THE 20D: SO LAME, IT MOCKS WOMEN WHO SPEAK THEIR MIND!

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:05:17 -0500, Cynicor wrote:

Reagan's only achievement - and an accidental one at that - is
contributing to the end of the cold war. Reagan just happened to be in
the right place at the right time.

It's like Giuliani taking all the credit for lowering crime in NYC, when
the trend started before he became mayor and continued after he left.

And forcing out Police Commissioner Bratton who was becoming too
popular with the press, getting in the way of Giuliani glomming
undeserved glory. It was Bratton, not Giuliani that had the sense
to recognize and implement some of Jack Maples' ideas that utilized
computerization and data collection that permitted better targeting
of real, serious crimes and was effective in reducing it. Giuliani
preferred sending the police after easier targets that had no voting
constituency and had the approval of the public, such as going after
subway turnstile jumpers and window washers camped out at highway
exits. Wasn't one of these "squeegee" men shot while walking away,
with the cop claiming that the squeegee was raised in a threatening
manner?

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:01:39 -0500
smb wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007 15:44:47 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:15 pm, smb wrote:

Nobody ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was
never a reason given for going there.

Bull****! The administration said over and over that Saddam "had
long- established ties to Al Qaeda."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._911_no_truth/



Of course Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. How deep those ties were, you
and I will never know. That doesn't mean Saddam had a direct role in
planning the 9-11 attacks. Perhaps there was suspicion of a more
direct involvement, but that was never a stated reason for taking out
Saddam.

Of course it was. Are you too lazy to go look at the speeches archived
on www.whitehouse.gov? They linked Saddam to 9/11, to al Quaeda, to
mushroom clouds over American cities, etc. Both before the invasion
and since, they've never stopped.

Sheesh! Get a clue!

Paul Allen

Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:01:39 -0500
smb wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007 15:44:47 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:15 pm, smb wrote:

Nobody ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was
never a reason given for going there.
Bull****! The administration said over and over that Saddam "had
long- established ties to Al Qaeda."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._911_no_truth/


Of course Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. How deep those ties were, you
and I will never know. That doesn't mean Saddam had a direct role in
planning the 9-11 attacks. Perhaps there was suspicion of a more
direct involvement, but that was never a stated reason for taking out
Saddam.

Of course it was. Are you too lazy to go look at the speeches archived
on www.whitehouse.gov? They linked Saddam to 9/11, to al Quaeda, to
mushroom clouds over American cities, etc. Both before the invasion
and since, they've never stopped.

Sheesh! Get a clue!

Paul Allen


He don't want a clue, he wants to sit there clueless with eyes shut,
fingers in ears, mind shuttered from the cold truth. How dare his own
government lie! They'd never do that!! They know I deserve the truth,
and they always give me what I deserve.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:
Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:01:39 -0500
smb wrote:

On 4 Mar 2007 15:44:47 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote:

On Mar 4, 4:15 pm, smb wrote:

Nobody ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was
never a reason given for going there.
Bull****! The administration said over and over that Saddam "had
long- established ties to Al Qaeda."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._911_no_truth/



Of course Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. How deep those ties were, you
and I will never know. That doesn't mean Saddam had a direct role in
planning the 9-11 attacks. Perhaps there was suspicion of a more
direct involvement, but that was never a stated reason for taking out
Saddam.

Of course it was. Are you too lazy to go look at the speeches archived
on www.whitehouse.gov? They linked Saddam to 9/11, to al Quaeda, to
mushroom clouds over American cities, etc. Both before the invasion
and since, they've never stopped.

Sheesh! Get a clue!

Paul Allen


He don't want a clue, he wants to sit there clueless with eyes shut,
fingers in ears, mind shuttered from the cold truth. How dare his own
government lie! They'd never do that!! They know I deserve the truth,
and they always give me what I deserve.

"some moronic *******s" think that lies are harmful only if they are
about sex. Lies designed to cause thousands of worse-than-useless deaths
don't matter at all.
Allen

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:29:47 -0700, smb wrote
(in article ):


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/74678633


-)


Yes Brett, I enjoy your gallery, even the paranoid attempts at Bush
bashing. Get a Nikon, though, your images might be a little sharper
and have better overall "snap."


Between the anti-Semites on the one hand and the rabid Bush baiters on the
other, this news group demonstrates the incredible stupidity of the human
race.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:23:22 -0700, Annika1980 wrote
(in article . com):

On Mar 3, 6:18 pm, Paul Allen wrote:

Yeah, it's really frustrating that somewhere around 40% of folks still
think the chimp's doing a good job. :-)

FOXNEWS?

