Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
.
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 12:10:07 AM |
|
|
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1184632192.322759.59070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
A significant indictment from the Right on Bush's mental health! His odd
behaviour lately recalls the unstable waning days of Richard Nixon when,
on camera, he furiously pushed his Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, hard from
the back, obviously having some harsh words with him, as well (but not
recorded).
And it recalls the Soviet Union's concern that a Watergate embattled,
pressurized Nixon might have been prepared to get a major nuke war started
with them in the Middle East. The USSR had positioned about 50,000 troops
on Iran's northern border in support of its ally, Syria, during the Yom
Kippur War. The move prompted Nixon to call for a 3rd-stage global nuclear
alert, with sudden troop redeployments. The USSR pulled its troops away
from Iran shortly afterward.
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through presently.
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is to either have *someone*
engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the Iranians attack US
forces in order to have any real chance to turn the tide back to their
party. But, it's debatable whether even such a traumatic major event would
have the same effect it had on the public after 9-11, considering the loss
of faith many Americans have had in the Republican party...and the
continued major scandals that keep erupting and costly moral and tactical
mistakes it keeps making.
Doc
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 06:52:03 AM |
|
|
On Jul 17, 1:10 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through presently.
Agreed. The only way to extend the neocon plan for the future is to
unite the country in fear. Foreign competition for oil and other
resources will require an aggressive, determined and disciplined
American public (middle class). The folks that run this country and
benefit the most need to keep us in line and focused.
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is to either have *someone*
engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the Iranians attack US
forces in order to have any real chance to turn the tide back to their
party. But, it's debatable whether even such a traumatic major event would
have the same effect it had on the public after 9-11, considering the loss
of faith many Americans have had in the Republican party...and the
continued major scandals that keep erupting and costly moral and tactical
mistakes it keeps making.
Doc
It's the only way a basically deranged president doing God's will,
backed by incompetent ideologues, can try to make this the next
American century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
18 Jul 2007 05:15:48 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke <jflemke@locallink.net>
Spat the Words
On Jul 17, 1:10 am, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through presently.
Agreed. The only way to extend the neocon plan for the future is to
unite the country in fear.
The recent 'communique' from alqaeda about attacking the USA could
be part of that ruse to keep us trembling.
Here is definitely another part of the white house tactic.
Another (heavily) doctored NIE.
NIE: Normalizing Idiocy and Exaggeration
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070717_nie_
3a_normalizing_idi.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2x7jbj
Foreign competition for oil and other
resources will require an aggressive, determined and disciplined
American public (middle class). The folks that run this country and
benefit the most need to keep us in line and focused.
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is to either have *someone*
engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the Iranians attack US
forces in order to have any real chance to turn the tide back to their
party. But, it's debatable whether even such a traumatic major event would
have the same effect it had on the public after 9-11, considering the loss
of faith many Americans have had in the Republican party...and the
continued major scandals that keep erupting and costly moral and tactical
mistakes it keeps making.
Doc
It's the only way a basically deranged president doing God's will,
backed by incompetent ideologues, can try to make this the next
American century.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 06:06:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:10:07 -0700, Docrodile wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1184632192.322759.59070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
A significant indictment from the Right on Bush's mental health! His odd
behaviour lately recalls the unstable waning days of Richard Nixon when,
on camera, he furiously pushed his Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, hard from
the back, obviously having some harsh words with him, as well (but not
recorded).
And it recalls the Soviet Union's concern that a Watergate embattled,
pressurized Nixon might have been prepared to get a major nuke war started
with them in the Middle East. The USSR had positioned about 50,000 troops
on Iran's northern border in support of its ally, Syria, during the Yom
Kippur War. The move prompted Nixon to call for a 3rd-stage global nuclear
alert, with sudden troop redeployments. The USSR pulled its troops away
from Iran shortly afterward.
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through presently.
Wouldn't that be proof that the neocons were completely inept at keeping
Americans safe? They've had 6 years to make us safe, and had those 6
years primarily on the platform of keeping us safe. If they fail at that
one thing, why on earth would anyone keep them around?
