Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Do you have evidence of this?

Hey - France and Japan have the potential to do all of those things, and
China seems to be doing it now. Should we invade them, too?

Do you have evidence of this?

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly. And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than
any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

Cheap goods are both good and bad for our economy. You wanna pay $1000 for a
microwave? What they are doing is producing goods cheaper than we can,
although it sucks for american workers, it's fair.

Umm, you DO realize that all three of the nations I mentioned have been
found in violation of various trade agreements, and subjected to sanctions
by various governing bodies. Of course, the US is just as guilty; punitive
actions against the US export trade come regularly. And China's exports to
the US have arguably done more damage to the 'American way of life' than
any
action taken by terrorists. Remember when Wal-Mart was able to advertise
"American Made" products?

Cheap goods are both good and bad for our economy. You wanna pay $1000 for a
microwave? What they are doing is producing goods cheaper than we can,
although it sucks for american workers, it's fair.

"playon" wrote in message
...
The future control and privatization of the world's water supplies by
large corporations is a given, and is very scary scenario. Wars are
definietly going to be fought over this.

I agree, it's no different from oil.

"playon" wrote in message
...
The future control and privatization of the world's water supplies by
large corporations is a given, and is very scary scenario. Wars are
definietly going to be fought over this.

I agree, it's no different from oil.

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Psychotic? Do you know what that means? How does it apply here?

One wouldn't think a sane person could, in their mind, justify shooting
fleeing children in the back, no matter how just they feel their cause.

Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Psychotic? Do you know what that means? How does it apply here?

One wouldn't think a sane person could, in their mind, justify shooting
fleeing children in the back, no matter how just they feel their cause.

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car

I hope you have good insurance.

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car

I hope you have good insurance.

George wrote:

GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag

What's a janus faced scumbag?

Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush.
Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent.

George wrote:

GW BUSH is a janus faced scumbag

What's a janus faced scumbag?

Janus-faced means two-faced. I think that fits Kerry a lot more than Bush.
Like him or not, Bush is a lot more consistent.

- John F. Kennedy
Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961

... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy.

But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect.

Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans?

- John F. Kennedy
Presidential Inaugural Address, 1961

... and you Roger Norman, are no John F. Kennedy.

But both are veterans, and you could have some ordinary respect.

Like the respect the left has for the 250 swift boat veterans?

Not a chance...

These are difficult times and we could all practice some
tolerance.

We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next?

It's nut-cuttin' time kids.
Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and.......



So ,what's next? Does America survive this?

Oh yeah, it's a bump in the road. Whomever is elected will still have to
make the tough decisions. We will still go to war when our way of life is
threatened or when we are attacked by terrorists. We will still use military
force when the diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Our economy will still
ebb and flow despite both liberal and conservatives efforts to control it.
We'll still be bitching about the cost of health care in 20 years, and we'll
still call whomever the current president on the carpet for everything we
don't like. It's politics, and it's been happening since the creation or
republics and democracy. Buch and Kerry will be gone... it'll be two new
guys.

Not a chance...

These are difficult times and we could all practice some
tolerance.

We Americans are at a crossroads. What will we become next?

It's nut-cuttin' time kids.
Will's right, and George's right, and Ty's right and.......



So ,what's next? Does America survive this?

Oh yeah, it's a bump in the road. Whomever is elected will still have to
make the tough decisions. We will still go to war when our way of life is
threatened or when we are attacked by terrorists. We will still use military
force when the diplomacy and sanctions don't work. Our economy will still
ebb and flow despite both liberal and conservatives efforts to control it.
We'll still be bitching about the cost of health care in 20 years, and we'll
still call whomever the current president on the carpet for everything we
don't like. It's politics, and it's been happening since the creation or
republics and democracy. Buch and Kerry will be gone... it'll be two new
guys.

So ,what's next? Does America survive this?

The 90's seem like such a wonderful dream now, don't they?

b.t.w., you better off than you were 4 years ago? (yeah, right (..))

I am better off. I'm out of a marriage with an abusive spouse, and I've
re-discovered my love for playing music, not just recording it. The money
isn't as good, but I don't measure my happiness or success in dollars.

So ,what's next? Does America survive this?

The 90's seem like such a wonderful dream now, don't they?

b.t.w., you better off than you were 4 years ago? (yeah, right (..))

