How much does L'Equipe hate Lance?

Tom Kunich said:

Let us assume that you set the chance of the intelligence being wrong at
75%. If YOU were President could you take the chance that thousands, perhaps
millions of Americans might be murdered by a madman?

That's not really fair to Bush. It's only thousands, not millions,
that are dying in this war, and he's not really a madman, just
an incompetent.

Ben

P.S.
Even if Saddy the Baddy had had WMD, he wouldn't have been able to
get them to the US. He might have been able to get them to Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, or Israel, which would have been a valid foreign policy
concern, but it has nothing to do with millions of Americans being
murdered. That's _if_ Saddam had WMD, which he didn't.

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Let us assume that you set the chance of the intelligence being wrong at
75%. If YOU were President could you take the chance that thousands, perhaps
millions of Americans might be murdered by a madman?

That's not really fair to Bush. It's only thousands, not millions,
that are dying in this war, and he's not really a madman, just
an incompetent.

Ben

P.S.
Even if Saddy the Baddy had had WMD, he wouldn't have been able to
get them to the US. He might have been able to get them to Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, or Israel, which would have been a valid foreign policy
concern, but it has nothing to do with millions of Americans being
murdered. That's _if_ Saddam had WMD, which he didn't.

Ben I've decided it's hopeless. You just aren't going to convince the
Party loyalists that he's been anything but a wonderful President who's
been unfairly persecuted. Just got finished, along with my daughter,
sending the bit about Rummy and the boys refusing to send the armored
ambulances or medivacs anywhere where there could even be a single
bullet fired no matter how many of our troops have to die miserably
because of it.
Since at least WW1 the medics and ambulance corps have gone anywhere
and done everything to bring out the wounded. Doing everything to give
their fellows a chance to live. Now Bush's DOD has decided they
"Support the Troops" but they don't deserve that anymore.
I really don't understand how anyone can continue to support them, but
it's impossible to overestimate the power of human stupidity.
Bill C

In article <[email hidden]>,

Curtis L. Russell said:

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:14:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So what you're saying is that the French prefer their Americans to be
feckless cowards like Clinton and certain posters here? At least as long as
they don't need Nazis and other socialists chased out of their country?

Cowardice is taking the only life a boy has so I can feel a bit safer
thousands of miles away. The only answer for the real cowards is to
keep this up until there is the U.S. and then the nuclear parking
lots. If we want to keep repeating that we are the only super power,
we better be willing to take the associated risks.

Even if I were to find it necessary - and I don't - I would find
nothing 'brave' in sitting at home and voting to send someone else to
fight - knowing that worse comes to worse, we can always bug out when
it has all gone to hell. Been there, done that when it was my friends
on the ground. And dying.

You get a virtual hat tip for that, Curtis. Nicely put.

"Barkeep, get that man a drink!"

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>>
>> "Trying to equal Jacques Anqetil's record of winning the Tour five
>> times did
>> not interest me. I have always ridden according to my instinct rather
>> than
>> to a certain plan. Besides, I got a lot of resistance from Thevenet
>> and
>> Ocana in that Vuelta. The nice thing about July was that for the first
>> time
>> since becoming a professional, I had a chance of getting some rest. I
>> even
>> went with my family to the coast for a few days. I never really gave
>> any
>> thought to riding the trio: Vuelta-Giro-Tour."
>> Eddy Merckx quoted in Van Walleghem's book at p.143
>
> And of course you aren't bright enough to understand that supports my
> claim. But then what else is new?

Oh, you think ASO would pay a man who didn't want to ride the Tour to
not ride the Tour. ROTFL! You're mind is gone, Eunuch. I'm still
waiting for a cite to a Merckx statement that he accepted money to not
ride the 1973 Tour. Where is it, Tommy?

Keep replying Lafferty - you make yourself you dumber with each posting.
By the way - where is it exactly that Merckx said he didn't want to ride
the Tour?

Merckx quoted by Rick Van Walleghem in his book "EM The Greatest Cyclist
of the 20th Century"; sidebar, page 143.

Now prove your assertion, Eunuch.

You SHOWED a quote by Merckx and claim it says something it does not. No
wonder you're referred to as Laff@me.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom

Kunich (') said:

Ernst - are you being purposely obtuse? If Bush was the ONLY one to
have talked about the WMD would you support him?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Was Clinton lying?

No. Clinton didn't say either that Iraq already had WoMD, nor that he
could deploy them in 45 minutes. He said (correctly) that Iraq did not
have any, and that he (Clinton) was determined to prevent Iraq
developing any. In which, in case you hadn't noticed, he succeeded
completely. It was Bush and his poodle Bliar who lied.

I suppose I have to wonder why you invent meanings to words but then I
suppose you're only asking what the meaning of "is" is.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D,
NY), Oct 10, 2002.

Funny how Democrats in power saw WMD and did nothing and you claim that was
good.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Let us assume that you set the chance of the intelligence being wrong
at
75%. If YOU were President could you take the chance that thousands,
perhaps
millions of Americans might be murdered by a madman?

That's not really fair to Bush. It's only thousands, not millions,
that are dying in this war, and he's not really a madman, just
an incompetent.

Ben

P.S.
Even if Saddy the Baddy had had WMD, he wouldn't have been able to
get them to the US. He might have been able to get them to Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, or Israel, which would have been a valid foreign policy
concern, but it has nothing to do with millions of Americans being
murdered. That's _if_ Saddam had WMD, which he didn't.