Woods
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is
to either have
*someone* engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the
Iranians attack US forces in order to have any real chance to turn the
tide back to their party. But, it's debatable whether even such a
traumatic major event would have the same effect it had on the public
after 9-11, considering the loss of faith many Americans have had in the
Republican party...and the continued major scandals that keep erupting
and costly moral and tactical mistakes it keeps making. Doc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 09:48:23 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.17.23.06.17.830830@tepidmail.com...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:10:07 -0700, Docrodile wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1184632192.322759.59070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
A significant indictment from the Right on Bush's mental health! His
odd
behaviour lately recalls the unstable waning days of Richard Nixon
when,
on camera, he furiously pushed his Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, hard
from
the back, obviously having some harsh words with him, as well (but not
recorded).
And it recalls the Soviet Union's concern that a Watergate embattled,
pressurized Nixon might have been prepared to get a major nuke war
started
with them in the Middle East. The USSR had positioned about 50,000
troops
on Iran's northern border in support of its ally, Syria, during the Yom
Kippur War. The move prompted Nixon to call for a 3rd-stage global
nuclear
alert, with sudden troop redeployments. The USSR pulled its troops away
from Iran shortly afterward.
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible
turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred
or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy
power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through
presently.
Wouldn't that be proof that the neocons were completely inept at keeping
Americans safe? They've had 6 years to make us safe, and had those 6
years primarily on the platform of keeping us safe. If they fail at
that
one thing, why on earth would anyone keep them around?
Woods
They can point to the absence of a terror strike as evidence they're on
the job 24/7 with an effective protective umbrella over the American
society. We on the Left wonder why a committed suicidal fringe group of
militants haven't been able to capitalize on the obvious fallibility of a
security system over 6 years. That is what puzzles me. It's highly
doubtful that we've plugged so many opportunistic holes in this
'impenetrable' fortress's mightly walls. LOL! It smells like conspiracy,
or we've just been about the luckiest SOB's in human history. I guess one
could consider God and Jesus are helping us, as some evangelicals have
noted the unusual absence of hurricanes striking the American continent
last year...and, so far, this year, too. I laugh about the concept
presented to the American public of a terror group trying hard to get
inside the US, but can't quite figure out how to get past our amazingly
perfect security net. I don't know why they'd have to when agents already
inside, in a Fifth Column presence, could easily be instructed and paid to
terrorize. One also wonders why they've been so unable to do this...or,
for another puzzling example, why millions of cargo containers, so
spottingly inspected, haven't been used to poison the public. So many
vulnerabilities and still they can't get one good completion. Quite odd
when you consider how much they say they hate us. Yes, it's most
mysterious.
Doc
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is
to either have
*someone* engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the
Iranians attack US forces in order to have any real chance to turn the
tide back to their party. But, it's debatable whether even such a
traumatic major event would have the same effect it had on the public
after 9-11, considering the loss of faith many Americans have had in
the
Republican party...and the continued major scandals that keep erupting
and costly moral and tactical mistakes it keeps making. Doc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 10:38:52 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com>
Spat the Words
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:10:07 -0700, Docrodile wrote:
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> wrote in message
news:1184632192.322759.59070@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?
vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
A significant indictment from the Right on Bush's mental health! His
odd
behaviour lately recalls the unstable waning days of Richard Nixon when,
on camera, he furiously pushed his Press Secretary Ron Ziegler, hard
from
the back, obviously having some harsh words with him, as well (but not
recorded).
And it recalls the Soviet Union's concern that a Watergate embattled,
pressurized Nixon might have been prepared to get a major nuke war
started
with them in the Middle East. The USSR had positioned about 50,000
troops
on Iran's northern border in support of its ally, Syria, during the Yom
Kippur War. The move prompted Nixon to call for a 3rd-stage global
nuclear
alert, with sudden troop redeployments. The USSR pulled its troops away
from Iran shortly afterward.
With the only ace up the sleeve the unpopular Republicans have at this
point -- a renewal of patriotic fervor (and fear) and a possible turning
back to them for protection if a major domestic terror strike occurred
or
there was an "attack" from Iran in the Gulf -- to regain their heavy
power
loss, it is really a most dangerous time we're sludging through
presently.
Wouldn't that be proof that the neocons were completely inept at keeping
Americans safe? They've had 6 years to make us safe, and had those 6
years primarily on the platform of keeping us safe. If they fail at that
one thing, why on earth would anyone keep them around?
