I get what Upscale is getting at, but the operative word was
'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
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.
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+
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.
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 :-).
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
3. There was credible intelligence evidence of their existence, supported
by MI-5, other European intel services and both the Democratic and
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.
Of course not. The fact that it is NOT there, doesn't mean it ISN'T
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.
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.
Aha! Another firm believer in Bush's fantasies - even after he gave up on
I noticed you had no response to the other points I brought up in my post.
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.
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
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.