New Poll

h squared <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

i did like this magazine cover though-

http://economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20041030
/20041030issuecovUS400.jpg

That is wonderful. My favorite was one in the mid 90's when there was a lot
of merger and acquisition activity. The caption said "The trouble with
mergers", and it was a picture of 2 camels [censored]. It looked very awkward,
which was the point.

NS

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>From: "Danny Callen" [email hidden]

>Try living in a damn "battleground state"....If I see one more freakin
>political ad I'm gonna shoot my TV like Elvis!!
>
>Danny Callen

That's what ya git fer leavin Western MA.

yeh but I had to Brian....Western Mass is waaaaay too left for me..🙂

Danny Callen

h squared said:

h squared said:

Quoted message said:

heather, hates people--->hates politics

i did like this magazine cover though-

http://economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20041030/20041030issuecovUS400.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks.

h squared said:

Papai Digital said:

Some of the worst offenders are the newbie poster & barrister Philip
Moore from Texas and Robert Chung, who should know better.

i doubt robert posts more off topic political posts...

He initiates. That is a difference. It is impossible to respond to
nothing. Many, like myself, primarily only respond.

Quoted message said:

From: Tim Lines [email hidden]
Date: 10/30/2004 1:39 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I can top that:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

That's brutal, but good.
Thanks Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: Tim Lines [email hidden]
Date: 10/30/2004 1:39 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I can top that:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

That's brutal, but good.
Thanks Bill C

I thought so too. I think it's rougher on him that "the economist"
article is. One thing I appreciated about the "economist" article was
what it had to say about Guantanamo bay. Both Republicans and Democrats
were (and remain) pretty much in agreement on that issue, so it doesn't
get talked about. I like that the economist talked about it fairly.
They didn't go overboard and refer to "Gestapo tactics".

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

Danny Callen said:

Try living in a damn "battleground state"....If I see one more freakin
political ad I'm gonna shoot my TV like Elvis!!

Is that all you're dealing with? Endless political ads (most of
them negative... "My opponent has repeatedly voted against
motherhood and kittens. I will fight for motherhood and kittens"😉
on the tube?

I've gotten three calls today from live people, and then there
are the robo-calls. I get multiple lit drops/day. Tomorrow will
be the same, as will Monday and Tuesday. I don't want to
answer the phone anymore, or a knock on the door. It's nuts.

The trouble is the money. There is just too much goddamn money
in the election this time, and not enough places to spend it. It's
reached the point where neither side has to choose where to put
their resources. There are so few states still in play and so
much money for those few states that neither side has to hold
back.

They don't have to hold back on the people resources either
because so many of you guys that live in states that are not
in play are willing to travel or dedicate your phone banks to
the states that are.

Where I live you can make a campaign stop and get media play
in three states, all of them undecided. So Cheney was here
yesterday (for the second time) and Edwards was just up the road.
I wish they'd have switched, Edwards and Kerry are traveling with
warm up bands. Cheney doesn't have a band, he just screws up
traffic. Putz.

I can't wait until it's over.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

(TritonRider) said:

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Thanks,

One of the many telling statements: "More tragically, they mean that
if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another
9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the
American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi
civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush
has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit
anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism
that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think
how they may eventually take their own revenge"

And "George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical
to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism."

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

"More tragically, they mean that
if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another
9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the
American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi
civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush
has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit
anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism
that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think
how they may eventually take their own revenge"

Unfortunately the "civilians", once again like Vietnam are hiding weapons,
ambushing patrols, and supporting their fighters. That's fine with me as long
as the press gets it right. Leveling a village that is the site of recurring
ambushes is a legitimate act of war when the women claim they don't know where
the men are, the children throw grenades or wear explosive girdles, and the old
people clean weapons and load clips.
The rest of the world uses human resources no matter age or gender as support
troops and takes pride in it. US troops killing them is the same as them taking
out one of our supply convoys, though the press will NEVER portray it this way.
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately the "civilians", once again like Vietnam are hiding

weapons,

Quoted message said:

ambushing patrols, and supporting their fighters. That's fine with me as

long

Quoted message said:

as the press gets it right. Leveling a village that is the site of

recurring

Quoted message said:

ambushes is a legitimate act of war when the women claim they don't know

where

Quoted message said:

the men are, the children throw grenades or wear explosive girdles, and

the old

Quoted message said:

people clean weapons and load clips.
The rest of the world uses human resources no matter age or gender as

support

Quoted message said:

troops and takes pride in it. US troops killing them is the same as them

taking

Quoted message said:

out one of our supply convoys, though the press will NEVER portray it this

way.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

Amen Bill!