This is why politics is such a sham.. it's all marketing. Given your
scenario above, one could make an identical argument that this is
further proof that you need to keep the same leadership, or you need
to keep a president with war experience, etc, in light of another
attack (and they'd probably fool about half the people). It's all
a sales job.. it's all in the perception.
Most people, stevie is a good example, are not savvy enough to
perceive when someone has real political leadership skills.
In 2000 half the US was fooled by some fake cowboy from Texas whose
daddy was a former president. Most people never have conducted an
interview so they don't see it as abnormal for a candidate to never
give any specifics about what he will do in office.
Woods
It seems that the ONLY trick they've got left is
to either have
*someone* engineer a major terrorist strike on the US or have the
Iranians attack US forces in order to have any real chance to turn the
tide back to their party. But, it's debatable whether even such a
traumatic major event would have the same effect it had on the public
after 9-11, considering the loss of faith many Americans have had in the
Republican party...and the continued major scandals that keep erupting
and costly moral and tactical mistakes it keeps making. Doc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
16 Jul 2007 11:22:40 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
... and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
My god the possibilities. I could start talking in ever diminishing
circles 'til I disappear down my own mouth-hole.
Poor Stevie, soon to be out there on his own nutty little fringe all
by himself.
Scaife-Owned Newspaper Calls for Iraq Troop Withdrawal -- Questions
Bush's 'Mental Stability'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?
vnu_content_id=1003612271
By E&P Staff
Published: July 16, 2007 3:29 PM ET
NEW YORK The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire
Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans
to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide."
The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during
last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering
about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't
enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 08:54:07 PM |
|
|
On Jul 16, 9:22 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
.. and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
Not a closet anything, Randy -- I have openly claimed to be a
traditional liberal, in the Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson mode.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 06:58:46 AM |
|
|
On Jul 17, 12:22 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can see the writing
on the wall.
.. and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
My god the possibilities. I could start talking in ever diminishing
circles 'til I disappear down my own mouth-hole.
Stevie's an out of the closet egomaniac. He can't backtrack on his
support for these losers anymore than he could bring himself to open
his own veins. All he can do is be thankful he's used a pseudonym out
here cuz the childish, incompetent, deluded, lying house of cards he's
been supporting is about to crash down around him. No amount
"debate", twisting, turning, adolescent game playing is going to
change that.
That's poetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 10:23:27 PM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can
see the writing on the wall.
Alternatively, they're pre-poisoning 2008.
It's unlikely any troop pull-out will occur before the next
President is in office, and the CW says it will be a
Democrat. So, if the Reich wants to shift all the blame
for their disaster on the Democrats.... start whining for
a pull-out now... every second an American soldier
remains in Iraq (which they will for years) is further
proof that the Democrats are just awful.
Don't put ANYTHING past the Reich wing, especially
treason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 07:44:34 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184729007.081662.321220@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can
see the writing on the wall.
Alternatively, they're pre-poisoning 2008.
It's unlikely any troop pull-out will occur before the next
President is in office, and the CW says it will be a
Democrat. So, if the Reich wants to shift all the blame
for their disaster on the Democrats.... start whining for
a pull-out now... every second an American soldier
remains in Iraq (which they will for years) is further
proof that the Democrats are just awful.
Don't put ANYTHING past the Reich wing, especially
treason.
It's likely there will be the beginning of a troop phase-down before the
election since the success of the Dems OR the Elephants in next year's
election now rides almost solely on their getting a bipartisan
amalgamation in the Senate to override Bush's veto. The war must be phased
down to get the support of the public's at election time.
If it wasn't for this maniac's stubborness and psychosis, we'd be on our
way to a phase-down now. If he'd let go of his stupid fantasy of a
military 'victory', we would've already saved lives...and I really wonder
how many, like you and Stevie, actually give a ***** about
tragically unnecessary death and injury. Perhaps neither of you two
*****-banging whores know much about suffering because you've both lived
privileged, marshmallow-assed lives.
And no one has to 'whine' for a pull-out, dummy. It's what a majority of
the public and their representatives want, despite the fact that idiots
like you would enjoy an even greater war just to have something to get
excited about everyday in your bored existence.
