"Overstated," is that how your dictionary defines something that doesn't
exist? Your logic is bizarre. If enough people believe something that
isn't true then those who promoted the falsehood and acted on it get a free
I'll say it again: Saddam was always going to be a threat in that given the
opportunity he would cause trouble in future. But he was bankrupt, his
military was a shadow of its former self, his economy was in ruins, he
didn't have the means to pursue WMDs. You don't invade a country based on
the fear of what might happen in future if a series of developments perhaps
maybe possibly takes place. Well, rational people don't, Bush did--and
you're still making excuses for him.
There is such a thing as criminal negligence, in which someone takes actions
so reckless that they amount to a disregard for the consequences. Colin
Powell was suspicious of the intelligence claiming Saddam's WMD program was
being restored, that's why he insisted the director of the CIA sit right
behind him when he addressed the UN. And where did much of that
intelligence come from? A source code-named Curveball, someone German
intelligence had warned was an alcoholic compulsive liar. And how did the
Bush administration respond to such warnings? They treated Curveball's
claims as pure gold even when there was solid information like satellite
photos and eye-witness accounts from weapons inspectors showing his claims
were false. That's what happens when an administration chooses to seek out
whatever supports a decision that has already been made and ignores whatever
information displeases them. "Careless" would be a kind description of how
the Bush administration chose to go to war.
BTW sparky, I was pleased at Bush winning the 2000 election and for quite
some time I defended his administration because I badly underestimated its
capability for corruption and incompetence. But of course you'll continue
to paint me as a raving leftist because that's what hopeless ideologues like
Bull, the evidence of it being done under false pretences is mountainous,
but you'd jam your own thumbs in your eyes rather than look at it. First
you decide what you want to believe, then you cherry-pick what information
you take in, rejecting anything that conflicts with your goal. Damn, where
have we seen that before?
Gen. Shinseki warned before the invasion that it would take several hundred
thousands troops to occupy Iraq precisely because of those ethnic divisions.
The result was him being ridiculed and isolated by the administration.
Anyone with half a clue knew what the outcome of occupation would be. But
you live in a fantasy-land where it's possible to invade a country and then
just turn around and leave, as if there was ever a chance of that happening
in Iraq. Of course as a libertarian you no doubt would see the U.S.
withdraw from those international treaties that require invading powers to
ensure civil order and the necessities of life in lands they have defeated
in war, mere scraps of paper after all.
One outcome of the invasion is that Iran has been strengthened, with much of
Iraq being under the de facto control of pro-Iran forces. The Iranian
leadership might be a bit crazy (leaders who claim to be acting on behalf of
God--like Mr. Bush--tend to be that way) but they're not stupid. They know
the U.S. isn't about to go after them alone, and thanks to the debacle in
Iraq most of America's allies aren't about to support another mid-east
blunder. "Huge pressure"? Dream on, Iran is thumbing its nose at America,
and that isn't about to change.
If you're saying there should be no moral component to U.S. foreign policy,
that everything America does abroad should be motivated purely by
self-interest, and causing massive death, destruction and misery is not
America's concern, then "so what" makes sense. Of course after WWII there
was a trial at Nuremburg for national leaders who thought that way....
Incredible, you ignore the point that the decision was justified with false
evidence and instead leap to suggesting that the number of people deceived
by the bad intelligence somehow white-washes the whole process.
The current administration lacks the will to pursue the matter, so you
figure I as a private citizen should do what the Justice Dept. won't?
What color is the sky on your planet?
You'd deny the people of the various states the right to elect whom they
please? Doesn't the Constitution mean anything to you?
You'd keep the legislature full of rookies who need half their term just to
learn the ropes? All that would accomplish is to hand over power to the
bureaucrats who stick around for decades. At least politicians can be voted
out; bureaucrats are not so easy to get rid of.
I call 'em like I see 'em, and I don't seem to be the only one here who has
correctly identified you as a windbag who is free with insulting
characterizations when it suits him.
That's refreshing, as you often appear to have an open dictionary balanced
on your knee you when you post.