Ben I've decided it's hopeless. You just aren't going to convince the
Party loyalists that he's been anything but a wonderful President who's
been unfairly persecuted. Just got finished, along with my daughter,
sending the bit about Rummy and the boys refusing to send the armored
ambulances or medivacs anywhere where there could even be a single
bullet fired no matter how many of our troops have to die miserably
because of it.
Since at least WW1 the medics and ambulance corps have gone anywhere
and done everything to bring out the wounded. Doing everything to give
their fellows a chance to live. Now Bush's DOD has decided they
"Support the Troops" but they don't deserve that anymore.
I really don't understand how anyone can continue to support them, but
it's impossible to overestimate the power of human stupidity.
Bill C

I wonder Bill, do you even understand what you're talking about?

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Is it very surprising that the French (on the whole) don't
> much like the Americans?

What makes you think this? I think that the French (on the whole) are
quite successful at distinguishing Americans from the current American
administration.

So what you're saying is that the French prefer their Americans to be
feckless cowards like Clinton and certain posters here? At least as
long as they don't need Nazis and other socialists chased out of their
country?

Nope. I'm saying that the French (on the whole) are quite successful in
distinguishing an impotent buffoon like you from a dangerous bumbler like
our President.

Well, I see that your time in France has been well taken by assuming certain
characteristics of the French - demonstrating that marvelous courage for
example.

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Even if I were to find it necessary - and I don't - I would find
nothing 'brave' in sitting at home and voting to send someone else to
fight - knowing that worse comes to worse, we can always bug out when
it has all gone to hell. Been there, done that when it was my friends
on the ground. And dying.

All of that as clearly put as mud on the glasses.

So you found it cowardly that the military went to Afghanistan to deal with
the Al Qaida training camps in person? Your speed was more the Clintonesque
spraying of cruise missles around the area and hope for the best?

I've got news for you - worst HAS come to worst and we aren't bugging out.
That was all about the Liberals crying that we'd had enough and then NEVER
mentioning the 4 million murdered in Vietnam, Campbodia and Laos because of
their actions.

B. Lafferty said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

OK. Give us cites and sources to prove your assertion that Merckx said
such on several occasions.

No need. Just like your "anyone that does well in professional racing MUST
be doping" it stands without any evidence required.

Ah, but there is a need, Tommy. You made a very clear assertion as to
Merckx, the 1973 Tour and other races. I'll make it easy for you. Back the
assertion up as to only the 1973 Tour. Either that or admit you have no
idea what you were ranting about. While you're looking for that backup,
consider this from Merckx:

"Trying to equal Jacques Anqetil's record of winning the Tour five times did
not interest me. I have always ridden according to my instinct rather than
to a certain plan. Besides, I got a lot of resistance from Thevenet and
Ocana in that Vuelta. The nice thing about July was that for the first time
since becoming a professional, I had a chance of getting some rest. I even
went with my family to the coast for a few days. I never really gave any
thought to riding the trio: Vuelta-Giro-Tour."
Eddy Merckx quoted in Van Walleghem's book at p.143

Eddy Merckx wrote this about 1973 in the Aldo Tonnoir book:

"Leaving the Tour d'Espagne and having renounced the Tour de France, I
controlled the Giro the way I wanted to. I could have perhaps,
attempted that year to do something that has never been done: win the
three major races, the Tour d'Espagne, the Tour de France, and the Tour
d'Italie, in one season, but it seemed to me that it would be too hard
on my teammates".

Bret

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>>
>>> "Trying to equal Jacques Anqetil's record of winning the Tour five
>>> times did
>>> not interest me. I have always ridden according to my instinct rather
>>> than
>>> to a certain plan. Besides, I got a lot of resistance from Thevenet
>>> and
>>> Ocana in that Vuelta. The nice thing about July was that for the
>>> first time
>>> since becoming a professional, I had a chance of getting some rest. I
>>> even
>>> went with my family to the coast for a few days. I never really gave
>>> any
>>> thought to riding the trio: Vuelta-Giro-Tour."
>>> Eddy Merckx quoted in Van Walleghem's book at p.143
>>
>> And of course you aren't bright enough to understand that supports my
>> claim. But then what else is new?
>
> Oh, you think ASO would pay a man who didn't want to ride the Tour to
> not ride the Tour. ROTFL! You're mind is gone, Eunuch. I'm still
> waiting for a cite to a Merckx statement that he accepted money to not
> ride the 1973 Tour. Where is it, Tommy?

Keep replying Lafferty - you make yourself you dumber with each posting.
By the way - where is it exactly that Merckx said he didn't want to ride
the Tour?

Merckx quoted by Rick Van Walleghem in his book "EM The Greatest Cyclist
of the 20th Century"; sidebar, page 143.

Now prove your assertion, Eunuch.

You SHOWED a quote by Merckx and claim it says something it does not. No
wonder you're referred to as Laff@me.

Still waiting for you to back up your assertion that Merckx took ASO money
to pass up the 1973 Tour. Put up or shut up, Eunuch.

Tom Kunich said:

Robert Chung said:

Nope. I'm saying that the French (on the whole) are quite successful in
distinguishing an impotent buffoon like you from a dangerous bumbler like
our President.

Well, I see that your time in France has been well taken by assuming certain
characteristics of the French - demonstrating that marvelous courage for
example.

Ah, "courage." Such a beautiful, manly, Anglo-Saxon word.

Bon courage, M. Kunich!

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

It was Bush and his poodle Bliar who lied.

Curtis L. Russell said:

Barney and Miss Beezley resent that remark. No self respecting Scottie
would tolerate a poodle or any other rodent.

But it is proof that apart from being a dope, boy george is a doper too.