's why you're a republican.

And you call others a control freak?

YOU are a control freak. And his statement says or implies nothing
about control.

and I don't like the average left wing liberals attitude that

tax

payers money, isn't theirs.

Which is why you're as happy as a pig in ***** that your tax money

is

being used to pad the wallets of the already rich.

I am happy because when I retire I will travel in my motorhome,

R*O*F*L* !!!!!

personally
going into California and giving you and David a toast..:o)

I can beat the ***** out of you and drive your body into the desert

with

the Lexus LS 430 that Bush bought me in exchange for your $300.

Your threat has been noted

Write it down twice, because I will kick your sorry ***** twice. I
thought you were so "brave?"

I thought liberals were supposed to be non-violent.

Where did you hear that? Coward.

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bs58h5$von$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Tax cuts worked

Trillions of dollars in debt. We're still paying a quarter of a
trillion dollars every year on Reagan's giveaway.

You must LOVE paying taxes.

I will pay my fair share of taxes like anyone else.

Which is why you support shoving your debts off onto your children and
their children. In fact YOU are still paying taxes on Reagan's
giveaways. You're just too damn stupid to realize it.

My children will grow to invest and create their own retirement.

Or not. A crippled economy, a worthless dollar, and spiraling
inflation will wipe out almost any investments.

ROFL, you don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And NOT
depend on Government to solve all their problems like you think children
should.

But YOU are the one who refuses to pay your bills.

I do?

They get paid every month.

YOU think the
government should waste money on pork that you don't want to pay for.

I do think that?

How nice of you to think for others.

and I don't like the average left wing liberals attitude that tax
payers money, isn't theirs.

Which is why you're as happy as a pig in ***** that your tax money is
being used to pad the wallets of the already rich.

I am happy because when I retire I will travel in my motorhome, personally
going into California and giving you and David a toast..:o)

Snicker. You're going to depend upon the government for your
retirement.

Sure thing,

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:jfvra1-h87.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

In talk.abortion, The Etobian
<i2l1zjh802@sneakemail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:27 GMT
<br5mtv0ac94e27kgcih2uo6rdhq4s5c10n@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:46:36 GMT,

Since Bush didn't win in 2000 I guess he can run again in 2008?

He sure can! I'll take TWELVE years of Bush ...

Good. Take him down to Antarctica for the next 12 years so that
America can RECOVER from all the damage that that lousy Warmonger-
in-Thief has done to us.

The downslide started under Clinton.
The meteoric recovery started under Bush.

Recovery? Maybe.

Meteoric? Doubtful.

But I do see an upturn. I'm not going to vote Bush because
of it, though. Too many other issues I don't agree with,
many of them religion-related.

Such as???

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:jfvra1-h87.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...

In talk.abortion, The Etobian
<i2l1zjh802@sneakemail.com>
wrote
on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:27 GMT
<br5mtv0ac94e27kgcih2uo6rdhq4s5c10n@4ax.com>:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:46:36 GMT,

Since Bush didn't win in 2000 I guess he can run again in 2008?

He sure can! I'll take TWELVE years of Bush ...

Good. Take him down to Antarctica for the next 12 years so that
America can RECOVER from all the damage that that lousy Warmonger-
in-Thief has done to us.

The downslide started under Clinton.
The meteoric recovery started under Bush.

Recovery? Maybe.

Meteoric? Doubtful.

But I do see an upturn. I'm not going to vote Bush because
of it, though. Too many other issues I don't agree with,
many of them religion-related.

Such as???

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:13 -0500,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

The Etobian <i2l1zjh802@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

Since Bush didn't win in 2000 I guess he can run
again in 2008?

He sure can! I'll take TWELVE years of Bush ...

Good. Take him down to Antarctica for the next 12 years so
that America can RECOVER from all the damage that that lousy
Warmonger-in-Thief has done to us.

The downslide started under Clinton.
The meteoric recovery started under Bush.

And we all know what happens to all meteors at the moment
they become meteorites.

The economy is only PART of the recovery. Many OTHER
aspects have to do with our recovery from the post-9/11 paranoia/
disregard for our personal rights, liberties, and privacy... from Bush's
embrolling us needlessly, as Warmonger-in-Thief, in an Iraqi quagmire...
and from Bush's kowtowing to the bigots of the "Religious" Radical
Right.

Less than 11 months to go, and then "Bye-bye Bush!!"

Be prepared to possibly eat your words Craig. I hope you can
take it.

There's always that possibility. For America's sake, I hope it
doesn't happen. For the next 10 months, I'll do everything that
I reasonably can, as a citizen, to help ensure Bush's defeat. And
I encourage everyone else to do likewise.

And lets say Bush does lose, which I don't think will happen.

"Glory, Hallelujah!!!" if he does!!

Are you for pulling out the troops in Iraq?

