"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yes, but if you discount the hard-left base that would claim disaster
regardless of circumstances, its not such an impressive list after all.
The
fact is that about 80-85% of the country is pacified, and the

Had to laugh at Ashcroft today. He sees nothing wrong with an election
held
only in selected portions of the country. It's better than no election at
all,
he says.

Maybe he can apply that logic to the US?
Just hold the election in the red states? :-)


Haven't I been saying that for the last 12 months? We'll take the
Republican-sponsored programs ...and you guys take the Democratic ones like
Social Security, Medicare, and Socialized medicine. But don't come crying
to us when you can't afford to pay for your social programs (because there
are no rich people to soak with taxes), the doctors all flee your "New"
America, and some third World terrorist-sponsoring country invades you
because you have no military. Oh yeah...and we get the oil in ANWR, Texas,
and the Gulf, as well as the nukes in the silos across the Midwest and
Plains states. If you don't like it, then too bad...'cause our military
will be stronger than yours.

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yes, but if you discount the hard-left base that would claim disaster
regardless of circumstances, its not such an impressive list after all.
The
fact is that about 80-85% of the country is pacified, and the

Had to laugh at Ashcroft today. He sees nothing wrong with an election
held
only in selected portions of the country. It's better than no election at
all,
he says.

Maybe he can apply that logic to the US?
Just hold the election in the red states? :-)


Haven't I been saying that for the last 12 months? We'll take the
Republican-sponsored programs ...and you guys take the Democratic ones like
Social Security, Medicare, and Socialized medicine. But don't come crying
to us when you can't afford to pay for your social programs (because there
are no rich people to soak with taxes), the doctors all flee your "New"
America, and some third World terrorist-sponsoring country invades you
because you have no military. Oh yeah...and we get the oil in ANWR, Texas,
and the Gulf, as well as the nukes in the silos across the Midwest and
Plains states. If you don't like it, then too bad...'cause our military
will be stronger than yours.





Underneath your inexperience in life, you really are a kind of
militaristic fascist, eh?

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:TVd5d.4956


Because the word "guess" is, in retrospect, the correct one.


If you wish. But your man, Kerry, might not appreciate your alterations.



Doesn't matter. Your president STILL functions under the delusions you
pointed out by providing the quote. At least Kerry has sworn off that
nonsense.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yes, but if you discount the hard-left base that would claim disaster
regardless of circumstances, its not such an impressive list after all.
The
fact is that about 80-85% of the country is pacified, and the

Had to laugh at Ashcroft today. He sees nothing wrong with an election
held
only in selected portions of the country. It's better than no election
at
all,
he says.

Maybe he can apply that logic to the US?
Just hold the election in the red states? :-)


Haven't I been saying that for the last 12 months? We'll take the
Republican-sponsored programs ...and you guys take the Democratic ones
like
Social Security, Medicare, and Socialized medicine. But don't come
crying
to us when you can't afford to pay for your social programs (because
there
are no rich people to soak with taxes), the doctors all flee your "New"
America, and some third World terrorist-sponsoring country invades you
because you have no military. Oh yeah...and we get the oil in ANWR,
Texas,
and the Gulf, as well as the nukes in the silos across the Midwest and
Plains states. If you don't like it, then too bad...'cause our military
will be stronger than yours.





Underneath your inexperience in life, you really are a kind of
militaristic fascist, eh?


I believe that the federal government's primary function is to provide a
strong military for our nation's defense. It of course has other functions,
too...but none as important as its primary function.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

When you can post without gratuitous insult, you may find that you gain some
credibility.

You guys really believe the bull**** Kerry and the DNC spread out on your
crackers because for you to deal with the truth would shake you to your
foundations, if you really cared. Which you don't.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:59:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


It's too bad there is no way to hold Bush and his gang of fascist thugs
personally accountable for what they have done.

Turning them out in November would be a start, but to hold them truly
accountable in a trial is, unfortunately, just wishful thinking.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:03:53 -0400, NOYB wrote:


If journalists sent their cameras into the worst parts of Compton, the
Bronx, and Chicago's south side (all Democratic strong-holds by the way),
you'd get a total different picture of the U.S too.

Just curious. This war has been going on for 1 1/2 years. We are still
losing @ 2 young, American lives, daily. To me, quagmire comes to mind,
but wouldn't you think it is time for a reassessment of our strategies?
You have mentioned Syria and Iran. Do you also propose a national draft
to supply the manpower for any invasions? How about nukes? You are aware
that there are 1.5 billion Muslims. We have @ 10,000 nukes. How many do
you propose we use to kill all 1.5 billion?

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:03:53 -0400, NOYB wrote:


If journalists sent their cameras into the worst parts of Compton, the
Bronx, and Chicago's south side (all Democratic strong-holds by the way),
you'd get a total different picture of the U.S too.

Just curious. This war has been going on for 1 1/2 years. We are still
losing @ 2 young, American lives, daily. To me, quagmire comes to mind,
but wouldn't you think it is time for a reassessment of our strategies?
You have mentioned Syria and Iran. Do you also propose a national draft
to supply the manpower for any invasions? How about nukes? You are aware
that there are 1.5 billion Muslims. We have @ 10,000 nukes. How many do
you propose we use to kill all 1.5 billion?


Nobby believes in a strong, aggressive, national offense, so long as he
doesn't have to tote a rifle. Maybe he'll send his kids...though he'd
far prefer to send someone else's.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:03:53 -0400, NOYB wrote:


If journalists sent their cameras into the worst parts of Compton, the
Bronx, and Chicago's south side (all Democratic strong-holds by the
way),
you'd get a total different picture of the U.S too.

Just curious. This war has been going on for 1 1/2 years. We are still
losing @ 2 young, American lives, daily. To me, quagmire comes to mind,
but wouldn't you think it is time for a reassessment of our strategies?
You have mentioned Syria and Iran. Do you also propose a national draft
to supply the manpower for any invasions? How about nukes? You are
aware
that there are 1.5 billion Muslims. We have @ 10,000 nukes. How many do
you propose we use to kill all 1.5 billion?


Nobby believes in a strong, aggressive, national offense, so long as he
doesn't have to tote a rifle. Maybe he'll send his kids...though he'd
far prefer to send someone else's.

If my kids were 18, 20, and 22,( instead of 1, 3, and 5), I'd probably feel
a little bit differently. However, how can you blame me for wanting the
threat dealt with now...instead of when my kids are military age *AND*
facing a nuclear-armed enemy? The danger will only increase by waiting.
Realistically, I'm not *too* worried about a nuclear Iran...because I'm sure
that if we don't deal with them, the Israelis will do it for us.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

That'll end it in a hurry.


So would nukes.