George W. Bush, Traitor wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:QtNZc.2816$Wv5.779@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

George W. Bush, Traitor wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:vYHZc.2482$Wv5.1908@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

You accused me of hating Blacks because I criticized Sharpton.

I think what Bush meant was that terror is like a cancer that cannot
be cured completely but must be monitored forever. He should have
picked his words more carefully because it sounded like defeatism.

I would commend him for a moment of rare insight and honesty except
ever since he has desperately flip-flopped on the issue.

I missed that one, and I read the editorial page every day.

You're kidding me.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002938

The editorial actually says that the "lucky duckies" are paying NO
income tax because the tax system is MORE progressive under the Bush
tax cuts.

"This complicated system of progressivity and targeted rewards is
creating a nation of two different tax-paying classes: those who pay a
lot and those who pay very little. And as fewer and fewer people are
responsible for paying more and more of all taxes, the constituency
for tax cutting, much less for tax reform, is eroding. Workers who pay
little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for
everybody else. They are also that much more detached from recognizing
the costs of government."

I doubt that highly considering how you blasted dems for keeping out
"dissenters".

Who did they keep out??? I never criticized them for keeping anyone
out.

That's right. You blasted them for letting their radical elements
speak. I forgot. I apologize.

I actually haven't studied his Senate record, although I did think he
voted with Bill Clinton to cheat people out of their Social Security
money if they also saved for their own retirement (by making 85% of
their benefits taxable), and he is on record as supporting Kyoto.

None but plenty of Iraqis would have been thrown into Saddam's
plastic shredder, while Saddam funded terrorism in Israel (he was
doing it) and perhaps slipping anti-American terrorists a few million
bucks on the side.

To this day I have not yet seen an actual cancelled check that Saddam
sent to palenstinian terrorists. Have you?

He is on record as giving the families of homicide bombers $25K
apiece.

The Christians (and genuine Muslims) gave it up long ago.
Islamofascists are still at it.

The guillotine was last used in France until 1977. That's not all
that long ago. BUsh's good friends the Saudis routinely behead women
(33 from 1990 to 2003). I guess they qualify as Islmofacists even
though your choice for president supports them and receives support
from them. And you're all worried about George Soros. Even Germany,
Greece, Switzerland and Sweden beheaded people well into the second
half of the 20th century. Note that I am not in anyway approving this
method of execution.

Actually it is probably faster and more humane than anything but
lethal injection and possibly shooting. (More humane than shooting if
the headsman doesn't botch it.) I have no objection to chopping
someone for murder, noting that they can be executed here for the same
crime.

The Islamofascists, though, chop people for being "infidels," as has
been done to hostages. They are not executing people for what would be
capital crimes in the United States, they are murdering them for
political reasions.

Well, who do YOU think they are???

No idea. If they claim to be anarchists, I will take them at their
word. Otherwise, I would have to start questioning people like you
who claim to be libertarian and republican yet share few if any of
the traditional values of those parties. I certainly did not assume
that the people who set fires in Boston were republicans.

NOT blaming the 'Pugs for the Reichstag fire, eh?

Then he could phrase it a hell of a lot better (just as Bush could
have phrased his "unwinnable" remark better). The difference is that

I disagree. I think Bush's original remark was right on target and
offered a very rare moment of honesty from what has been perhaps the
most dishonest administration outside of Nixon's.

Moore is openly PRAISING the enemy as shown below.

No he isn't. He is drawing a historical parallel. The minutemen were
most certainly considered terrorists by the British and they did use
similar tactics including attacking non-military targets.

They did? I thought they attacked British troops.

Of course, back then, a city might be considered a military target
(noting that the Brits burned Washington DC in the war of 1812).

They were an informal
militia like the Mahdis and they were fighting to force occupiers out
of their country. Personally, I approve of the minutemen and
disapprove of the Iraqi insurgents - but I can at least understand
the insurgents' motivation and see the parallels. BTW, if you are
appalled at the way the Iraqi "revolutionaries" are treating us, why
don't you put the blame for that squarely where it belongs? On the
people who told us we would be welcomed as liberators when they knew
damn well we wouldn't be.

We ARE being welcomed as liberators by more than 90 percent, perhaps
99 percent, of the population. If there are 50 million Iraqis and even
1 percent are terrorists or Saddam holdovers, that is 500,000
"insurgents."

For his "Minutemen" to "win" they have to kill American troops.

No - just force them out of the country.

By killing enough of our men to make us get out. You don't think they
are going to force our troops out with foul language, do you?

And how do you think our own minutemen forced the British out?

Don't change the subject. You said Moore's "Minutemen" are trying to
force us out of the country as opposed to killing us. Now you are
admitting that they have to kill us to force us out.

Kerry was baying for Saddam's blood as well, before he flip-flopped
into blaming Bush. Come to think of it, so were Gore and Clinton.

I find it terribly amusing that you are justifying Bush's
catastrophic mistakes by invoking three men you deteste. What kind of
sense does that make? "It's OK that Bush lead us into a quagmire
based on lies because these coercive collectivists that I deteste
said the same thing". That's a joke man.

I'm saying that sauce for Bush is sauce for Kerry (and Gore and
Clinton) as well. The LibDems can't say "Bush lied, men died" without
tarring their own leaders with the same brush.

You know full well that the bad guys constitute a very small part of
the population, and they are also killing the people we liberated.

I know no such thing. But I do know that the minutemen constituted a
very small part of the population and there were plenty of loyalists
that they killed. Again, I am not trying to justify the Iraqi
insurgents but it's naive and disingenuous to pretend that there is a
world of difference.

There is a huge difference because the United States is not fighting
to keep Iraq a colony of the U.S. Most Iraqis know that we want them
to have elections and stabilize their country so we can leave.