sample of the public perception of Bush abroad, by the way, made me
think of this thread...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P3C023C1E
It's been babelfished but I think the point gets across. If anyone is
curious about the quainter mistranslations, let me know. For instance,
it says that unhappy amer
any producer like OPEC you mean? Sure you can get oil elsewhere but
it's better to roll your own.
On 11/6/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't believe educated people still believe that BS about protecting oil.
> Oil is fungible and can be bought from any producer. What's more, the
>> Dino wrote:
>> fat. What's next? butter? eggs? meat? bread? sex?
>>
>
> That's why I'm a-votin' Democrat for all national elections. For
> local I'm going all Republican.
My problem with the democrats is that they are accepting a lot of support
from those who are anti-Israel, pro-terrorist app
The Republicans are all over the "morality" issues- sex, abortion, drugs and
prayer in schools. The Democrats are all over the "social responsility"
issues- eating right, not smoking (although apparently a little grass is OK,
just no tobacco, please), recycling, being "green", etc. Both parties are
I can't believe educated people still believe that BS about protecting oil.
Oil is fungible and can be bought from any producer. What's more, the
producers need to sell the oil to someone. So if it doesn't get sold to us,
it gets sold to China, and someone else's oil goes to us. Or, like Saddam
dem
Nice try, that was a UN-mandated missiong for US pilots to patrol the no-fky
zone.
On 11/5/06, Dana wrote:
>
> so... if Iran declares US airspace to be a no-fly zone you would
> not advocate shooting at those planes? I am just trying to point out
> that there seems to be a double standard here
never mind, all that came across was a big blank
On 11/5/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hehe as in a search for the reason we're in Iraq? :::puts fingers to
> temples::: wait... I'm getting something
>
..
>
--
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
T
hehe as in a search for the reason we're in Iraq? :::puts fingers to
temples::: wait... I'm getting something
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you could tell I was yelling how? You crack me up Dana... I wonder
> what would happen if you used your powers of clairvoyance
And you could tell I was yelling how? You crack me up Dana... I wonder
what would happen if you used your powers of clairvoyance for good? ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Hussein's Convic
:::shrug:: you're the one yelling about our boys being shot at
Not that shooting at Americans is a good thing, but yelling about it
is definitely an appeal to emotion...
Dana
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Garza wrote:
> >> By uniformed Iranian soldiers?
>
> > We invaded
>> Garza wrote:
>> By uniformed Iranian soldiers?
> We invaded Iraq for one reason: to protect oil.
Yes, among other reasons.
> The administration thought that they could easily turn Iraq into a
democracy thus causing a domino
> effect in the Middle East that would topple Iran, Syria, etc. and
> Hat wrote:
> There's a group of people that *know* they can live your life better
> than you can. They're called politicians.
>
And they know how to make it illegal for you to do what they do.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authori
> Dino wrote:
> fat. What's next? butter? eggs? meat? bread? sex?
>
That's why I'm a-votin' Democrat for all national elections. For
local I'm going all Republican.
I think there's a decent chance that the Democrats might morph into
the dream party: Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Basi
> And it looks like we're losing the freedom to choose what to eat. NY is
> thinking about a ban on trans fat. I can understand public smoking where it
> can effect me, but I've never been threatened by someone else eating trans
> fat. What's next? butter? eggs? meat? bread? sex?
There's a group o
There was a party in one of the clubs at MAX and I was told I could not come
in without picture ID. The bouncer went on to tell me that it is against the
law in America to go without picture ID. Now, he sounded Russian or the like
but I've been an American for all of my life and have never heard
> Garza wrote:
> By uniformed Iranian soldiers?
>
We invaded Iraq for one reason: to protect oil.
The administration thought that they could easily turn Iraq into a
democracy thus causing a domino effect in the Middle East that would
topple Iran, Syria, etc. and thereby protect oil flows.
As it
On 11/5/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so... if Iran declares US airspace to be a no-fly zone you would
> not advocate shooting at those planes? I am just trying to point out
> that there seems to be a double standard here.
Comparing apples and oranges again Dana. We haven't lost any m
I think he meant you, Jeff.
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes Gruss... The UN is very emotional when it comes to establishing punitive
> measures in response to a surrender of arms after invading a country.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
is the reference to the UN supposed to make it ok with me? There is
nothing that says that the Iraqis are any more fond of the UN than say
our friend loathe over there.
