Snapshots of Afghanistan - August 2009

Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
...
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
wrote:

Yes, but one persons "misperceptions" are another absolute
truths......

Not when they have been PROVEN to be lies. Just like all the BS FOX
news has been spreading about the health care issue, saying illegal
aliens will be covered, the gov will decide when people should die
etc. None of that is an "absolute truth". It's called propaganda and
you people are buying it hook line and sinker.



Almost all of the "lies" the left-wing bozos attribute to Fox News
are themselves outright lies.

Fox really DID tell the truth, as it was thought at the time.

Fox has NOT been spreading lies about the House's health care
bills. It has never said that they would actually be socialized
medicine,
or would actually have health care rationing in them,
DIRECTLY. What their commentators point out,
TRUTHFULLY, is that the bills contain fiscal and
logistical impossibilities that will inevitably lead to,
so long as the left wingers are in power, those things. The
laws of economics simply work like that.

When the goveenment is the sole provider of medical care ...
which, of course, it would not be IN THESE BILLS, they DO
ration health care. Obama has said "look at my advisors to
see what I will do" ... and one of his advisors has
ALREADY advocated health care rationing that literally
kills older folks and not middle aged one. In fact, he
is on a panel that has ALREADY DONE THAT! Yes, indeed,
a panel that rations organ transplants.

But just because these bills are not sole payer does
not mean that is not what Obama and the far left WANT ...
they have explicitly said that indeed that (sole payer)
is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, and that these bills are
just "a foot in the door".

That's what Fox does .... expose the lies posed as distortions
that the left always uses.

Whenever one has the left wing involved, one MUST
always look for the hidden agenda. Fox does, the
left wing lap dog networks like NPR or NBC do not.

Doug McDonald


So did FOX news explain that the insurance companies right now ration
health care and deny claims and coverage that end up in a LOT of
people in pain or dying? Or did they leave that part out?

My last surgery was for a torn ACL in my knee, the insurance company
said this was "elective surgery" because they said "You can still walk
on it and it's only to relieve some normal pain associated with this
sort of injury". So even though I had health insurance at the time, I
paid $8500 out of pocket to have this fixed so I could continue to work.

Maybe I'm misguided, but I trust my government more than a FOR PROFIT
insurance company to have my best interests at heart. But maybe it's
being a "true american" to not trust the government today?

As far as rationing organs, unfortunately, that is needed. They have a
limited supply and they have to be given to the person who is most
likely to get some benefit from it. Unless you have "organ donor" on
your DL, I don't wanna hear you bitching about that one. And yes it is
sad that if a 75 year old man and a 35 year old man both need the same
heart, the 35 year old man is most likely going to get it. If that is
your idea of a "death panel", you might note that either choice one or
the other ends up dead.

As far as who is more likely to limit care based on cost, I'd put MUCH
more faith in the Gov who, no matter who is in power, doesn't seem to
have problems with over spending vs a FOR PROFIT insurance company who
is more concerned about how many millions the CEO can take home this
year.

if you don't think health coverage is being rationed today, you're
wearing some REALLY good blinders.

Stephanie

As long as I have been alive there have been those who bribed my
congressmen to do special favors for them. The main difference (I have
found) between myself and the liberals, is the liberals blame the
bribers for this, and I blame the congressmen. Of course, both are
responsible, but I think I am right when I say the congressmen are more
responsible than the bribers. They hold the public trust. They are like
the "bad cop" who is even worse than your average criminal, because he
has been charged with preventing crime, and then violated the public trust.


Well I consider myself learning towards liberal but I blame the
congressmen for taking the money too. I sure don't blame the bribers,
they are just doing their job, which I would also do if I was in their
position. It is TOTALLY the people who take these bribes fault as the
bribers wouldn't exist if they didn't take the money.

That said, you didn't answer any of the points in my post about
insurance companies -RIGHT NOW- are the "death panel" people blame Obama
wants to create and IMHO would be much more likely to cancel your policy
or limit what services someone can receive based on their interest in
profits, than the gov would be. The gov is used to spending in the red
with no thought to making a profit.

Stephanie

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:2mVrP0Ar60qKFA2G@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
Lost as in did not get any of the objectives (bar 1)
Lost as in Al-Qeada gained most of their objectives.

1st objective for the US *AND* Al-Qeada was to get rid of Saddam.
After than no US objectives have been met but most of the Al-Qeada ones
have.


Al Qaeda objectives are to kill me
Not at all. (Which is a pity) where did you get such a stupid idea.

and all other Americans.
Also false.

I am still alive.
If you say so.

Iraqi's too, should live longer, now that Saddam is gone.