No, it ain't proof the Dems are 'just awful', lame brain, it's also proof
that the Elephants are, too, in not crossing over and doing what the
public wants done...why they elected Dems into a majority last November.
And it's proof Bush is a cold-assed delusional ***** for not accepting
the Senate's vote and getting our men and women the hell outta there.
You awful goddamned fairy...
Doc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 09:19:24 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampthing@hellsbayou.net> Spat the Words
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184729007.081662.321220@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can
see the writing on the wall.
Alternatively, they're pre-poisoning 2008.
It's unlikely any troop pull-out will occur before the next
President is in office, and the CW says it will be a
Democrat. So, if the Reich wants to shift all the blame
for their disaster on the Democrats.... start whining for
a pull-out now... every second an American soldier
remains in Iraq (which they will for years) is further
proof that the Democrats are just awful.
Don't put ANYTHING past the Reich wing, especially
treason.
It's likely there will be the beginning of a troop phase-down before the
election since the success of the Dems OR the Elephants in next year's
election now rides almost solely on their getting a bipartisan
amalgamation in the Senate to override Bush's veto. The war must be
phased
down to get the support of the public's at election time.
Ah, who needs public support when you've got Diebold working for
you ?
Wait, I'm getting a premonition.. GWB doesn't run for a 3rd term,
BUT HE GETS ELECTED !!
If it wasn't for this maniac's stubborness and psychosis, we'd be on our
way to a phase-down now. If he'd let go of his stupid fantasy of a
military 'victory', we would've already saved lives...and I really wonder
how many, like you and Stevie, actually give a ***** about
tragically unnecessary death and injury. Perhaps neither of you two
*****-banging whores know much about suffering because you've both lived
privileged, marshmallow-assed lives.
And no one has to 'whine' for a pull-out, dummy. It's what a majority of
the public and their representatives want, despite the fact that idiots
like you would enjoy an even greater war just to have something to get
excited about everyday in your bored existence.
No, it ain't proof the Dems are 'just awful', lame brain, it's also proof
that the Elephants are, too, in not crossing over and doing what the
public wants done...why they elected Dems into a majority last November.
And it's proof Bush is a cold-assed delusional ***** for not accepting
the Senate's vote and getting our men and women the hell outta there.
You awful goddamned fairy...
Doc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
17 Jul 2007 08:58:42 PM |
|
|
On Jul 17, 4:58 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 17, 12:22 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can see the writing
on the wall.
.. and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
My god the possibilities. I could start talking in ever diminishing
circles 'til I disappear down my own mouth-hole.
Stevie's an out of the closet egomaniac. He can't backtrack on his
support for these losers anymore than he could bring himself to open
his own veins. All he can do is be thankful he's used a pseudonym out
here cuz the childish, incompetent, deluded, lying house of cards he's
been supporting is about to crash down around him.
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
No amount "debate", twisting, turning, adolescent game playing
is going to change that.
Speaking of "adolescent" -- when are you going to make more of your
silly, childish inventive fictions about my Mother? Grow up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 06:33:14 AM |
|
|
On Jul 17, 9:58 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:58 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 17, 12:22 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been right
all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can see the writing
on the wall.
.. and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
My god the possibilities. I could start talking in ever diminishing
circles 'til I disappear down my own mouth-hole.
Stevie's an out of the closet egomaniac. He can't backtrack on his
support for these losers anymore than he could bring himself to open
his own veins. All he can do is be thankful he's used a pseudonym out
here cuz the childish, incompetent, deluded, lying house of cards he's
been supporting is about to crash down around him.
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
No amount "debate", twisting, turning, adolescent game playing
is going to change that.
Speaking of "adolescent" -- when are you going to make more of your
silly, childish inventive fictions about my Mother? Grow up.
Whenever I feel inspired too, I suppose, Stevie.
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Nothing can truer than fiction. You've proven that by reading my
fiction and making a complete, raving ***** of yourself.
Grow up? I've been pissing on you from a great height for weeks you
ego driven freak.
Stick around, every group needs some sport. Even if it is shooting
fish in a barrel. I'll bet your mom's even gotten a kick out of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 03:38:13 PM |
|
|
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 17, 9:58 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:58 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 17, 12:22 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, John Lemke
<jfle...@locallink.net> Spat the Words
Looks like the conservatives are railing about "surrender" now too.
