It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5005, as amended )
Vote Number: 249 Vote Date: November 19, 2002, 07:34 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 5005 (Homeland Security Act of 2002 )
Measure Title: A bill to establish the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 9
Not Voting 1

Cleland (D-GA), Yea

NAYs ---9
Akaka (D-HI)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

Not Voting - 1
Murkowski (R-AK)

It appears that even those of us who are vigilant and well aware of the
vast Republican lie machine can still get sucked in. It would seem
that, once again, any debate or procedural matters going against the
Republicans is unpatriotic.

You can confirm this at:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...2&vote =00249

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more appropriate forum ?

Graham

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:21:26 +0000

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more appropriate forum ?

LOL! Yes, this is an audio forum, is it not? We should NOT post
anything here but audio! Um, Since this was posted this evening, I'd
imagine this MUST be a different Pooh Bear, as car groups abound. I
mean, fer crissake, we don't even sell Vauxhalls in the US. We sell
Pontiacs:

At least that thread *started* as an audio one.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more
appropriate forum ?


Sure, invite us to your next backyard barbeque.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:04:39 +0000

At least that thread *started* as an audio one.

At least.

Poopie said:

At least that thread *started* as an audio one.

If you're going to castigate one of the participants in an OT thread,
why not direct the same grumbling to both of them?

Oh wait, I forgot -- you and duh-Mikey are both soldiers in the
Kroopologism brigade. Obviously™ you can't criticize a fellow trafficker
in BorgSmugSnot.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message


Oh wait, I forgot -- you and duh-Mikey are both soldiers
in the Kroopologism brigade. ObviouslyT you can't
criticize a fellow trafficker in BorgSmugSnot.

As if this isn't a highly snotty post. The Middius sockpuppet's personality
profile must include a lot of externalization.

Pooh Bear wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more appropriate forum ?


Let's just expand it to include Euro politics so you don't feel so
left out .

This balls been in your court and now for good reason as much of
Europe will soon be "in range".... What do you think Europe should do
about it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:

Read this and enjoy your depression .

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760


ScottW

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more
appropriate forum ?

**Are you new here?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson said to Poopie:

**Are you new here?

Hardly™. The Poopster is a 'borg, and you know how They cherish
hypocrisy.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5005, as amended )
Vote Number: 249 Vote Date: November 19, 2002, 07:34 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 5005 (Homeland Security Act of 2002 )
Measure Title: A bill to establish the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 9
Not Voting 1

Cleland (D-GA), Yea

NAYs ---9
Akaka (D-HI)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

Not Voting - 1
Murkowski (R-AK)

It appears that even those of us who are vigilant and well aware of the
vast Republican lie machine can still get sucked in. It would seem
that, once again, any debate or procedural matters going against the
Republicans is unpatriotic.

You can confirm this at:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...2&vote =00249

Just so you know, I don't support the GOP as a matter of course. Only when
I find the Democrat lie machine to working full time on them. There is very
little occaison for me to defend the Democrats against the GOP since it
seems, from my experience, that the Democrats are vastly more prolific, not
to mention vastly more harmful to the security of the United States.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Poopie said:

At least that thread *started* as an audio one.

If you're going to castigate one of the participants in an OT thread,
why not direct the same grumbling to both of them?

Oh wait, I forgot -- you and duh-Mikey are both soldiers in the
Kroopologism brigade. ObviouslyT you can't criticize a fellow trafficker
in BorgSmugSnot.




Said the King of SmugSnot.

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pooh Bear wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more
appropriate forum ?


Let's just expand it to include Euro politics so you don't feel so
left out .

This balls been in your court and now for good reason as much of
Europe will soon be "in range".... What do you think Europe should do
about it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html

ScottW

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the Guardian just a bit left of Marx?

duh-Mikey confirms widespread suspicions about his mental state.

I don't support the GOP as a matter of course.

What is it then -- a matter of routine? reflex? your prime directive?

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pooh Bear wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more
appropriate forum ?


Let's just expand it to include Euro politics so you don't feel so
left out .

This balls been in your court and now for good reason as much of
Europe will soon be "in range".... What do you think Europe should do
about it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html



You know the way western Europe is, it depends on which way the wind blows!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Pooh Bear wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

It seems the Republican lie machine got us both regarding Cleland's
vote on the Home Defense Bill. He voted for it:

Any possibilty of taking discussions about US politics to a more
appropriate forum ?