No. Their life expectancy is much lower and living conditions are much
worse sin the US occupied the country,.

We are both happy....
The Iraqi's are not happhy

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Father Guido Sarducci" wrote in message news:Xns9C83
...
In message , "Bill
Graham" said:

OBL could
have directed his airliners into an Army base, or other military
target. but he directed them into a bunch of innocent civilians. You
liberals may forget that, but I am not going to forget it, or let your
stupid yowelings detract me from it.

Neither Bush NOR Obama has EVER made a serious effort to find OBL.

And Bush, Obama, McCain, Barr, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, and Nader
voters
ALL know it.

So what? Clinton had him, and let him go.

Bush also

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Bill Graham
writes
I supported invading Iraq because I bought the administrations
contention that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and constituted a threat to us
and others in the free world. I had little choice but to believe that.
and most of the people, (including your brother) believed it also.

MOST of the world did NOT believe it. They were proved right.
You were wrong. This should tell you that your judgement in these maters
is flawed.

Now, all the Monday morning quarterbacks are backing out, and using the
invasion to support their political platform and aspirations.....Where
were they shortly after the 9/11 attack? They expect George Bush to be
some kind of a miracle worker who has the ability to see things that
others could not see.....

No, just see what most of us could see... it was OBVIOUS but his
*political* aims required an invasion of Iraq no matter what the excuse.


He was just another politician, for Christ's sake. Don't you know that
they are all alike?

No they are not. G W Bush was more stupid than most.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009091315181938165-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-09-13 14:38:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Father Guido Sarducci" wrote in message
...
In message , "Bill
Graham" said:

OBL could
have directed his airliners into an Army base, or other military
target. but he directed them into a bunch of innocent civilians. You
liberals may forget that, but I am not going to forget it, or let your
stupid yowelings detract me from it.

Neither Bush NOR Obama has EVER made a serious effort to find OBL.

And Bush, Obama, McCain, Barr, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, and Nader
voters
ALL know it.

So what? Clinton had him, and let him go.

Huh! When was that? Cite.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

So what do you want me to do about it? I have little choice but to press
my government to protect me from the crazies of this world, and to bitch
about it when they fail to do my bidding.

Carry on, you are doing a fine job.

Thank you.....

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:57:45 +0200, Rol_Lei Nut
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

What's you've intimated above is that the Met down-played the numbers.
Why would they do that? The demonstration cost the Met thousands, if
not millions, of pounds in over-time pay, transportation costs to
bring in personnel from out-lying areas, and costs to bring in gear
for the personnel. Would they be likely to justify these massive
expenditures by *under-estimating* the numbers?


It's a very well-known fact

It's not a fact. It's an assumption.

No it is a fact in the UK.

that presence at demonstrations is usually
somewhere between the (lower) police estimate and the (higher)
demonstration organizer's estimate.

The police figure is typically proportionately lower according to how
much the demonstrators' goals are in contrast with the current government's.

Any crowd estimation figure is likely wide one way or the other. This
is especially true in a demonstration where people move around. The
same people may be counted more than one time, or the method of
counting may wrongly estimate this factor. It's not like the people
are tagged and released.

Equivocation....

Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

says the police estimate of 750,000.... however that was for the march
itself. But all other estimations put it higher.

Due to the Police most people went direct to the rally at the end of the
march. That is where the 2 million comes from. At the time *everyone*
disputed the Police number and pointed out they did not count those at
the rally, only on the march. It was quite a controversy in the UK.

There were parallel marches and protests in 150 other UK cites at the
same time, whilst these were only 10's of thousands it was estimated
that nearly 3 million protested in the UK that day.

BTW the figure for the world wide Anti War protests on that day was 350
million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_..._on_Iraq_(pre-
war)

Says 3 million in Rome alone

Lets face it most of the world knew it was a crock of **** and have been
proved right. It is pathetic that some people in the US cling to the
propaganda they were fed despite all the evidence to the contrary.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:17:58 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:34:56 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:06:02 +0100, Chris H
wrote:


Can you find any links? I am sure this has been documented in detail

What's this? Mr "I get all my information from me mates" ChrisH wants
links? Wasn't it you who got snarky with me for asking you to supply
links for your more outrageous and inaccurate statements?

Bill was talking about published films. They have all been shown
multiple times on TV. Bill saw them in a public viewing.

And the difference is? Your outrageous and inaccurate statements are
about public issues. You claimed, for example, that "over 2 million"
Brits participated in the 2003 anti-war demo. UK police estimated the
crowd at 750,000. The information is public on BBC's website.

Other people put it at 2 million

Sure. That's one of the objections to Fox News commentators...they
misrepresent figures and facts in order to convince people that the
position they espouse is something other than what is true and
accurate. It's a familiar game.