A pahsed withdrawal if allies help out with troops. FULL withdrawal
if they don't. They the place become's Europe's problem. They're closer
to Iraq. And with luck, NO one's proble... as was the case BEFORE Bush
conned us into going there.

Are you prepared for the consiquences of that action?

I see no consequences that we'd have to be concerned with. IRAN,
for exaple, is a far greater threat to Isral, and Syria may be worse yet.
In 2000, I stood right at the Syrian border with the Golan Heights,
absolutely amazed at how easy it would be for Syria to just romp right
in, if they wanted to! (BTW... did you know that there is an ENORMOUS
snow-capped moutan visible from there? I had no idea that mountains
that big were so close to Israel!) And we aren't imposing regime change
on EITHER of those countries. Bush is a hypocrite. Was simply avenging
the attempt on his father's life, and trying to scrape all that egg off
his record.

Are you prepared to be responsible for electing someone that
may take us down a terrible road that will cost thousands of lives later?

NOT likely, so I'm not concerned about it.

Your comment on personal rights, liberties, and privacy.

There comes a time, when we must ask ourselves, just how much
are we willing to sacrifice?

I sacrifice a few hours every day in behalf of those liberties,
whenever I'm home from my business trips.

When does the time come when we allow too much "personal"
rights,"liberties" and "privacy."

No such time will ever come, as long as the liberties pertain to
personal and private behavior on the part of people that does no overt
harm to others.

You realize, the terrorist used our freedom to train in our own country.

We're savvy enough now to know what to watch for. And we can do that
without infringing upon the rights of Americans.

They took advantage of our liberties and personal rights. Right under our
nose Craig. Used the internet (by the way, you are aware of the U.N. wanting
to take control of the internet). Lived in our communities, lived under our
rights and liberties. All the time, planning to kill more than 3,000
people.

So we learned. There's no eason to OVERreact.

Who knows how many more may be still doing that now?

If so, i'll bet they're under surveillance.

I say, if it saves the lives of our citizens and protects our nation, we
need to be willing to give up some rights and liberties.

Talk about a "slippery slop." Now THAT would be an ACTUAL one.
(Unlike the phony-baloney concerns that RRR cultists have over so-called
"moral" issues.)

I for one, don't worry about it Craig because I am not doing anything
illegal to begin with. So let them watch. I rather them watch, than allow
another cell to kill 3,000 or possibly more.


There comes a time, when national security and protecting our citizens
trumps privacy, rights, and liberties.

Read this:

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack



Breaking from NewsMax.com

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of
mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will
likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government. Franks, who
successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his
worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine
Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's
Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of
mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would
likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of
government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept.
11, Franks said that "the worst thing that could happen" is if terrorists
acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts
heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, "... the Western world, the free world, loses
what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a
couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in
the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist,
massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be
in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our
own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a
repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins
to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the
wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil
liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking
official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in
favor of a military form of government.

The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in
Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades
in the Army.

Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars
for valor. Known as a "soldier's general," Franks made his mark as a top
commander during the U.S.'s successful Operation Desert Storm, which
liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden's
al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare
to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.

Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado,
including:

President Bush: "As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be
judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not
having been appraised properly by those who would say he's not very smart. I
find the contrary. I think he's very, very bright. And I suspect that he'll
be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history
effectively. Probably we'll think of him in years to come as an American
hero."

On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon
brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed
with the president's decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

"I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein
had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of
America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his
commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last
dozen or so years. So we have intent.

"If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this
country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this
particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent,
what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?"

The Pentagon's deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its
most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis.
He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the
U.S. wanted to capture, "it just turned out that the number happened to be
about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, 'Aha, this will be
the ace of spades.'"

Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been
captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner
than Osama bin laden.

"The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I
won't say that'll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable."

Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. "It's not in
the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the
history of man. ... I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will
actually be at peace."



I just hope Craig, that if Bush wins this, you and the others blowing your
victory horns are prepared for the backlash.

I personally don't know if Bush is going to win or not. I highly suspect he
will. NEVER in American history has the American public removed a wartime
president. That is during war time, the public has never voted out the
president that was all ready sitting in office.

Second: The democrats are going to have a hard time now bashing Bush on the
economy

Third: Approximately 3/4 of the nation supports our actions in Iraq

Fourth: Democrats have done this before, shot themselves in the foot,
attacked, blamed, ect... They are doing it again. This is what cost them
in 2002, most likely will cost them again in 2004.

Right now they are all upset with Gore supporting Dean.

All I see Craig, in the Democrats, is a party completely with out leadership
and out of control.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:13 -0500,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

The Etobian <i2l1zjh802@sneakemail.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

Since Bush didn't win in 2000 I guess he can run
again in 2008?

He sure can! I'll take TWELVE years of Bush ...