Let's just expand it to include Euro politics so you don't feel so
left out .

This balls been in your court and now for good reason as much of
Europe will soon be "in range".... What do you think Europe should do
about it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html

ScottW

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the Guardian just a bit left of Marx?

Apparently not when the missiles are pointed their way.

ScottW

It's amazing how conservative one can get when one realizes what one has to
lose. :-)

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


duh-Mikey confirms widespread suspicions about his mental state.

I don't support the GOP as a matter of course.

What is it then -- a matter of routine? reflex? your prime directive?



Fairness.

Just as I would defend you against someone who told a lie about you.
Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you to
make you look bad.

If Mickey had a kingdom, he'd ransom it for a bucket of bugs.

Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you to
make you look bad.

For your information, Mr. Potato Head, I look FABulous.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



If Mickey had a kingdom, he'd ransom it for a bucket of bugs.

Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you to
make you look bad.

For your information, Mr. Potato Head, I look FABulous.



But you have a soul of pure excrement.

From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:24:56 GMT

It's amazing how conservative one can get when one realizes what one has to
lose. :-)

That's probably the basis for our disagreements: I want to win, you
want to not lose.

Try thinking beyond the horizon sometime.

Just so you know, I don't support the GOP as a matter of course. Only when
I find the Democrat lie machine to working full time on them. There is very
little occaison for me to defend the Democrats against the GOP since it
seems, from my experience, that the Democrats are vastly more prolific, not
to mention vastly more harmful to the security of the United States.

Let me guess: you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those
illustrious purveyors of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Nobody with an ounce of reasoning skills could state what you just did
and actually mean it.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...



If Mickey had a kingdom, he'd ransom it for a bucket of bugs.

Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you to
make you look bad.

For your information, Mr. Potato Head, I look FABulous.



But you have a soul of pure excrement.


Then how would you describe a lesser soul, one that knowingly
falsley accuses a variety of individuals of distributing kiddie porn?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:24:56 GMT

It's amazing how conservative one can get when one realizes what one has
to
lose. :-)

That's probably the basis for our disagreements: I want to win, you
want to not lose.



Picture this:
not wanting to lose equals preventing Iran from initiating a nuclear
exchange
wanting to win equals obliterating Iran after it wipes out one major
American city.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:40:22 -0500

Picture this:
not wanting to lose equals preventing Iran from initiating a nuclear
exchange
wanting to win equals obliterating Iran after it wipes out one major
American city.

Now there's a ridiculous statement.

Why not reverse the premises? It's equally valid.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:24:56 GMT

It's amazing how conservative one can get when one realizes what one has
to
lose. :-)

That's probably the basis for our disagreements: I want to win, you
want to not lose.

You're so wrong. I want everybody to win. I want everybody to have the
same freedoma and the same right to pursue their goals, unimpeded by
government and oppressive regulation and taxes.

I want people to understand that the use of force is only appropriate in
response to force, and that no matter what the cause and how noble it may
sound, if it requires forced participation it is still theft.


Try thinking beyond the horizon sometime.

I do, it's the only thing that makes sense.

Rational men see their interests in terms of a lifetime and set their goals
accordingly. They needn't be omniscient, or infallible, they just don't
succumb to the whim of the moment. He realizes that moments are connected
and not cut off from the rest of reality. Most importantly, rational men
take responsibility for their own actions and realize they may not always
win. but never try to shift the blame.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:24:56 GMT

It's amazing how conservative one can get when one realizes what one has
to
lose. :-)

That's probably the basis for our disagreements: I want to win, you
want to not lose.

Try thinking beyond the horizon sometime.

What is it you want to win? Security? Peace of mind? Goodwill? None of
these are possible with people around like the Iranian government or any
government that doesn't recognize the inherent right of human beings to
live. That includes Israel.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...



If Mickey had a kingdom, he'd ransom it for a bucket of bugs.

Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you
to
make you look bad.

For your information, Mr. Potato Head, I look FABulous.



But you have a soul of pure excrement.


Then how would you describe a lesser soul, one that knowingly
falsley accuses a variety of individuals of distributing kiddie porn?


I would consider the entire context. The abuse heaped on the person prior
to making such an accusation, since such things don't happen in a vacuum.

Since I know the entire context, I consider those who drop the whole context
to be despicable.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just so you know, I don't support the GOP as a matter of course. Only
when
I find the Democrat lie machine to working full time on them. There is
very
little occaison for me to defend the Democrats against the GOP since it
seems, from my experience, that the Democrats are vastly more prolific,
not
to mention vastly more harmful to the security of the United States.