I didn't need to be told you were a dweller in the libertarian fantasy-land.
That you imagine that means you aren't a right-winger is hilarious.
Corruption? Exactly ONE Bush admistration official was persecuted in eight
years, and that involved a non-crime.
I think both Clinton had eight casualties for illegal acts during his first
month. Obama's had two or three (for tax "irregularities"). Obama would
possibly have more, but he's still got over 200 policy positions to fill,
including Secretary of the Army, heads of the TSA and Border Security,
Director of the BATF, and more.
Incompetence? When Bush came into office, he could rely on the advice of his
dad, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and others, each with
decades of experience.
Obama has Rohm Emmanuel. That's about it.
Decisions are made in a context. The fact that they later turn out to
be incorrect doesn't make them bad decisions ... unless you're retroactively
grinding an axe.
Then why did so many of the world's leaders see it differently? Why
did they see him as an imminent threat? Oh, I know! It was the
Eeeeeeeeevil George Bush that put him up to it. The same George
Bush that was stupid in the eyes of his political opponents manufactured
a global conspiracy just so he could invade Iran. You, sir, live
in an illusory world.
This is not such an example except for the foaming Bush haters.
Teddy Kennedy was Curveball????
But they still vetted it with the rest of the world. This is the part
that has all you spittle types on the ropes. Listen, I was no fan of
W's on most fronts, but it was not just him that saw this as a threat -
a whole bunch of leaders all over the world saw it that way. This
negligence theory that you have manufactured simply does not hold
water with the presently available facts. He mad a call based on the
data at hand. He was wrong about WMDs. He was indisputably right
about Sadaam's support for terror in the form of money for "Palestinian"
suicide bombers, and offering safe haven to various terrorist fleabags
in Baghadad. He was all right positionally - a US presence in Iraq allows
us to now put really bigtime pressure on the worst of the worst in the
region: Iran. Oh, wait, we won't, because we have a puerile, power
hungry president smoking Hopeium. Bush was not a perfect president by
any means. He was replaced by a fool and charlatan.
And I have news for you. I did NOT vote for him in 2000. I disagreed
with almost every one of his domestic policy planks (other than his
opposition to abortion). He's still light years a better choice than
the current Marxist-In-Charge.
Then cite it and make the case in a court for war crimes instead of
parroting the anti-Bush venom that flows down your chin. I will stand
with anyone who can demonstrate that W consciously mislead the country for
malfeasant motives. This, however, requires actual evidence rather than
the ranting of Bill Maher, the Huffington Post, and other, similar,
political rectal warts. Thus far, such actual evidence is absent.
I "believe" what can be proven, not what you and your fellow travelers
choose to believe, whether you get it from Rush Limbaugh or NBC.
This is nonsense. Blow the hell out of their government buildings, neuter
their military, kill their leadership, and leave with a warning that
we'll be back if further mischief ensues. But Nooooooooo, we have to
rehab the region to keep all the warm, drooley types in this country
happy. Warriors should make war in the interest of their own nation,
not in the interest of rebuilding their enemy unless/until there is
compelling reason to do said rebuilding - there was almost none in Iraq
other than having a US presence there to wallop Iran as needed.
It's perfectly possible just not practical given the Politically Correct
morons that infest the US political landscape.
AS a libertarian, I wish we were not involved at all. I wish there was
no emerging nuclear threat in the region and we could let all the players
there just kill each other at will. Ditto (especially) Africa, Indonesia,
Korea, and all the rest of the world's sewers. The fact is that we cannot
ignore such emerging threats and occasionally have to go in and do something
about them. Here's a real complex question for you: Would rather have
US presence in the region putting pressure on the Saudis, Syrian, and Iranians
(the unholy trio of bad acting there), or would you prefer to leave it
to the Israelis?
Only because of the innately defective nature of the current US administration.
Or Obama claiming that God wants us to go into multigenerational debt so
that he can sell himself as The Messiah Of Healthcare. Far, far worse
than anything Bush ever did.
Not with the limp wristed leadership we have currently in place, I agree.