They're just catching up with we "fringe leftists" and our longterm
concern about Bush's mental state. Just goes to show we've been
right all along and keep getting "righter".
The left becomes right. It's poetic justice.
It's what happens when people with a clear vision can see the writing
on the wall.
.. and the always-right stevie claims to be a closet lefty.
My god the possibilities. I could start talking in ever diminishing
circles 'til I disappear down my own mouth-hole.
Stevie's an out of the closet egomaniac. He can't backtrack on his
support for these losers anymore than he could bring himself to open
his own veins. All he can do is be thankful he's used a pseudonym out
here cuz the childish, incompetent, deluded, lying house of cards he's
been supporting is about to crash down around him.
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
No amount "debate", twisting, turning, adolescent game playing
is going to change that.
Speaking of "adolescent" -- when are you going to make more of your
silly, childish inventive fictions about my Mother? Grow up.
Whenever I feel inspired too, I suppose, Stevie.
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
Nothing can truer than fiction. You've proven that by reading my
fiction and making a complete, raving ***** of yourself.
Grow up? I've been pissing on you from a great height for weeks you
ego driven freak.
Talk about ego! I'm sure it seems that way when you're hiding behind a
killfile and don't read the replies to what you falsely perceive as
"pissing from great heights" ... hilarious. And by the way, I notice
you had no response to my previous remark quoted above, so here it is
again -- maybe you'll figure out an actual response this time:
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
Stick around, every group needs some sport. Even if it is shooting
fish in a barrel. I'll bet your mom's even gotten a kick out of it.
I said you'd probably like her -- I didn't say she'd like you. And I
can assure you, she wouldn't. Unlike you, she actually loves and
appreciates her country -- though she is well aware of its flaws. And
though she doesn't read usenet, I can assure you she'd view being
insulted by you as the cheap tactic of a childish intellect. Grow up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 07:32:06 PM |
|
|
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Nothing can truer than fiction. You've proven that by reading my
fiction and making a complete, raving ***** of yourself.
Grow up? I've been pissing on you from a great height for weeks you
ego driven freak.
Talk about ego! I'm sure it seems that way when you're hiding behind a
killfile and don't read the replies to what you falsely perceive as
"pissing from great heights" ... hilarious.
I don't see much of anyone wasting time with you anymore, Stevie. I
was simply the first to read you right. :-)
..
And by the way, I notice
you had no response to my previous remark quoted above, so here it is
again -- maybe you'll figure out an actual response this time:
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
Hitler clung to the same core beliefs to the bitter end too. He had
an unshakable hope right up until the point he bit down on that glass
capsule and stuck that pistol in his mouth.
Stick around, every group needs some sport. Even if it is shooting
fish in a barrel. I'll bet your mom's even gotten a kick out of it.
I said you'd probably like her --
Alcoholics generally make me uncomfortable.
I didn't say she'd like you. And I
can assure you, she wouldn't.
We'd have a couple of beers together and eventually we'd be fine.
Unlike you, she actually loves and
appreciates her country -- though she is well aware of its flaws. And
though she doesn't read usenet, I can assure you she'd view being
insulted by you as the cheap tactic of a childish intellect. Grow up.
She'd appreciate how easy it was to make you betray your black little
heart and scream like a little girl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
19 Jul 2007 10:51:13 PM |
|
|
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing threat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* threat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
Nothing can truer than fiction. You've proven that by reading my
fiction and making a complete, raving ***** of yourself.
Grow up? I've been pissing on you from a great height for weeks you
ego driven freak.
Talk about ego! I'm sure it seems that way when you're hiding behind a
killfile and don't read the replies to what you falsely perceive as
"pissing from great heights" ... hilarious.
I don't see much of anyone wasting time with you anymore, Stevie. I
was simply the first to read you right. :-)
What are you talking about? You became even *more* obsessed with me
AFTER you killfiled me! You haven't stopped talking about me (and
indirectly *to* me) in all this time, right up to this very post to
which I'm now responding! .