Let me guess: you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, those
illustrious purveyors of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Nobody with an ounce of reasoning skills could state what you just did
and actually mean it.

I listen to them and others, I also frequenmtly check in with factcheck.org
to see who's lying today.


Try remembering things like Tammany Hall and how JFK would be treated by the
current Democrats and remember that he would have voted for Nixon had he
himself not won the nomination.

I can say what I said and mean it because history and the facts are on my
side.
Try taking off the blinders and looking at both sides.

Here's an example or two:

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article360.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article362.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article366.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article365.html

From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:52:31 GMT

My god. You have no brain.

http://www.factcheck.org/article358.html

Shows that Bush and particularly Cheney exaggerated 'facts' to the
public, the congress, and the rest of the world (including the UN).
Let's not forget that Cheney beat that dead horse MONTHS after is was
disproven.

http://www.factcheck.org/article360.html

Shows that the statements about Alito were largely true.

http://www.factcheck.org/article362.html

Oooops! Only 12 billion of the 14 billion went to Big Oil. The other
2.6 billion went to other tax credits. Dems say he votes 4 out of 5
time with Bush, turns out it's 82%, math is good.

http://www.factcheck.org/article366.html

Says *Bush* is painting a picture that's too rosy, but says
*moveon.org* is also exaggerating. I'll give you this one if you'll
agree that the swift boats deal was a deliberate republican-directed
activity. Otherwise, this isn't the Dems.

http://www.factcheck.org/article365.html

Um, if you're trying to prove to me that Bush is a liar, you don't need
to: I already know that.

I see a few spots where some of the Dems made some statements that were
wrong, in my opinion.

I see a deliberate, pervasive effort to lie, distort, and otherwise
corrupt information by the republicans (yes, continually and
intentionally small case).

I also notice that you deliberately did not include this one:

http://www.factcheck.org/article364.html

Did you see where the lies and distortions were so egregious that a
republican senator told the rNC it was inappropriate?

And you tell ME to take MY blinders off? Wow.

From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:42:08 GMT

What is it you want to win? Security? Peace of mind? Goodwill? None of
these are possible with people around like the Iranian government or any
government that doesn't recognize the inherent right of human beings to
live. That includes Israel.

That includes 160 or so nations on this planet. So you want to rub out
Israel and Iran. How about Syria as well? And let's go get North Korea,
several of the 'Stans' from the former Soviet Union, 9/10 of Africa,
part of South America, Cuba, Haiti (again), and what the hell, while
we're at it, Canada (just because they're close). And the UK because
Pooh Bear is a smart ass and Stewart Pinkerton is a goofy nickname.

We can't vote them out. We can't attack and overrun them all (since
this would also go against your 'attack only if attacked' statement, I
presume you agree), and even if we could we'd run into other nation's
spheres of influence (think MacArthur in Korea. Remember what happened
with the Chinese there?). Our military is stretched to the limit,
unless you propose forming a permanent occupational warrior class like
the Mongols or Romans or Macedonians had. Kerry proposed forming two
more Army divisions, which based on today's reality, made a lot of
sense.

You probably realize the US military was in Bosnia for almost 10 years,
and we were invited there.

One answer (Kerry's, actually) was to look at the root causes, the
second, third, and fourth order effects of our foreign policy and try
to form world consensus. Another (Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's,
actually) was to tell the world to get ****ed and to be rootin-tootin
cowboys, and then hand the keys to the vault to Halliburton. Oh, and
while we're at it let's ridicule the idea of trying to form world
consensus until we realize that we're stretched too thin, and then
let's go back to the UN and all the others we've ****ed off and ask for
help. Maybe soon we can start eating Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries
again.

The Germans and others are trying diplomatic solutions with Iran. Until
Iran actually does something 'wrong' (i.e. test a bomb) or until we
have conclusive proof that they have built one (hopefully from a source
more credible than US intelligence apparently is)(see factcheck.org for
their stellar performance);-), what other course is there?

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?

I propose that we start by unelecting the dim-witted lying republican
asswipes that are in power right now ASAP. Although we may not have to,
because it appears likely that gobs of the self-righteous corrupt
crooks will be going to jail pretty soon anyway.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:42:08 GMT


The Germans and others are trying diplomatic solutions with Iran. Until
Iran actually does something 'wrong' (i.e. test a bomb) or until we
have conclusive proof that they have built one (hopefully from a source
more credible than US intelligence apparently is)

No mention of US intelligence services in this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html

(see factcheck.org for
their stellar performance);-), what other course is there?