We should never *initiate* force, but we should feel free to respond to
it - against ourselves, our allies, or our interests. Sure, we should
pick and choose our spots better than we have in the past, but, no, I don't
particularly care about serving the rest of the world's interests in the
abstract. There has to be a US interest at stake or it's a waste of time.
You and the rest of the Bush-haters *claim* the evidence was "false"
but no such proof has emerged ... and I read lots of idiots claiming
otherwise ... they just never quite manage to produce proof that would
stand up as legal evidence. Why is that, I wonder?
I think you are full of bile, anger, and opinions, none of which
are substantiable by a legally dispassionate third party.
I support only one mechanism to getting there: A Constitutional amendment.
Why? Because the Sheeple will always vote themselves whatever largesses they
don't personally have to pay for. The best way to at least partly neuter
this is never allowing a ruling class to emerge. I'd also like to go back
to the early days of this country where only property owners and/or tax
payers can vote. That would go a long way to clean up the mess we have today.
Absolutely. An incompetent government doing nothing is vastly preferable
to an effective government.
The bureaucrats also need to not be able to make a career of it.
I attack your ideas. You and your homeys attack me. And for all the
public cheap shots you folks express here, I get lots of private emails
thanking me for for standing up to you bullies and statists that want to
tell the rest of us what to think and do.
Not remotely. I oppose all the usual rightwing mantras like laws
prohibiting flag burning, morality codes (sex, drugs), their insistence
that the Feds should define "marriage", ad infinitum, ad nausem. In
fact, the only real common ground I have with today's right is an opposition
to abortion and a support for their more-or-less hawkish foreign policy.
See, some of us are able to think for ourselves and don't need to wear the
t-shirt to know what we actually believe ...
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
A decision that requires you to cherry-pick only that information that
supports making the decision (and reject out of hand any information that
argues against the decision) should not result in enormous surprise when it
turns out to have been a bad decision. You keep ignoring that the Bush
administration did exactly this, at times with data they had been warned was
highly suspect. When a dubious source says a particular building is being
used to produce WMDs, but your own satellite photos and weapons inspectors
say no, it isn't, and you choose to believe the petty criminal your own
allies warn you is a liar, then you've made a bad decision and you cannot
claim later that you had no way of knowing.
"Context"? The context is the Bush administration decided it wanted to
invade Iraq, then it went looking for supporting evidence no matter how weak
it was, while kicking dirt over anything that argued against the idea.
Colin Powell was one of the few voices arguing against the plan, he
eventually realized he'd been played for a fool and resigned. He at least
realized why a bad decision led to bad results, while you're still making
And we're back to a falsehood believed by many people isn't really a
falsehood. Not to mention that those who supply the false information have
no blame for people believing the falsehood.
As opposed to the see no evil, hear no evil clowns like yourself who
studiously ignore any information they'd rather not be aware of. Brilliant
in a way, just avoid seeing and hearing what you don't want to believe, then
you can deny it exists.
Orin Hatch says one thing he could count on in the Senate was TK sticking to
his word, but what does he know. I didn't much care for TK, but I'll admit
that among the mediocrities, buffoons and lunatics in Congress he at least
cast a long shadow.
And here we are again, the guy who passes on false information gets a free
pass. So if I sell you a used car that I know is a piece of junk, you'll
have no problem with that provided I'm able to convince a few other people
that it's actually a fine automobile--shared deception providing immunity to
the deceiver in your books.
There are a couple of books you could profit from reading. Fiasco: The
American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks is a good place to
start especially given Pulitzer-winner Rick's high reputation in the
American military. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the
Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn is also pretty
good. Both books rely heavily on interviews with people with first-hand
knowledge, people who there to see it happen up close.
Of course I realize I'm wasting my breath here, there ain't a chance in hell
you'd expose yourself to information that conflicts with what you want to
believe happened. You'll just dismiss it all as the work of Bush-haters and
go happily on your way, wreathed in ignorance.
