| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#71
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:03:32 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:27 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:36:37 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:16 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:01 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:36 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. Pope Urban II was the first to say it in 1095. Man, those were the days, weren't they? --Vic I think they had fireplaces by then. Yeah, but they hadn't invented the fork or spoon. --Vic Who needs utensils when there's beer, bread, potatoes and the occasional meat? A spoon may have come in handy for soup but with enough beer, who cares? I do. My Cheerios demand a spoon. --Vic They didn't have Cheerios in 1095. They had beer for breakfast. |
|
#73
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4 ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. The US' business is arms. Every disagreement looks like a good case for war if that's your business. We have a long history in the drug trade as well. The best country in the world!!! You've got that right ! |
|
#74
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Pushy little broad, eh? |
|
#75
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@ 4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#76
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@ 4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#77
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4a x.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib @4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. |
|
#78
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
"Jim" wrote in message
... John H. wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Pushy little broad, eh? Got any other names you'd like to call me? If so, go for it... I'm sure we'll be impressed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#79
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcai ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#80
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib @4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Well, what would *you* call it when the President 'changes his mind' and pulls out of Afghanistan? Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. Iraq is not the subject of this discussion. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hitler finds out Americans are calling each other Nazis | General | |||
| The new Hitler | ASA | |||
| Usenet downloads: Hitler Bismarck.jpg 202175 bytes | Tall Ship Photos | |||
| The New Hitler | ASA | |||
Linear Mode