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?

I propose that we start by unelecting the dim-witted lying republican
asswipes that are in power right now ASAP.

Great plan...for a dimwit.
I guess that works in DNC circles but a little more detailed plan is
required.

What exactly would dems do on immigration? Iraq? Social Security?
Medicare? Energy? Global warming? If they actually have a plan for
these important policy questions... lets hear it.

I heard an Air America liberal honk make a most amusing argument the
other day. He said democrats shouldn't respond to the Republican
"trap" on what they would do about Iraq. It wasn't a situation of
their making and they shouldn't have to formulate a plan to fix it and
face any criticism over their plans. I guess that means the dems
don't plan to run for any office until the situation in Iraq is
resolved. That way they won't have to deal with it.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:42:08 GMT

What is it you want to win? Security? Peace of mind? Goodwill? None of
these are possible with people around like the Iranian government or any
government that doesn't recognize the inherent right of human beings to
live. That includes Israel.

That includes 160 or so nations on this planet. So you want to rub out
Israel and Iran.

Iran yes, Israel no. I was saying, (somewhat akwardly) that Iran and other
countries like it, need to recognize Israel's right to exist.

How about Syria as well? And let's go get North Korea,
several of the 'Stans' from the former Soviet Union, 9/10 of Africa,
part of South America, Cuba, Haiti (again), and what the hell, while
we're at it, Canada (just because they're close).

Canada has a lawfully elected government and their people have the right to
change the government. The others listed above would be doing the world a
favor if they would adopt a system that insured the rights of all their
citizens.

And the UK because
Pooh Bear is a smart ass and Stewart Pinkerton is a goofy nickname.

Well, as long as you have a good reason.

We can't vote them out. We can't attack and overrun them all (since
this would also go against your 'attack only if attacked' statement, I
presume you agree), and even if we could we'd run into other nation's
spheres of influence (think MacArthur in Korea. Remember what happened
with the Chinese there?).

None of them are much of a threat to the U.S. other than N. Korea. I think
the N. Koreans would welcome the overthrow of the Little ****. But then you
never know how brainwashed the people might be.

Our military is stretched to the limit,

No, it's not.

unless you propose forming a permanent occupational warrior class like
the Mongols or Romans or Macedonians had. Kerry proposed forming two
more Army divisions, which based on today's reality, made a lot of
sense.

What reality is that?

You probably realize the US military was in Bosnia for almost 10 years,
and we were invited there.


Yes, and I remember Clnton's lies about how long we would be there.

One answer (Kerry's, actually) was to look at the root causes, the
second, third, and fourth order effects of our foreign policy and try
to form world consensus.

One of the reasons he lost the election. The U.S. doesn't need or want the
consenus of a bunch of 2 bit dictators and tyrants that make up much of the
governments around the world. Our condern should be our own safety.


Another (Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's,
actually) was to tell the world to get ****ed and to be rootin-tootin
cowboys, and then hand the keys to the vault to Halliburton.

Well said. A lie but well said.

Oh, and
while we're at it let's ridicule the idea of trying to form world
consensus until we realize that we're stretched too thin, and then
let's go back to the UN and all the others we've ****ed off and ask for
help.

How many tinhorn ****head countries are i the U.N.? Why is it they can't
seem to do anything of their own succesfully? When are they going to go
after any of the countries you listed above?
The U.N. is worse than useless, it has become an obstacle.

Maybe soon we can start eating Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries
again.

The Germans and others are trying diplomatic solutions with Iran. Until
Iran actually does something 'wrong' (i.e. test a bomb) or until we
have conclusive proof that they have built one (hopefully from a source
more credible than US intelligence apparently is)(see factcheck.org for
their stellar performance);-), what other course is there?


None that I know of.

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?


Isolation. We don't really need most of the countries in the world, at
least not nearly as much as we need them. Allow Americans to pump the oil
we have here and tell the Arabs to get on the freedom train or get ****ed.
Without oil their countries would be back in the 5th Century.

I propose that we start by unelecting the dim-witted lying republican
asswipes that are in power right now ASAP.

And replace them with dimwitted tax hiking Democrat asswipes instead?