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the UN that declared the airspace a no fly zone as part of the terms
>
Yes Gruss... The UN is very emotional when it comes to establishing punitive
measures in response to a surrender of arms after invading a country.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:32 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Hussein's
By uniformed Iranian soldiers?
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:24 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Hussein's Conviction
> Garza wrote:
> Iran wasn't attacking us. They still aren't.
Tell that to the Marines that are getti
It was the UN that declared the airspace a no fly zone as part of the terms
of surrender for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I fail to see any resemblance
to a double standard here.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 7:28 PM
To: CF-Communi
Hatton
I appreciate your willingness to serve. However I wasn't talking about
the UN's perception (or mine).
I was talking about Iraq's.
And just as a quick reality check did Saddam even *use* airplanes
in attacking Dujail?
Dana
On 11/5/06, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 11/5/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Iran wasn't attacking us. They still aren't. Iraq, on the other hand, was
> > in violation of international sanctions and was firing at our airmen
> > enforcing the no fly zone.
> hmm. I wonder if
ya good point :) I do have work to do too.
thanks
Dana
On 11/5/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > so... if Iran declares US airspace to be a no-fly zone you would
> > not advocate shooting at those planes? I am just trying to point out
> > that there seems to be a d
> Dana wrote:
> so... if Iran declares US airspace to be a no-fly zone you would
> not advocate shooting at those planes? I am just trying to point out
> that there seems to be a double standard here.
>
Trying to add logic to the emotional is the proverbial square peg into
a round hole.
~
so... if Iran declares US airspace to be a no-fly zone you would
not advocate shooting at those planes? I am just trying to point out
that there seems to be a double standard here.
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tell that to the airforce pilots that were painted with radar
The Rove crowd *was* trying to put words in his mouth, lol. It's a big
wag the dog. That said, I do believe that he wants to run again and
no, I don't think he should.
> "off the cuff" and flubbed the statement. That being said, he then
> refused to apologise and explain the flub for three days,
Tell that to the airforce pilots that were painted with radar and then shot
at with anti-aircraft guns and missiles. I don't think they'd classify it
as self defense. Frankly, I'm surprised it took us so long to invade in
the first place.
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
> Garza wrote:
> Iran wasn't attacking us. They still aren't.
Tell that to the Marines that are getting shot at.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information b
now *there* is the heart of the matter imho.
> How the heck did we get to the point where our choices are between
> Kerry and Bush?
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFu
oh not only that but we were selling him weapons after that. See
previous reference to BNL and CC and University of Missouri FOI site.
On 11/5/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One interesting thing about Hussein's conviction was that he was
> convicted and sentenced to death by hanging
hmm. I wonder if they considered that to be self-defense? I don't
know, but calling that an attack is a stretch imho.
On 11/5/06, Jeff Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iran wasn't attacking us. They still aren't. Iraq, on the other hand, was
> in violation of international sanctions and was fi
is this supposed to reassure me? LOL.
> Notice that is says that they are planning to actually implement the
> changes required by legislation passed in 2004.
--
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Then you win. -- Mohandas Ghandi, as seen on the Red Hat Site.
~~~
Iran wasn't attacking us. They still aren't. Iraq, on the other hand, was
in violation of international sanctions and was firing at our airmen
enforcing the no fly zone.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 5:02 PM
To: CF-Commu
ok paul. The internet is of course is less readily available that a
published document? Really. Damn. I knew I should have been taking
notes.
On 11/4/06, Paul Ihrig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dana.
> sorry man.
> but the internet is nothing.
>
> very specific documents have been published and re
naw... really?
On 11/5/06, loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really don't like the guy man.
--
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you.
Then you win. -- Mohandas Ghandi, as seen on the Red Hat Site.
~~
On 11/5/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For more information on this proposed regulation, see
> http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.
That's the commentary, not the actual proposal - the actual proposal
can be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-6237.htm
SUMMARY:
> Jeff wrote:
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend... It's always worked that way. The
> Iraqis were in a war with Iran at the time and we disliked Iran more.
> Welcome to world politics.
>
So that then makes us incredibly stupid to have invaded Iraq thus
giving Iran the freedom to attack us at w
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... It's always worked that way. The
Iraqis were in a war with Iran at the time and we disliked Iran more.
Welcome to world politics.
-Original Message-
From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:17 PM
To: CF-Community
If you are on the fence this election season here's my plea to vote democratic:
Citizen, Your Travel Authorization Please. Now.
October 26, 2006
Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,
2007, we'll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us
permission to
War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed
that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require
400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country st
No, just that it is frowned upon by HIM. We don't need him any more,
he was mean to us, and he lost his "favored dictator status".
