On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:25:34 -0700, ModerateLeft wrote:
Remember, W frequently said Saddam was a "clear danger" to the US. I
watched carefully, and never saw him use the phrase "clear and present
danger." If he had, he'd be impeachable. The administration knew they were
selling a bill of goods, so they knew better than to use the second phrase.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:38:13 -0400, Bill Rogers wrote:
Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well. OTOH, think of it
as BSing around the cracker barrel. If your newsreader supports scores,
you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the
mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.
Anyway, it's Usenet.
Not with this post - it didn't have OT in the subject.
Perhaps. But this is *our* cracker barrel, and who the heck is this
one-time-wonder poster who introduces himself with a political thread in a
WW group? Why is his nick "ModerateLeft" instead of "Splinter"?
This is political crap and is anything but persiflage (Light good-natured
You say that like it's an excuse to be intrusive and rude.
Having said all that, I wouldn't have minded so much if the person was a
regular, and was in fact just BS'ing. Fact is, someone wandered in, pissed
his politics, and waddled out again. Probably a 1.5 on the troll scale.
Unfortunately, this thread is not marked as "OT" and doesn't include
many of the most common words that those not wanting politics with
their woodworking would normally filter on. I guess if your filter was
left over from the Clinton years you might still have "impeac*" in
your filter and I guess some might have "war" in the filter, but
otherwise this thread wouldn't get caught by most filters. By the same
token, the delete key still works.
If it is, then we had *another* reason to impeach Clinton, and also John
Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Madeleine Albright, Joe Lieberman, Dianne
Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Bob Graham, Tom Lantos, Sandy Berger, Barbara
Boxer, Robert Byrd, and many others, all of whom said _exactly_ the same
things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB did.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Good post, and I agree with much of it. However, Kerry has no chance. This
will not be a close election, certainly nothing like the last one. BTW
Kerry's campaign has been in a constant state of change and it isn't
And it doesn't bother you that Bush was in the national guard for the
same reasons? And that daddy used his influence to allow him to
leapfrog NG waiting lists to pull it off?
It's true that he does deserve some measure of credit for making it
through flight school, but for anyone that's ever been through the
process, there's flight school and there's VIP flight school. The
latter is all about the VIP saving face, keeping him alive, being
available for photo ops, and passing him on to the next level of
training responsibility at the earliest opportunity. I don't know
enough about Bush's record to say whether or not this is true in his
case (although he would be a prototypical candidate for such treatment)
- heck, he might have been a great pilot - but then again, so might have
Kerry had he decided on that particular flavor of evasion.
Kerry's emphasis on "serving" is pretty gross - bordering on being as
ludicrous as Bush's visit to the aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit.
I think it was an unfortunate question of percieved political expediency
in reaction to the public's perception that he wouldn't be "tough on
But I agree with the majority of your post. It's definitely "pick your
poison" time. I'd have been inclined to go with McCain too had he
decided to run, but more as a reward for what he suffered in Viet Nam
than anything else. That seems as valid a reason as any in today's
Yeah, I guess that's probably still the case now that you mention it. I
think that he did jump into his Washington suit later on, too. All the
VIPs we flew with in the AF had to wear flight suits too, and they all
seemed to relish the swagger opportunity.
I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into
the flight suit.
AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of
the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful
heel rope. :)
By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But
you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been
wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it
could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just
worn a business suit.
Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done
a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a
helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of
a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable
with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a
problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even
stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is
a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.
Considering the tax payer dollars that go into keeping a president alive
(this was reinforced for me after witnessing Bush's urban assault
caravan scream through Rochester, MN yesterday,) it's ludicrous that any
standing president would travel to an aircraft carrier during time of
war regardless of the means of transport. I don't hold this against
Bush, though - political creatures that they are, I think any president
would have taken advantage of the opportunity. However, I would
stipulate that it was blatantly political - again, a motivation easily
within the comfort zone of any politician.
Remember the Thanksgiving (or was it Christmas?) fly in to Bagdad with
the plastic turkey? Remember the mountain bike "incident" of this past
What you folks fail to see is that there's one person who'll gain by
these acts of wanton disregard for presidential safety. Who do you think
put w. up to such stunts? Fer God sake... flying onto an aircraft
carrier in a fighter... or dropping into a hostile country during a
war... or skiddering over jagged rocks and cliffs on a bicycle...
It's CHENEY I tell ya. It's Cheney. He's trying to bump w. off so's he
can swivel in the oval office for a change without worrying that dweeb
for a boss'll catch 'im. Dick knows that he should rightly be president,
not that apron-string mammas boy who likes to play cowboy. And,
afterall, the ticker's not what it used to be - God only knows how much
time dick has left. He's gotta take matters into his own hands.
(Speaking of taking matters into his own hands, do you think w., dick,
condi, donny, et.al. take a look under the desk in there and get all
"stimulated" by the goings on that took place right under there? It's
enough to scare you into wanting to make a law against such acts of
depravity. Amend the Constitution! Enact the Defense of Missionary
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.