Although we may not have to,
because it appears likely that gobs of the self-righteous corrupt
crooks will be going to jail pretty soon anyway.

Doubtful. Delay will walk, since he has broken now laws and is simply the
victim of a headline seeking DA.

Who else is trouble? I haven't been paying close attention lately.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:40:22 -0500

Picture this:
not wanting to lose equals preventing Iran from initiating a nuclear
exchange
wanting to win equals obliterating Iran after it wipes out one major
American city.

Now there's a ridiculous statement.

Why not reverse the premises? It's equally valid.


No, it is not at all ridiculous to think that Iran would do a first
strike with nukes, if it could. The reverse is preposterous, we didn't do
that the
Communist bloc during a fifty year standoff, and they were much more of a
danger.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...



If Mickey had a kingdom, he'd ransom it for a bucket of bugs.

Not that there's much chance that someone would NEED to lie about you
to
make you look bad.

For your information, Mr. Potato Head, I look FABulous.



But you have a soul of pure excrement.


Then how would you describe a lesser soul, one that knowingly
falsley accuses a variety of individuals of distributing kiddie porn?


I would consider the entire context. The abuse heaped on the person prior
to making such an accusation, since such things don't happen in a vacuum.

Since I know the entire context, I consider those who drop the whole
context to be despicable.


So, tell us the exact point that it becomes morally
acceptable to knowingly falsely accuse others of sending
them kiddie porn



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:42:08 GMT

What is it you want to win? Security? Peace of mind? Goodwill? None of
these are possible with people around like the Iranian government or any
government that doesn't recognize the inherent right of human beings to
live. That includes Israel.

That includes 160 or so nations on this planet. So you want to rub out
Israel and Iran. How about Syria as well? And let's go get North Korea,
several of the 'Stans' from the former Soviet Union, 9/10 of Africa,
part of South America, Cuba, Haiti (again), and what the hell, while
we're at it, Canada (just because they're close). And the UK because
Pooh Bear is a smart ass and Stewart Pinkerton is a goofy nickname.

We can't vote them out. We can't attack and overrun them all (since
this would also go against your 'attack only if attacked' statement, I
presume you agree), and even if we could we'd run into other nation's
spheres of influence (think MacArthur in Korea. Remember what happened
with the Chinese there?). Our military is stretched to the limit,
unless you propose forming a permanent occupational warrior class like
the Mongols or Romans or Macedonians had. Kerry proposed forming two
more Army divisions, which based on today's reality, made a lot of
sense.

You probably realize the US military was in Bosnia for almost 10 years,
and we were invited there.

One answer (Kerry's, actually) was to look at the root causes, the
second, third, and fourth order effects of our foreign policy and try
to form world consensus. Another (Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's,
actually) was to tell the world to get ****ed and to be rootin-tootin
cowboys, and then hand the keys to the vault to Halliburton. Oh, and
while we're at it let's ridicule the idea of trying to form world
consensus until we realize that we're stretched too thin, and then
let's go back to the UN and all the others we've ****ed off and ask for
help. Maybe soon we can start eating Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries
again.

The Germans and others are trying diplomatic solutions with Iran. Until
Iran actually does something 'wrong' (i.e. test a bomb) or until we
have conclusive proof that they have built one (hopefully from a source
more credible than US intelligence apparently is)(see factcheck.org for
their stellar performance);-), what other course is there?

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?

I propose that we start by unelecting the dim-witted lying republican
asswipes that are in power right now ASAP. Although we may not have to,
because it appears likely that gobs of the self-righteous corrupt
crooks will be going to jail pretty soon anyway.


"At least" the Reps are begining to return the dirty money.
The Dems are still sitting on theirs.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:42:08 GMT

What is it you want to win? Security? Peace of mind? Goodwill? None of
these are possible with people around like the Iranian government or any
government that doesn't recognize the inherent right of human beings to
live. That includes Israel.

That includes 160 or so nations on this planet. So you want to rub out
Israel and Iran. How about Syria as well? And let's go get North Korea,
several of the 'Stans' from the former Soviet Union, 9/10 of Africa,
part of South America, Cuba, Haiti (again), and what the hell, while
we're at it, Canada (just because they're close). And the UK because
Pooh Bear is a smart ass and Stewart Pinkerton is a goofy nickname.

