high positions within the current Administration. Kennedy, Renquist, Scalia
and Thomas. There was enough of conflict of interest that in any other
court the justices would have had to have recused themselves.
Ergo, the court has been corrputed.
larry
At 12:12 PM 12/14/2003, you wrote:
>Missed you. Welcome back to rhetoric central!
>
>I don't see how Bush corrupted the Supreme Court since I believe that they
>made the correct decision in Florida. I don't see where / how he deceived us
>and I certainly don't agree to the no purpose thing. Latest polls from Iraq
>support my view(only on throwing the bum out).
>
>Besides that, we agree totally! ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 3:31 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re:Bush gives the finger to the world again
>
> Andy,
>
> Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse. Consider the possibility
>that people may dislike Bush *because* he corrupted the Supremem Court,
>deceived the American people time after time, and embroiled the US in a
>senseless and dangerous military adventure to no good purpose. I mean, that is
>enough for me.
>
> I don't say these things because I dislike the man. He seems quite sincere
>in his beliefs, and if he were a member of my chuch I might invite him to
>dinner. That doesn't make his beliefs less dangerous. Nor does it mean that he
>is not being used, or possibly allowing himself to be used.
>
> Personally, I rather dislike the Clintons. I still have a reluctant
>admiration for them. Both of them are great populists.
> >Clearly, if you hold this perspective, then you ought to fight to ensure
>that
> >NO US businesses are allowed to bid or be paid for any activity there.
> >
> >However, the tough love thing is a bit much. Is it possible that you hate
>the
> >current administration with a passion and want it to be hurt, embarrassed
>at
> >any cost? If so, this could be clouding your reasoning.
> >
> >Given the current reality, it makes no sense to allow any country that did
>not
> >support the current efforts to bid or profit. In fact, there is a solid
> >argument that if France and Germany had supported the US that the war may
> >never have been needed. Sadaam, seeing the writing on the wall, would
> have
> >capitulated. However, this is seer speculation that is not were we are
>now.
> >Just like this continuing anger over Bush(can we hear about the stolen
> >election again?).
> >
> >So, lets think about what needs to happen given where we are today, shall
>we.
> >First, we need to world to start participating. While Bush is not doing
> >everything I would like him to do, both France and Germany are still
>pouting
> >about being made irrelevant. There refusal to contribute anything to the
> >rebuilding effort underscores this. Perhaps this total exclusion,
> which is
>a
> >response to their previous actions may slap them into the here and now.
>They
> >will have to deal with Bush, must likely for more than 4 years.
> >
> >Andy
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:59 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> >
> > Personally, I want America to feel this economically. I want the us to
>have
> > to pay the price for lying and attacking with no provocation.
> >
> > I say that as a staunch supporter of America. It's tough love. If we do
> > something wrong, we shouldn't reap the benefits. It's that simple. I
>don't
> > want the US to be the Mafia of the world.
> >
> > -Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:52 AM
> > Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> >
> > > the us and the other sixty-odd countries who helped us get to bid. now
>I'm
> > > not arguing the fact that the us companies may get the bulk of the
> > > contracts, but I as a taxpayer would rather my money go to US
> companies
> > than
> > > another countries.
> > >
> > > i am also not arguing that there wont be corruption in the contract
> > process,
> > > ahem Halibuton, but it is still better than the French getting my
>money.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:46 AM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Re: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > >
> > >
> > > Why should US companies benefit from a war manufactured by our own
> > country?
> > > When organized crime does that it's called a "protection racket".
> > >
> > > -Kevin
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:32 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > >
> > > > The countries in question can still do business with Iraq, they just
> > cant
> > > > bid on the contracts that the US taxpayers are paying for. They can
>be
> > > hired
> > > > as subcontractors for the contracts as well. I dont see why this is
>such
> > a
> > > > huge deal? Why should the US taxpayers pay french companies to
>rebuild
> > > Iraq
> > > > when they werent willing to support the US efforts in the first
>place?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:28 AM
> > > > To: CF-Community
> > > > Subject: Bush gives the finger to the world again
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Former top U.S. officials are blasting the Bush administration for
> > > reopening
> > > > a rift with Europe by excluding critics of the war from prime
>contracts
> > > for
> > > > Iraq's reconstruction.
> > > >
> > > >
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html
> > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > > > <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105433,00.html>
> > > >
> > > > "I thought we were in the process of acquiring support rather than
> > > > alienating it," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
> (search)
> > > said.
> > > >
> > > > So let me get this straight.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Economy is bad.
> > > > 2. Find a patsy country and accuse them of something unfounded.
> > > > 3. Get called on it by other countries.
> > > > 4. Attack anyway
> > > > 5. Deny reconstruction contracts to countries that wouldn't help in
>an
> > > > illegal war.
> > > >
> > > > And people are complaining? I don't get it. It looks like a perfect
>plan
> > > to
> > > > boost the economy by giving local companies big contracts.
> > > >
> > > > -Kevin
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>----------
>[
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