I am better off. I'm out of a marriage with an abusive spouse, and I've
re-discovered my love for playing music, not just recording it. The money
isn't as good, but I don't measure my happiness or success in dollars.

Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does
not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you? I was a senior in
high school then and I understood what he was saying and to
whom.

Thank god it wasn't a self professed "peace" president.


Nikita called his bluff and then he called Nikita's. Scary
**** that was.

It's even scarier out now but no one seems to be nearly as
scared. Odd, that. _No-one_ is bluffing this time round.

You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they were
in 1962. That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. The fear
however is exactly the same.

Will, he was simply puting Nikita Kruschev on notice. Does
not-so-subtle sublety totally escape you? I was a senior in
high school then and I understood what he was saying and to
whom.

Thank god it wasn't a self professed "peace" president.


Nikita called his bluff and then he called Nikita's. Scary
**** that was.

It's even scarier out now but no one seems to be nearly as
scared. Odd, that. _No-one_ is bluffing this time round.

You're right, it is scarier. But the stakes aren't as high now as they were
in 1962. That was a real crisis, way bigger in scope than 9/11. The fear
however is exactly the same.

Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually*
launch their liquid fueled rockets.

Well, at least nobody who knew.

Well, at least noboby who could talk about it.

Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it.

Thank God it wasn't political.

Good point Chris. I think that anybody would have done what Kennedy did
given the same situation.

Nobody ever questioned whether the Russkies could *actually*
launch their liquid fueled rockets.

Well, at least nobody who knew.

Well, at least noboby who could talk about it.

Or at least anybody who *would* talk about it.

Thank God it wasn't political.

Good point Chris. I think that anybody would have done what Kennedy did
given the same situation.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:12:27 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:



playon wrote:
Actually it's a non-issue, the whole assault rifle ban was a big, fake
bandaid from the start. The only difference between what they are
calling an "assault weapon" and the automatic weapons that are now
legal, is a silencer and (I think) a night scope... otherwise, it's
the same gun.


Al, read this article:

http://tinyurl.com/3hwvy

This part supports my point:

Even groups that back renewing the law acknowledge the gun industry
found loopholes and that dangerous weapons do remain on U.S. streets.
But they argue that without the ban, the problem will grow worse.

It may grow worse, but the point is, it has never been very difficult
for anyone to buy weapons of this type in America if they are
determined to have them.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:12:27 -0500, Pete Dimsman
wrote:



playon wrote:
Actually it's a non-issue, the whole assault rifle ban was a big, fake
bandaid from the start. The only difference between what they are
calling an "assault weapon" and the automatic weapons that are now
legal, is a silencer and (I think) a night scope... otherwise, it's
the same gun.


Al, read this article:

http://tinyurl.com/3hwvy

This part supports my point:

Even groups that back renewing the law acknowledge the gun industry
found loopholes and that dangerous weapons do remain on U.S. streets.
But they argue that without the ban, the problem will grow worse.

It may grow worse, but the point is, it has never been very difficult
for anyone to buy weapons of this type in America if they are
determined to have them.

that is not what the Russian news agencys are reporting

Putin sounds just like GWB, did you see him on TV yesterday?

that is not what the Russian news agencys are reporting

Putin sounds just like GWB, did you see him on TV yesterday?

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

To end the war quickly instead of having to go in and kill everyone. It
worked.



but we did kill everyone

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

To end the war quickly instead of having to go in and kill everyone. It
worked.



but we did kill everyone

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this

I'm calling bull**** on that one George. Prove it. What is certain is that
Japan was preparing the bloodiest reception ever for the Allies if they had
invaded Honshu. They would have burned Truman at the stake if he had a
weapon that could have saved hundreds of thousands of american lives and
didn't use it. This doesn't sound like a surrender, does it? As a matter of
fact even after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender, it took two and
the biggest bluff in history (that we had hundreds of them) before they
finally gave up. Now, there is the matter of East Germany. Russia was
getting a little too big for their britches, too. Truman didn't want ****
with the Soviets, he had to show them he was unafraid to use a weapon of
mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at
that time. The use of the atomic bomb not only saved us lives from invading
Japan, but it made the Soviets shake in their shoes, they were having
thoughts about war with the US so they could take over the rest of Europe.
Most likely we avoided another war with a much bigger opponent. This is also
what started the cold war, which in the end after years of both countries
suffering economic woes from the military spending, went our way and we were
left as the lone super power. There are a lot of things that were factors in
the dropping of an atomic bomb on Horoshima and Nagasaki, true... but Japan
surrendering wasn't one of them. Get your facts straight, George.