There are plenty of nations that support terrorism, with money and with
training facilities and with safe havens--do you propose to invade all of
How's that working out, sunshine? Refresh my memory, when did Iran cave in
and agree to stop pursuing nuclear technology? When did they decide to stop
messing with Israel? When did they stop building up their military?
Let's see: a war that has made the U.S. a pariah around the world, Bin Laden
still on the loose, an economy that hit the skids on his watch, a record
federal debt on his watch, the supposed good guys using torture on suspected
terrorists, the feds monitoring your e-mail and listening to your phone
calls without warrants, a fumbled response to a natural disaster that
devastated an American city, millions of jobs exported to China--yeah, that
Bush did a hell of a job alright, although as you say he wasn't perfect.
"Marxist," too funny.
Start with the books I mentioned above. Fat chance huh?
You believe what suits your biases; that you pretend that evidence of the
willful foolishness of the Bush administration in invading Iraq doesn't
exist demonstrates that beautifully.
Riiiight, 'cause it's not like leaving a nation ripe for the rise of another
violent dictator could *possibly* hurt the U.S. down the road, there's not a
trace of evidence that has ever happened. Germany and Afghanistan don't
count because, well just because.
Winston Churchill had the right idea, when the war is over the wise policy
is to befriend the defeated power to ensure that the next generation doesn't
have to fight the same war again. On the other hand there are fools like
you who think bombs are the answer to everything.
In other words you don't want to deal with the issue of the U.S. being a
signatory to agreements that require an occupying power to ensure civil
order and the necessities of life for the occupied population.
Incredible, really. You want the U.S. to occupy Iraq to put pressure on
Iran (which so far hasn't worked worth a damn) but you figure that can be
done without a thought for the 31 million people who live there, as if
ignoring them won't produce a bloody guerilla war that will eat up American
lives. Here's a simple question for you, Einstein: how do you plan to keep
U.S. forces in Iraq to pressure Iran when suppressing the inevitable
insurrection costs two billion dollars a week and kills thousands of U.S.
soldiers? How long do you figure America will keep its hand in such a
meat-grinder just to satisfy your sophomoric approach to geo-politics?
Oh, I see. So the past six years don't count--the Iranians sticking to
their nuke program, having de facto control of much of Iraq via their
surrogate militias, and turning loose Hezbollah in Lebanon--no big deal.
But somehow in the past eight months it's all become Obama's fault. Prior
to him taking office everything was going just fine, those Iranians were
jumping to Uncle Sam's tune.
You are truly delusional.
Astonishing, six years of Iran getting away with whatever it wanted was
invisible to you, but suddenly everything they've done is attributable to
Obama taking office.
The problem with people who think like you is they can't see that today's
actions are the source of tomorrow's problems. You're always surprised to
discover that bombs you drop today can come back and hurt *you* in years to
come. You'll happily do business with brutal regimes if it means cheap
bananas or cheap copper or a conveniently located military base, then it's a
big shock when the people of those nations come to hate America for its
support of the regimes that oppress them. So then it's time to send in the
Marines to quiet down the natives, and more American soldiers die because of
the short-sighted foolishness of people who think like you.
Once again, the evidence is there for those willing to use their eyes. But
you would rather jam your head into the sand and deny it exists. Let me
guess, you won't go into a public library for philosophical reasons.
A good indicator of Usenet Psychosis is the use of words like "sheeple."
People who are convinced they are among an elite minority and most everyone
else is part of an ignorant rabble can be relied on to use language like
LOL, I bet you'd like to go back to the early days of this country, back
when much of the work was done by indentured servants, convicts, slaves....
Libertarian Fantasyland, a place where the Fire Dept. appears out of thin
air when you need them....
Sure, we can all take turns managing the highways and the military and the
cops and so on, there's nothing a well-meaning amateur can't handle in
Horsecrap, you make claims you can't defend while demanding everyone else
prove their case in a trial-ready format. And you're just as ready to use
an insult as those who make fun of you, but you figure somehow when you do
it, it doesn't count. Your ideas consist of slogans, nothing more. You're
just another Usenet placard-waver.