Good. Take him down to Antarctica for the next 12 years so
that America can RECOVER from all the damage that that lousy
Warmonger-in-Thief has done to us.

The downslide started under Clinton.
The meteoric recovery started under Bush.

And we all know what happens to all meteors at the moment
they become meteorites.

The economy is only PART of the recovery. Many OTHER
aspects have to do with our recovery from the post-9/11 paranoia/
disregard for our personal rights, liberties, and privacy... from Bush's
embrolling us needlessly, as Warmonger-in-Thief, in an Iraqi quagmire...
and from Bush's kowtowing to the bigots of the "Religious" Radical
Right.

Less than 11 months to go, and then "Bye-bye Bush!!"

Be prepared to possibly eat your words Craig. I hope you can
take it.

There's always that possibility. For America's sake, I hope it
doesn't happen. For the next 10 months, I'll do everything that
I reasonably can, as a citizen, to help ensure Bush's defeat. And
I encourage everyone else to do likewise.

And lets say Bush does lose, which I don't think will happen.

"Glory, Hallelujah!!!" if he does!!

Are you for pulling out the troops in Iraq?

A phased withdrawal if allies help out with troops. FULL withdrawal
if they don't. They the place become's Europe's problem. They're closer
to Iraq. And with luck, NO one's problem... as was the case BEFORE
Bush conned us into going there.

Are you prepared for the consiquences of that action?

I see no consequences that we'd have to be concerned with. IRAN,
for exaple, is a far greater threat to Isral, and Syria may be worse yet.
In 2000, I stood right at the Syrian border with the Golan Heights,
absolutely amazed at how easy it would be for Syria to just romp right
in, if they wanted to! (BTW... did you know that there is an ENORMOUS
snow-capped moutan visible from there? I had no idea that mountains
that big were so close to Israel!) And we aren't imposing regime change
on EITHER of those countries. Bush is a hypocrite. Was simply avenging
the attempt on his father's life, and trying to scrape all that egg off
his record.

Are you prepared to be responsible for electing someone that
may take us down a terrible road that will cost thousands of lives later?

NOT likely, so I'm not concerned about it.

Your comment on personal rights, liberties, and privacy.

There comes a time, when we must ask ourselves, just how much
are we willing to sacrifice?

I sacrifice a few hours every day in behalf of those liberties,
whenever I'm home from my business trips.

When does the time come when we allow too much "personal"
rights,"liberties" and "privacy."

No such time will ever come, as long as the liberties pertain to
personal and private behavior on the part of people that does no overt
harm to others.

You realize, the terrorist used our freedom to train in our own country.

We're savvy enough now to know what to watch for. And we can
do that without infringing upon the rights of Americans.

They took advantage of our liberties and personal rights. Right
under our nose Craig. Used the internet (by the way, you are aware
of the U.N. wanting to take control of the internet). Lived in our
communities, lived under our rights and liberties. All the time,
planning to kill more than 3,000 people.

So we learned. There's no eason to OVERreact.

Who knows how many more may be still doing that now?

If so, I'll bet they're under surveillance.

I say, if it saves the lives of our citizens and protects our nation,
we need to be willing to give up some rights and liberties.

Talk about a "slippery slope." Now, THAT would be an ACTUAL one.
(Unlike the phony-baloney concerns that RRR cultists have over so-called
"moral" issues.)

I for one, don't worry about it Craig because I am not doing anything
illegal to begin with. So let them watch. I rather them watch, than allow
another cell to kill 3,000 or possibly more.

The *watching* doesn't bother me, either. That would have NO
effect on anything that I do. It's the LOSS of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act -- now worth about as much as a roll of toilet paper after the
cat's played with it -- and other such abuses, that bothers me... a LOT!

There comes a time, when national security and protecting our citizens
trumps privacy, rights, and liberties.

There are LIMITS to that. BIG limits. Otherwise, it's like the USSR
and Russia I never saw, because by 1987, they were already fairly free.
It would be as the USSR was under Stalin, if we permit that. Over HERE!
Then the terrorists REALLY would have won!

Read this:

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Breaking from NewsMax.com

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon
of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will
likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Are you aware that TRUMAN signed an executive order that
would permit superceding of Constitutional rights in the event of a
major emergency? That was *supposed* to be a SECRET from the
American people, but LUCKILY, some Congressman accidentally
alluded to it on TV during a televized session, and the cat was out
of the bag. Yet, it's STILL in place. We, the people, should have
DEMANDED that it be repealed by congress (as *any* presidential
executive order can be... including that hateful one by Bush that
curtailed abortion on U.S. sites overseas, the FIRST DAY that that
schmuck was in office!)... right on the spot. But -- this is a nation of
gutless sheep who won't stand up and fight for their rights!

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate
Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the
men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the
military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using
a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our
allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our
cherished republican form of government.

A good argument for less "republic" and more &