I think the actual number is a bit less than 30%.
Even that number is scary. Points out the serious flaws in our
education system.


Oh, that's what we need. An education system that indoctrinates everyone to a
one-party system. Or we can just round up everyone who disagrees with us and
put them in forced labor camps. Idiot. No doubt you dare to call yourself a
liberal, despite your constant betrayal of every principal liberals claim to
believe in.

Considering that the 70% includes extremists on both sides, maybe it is even
scarier. Just because 70% disagree with Bush does not mean that they agree
with you. Hugo, for instance, thinks Bush is in the pocket of Jewish
conspirators. Hardly a liberal position.

Some of that 70% thinks Bush is doing a bad job because he hasn't used
nuclear weapons yet. Most of that 70% believes that the Democrats would not
have done any better.

The incessant Bush-bashing is about as reasonable as the Clinton-bashing
before it -- less, because Clinton at least demonstrably committed perjury
and was convicted of it in a court of law.

A good job doing what exactly?
I guess if you're an oil exec or have stock in Exxon/Mobil or
Halliburton then hell yeah, he's doing freaking terrific!

Oh, sure. It is all the Big Oil conspiracy. Or the Jewish conspiracy. Or the
New World Order conspiracy. Or the Saudi royal family conspiracy.

I truly wish the American public would grow up politically and stop
constantly acting like a bunch of two-year-olds having a tantrum.

Or maybe Thomas Paine was right. What we need is a revolution every few
years. At least it would kill off the hotheads.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mar 6, 8:52 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:29:47 -0700, smb wrote
(in article ):

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/74678633

-)

Yes Brett, I enjoy your gallery, even the paranoid attempts at Bush
bashing. Get a Nikon, though, your images might be a little
sharper and have better overall "snap."

Between the anti-Semites on the one hand and the rabid Bush baiters
on the other, this news group demonstrates the incredible stupidity
of the human race.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Let me add:

I never see such childish behavior from adults before. You may or may
not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas or methods, but jumping up and down
screaming like a spoiled child just makes *you* look bad, not Bush.
The other side did the same thing with Pres. Clinton and looked just
as bad. Do you all have such low self-esteem that you care not how
you present yourself to others?

Nothing wrong with strongly disagreeing with someone/some group, but
wishing ill will or name calling others just shows who you really are.

jdear64 wrote:
I never see such childish behavior from adults before. You may or may
not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas or methods, but jumping up and down
screaming like a spoiled child just makes *you* look bad, not Bush.
The other side did the same thing with Pres. Clinton and looked just
as bad. Do you all have such low self-esteem that you care not how
you present yourself to others?

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and members of this administration
should be brought up on war crimes charges.


Note that I didn't jump up and down screaming that, nor has anyone else
here. I just stated that in a quiet, sober typeface.

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:51:27 -0700, Cynicor wrote
(in article ):

jdear64 wrote:
I never see such childish behavior from adults before. You may or may
not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas or methods, but jumping up and down
screaming like a spoiled child just makes *you* look bad, not Bush.
The other side did the same thing with Pres. Clinton and looked just
as bad. Do you all have such low self-esteem that you care not how
you present yourself to others?

Bush and Cheney should be impeached and members of this administration
should be brought up on war crimes charges.


Note that I didn't jump up and down screaming that, nor has anyone else
here. I just stated that in a quiet, sober typeface.

Many people felt that Clinton should have been impeached and tried for war
crimes as well. Do you also feel that way, or what do you have against Bush
that you did not have against Clinton?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:51:27 -0700, Cynicor wrote
(in article ):

jdear64 wrote:
I never see such childish behavior from adults before. You may or may
not agree with Pres. Bush's ideas or methods, but jumping up and down
screaming like a spoiled child just makes *you* look bad, not Bush.
The other side did the same thing with Pres. Clinton and looked just
as bad. Do you all have such low self-esteem that you care not how
you present yourself to others?
Bush and Cheney should be impeached and members of this administration
should be brought up on war crimes charges.


Note that I didn't jump up and down screaming that, nor has anyone else
here. I just stated that in a quiet, sober typeface.

Many people felt that Clinton should have been impeached and tried for war
crimes as well. Do you also feel that way, or what do you have against Bush
that you did not have against Clinton?

Sure, bring the charges - Geneva Convention applies to everyone.