Oh here we go, why do petty demagogues like you always claim they have
legions of admirers who choose to remain unidentified? Is this Usenet
Windbag thing some sort of franchise and you all read from the same
The funniest part about people like you (and almost every newsgroup I've
ever read has at least one of you) is that you imagine you're free thinkers
when in fact your beliefs are painfully predictable. Oh well, at least you
provide a certain amusement value.
You are, no doubt, referring to the aspirin factory that Clinton hit with a
That's the way it works. If I have a letter from a lawyer that says a
certain tax transaction is lawful, I'm almost always off the hook if it
turns out his advice was wrong.
Almost all military adventures are fiascoes. That's not hard to prove.
Consider the Normandy Invasion. 300,000 troops go ashore in the largest
amphibious landing in history. Guess how many consultations the Allied
Forces planning group had with the Marines who had been doing exactly that
sort of thing for 200 years? If you guessed zero, you'd win.
Military exercises are graded by exactly one thing and one thing only: Did
we prevail? How it could have been done better, number of casualties, cost,
and the rest are irrelevant.
Maybe. Those that can't be bombed back to the stone age.
That was the intended consequence.
So what? It was NEVER a goal of the United States to kill or capture OBL.
After the first week, the goal of the United States was to prevent another
attack on the U.S. or its interests abroad. To do this, strategies were
developed to interfere with terrorist training, sanctuaries, financing,
communication, travel, and recruiting. If during the course of all this, OBL
was killed or captured, that would have been a plus, but IT WAS NEVER A
GOAL - except in the minds of the president's opponents.
The deficit during the eight Bush years was just south of $1 trillion. Obama
exceeded that by a factor of four in his first month (maybe six weeks - I
was abed with shock).
It was never the policy of the US to torture anybody. Several legal findings
assert that waterboarding is not torture. You may not agree, but you don't
get to make the definition.
The first interception of the enemy's electronic communications took place
in our Second War of Independence when both the Union and the Confederacy
tapped their adversaries telegraph lines. We broke the Japanese Purple Code
and the chaps a Bletchly Park took the Enigma machine apart. You would have
us go back to 1929 when Secretary of State Henry Stimson shut down our
cryptography bureau with the dismissive "Gentlemen do not read each other's
That turned out well.
Bombs are admittedly NOT the answer to everything. But they sure are fun.
I was following with some interest the development of the GBU43/B, called
the MOAB ("Mother of All Bombs"). It was so massive it could almost open a
crack in the earth's crust. An even more powerful bomb is in development,
nicknamed the MFOAB.
Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines.
And you keep skirting the fact that you NO proof they did this, only your
repetitive droning without proof. There is no such thing as "Proof By
Repeated Assertion", sorry.
More claims, w/o proof.
A claim of "Falsehood" is not the same as a fact. You and your fellow
travelers really need to read up on what constitutes compelling evidence.
Ad hominem and utterly false. I have said repeated (here and elsewhere)
that if actual evidence is brought to light that shows Bush and Co. intentionally
mislead the nation with malicious goals (as opposed to the secrecy sometimes
required of statecraft and policy) I will stand with my ideological
opponents and demand his trial for war crimes. But, see, that's because
I actually believe in the rule-of-law, not what I read on the Huffy Post
or whatever manifest stupidities came out of Maher or Colbert's mouths
the previous night.
More ad hominem - the sign of no defensible argument.
So did Stalin. Influence is not the same thing as virtue.
Solid evidence of all these wild eyed claims of yours will make you
a hero of the People's Revolutionary Movement (aka the political Left).
If this stuff is sooooooo veeeeeery compelling why is there no international
tribunal to try the Bush kiddies for treason at least, and possibly
war crimes???? (Hint: Because most of what you're reading is tilted to
find them guilty, just like most of the stuff from the right is designed
to exonerate them no matter what. Both are essentially *political* actions,
not actions designed to seek justice before the rule-of-law - something you
I await sane, sensible commentary with actual evidence as opposed to
slack-jawed spitting from people's whose entire motive is political
not honesty or truth telling.