We can't vote them out. We can't attack and overrun them all (since
this would also go against your 'attack only if attacked' statement, I
presume you agree), and even if we could we'd run into other nation's
spheres of influence (think MacArthur in Korea. Remember what happened
with the Chinese there?). Our military is stretched to the limit,
unless you propose forming a permanent occupational warrior class like
the Mongols or Romans or Macedonians had. Kerry proposed forming two
more Army divisions, which based on today's reality, made a lot of
sense.

You probably realize the US military was in Bosnia for almost 10 years,
and we were invited there.

One answer (Kerry's, actually) was to look at the root causes, the
second, third, and fourth order effects of our foreign policy and try
to form world consensus. Another (Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's,
actually) was to tell the world to get ****ed and to be rootin-tootin
cowboys, and then hand the keys to the vault to Halliburton. Oh, and
while we're at it let's ridicule the idea of trying to form world
consensus until we realize that we're stretched too thin, and then
let's go back to the UN and all the others we've ****ed off and ask for
help. Maybe soon we can start eating Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries
again.

The Germans and others are trying diplomatic solutions with Iran. Until
Iran actually does something 'wrong' (i.e. test a bomb) or until we
have conclusive proof that they have built one (hopefully from a source
more credible than US intelligence apparently is)(see factcheck.org for
their stellar performance);-), what other course is there?

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?

I propose that we start by unelecting the dim-witted lying republican
asswipes that are in power right now ASAP. Although we may not have to,
because it appears likely that gobs of the self-righteous corrupt
crooks will be going to jail pretty soon anyway.


"At least" the Reps are begining to return the dirty money.
The Dems are still sitting on theirs.

As are the few Dems who accepted his money.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:14:30 -0500

"At least" the Reps are begining to return the dirty money.
The Dems are still sitting on theirs.

Hm. In the paper here, 16 republicans were listed as recipients of
money from either Abramoff or Indian tribes.

Six Democrats were listed, none of whom had gotten money directly from
Abramoff.

The amounts were HUGELY tilted toward republicans.

As to who is or is not returning money, I have not been following that.
But I'll take a net increase in congress of 10 Democrats.

11 if you count Cunningham. 12 if you count Frist.

From:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:44:52 GMT

Iran yes, Israel no. I was saying, (somewhat akwardly) that Iran and other
countries like it, need to recognize Israel's right to exist.

I misunderstood what you were saying Israel. Going into Iran
without direct provocation runs counter to how you say you think force
should be used.

Canada has a lawfully elected government and their people have the right to
change the government. The others listed above would be doing the world a
favor if they would adopt a system that insured the rights of all their
citizens.

I was kidding about Canada and the UK. I thought that was obvious.

Our military is stretched to the limit,

No, it's not.

Um, yes it is. We've had to pull a brigade out of South Korea in order
to support Iraq. Over 50% of the troops in Iraq are reservists. They're
rotating in some cases on an annual basis. Much of the equipment in
Iraq is in dire need of depot-level maintenance or replacement after
years of hard duty in extreme conditions. Recruiting is down and has
been for the past two years, but by paying large reenlistment bonuses
the negative effect of that has been somewhat postponed. The military
has been calling in people who retired, in some cases many years ago.
We are in no position to edpand military efforts anywhere. The National
Guard in the Gulf states could not respond to the emergency of Katrina,
one of the National Guard's prime duties. How can you possibly say the
military is not stretched?

Kerry proposed forming two more Army divisions, which based on today's reality, made a lot of
sense.

What reality is that?

That our military, whether you admit it or not, is straining to meet
its current obligations. More soldiers, particularly of the type
advocated by Kerry (Special Forces, i.e. Green Berets, whose primary
function is to do things like train native forces to deal with security
and combat operations (sound familiar?) and combat support, whose
primary mission is to rebuild infrastructure and provide logistics
(like electricity, fuel, roads, water. Sound familiar?) would reduce
the strain that infantry, armor, military police, etc. are going
through in trying to perform like missions.

You probably realize the US military was in Bosnia for almost 10 years,
and we were invited there.

Yes, and I remember Clnton's lies about how long we would be there.

You can remember something Clintion said 10 years ago, but have
apparently already forgotten how we would be 'received with open arms
in Iraq because the people want us to overthrow Saddam and and our
tanks will roll through Baghdad on a carpet of rose petals' (or
whatever the exact wording by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld was...)

One answer (Kerry's, actually) was to look at the root causes, the
second, third, and fourth order effects of our foreign policy and try
to form world consensus.

