OT: That means NOT woodworking related.

Page 5 of 6  


'country'. NO compensation. Here in Kanuckistan, we can also lose property to infrastructure, but to lose your property to a business, is much more difficult.... if not impossible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's okay, Charlie. If you think it is okay to murder children on the beach for reprisal and political purposes, than you have to live with that endorsement of that behaviour.
It's funny how sanctimonious people can sometimes get when they haven't been there, they haven't seen it happen and they don't have any personal experience with what they're talking about. What's your excuse? I believed you were smarter than that.
Reading or hearing about something only goes so far. If you're intelligent enough, you realize that anyone working for the press always has a personal opinion that slants how they report something. There's *always* at least two points of view.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's hope so. That's about all the back-paddling I can take.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See what I mean?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sometimes I see what you mean. Usually, you don't seem to mean much.
My comment about an unsupported statement stands: give me a cite or I class it as bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
LRod wrote:

No need to get in a pissing match. You're both right. Clinton did get more votes than anyone else. But he also did not get a majority of the popular vote. It can happen easily in a three way contest, when the winner gets a plurality of the vote. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:38:44 -0600, I M Curious

Yes, that's the point conveniently left out. The '92 & '96 elections were a horse of an entirely different color than the 2000 election. Someone (I'm not saying who) made an attempt to spin one to appear like the other two. They are not.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:16:27 -0700, Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Perhaps you could explain the reason Bush seemed unable to utter the word "Iraq" unaccompanied by the phrase "9/11". No, he never directly accused Iraq, but his constant association had over half of us believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. A belief he never tried to correct.
Then of course there was the "yellowcake", the accusation that Saddam, a dictator, would encourage the existence of religious fanatics, and of course Cheneys infamous "mobile biological weapons labs" with canvas sides.
Regardless of how big an asshole Saddam was, we were lied into a war. That alone is reason to impeach Bush and Cheney and bring criminal charges against those unelected advisors who pushed the war.
Back when this all started, I insisted that Iraq had no WMD. I promised to publicly apologize if I was wrong and suggested that those on the other side do the same. It's possible I missed it, but I haven't seen a single apology from any of them. Funny, that :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

You can start a new thread labelled "Apology". No WMD? Poison gas artillery shells were found, but not in an armory or in large number. Or maybe your "No" means "Not very many" --
Apparently a review of history is in order --
1. We know Iraq had WMD, because it was used against the Kurds and Iran, and probably against the U.S. in DS 1 2. The U.N. inspectors couldn't find proof or evidence that the WMD had been destroyed. 3. There was credible intelligence evidence of their existence, supported by MI-5, other European intel services and both the Democratic and Republican leadership 4. Some outdated WMD arty was found, but not in unit-sized quantities.
Given these facts -- especially the inspectors' inability to find evidence of the destruction of the known WMD -- it's an unsupported leap-of-faith that no WMD exists. National security policy is not something which should be based on wishful thinking.
Regardless -- having entered the fray, it is important to U.S. national security that we not quit until we can legitimately declare victory, with an operating viable peaceful Iraq state. If a Democrat-controlled Presidency and Congress arbitrarily start to pull out forces without considering the ground situation they
-- put our remaining forces at risk, -- confirm the Democrats' reputation as being uncaring and inept on national security policy, and -- will suffer losses at the hands of the American electorate for many elections to come.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course not. The fact that it is NOT there, doesn't mean it ISN'T there.
As to the outdated, and essentially useless, artillery ammo, there was no gainsaying the fact that Saddass did have chemical weapons earlier. Nobody ever claimed he didn't. What he didn't have in '01 was anything close to usable, any way to manufacture them, or any means to deliver them far outside his own country. Add to that no connection with 9/11, and you have a very, very weak case for tipping his apple cart over, primarily because he was a mean SOB. In which case, why didn't Bush go after the Demented Dwarf in N. Korea, or the Chinese or...they are all mean SOBs, and much more dangerous. Oh, wait. Dangerous. Bush and Buddies didn't see any real danger in Iraq. Sort of like stomping an ant hill and spraying those who leave.
Yup. Great intel. Brilliant deductions. Superb planning.
Pardon me while I puke. I just read that U.S. losses have hit 4,000.
Uh, sure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't this where Dick Cheney says, "So?"
Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess. That was his response to a reporter saying nearly 2/3 of the American public felt the war was a mistake.
Incredible man. Savage as hell as long as he's not in the line of fire, or even taking a chance on being in the line of fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't this where Dick Cheney says, "So?"
Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:16:16 -0400, JimR wrote:

Aha! Another firm believer in Bush's fantasies - even after he gave up on them. See:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/22/president_bush_admits_iraq_had_no
and:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/01/usa.iraq
I noticed you had no response to the other points I brought up in my post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hold the opinion that hold another man's opinion against me, even if he's a good friend, makes no sense at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. It's guilt by association.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If guilt by association is anybody's cup of tea (I'm not suggesting it's yours, Leon) than read the following:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For those who wish to continue playing this meaningless, irksome and silly-assed game: http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
Like all the rest, it is badly slanted, taking a series of slight events (except that the Keating deal bothers the hell out of me), farts around with the emphasis, and sends the bomb on its way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

..
If McCain is the top of the heap in republican terms, the party is toast. So he got his ass shot down and had tea with his captors. HOW does that make him presidential material...or even a hero?
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/mccain_bush_hug.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Obviously within current political realities it is up to the Democrats to lose this election.....and not to be disappointed they are trying their best to do so. They not only could not run a proper primary election (Florida and Michigan among other snafus) but they have settled on two very damaged and/or lightweight candidates whom biggest claim to fame is race & gender.....neither actual record speaks very loudly nor does their judgment show much promise. For McCain to win it still requires a upset but each day that upset looms ever more possible.

How does one determine whom has Presidential material? Is it simply guys (or gals) you like? As one whom seems to be a equal opportunity(left or right) "hater" is there anyone whom could ever pass your muster?
McCains claim to fame would seem to be his honorable military service, his long successful Senate career, obviously his popularity in his home state, his recognized independent beholden to no one spirit, his perceived independence of the Bush legacy, a reasonable certainty that he'll appoint conservative judges, that he'll stick around to finish the Iraq march toward freedom and not make this great sacrifice in blood and coin for naught. Lastly winning the primaries makes anyone qualified to run for President<g>.... Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.