I propose that - for those that are a credible threat to the US, its interests,
or its allies - we need to be prepared to interdict as needed. "Interdict"
could mean anything from putting diplomatic pressure on them to invasion and
every option in between - on *our* schedule as *we* deem necessary.
My personal preference, BTW, would be to NEVER actually invade any such
nation (assuming the target is indeed a nation). I would deal with the
Iraqs an Irans of the world quite simply: Destroy their infrastructure -
cell towers, sewage plants, electricity generation facilities - and their
capacity to produce wealth - their oil facilities for example. See how
much energy they have for mischief when there is no A/C, no flushing
toilets, no air travel, no commerce, no communications, and thus no
wealth. It's relatively benign, can easily be reversed, and does a
minimum amount of damage to the civilian population.
And just WHO is president there, Sparky? A limp wristed quasi-Marxist
whose never run a thing other than his big mouth. Who's first step in
office viz foreign policy was to apologize to the very populations that
have made war on innocents for decades. He's an idiot and a menace to
Oh dear, the radical Muslims used to love us before the war.
Just as we was when Clinton repeatedly refused to even go after him.
At least Bush tried.
A pittance compared to the much larger debt in only 8 months that Dear Leader
Obama Messiah has inflicted up on the half of us that still pay taxes
(more like on our children and grandchildren, actually).
Just because you wouldn't like it done to you does not make it "torture".
Torture is listening to the recipients of liberty like you attack the
very means of liberty.
Than one I am 100% with you ... if you could just prove they actually
listening to me.
A devastated American city that: a) Is not supposed to be the ward of
the Federal government and b) Through massive corruption and vast stupidity
never took care of its own business to prevent what happened in the first
Since I cannot possibly read every single book in print, I breathlessly
await these books' "evidence" leading to war crimes charges. Absent
that, the authors (and folks who share your views) are just pumping
out hot air and venom.
I simply disagree that invading Iraq was prima facia a bad idea.
I think there were a number of good reasons to go there beyond WMDs.
It frankly would not have been *my* first choice, but I don't think it
was a horrible choice. But the only way to get to your desired political
outcomes (the promotion of collectivist swine and the other piglets that
feed at their trough) is to villify Bush.
Again, all I want is proof in an open court of law that all these wild
accusations of yours have merit. If you're right, I'll say so publicly
and join your little party of outrage.
I didn't say we should never go back - maybe even the next week - but staying
solely to rebuild what we never broke in the first place is sheer lunacy -
i.e., Normal left policy.
To the extent this is necessary, of course I support it. But we've
gone so much further than this in the Iraq situation. Civil order
does not require building schools and getting the A/C running. It requires
training a functioning police force and leaving.
Because of our current Idiot President.
A) By using bases in Iraq to do the aforementioned destruction of Iran's
infrastructure. Just start "killing" a building a day and see how
long it takes the vile Iranian leadership to cave.
B) By using the common border of Iran/Iraq to exfiltrate Iranians to teach
them how to overthrow their government and to infiltrate weapons for
them to do exactly that.
Not yet, but it can become a big deal, at which time it will be necessary
to "adjust" them.
What is Obama's fault is unwillingness to use the very strong lever handed
to him by Bush. Worse still, the little weasel is actually apologizing
to the very people that are the central problem in the region. It's
You may have notice that the Democrat Pigs - with the full open support
of El Presidente' - are set upon the task of trying to spend trillions
on healthcare "reform". This constitutes multi-generational debt lunacy
far worse than anything Bush ever did.
Going from strategy to tactics takes time. Bush had to prepare the
way - and he did. Pity that his replacement is sitting in his office
flying paper airplanes smirking "I won! I won!"
So are today's inactions. All decisions have consequences a no one -
not even you self-anointed special thinkers - have exhaustive
understanding of whether action- or inaction is more dangerous.
Oh, I dunno. The little multi-kiloton wakeup calls we delivered to
Imperial Japan haven't particularly come back to us.
On this we agree. There has to be more to US policy than economic expediency.