And by the way, I notice
you had no response to my previous remark quoted above, so here it is
again -- maybe you'll figure out an actual response this time:
Nothing is crashing around me, Johnny. Everything I have ever said
about Gephardt, or Rockefeller, or Edwards, or Bill Clinton -- who all
believed Saddam was a threat -- is still true. And everything I've
said recently about the Democratic Senate, who approved and confirmed
the surge strategy of General Petraeus, is true.
Hitler clung to the same core beliefs to the bitter end too. He had
an unshakable hope right up until the point he bit down on that glass
capsule and stuck that pistol in his mouth.
When you can't respond to the actual point, bring up Hitler -- it's
the favorite ploy of a weak fringe leftist like you, isn't it?
Stick around, every group needs some sport. Even if it is shooting
fish in a barrel. I'll bet your mom's even gotten a kick out of it.
I said you'd probably like her --
Alcoholics generally make me uncomfortable.
I didn't say she'd like you. And I
can assure you, she wouldn't.
We'd have a couple of beers together and eventually we'd be fine.
Is that how things work in your life? Is that the only way women can
stand you, is to get a few beers in them? Sorry, you're out of luck.
My Mother doesn't drink beer -- maybe an occasional glass of wine, but
not enough that she'd be able to stand you.
Unlike you, she actually loves and
appreciates her country -- though she is well aware of its flaws. And
though she doesn't read usenet, I can assure you she'd view being
insulted by you as the cheap tactic of a childish intellect. Grow up.
She'd appreciate how easy it was to make you betray your black little
heart and scream like a little girl.
Oh yeah, your other weak ploy -- insult someone's mother, and feel
proud of yourself. What a weak little child you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
24 Jul 2007 08:22:42 AM |
|
|
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing threat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* threat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fringe
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what someone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defensless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so and so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselves.
Follow the leader....
Same goes for religious freaks, a group to which you also belong.
Usually dumb fuckers without two brain cells between them who want to
be led and manipulated. Look up to a "leader". Just look at the amount
of money these evangelical con-people make each year. Look at the
luxury they live in and it'll give you a notion of how gullable you
lot are. Seems that your just peas in a pod, you warmongers and
religious freaks. Usually one goes with the other. Warmonger =
religious freak and vice-versa.
Oh and you're probably the only one who believed Bill Clinton when he
told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to trust
Tony Blair's decision to go to war...because the British people
certainly didn't!
Now go play on a railway line somewhere.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
24 Jul 2007 11:26:21 AM |
|
|
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing threat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* threat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fringe
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what someone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defensless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so and so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselves.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told the
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shouldn't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
25 Jul 2007 07:32:09 AM |
|
|
On 24 Juli, 18:26, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skul=
l=2E
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing threat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* threat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fringe
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what someone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defensless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so and so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselves.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told the
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shouldn't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
What about coming to your own conclusions you twat! Politicians are
lyin' bastards...it comes with the terrotory. There's no such thing as
an honest politician. Everybody knows that. Fuckin' everybody. Then
there are the twats who put their faith in them anyway. The popular
and "patriotic" thing to do was to agree with your monkey after your
buildings were visited by aeroplanes, and that's what all politicians
did...remember "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists".
You need to get your empty head out of your fuckin' arse douglas. Your
claim that you believed that Iraq had WMD because some politicians
told you so is nothing less than pathetic.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
25 Jul 2007 11:00:44 AM |
|
|
On Jul 25, 5:32 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Juli, 18:26, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking sk=
ull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If i=
t's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that i=
f I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunatel=
y,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing threa=
t=2E
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* threa=
t=2E
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Clin=
ton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fringe
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what someone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defensless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so and so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselves.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told the
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shouldn't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
What about coming to your own conclusions you twat! Politicians are
lyin' bastards...it comes with the terrotory. There's no such thing as
an honest politician. Everybody knows that. Fuckin' everybody. Then
there are the twats who put their faith in them anyway. The popular
and "patriotic" thing to do was to agree with your monkey after your
buildings were visited by aeroplanes, and that's what all politicians
did...remember "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists".
You need to get your empty head out of your fuckin' arse douglas. Your
claim that you believed that Iraq had WMD because some politicians
told you so is nothing less than pathetic.