The fact Japan had already clled in its generals and was perpareing a
surrender at the time of the bombing is not open to your revisionist
history
It was documented on the history channel(film of it as it was happening)
just a few nights ago
and I believe them., not you
George

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this

I'm calling bull**** on that one George. Prove it. What is certain is that
Japan was preparing the bloodiest reception ever for the Allies if they had
invaded Honshu. They would have burned Truman at the stake if he had a
weapon that could have saved hundreds of thousands of american lives and
didn't use it. This doesn't sound like a surrender, does it? As a matter of
fact even after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender, it took two and
the biggest bluff in history (that we had hundreds of them) before they
finally gave up. Now, there is the matter of East Germany. Russia was
getting a little too big for their britches, too. Truman didn't want ****
with the Soviets, he had to show them he was unafraid to use a weapon of
mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at
that time. The use of the atomic bomb not only saved us lives from invading
Japan, but it made the Soviets shake in their shoes, they were having
thoughts about war with the US so they could take over the rest of Europe.
Most likely we avoided another war with a much bigger opponent. This is also
what started the cold war, which in the end after years of both countries
suffering economic woes from the military spending, went our way and we were
left as the lone super power. There are a lot of things that were factors in
the dropping of an atomic bomb on Horoshima and Nagasaki, true... but Japan
surrendering wasn't one of them. Get your facts straight, George.




The fact Japan had already clled in its generals and was perpareing a
surrender at the time of the bombing is not open to your revisionist
history
It was documented on the history channel(film of it as it was happening)
just a few nights ago
and I believe them., not you
George

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

Actually George, I'm all for peace. I totally agree with you. Now, if you
could make the terrorists feel this way, I'd vote for ya! :-) Oh, while your
at it, I'd like to win the lottery and never pay taxes again.



what does one(peace) that is completely under ones control have to do
with the other(lottery) that is pure chance?

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

Actually George, I'm all for peace. I totally agree with you. Now, if you
could make the terrorists feel this way, I'd vote for ya! :-) Oh, while your
at it, I'd like to win the lottery and never pay taxes again.



what does one(peace) that is completely under ones control have to do
with the other(lottery) that is pure chance?

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity

Great line, George! Is it yours? It belongs on a bumper sticker. Seriously.




its been around at least since 67
I don't just make stuff up

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity

Great line, George! Is it yours? It belongs on a bumper sticker. Seriously.




its been around at least since 67
I don't just make stuff up

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common

Well, that and the fact that you both have the same name. And you're both
equally bad with words. On the other hand, he's the president.



nice to see you can admit GW played footsie with the national guard
while JFK was pulling fellow navy men out of the river
one served his country in harms way the other played this country for a
free ride away from vietnam

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common

Well, that and the fact that you both have the same name. And you're both
equally bad with words. On the other hand, he's the president.



nice to see you can admit GW played footsie with the national guard
while JFK was pulling fellow navy men out of the river
one served his country in harms way the other played this country for a
free ride away from vietnam

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

That is a unknown
but voteing for Bush will not bring peace or security
this has been proven by his "work" over his term
so vote for hope or vote for more of the same

I'll take more of the same, thank you.



I will not did you read how many more countries are on the list for
pre-emptive attacks should GW prevail?

when all the pre-emptive action happens how far away do you feel a
draft is?

if you have children this should be enough for you to turn twards peace
instead of twards more cowboy "diplomacy"

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

That is a unknown
but voteing for Bush will not bring peace or security
this has been proven by his "work" over his term
so vote for hope or vote for more of the same

I'll take more of the same, thank you.



I will not did you read how many more countries are on the list for
pre-emptive attacks should GW prevail?

when all the pre-emptive action happens how far away do you feel a
draft is?

if you have children this should be enough for you to turn twards peace
instead of twards more cowboy "diplomacy"

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car

I hope you have good insurance.



why? are the GW supporters so unstable as to try to harm me for printing
thier own leaders words and displaying them?

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

This should be posted in every voteing booth across America
I know I will post it, as close as legally posible, to my voteing place
Possibly make it into foot high letters and drape in on my car

I hope you have good insurance.



why? are the GW supporters so unstable as to try to harm me for printing
thier own leaders words and displaying them?