One of the reasons he lost the election. The U.S. doesn't need or want the
consenus of a bunch of 2 bit dictators and tyrants that make up much of the
governments around the world. Our condern should be our own safety.

So Germany and France and ALL the other countries who didn't believe
the intelligence we tried to sell them are run by '2 bit dictators and
tyrants' while WE are the sole fountain of Truth. Bull****. I think
they look pretty smart about now.

Another (Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's,
actually) was to tell the world to get ****ed and to be rootin-tootin
cowboys, and then hand the keys to the vault to Halliburton.

Well said. A lie but well said.

Interesting. You AGREE with that statement above. Here, let me remind
you: "One of the reasons he lost the election. The U.S. doesn't need
or want the consenus of a bunch of 2 bit dictators and tyrants that
make up much of the governments around the world. Our condern should
be our own safety." In other words, get ****ed. We're gonna 'John
Wayne' it. LOL!

How many tinhorn ****head countries are i the U.N.? Why is it they can't
seem to do anything of their own succesfully? When are they going to go
after any of the countries you listed above?
The U.N. is worse than useless, it has become an obstacle.

It has perhaps become an obstacle to OUR foreign policy. That COULD be
because OUR foreign policy is not in EVERYONE'S best interests. Do you
have any idea how many places the UN is, with troops, at any given
time? They go to very many places we do not. You should look it up
sometime. Now some of those places are places WE don't care about in
OUR foreign policy.

Just because the UN is in New York does not mean we own it, or that
they are beholden to our foreign policy aims.

So aside from hand-wringing and wishful thinking about Utopia, what
exactly do you propose?

Isolation. We don't really need most of the countries in the world, at
least not nearly as much as we need them. Allow Americans to pump the oil
we have here and tell the Arabs to get on the freedom train or get ****ed.
Without oil their countries would be back in the 5th Century.

Without alternative fuels, there is no possible way we can domestically
meet our current requirements for oil. That plan would also require the
cooperation of all those 'tinhorn' countries, like China and all of
Europe. Otherwise, they just sell oil elsewhere. But we don't need
cooperation. I forgot.

Although we may not have to,
because it appears likely that gobs of the self-righteous corrupt
crooks will be going to jail pretty soon anyway.

Doubtful. Delay will walk, since he has broken now laws and is simply the
victim of a headline seeking DA. Who else is trouble? I haven't been paying close attention lately.

We'll see, as DeLay is now getting caught up in the Ambramoff deal too.
Frist has pending financial issues. Cunningham is already gone. Aside
from DeLay, 15 other republicans look like they might be in trouble,
and Abramoff hasn't even started talking yet.

From: "ScottW"
Date: 5 Jan 2006 13:40:42 -0800

No mention of US intelligence services in this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...677542,00.html

Nor is there any news in that article. If you read what I said, I said
they have not tested one or built one. This article says no different.

What exactly would dems do on immigration? Iraq? Social Security?
Medicare? Energy? Global warming? If they actually have a plan for
these important policy questions... lets hear it.

republicans deny global warming exists. What I hear dems saying is to
slowly draw down troop levels. The one or two that said do it
immediately got all the press. At factcheck.org, Barbara Boxer and
Donald Rumsfeld are basically in agreement. Unfortunately, there is no
alternative. Pulling out right now would be irresponsible.

Energy policy: give tax breaks to Energy companies while they are
registering record profits. Good plan. Don't know if the Dems can top
it.

Immigration: just let them come in and give them amnesty. Great
low-paid labor for business. Don't know if the Dems can top it.

Social Security? Hack it up and create another 10 trillion in debt, on
top of the record deficits and debt accumulation over the past five
years. Don't know if the Dems can top it.

I love hearing the republican lie machine talking about how, unlike
them, the Dems have no agenda. Personally, even if that's true, I'd
rather face that then an agenda that's been proven destructive. Is a
very bad plan a lot worse than no plan, assuming what you say is true?

Anyway, if you're interested and not just venting brainless republican
crap, you can find the answers he

http://www.democrats.org/

I heard an Air America liberal honk make a most amusing argument the
other day. He said democrats shouldn't respond to the Republican
"trap" on what they would do about Iraq. It wasn't a situation of
their making and they shouldn't have to formulate a plan to fix it and
face any criticism over their plans. I guess that means the dems
don't plan to run for any office until the situation in Iraq is
resolved. That way they won't have to deal with it.

Ironically, I heard Rush Limbaugh say essentially the same thing
recently. Maybe there is common ground after all.