Why shouldn't I have believed the UN Security Council? Why shouldn't I
have believed the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia, none of whom
were sure Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs? Why shouldn't I have
believed Tony Blair? Please explain each of these.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
26 Jul 2007 07:24:05 AM |
|
|
On 25 Juli, 18:00, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 5:32 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Juli, 18:26, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrot=
e:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking =
skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginni=
ng.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If=
it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that=
if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortunat=
ely,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing thr=
eat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* thr=
eat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to wa=
it
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill Cl=
inton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasion)=
to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there a=
re
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you cl=
aim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fringe
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what someo=
ne
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defensl=
ess
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think f=
or
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so and=
so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselves.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told the
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shouldn't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
What about coming to your own conclusions you twat! Politicians are
lyin' bastards...it comes with the terrotory. There's no such thing as
an honest politician. Everybody knows that. Fuckin' everybody. Then
there are the twats who put their faith in them anyway. The popular
and "patriotic" thing to do was to agree with your monkey after your
buildings were visited by aeroplanes, and that's what all politicians
did...remember "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists".
You need to get your empty head out of your fuckin' arse douglas. Your
claim that you believed that Iraq had WMD because some politicians
told you so is nothing less than pathetic.
Why shouldn't I have believed the UN Security Council? Why shouldn't I
have believed the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia, none of whom
were sure Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs? Why shouldn't I have
believed Tony Blair? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
The UN security council did not support an illegal invasion. Neither
did the leaders of France, (freedom fries and all that childish
bollocks), Germany nor Russia. Tony Blair is a wanker and has dirtied
his time as prime minister due to his lapdog support of your monkey
pressie. Nobody in GB supports this debacle...not a soul. Tony Blair
is not representative of the British people when it comes to this
illegal, cowardly invasion and subsequent illegal and cowardly
occupation of Iraq.
Why didn't you believe the weapons inspectors? No you chose to believe
your monkey who was spitting out one unbelievable story after the
other. That's why we, (fringe lefties), knew it was all bollocks.
Because we have the brain power to see through the *****. Have you
understood it yet?
Fuckin' *****!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
26 Jul 2007 10:05:19 AM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 5:24 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Juli, 18:00, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 5:32 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Juli, 18:26, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wr=
ote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrot=
e:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freakin=
g skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the begin=
ning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? =
If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now th=
at if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasi=
on.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfortun=
ately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing t=
hreat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent* t=
hreat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford to =
wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bill =
Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invasio=
n) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, there=
are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what you =
claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us frin=
ge
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what som=
eone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a defen=
sless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. You
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to think=
for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so a=
nd so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourselv=
es.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told the
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shouldn=
't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
What about coming to your own conclusions you twat! Politicians are
lyin' bastards...it comes with the terrotory. There's no such thing as
an honest politician. Everybody knows that. Fuckin' everybody. Then
there are the twats who put their faith in them anyway. The popular
and "patriotic" thing to do was to agree with your monkey after your
buildings were visited by aeroplanes, and that's what all politicians
did...remember "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists".
You need to get your empty head out of your fuckin' arse douglas. Your
claim that you believed that Iraq had WMD because some politicians
told you so is nothing less than pathetic.
Why shouldn't I have believed the UN Security Council? Why shouldn't I
have believed the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia, none of whom
were sure Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs? Why shouldn't I have
believed Tony Blair? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text=
-
- Visa citerad text -
The UN security council did not support an illegal invasion. Neither
did the leaders of France, (freedom fries and all that childish
bollocks), Germany nor Russia. Tony Blair is a wanker and has dirtied
his time as prime minister due to his lapdog support of your monkey
pressie. Nobody in GB supports this debacle...not a soul. Tony Blair
is not representative of the British people when it comes to this
illegal, cowardly invasion and subsequent illegal and cowardly
occupation of Iraq.
Why didn't you believe the weapons inspectors?
I did. They said Saddam was refusing to cooperate under terms of the
UN Security Council's Resolution 1441.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
31 Jul 2007 07:19:02 AM |
|
|
On 26 Juli, 17:05, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 26, 5:24 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25 Juli, 18:00, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 5:32 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Juli, 18:26, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> =
wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wr=
ote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freak=
ing skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beg=
inning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about=
? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now =
that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the inva=
sion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally" about it. Unfort=
unately,
I believed Hillary Clinton when she said Saddam was a growing=
threat.