But, you have to ask yourself: Which are the reliable and credible
sources? BBC and the Met, or these "other people"?

The BBC who said it was 2 million total ant eh met had only counted
those on the march not at the rally

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:mHc$XGCNG1qKFAmS@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:



If that was your discussion, then my comments about the Nazi films
was off topic....sorry.

Just another example of BG getting his facts all wrong: They
weren't "Nazi films", there were filmed by the allies after the
camps were found...

This is not true.....There were films taken by the Nazi's that were
recovered when the camps were liberated.....These films showed Nazi
bulldozers shoveling hundreds of dead bodies into open pit
graves.....These were not taken by us after the camps were liberated.
they were Nazi films, presumably made to show other camps how to
handle the, "problem" of efficiently getting rid of Jews. I was
there in the theatre. I saw the films. I know what I saw.

Ovens were usually used to handle the "problem" later on (though
early in the war various methods were tried).

AFAIK there was no official filming by the Nazis inside the camps.
They would probably have not shot any (at least not of death/killing)
as their legality was always a grey zone.

If you can provide a reliable source, I'll certainly say I'm sorry on
this count...

The most circulated film of bodies being bulldozed into pits was
filmed by the British at Bergen-Belsen.

Now, why would the Brits do that? Don't you think they would have a bit
more respect for the dead than that?

IT was the only way at the time to bury the dead so as to stop disease
spreading. It is not done too far differently today where there are
mass bodies to deal with.

I didn't see the "Leica" symbol on the cameras that they used to take
the pictures. I only remember what was taken. But the assumption that
it was taken before the camp was liberated is a pretty good one.

No. Many of the mass burials like that were done after liberation. The
bodies were buried rather than cremated as the Germans had usually blown
up the crematoria.

I doubt if any of the allied forces would have used bulldozers to push
naked Jew's bodies into open pit graves. And the naked Jews that were
standing around staring at the cameras sure didn't look, "liberated" to
me. They were looking death in the face. My common sense tells me that
what I saw was a part of a Nazi documentary, but like you, I could be
wrong.

I think you are wrong. When the allies got to the camps. They had to
manage the situation. This included getting the inmates back on to solid
food and checking them for diseases. This took a while and many died
during this process.

The reason being when rescued you relax and that is when people died.
Also many were so malnourished that it takes time to get the body
accepting food. In some cases people broke into the food store and eat.
They were then is a bad way as the body, in a starvation condition,
could not deal with the food.

The Brits and Americans did have to bury, and quickly, 100's of bodies
and clear up the camps that in many cases the Germans had just walked
out of leaving the inmates to stave.

From Memory all the film was taken by the Allies partly for propaganda
and partly for historical record. The Germans AFAIK did not take that
much inside the camps and when it was clear the war was not going well
probably destroyed much of what there was.

SO it is unlikely to be German film of themselves doing mass murder.
More likely to be the Allies.

I never said, "All". I said some of the films were obviously taken
before the camps were liberated.

Ok...

I still maintain this. And, as I said earlier, there were many still
photos that were taken before the camps were liberated.

That is true. So it follows there could be film too.

The Germans were very thorough at documenting the things they did.

Yes and no. But there was a lot of film and pictures taken

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Bill Graham wrote:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009091315181938165-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-09-13 14:38:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Father Guido Sarducci" wrote in message
...
In message , "Bill
Graham" said:

OBL could
have directed his airliners into an Army base, or other military
target. but he directed them into a bunch of innocent civilians. You
liberals may forget that, but I am not going to forget it, or let your
stupid yowelings detract me from it.

Neither Bush NOR Obama has EVER made a serious effort to find OBL.

And Bush, Obama, McCain, Barr, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dole, and Nader
voters
ALL know it.

So what? Clinton had him, and let him go.

Huh! When was that? Cite.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get
that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn't he captured or
killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Apparently graham is someone who thinks that murder is a good idea.
Before 9/11 there wasn't justification for doing anything to bin
Laden, and killing him would indeed have been murder and an
international act of terrorism.

--
Ray Fischer

Bill Graham wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
So declare war on Saudi Arabia & invade them - that's where the 9/11
terrorists came from, & where they were funded from. If America did that,
I'd cheer them on. Iraq did nothing to deserve being invaded.

You'd, "cheer them on?" Oh come now.....Really? That'd be the day, when you
cheered anything done by the US on, and especially by the US under Bush. I
know exactly what you'd say. "Just because most of the terrorist troops were

graham assumes that everybody is as scared and bloodthirsty as he is.

--
Ray Fischer