There are lots of bad guys out there. Somethimes, we have to work with
those bad guys against other bad guys.
At the same time, the people that made those decisions (
One interesting thing about Hussein's conviction was that he was
convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for his crimes committed
in 1982. Yet here's a picture of Hussein shaking hands with Rummy in
1983!
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
So what's that say? That mass murder was
> > Nope, nothing new at all. However it *is* scary that he's this
> > horrible at improvisational speeches.
> >
>
> Well, academically, this doesn't say he's horrible it just says he
> screwed up. We'd have to have larger sample size of improv-ed
> speeches to know if he was horrible at it.
Tru
> Ken wrote:
> Isn't this like arguing that Guns were invented for protection.
>
Well but gun rights are fundamentally hypocritical. Basically most
gun nuts feel that after a certain size guns SHOULDN'T be legal.
For example, one might say they deserve a .45 but not a howitzer.
Which leaves the
> cHat wrote:
> Nope, nothing new at all. However it *is* scary that he's this
> horrible at improvisational speeches.
>
Well, academically, this doesn't say he's horrible it just says he
screwed up. We'd have to have larger sample size of improv-ed
speeches to know if he was horrible at it.
He
Isn't this like arguing that Guns were invented for protection.
1. Guns were invented for for defense or hunting.
2. When guns owners use them correctly they are good.
3. When responsible people have guns they serve a useful defensive purpose
4. When responsible people have guns they serve a legal
> My feeling is: we should go from Bush to any person picked at random
> off the street.
>
> Not a single thing Bush has done during his Presidency has been good
> for the country, from my point of view. The people pulling his strings
> are as bad for this country as I could possibly imagine. They
My feeling is: we should go from Bush to any person picked at random
off the street.
Not a single thing Bush has done during his Presidency has been good
for the country, from my point of view. The people pulling his strings
are as bad for this country as I could possibly imagine. They could
not c
>But _that_ fact is what the right should be harping on. Even if
>delivered correctly, it was dumb. And untrue. And not funny. To
>continue to insist that the words be taken and interpreted in the
>worst light is dishonest.
>
>Make fun of him, and point out that he is wrong, but don't lie about
>wh
On 11/5/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are saying he is a bad campaigner, and can't think off the top
> of his head, and is capable of taking any situation and making it as
> bad for himself and his party?
>
> Is there anything new there?
>
> The man is a _genius_ in this reg
So you are saying he is a bad campaigner, and can't think off the top
of his head, and is capable of taking any situation and making it as
bad for himself and his party?
Is there anything new there?
The man is a _genius_ in this regard.
On 11/5/06, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I'm just Michael Dinowitz. My mis-speaking is something small. I'm not a
senator or a presidential candidate (or someone trying to be again). The higher
you get in the worlds power structure, the more you have to be careful of what
you say.
>Mike, have you ever, in your entire life, misspoke?
> "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do
> your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you
> don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
> Which leave me with the same comment: He's insulting every person who has,
> is and will ever serve in the Americ
Yes, it was poorly thought out, and mean.
(If it is true that Bush is an idiot, then it is mean. If Bush is not
an idiot, then it is mean to pretend to truly believe he is)/
He is a nerd. And his people have proven they are not the best in the business.
But _that_ fact is what the right should b
> Mike wrote:
> Sorry for the double response, but the archive was a little behind. These
> are the actual words that came out of his mouth:
If you listen to his speech in context it's crystal clear that he was
trying to say that Bush was intellectually lazy (didn't "make the most
of" his educatio
I think that his remarks were poorly thought out and maybe he was targeting the
president, but he totally missed. Even the original text that he was supposed
to use was poorly though out and he just ad libbed on it.
>So Michael, you believe that his remarks _were_ directed at the troops
>(who d
Mike, have you ever, in your entire life, misspoke? I have. Thank God
I am not held to what I _said_, but am allowed to try to explain what
I _meant to say_.
The words he spoke, in the context he spoke them, can just as easily
(in my mind, more easily), apply to the President (who was the topic
of
Sorry for the double response, but the archive was a little behind. These
are the actual words that came out of his mouth:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do
your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you
don't, you get stuck in Ir
So Michael, you believe that his remarks _were_ directed at the troops
(who don't match the statement) instead of President Bush (who does
match the statement)
On 11/5/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's telling us that he thinks every soldier in Iraq is an idiot for being
> th
61 matches
Mail list logo