<More Droning Snipped>
It still is - we're called "tax payers" and our per capita presence in
the nation is declining.
The fire department is not a Federal facility. I have been VERY
specific that my objections lie at the Federal level. The states
and local municipalities have far more room to act ... and I can
move to where things suit me best. This is entirely Constitutional,
which the Federal intrusions into our lives is not.
In a Constitutional government, there wouldn't be all that much to
"manage" at the federal level.
Oh dear, another carefully reasoned retort.
I have not said they are my "admirers" merely that people have
expressed appreciation for my willingness to take on the statists,
the collectivists, the Bush haters, and all the other irrational
loons that post as you do - because taking you on takes a fairly
Yes, my views are ENTIRELY predictable. Start with Locke, go through
Smith, Jefferson, Adams (both of them), and Adams. End with Von Hayek
and Hazlitt and you'll pretty much be able to predict my response to
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
Yup, your views and actions are entirely predictable, not with who you read
or quote, but by your actions. Or, in your case, your non-actions and
refusing or inability to contribute.
As usual, you sit by the sidelines and stir up controversy, but aren't
willing to do anything else. Coupled with your incessant complaining about
how the powers that be are screwing you out of money and continually whining
about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, you personify the
epitome of a mouthpiece.
What's entirely ridiculous about your life is that you do absolutely nothing
else. You don't vote, didn't vote, for anybody in the last US election and
you don't give an iota of your time to trying to change any of the things
you complain about. That would involve risk of some type and you're not
capable of putting yourself on the line in any way.
You don't contribute anything in the way of woodworking knowledge, content
or conjecture and so, it all comes down to the same question. What are you
doing here? What kind of man (if you are one) are you? The only time you
appear is when there's more political controversy to stir up. Yup, I've said
all this before, but I say it for the people that get involved in your inane
arguments. If my words can help them remove themselves from your crapola,
then I'm satisfied.
Have a lousy day, you flake.
In thinking about your (and other Bush-haters') constant venom that old George
concocted the whole business because of his Eeeeeeeeevil motives, I wonder
how you explain this away:
Clearly, to hold your view, the entire far left, center, and far right where
all in cahoots, right? They all conspired to make up a false story just
to let W get away with his malicious actions, right? It was the CFR, the
Bildenbergs, the Illuminati, the <Conspiracy Theory Of The Moment> that all
entered into unholy union to see to it that the US could get some target
practice against poor old innocent Sadaam, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the people that had access to intel from around the
world - people of all political persuasions - saw a common theme of threat
and real danger. Maybe, just maybe, those stories about Speznaz burying
Sadaam's toys in the Bekaa Valley so they would remain unfound by the
occupying troops have some merit. Maybe, just maybe, when many people,
from many different political persuasions come to more-or-less the
exact same conclusions, there is a significant element of truth to
the business. Naw, The Messiah and his minions have it right after all -
it was a right wing plot so that Bush/Cheney could wantonly invade an
country with lilly white leadership to further their oligarchic goals.
It's good that Our Dear Leader has thus appropriately apologized....
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Hardly a statist on domestic policy. Remember his ill-fated attempts at
Social Security and immigration policy? After those two got slapped down he
probably said: "Gosh darn it, I'll stick with foreign policy." Except for
the Patriot Act of course.
The left, too, has its shibboleths. We on the right object to burning the
American flag. Our colleagues on the left object to burning crosses. We
don't like abortions, they don't like capital punishment. We think it's a
good idea to spit on Iran, they think it's a good idea for Iran to spit on
us. We are principled, they are insane.
Diametric differences on a number of issues.
His spelling of "its" is correct. Your use of "they're" is wrong.
But don't despair. The law of apostrophes states that "For every
inappropriate use of an apostrophe, somewhere in the universe there is
another inappropriate use."
its stands for it is in the above sentence... abbreviated that becomes
it's. Its is possessive.
You're best to keep your corrections accurate. There is no way to
change their minds, They're just too ...whatever..
...and I keep on teaching.
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.