I believed John Edwards when he said Saddam was an *imminent*=
threat.
I believed Jay Rockefeller when he said we could not afford t=
o wait
for further proof, but must remove Saddam now! I believed Bil=
l Clinton
when he told the British people (on the very eve of the invas=
ion) to
trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war. And, of course, the=
re are
many, many more examples I could give you -- as you well know.
And you've been told that we "fringe lefties" knew then what yo=
u claim
to know now. Why? you may well ask. Well douglas, we can think =
for
ourselves. We don't need to be led by anyone...particularly
politicians...of any variety. See the difference? None of us fr=
inge
lefties have written at any time here that we "believed" what s=
omeone
said in the run up to this cowardly and illegal attack on a def=
ensless
third world country. No we came to that conclusion ourselves. Y=
ou
right wing warmongerers haven't the capacity to do that, to thi=
nk for
yourselves. Every warmongerer that I have talked about this to =
has
been the same. "So and so" said that there were WMD in Iraq, so=
and so
said this so and so said that. None of you can think for yourse=
lves.
Follow the leader....
Tell me why I shouldn't have believed Bill Clinton when he told t=
he
British people to trust Tony Blair's decision to go to war? Why
shouldn't I have believed Tony Blair? Why shouldn't I have believ=
ed
all the Democrats in the United States Congress, some of whom said
they did not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence? Why shoul=
dn't
I have believed the Clinton appointed CIA director? Or British
intelligence? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
What about coming to your own conclusions you twat! Politicians are
lyin' bastards...it comes with the terrotory. There's no such thing=
as
an honest politician. Everybody knows that. Fuckin' everybody. Then
there are the twats who put their faith in them anyway. The popular
and "patriotic" thing to do was to agree with your monkey after your
buildings were visited by aeroplanes, and that's what all politicia=
ns
did...remember "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists".
You need to get your empty head out of your fuckin' arse douglas. Y=
our
claim that you believed that Iraq had WMD because some politicians
told you so is nothing less than pathetic.
Why shouldn't I have believed the UN Security Council? Why shouldn't I
have believed the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia, none of whom
were sure Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs? Why shouldn't I have
believed Tony Blair? Please explain each of these.- D=F6lj citerad te=
xt -
- Visa citerad text -
The UN security council did not support an illegal invasion. Neither
did the leaders of France, (freedom fries and all that childish
bollocks), Germany nor Russia. Tony Blair is a wanker and has dirtied
his time as prime minister due to his lapdog support of your monkey
pressie. Nobody in GB supports this debacle...not a soul. Tony Blair
is not representative of the British people when it comes to this
illegal, cowardly invasion and subsequent illegal and cowardly
occupation of Iraq.
Why didn't you believe the weapons inspectors?
I did. They said Saddam was refusing to cooperate under terms of the
UN Security Council's Resolution 1441.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
They also said that they wanted/needed more time....! Didn't mention
that you dingenuous *****!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
31 Jul 2007 10:11:41 AM |
|
|
On Jul 31, 5:19 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 26 Juli, 17:05, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 26, 5:24 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why didn't you believe the weapons inspectors?
I did. They said Saddam was refusing to cooperate under terms of the
UN Security Council's Resolution 1441.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
They also said that they wanted/needed more time....! Didn't mention
that you dingenuous *****!
The UN Resolution called for immediate compliance. Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair said there was no need for a further resolution, because
the existing resolution was all they needed to justify going to war.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: The neocon ice keeps getting thinner |
24 Jul 2007 12:47:22 PM |
|
|
On Jul 24, 12:26 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:22 am, WH <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20 Juli, 05:51, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 5:32 pm, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:38 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 4:33 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
You've finally gotten the context thru your thick freaking skull.
Something this band of fringies understood from the beginning.
Uh, what "context" have I "finally" gotten?
There I go, overestimating you again.
Really? Why don't you just explain what you're mumbling about? If it's
about the Iraq war, I've been saying for about two years now that if I
knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the invasion.
There's nothing new there, nothing "finally&qu | | | | | | | | | | |