Danny Callen

Danny Callen said:

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

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately the "civilians", once again like Vietnam are hiding

weapons,

Quoted message said:

ambushing patrols, and supporting their fighters. That's fine with me as

long

Quoted message said:

as the press gets it right. Leveling a village that is the site of

recurring

Quoted message said:

ambushes is a legitimate act of war when the women claim they don't know

where

Quoted message said:

the men are, the children throw grenades or wear explosive girdles, and

the old

Quoted message said:

people clean weapons and load clips.
The rest of the world uses human resources no matter age or gender as

support

Quoted message said:

troops and takes pride in it. US troops killing them is the same as them

taking

Quoted message said:

out one of our supply convoys, though the press will NEVER portray it this

way.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

Amen Bill!

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

JT
I think his response was justified because the reality has been denied for so
long in our press. Western, not just US soldiers have been hung on this cross
due to the press insisting it is one world when it is not.
I sincerely wish that, in particular, children weren't used in combat, but
some of the most fanatical resistance we faced in WW2 were from the [censored]
Youth. Notice I did not say most effective, they threw their lives away because
in the end war is a learned skill.
One of my friends who was hauling food in Somalia is still having problems
with this kid who jumped on their running board and tried to throw a grenade in
the cab. His co-driver knocked the grenade back out, but it took out the truck,
killed the 12/13 year old kid and wounded both of them.
Unfortunately that is how the world plays the game. As ugly as it is we need
to educate the American people that there is no chivalry, or rules.
Bill C

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amen Bill!

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

I recognize your sentiment and somewhat agree with your wording; however,
it's not disturbing, it's reality. We are held to a higher standard when it
comes to battle. Al Qaeda and the Iragi insurgents use women, children,
mosques, and hospitals to "guard" weapons and militants. I'm surprised the
US has shown the resolve it has so far and not flattened Fallujah.

The data that drove the leadership to the decision for war may have been
flawed but eradicating a dictator whose country is a haven for terrorists is
justified in my opinion. I still believe in an offensive strategy to fight
terrorism. Maybe the next will think twice.. Interesting that the
"entertainment" news channels like CNN aren't focusing on the thousands of
people in Irag that have been freed from tyranny as much as they are the few
insurgents.

Ok, enough of my views; I like the banter, but I broke my own rule
here...this is all just my opinion. Please go vote and express your opinion
next tuesday, regardless of affiliation!!

Danny Callen

Danny,

I see your "ends justify the means point" but disagree with it 100%. You
seem to think that we shouldn't hold Bush accountable for the single largest
mistake since Vietnam simply because it produced a "positive" result, even
though the premise for the war in Iraq was flawed (and some think
contrived).

I just don't get it. That's like saying it's okay to steal somebody's
wallet to buy a homeless man dinner. You wouldn't accept reasoning like
that from your children, so whay is it acceptable from your president?

And here're two more things to think about: (1) Iraq, though tyrannically
ruled, was stable before the invasion; and (2) Bush appears to have swung a
whiffle ball bat at a bee hive, i.e. he created a greater world-wide
security risk by agitating an already anti-American populace and giving them
good reason to hate us (we're their occupiers, ya know).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Callen" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: New Poll

Quoted message said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amen Bill!

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

I recognize your sentiment and somewhat agree with your wording; however,
it's not disturbing, it's reality. We are held to a higher standard when

it

Quoted message said:

comes to battle. Al Qaeda and the Iragi insurgents use women, children,
mosques, and hospitals to "guard" weapons and militants. I'm surprised the
US has shown the resolve it has so far and not flattened Fallujah.

The data that drove the leadership to the decision for war may have been
flawed but eradicating a dictator whose country is a haven for terrorists

is

Quoted message said:

justified in my opinion. I still believe in an offensive strategy to fight
terrorism. Maybe the next will think twice.. Interesting that the
"entertainment" news channels like CNN aren't focusing on the thousands of
people in Irag that have been freed from tyranny as much as they are the

few

Quoted message said:

insurgents.

Ok, enough of my views; I like the banter, but I broke my own rule
here...this is all just my opinion. Please go vote and express your

opinion

Quoted message said:

next tuesday, regardless of affiliation!!

Danny Callen

"Danny Callen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amen Bill!

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

I recognize your sentiment and somewhat agree with your wording; however,
it's not disturbing, it's reality. We are held to a higher standard when

it

Quoted message said:

comes to battle. Al Qaeda and the Iragi insurgents use women, children,
mosques, and hospitals to "guard" weapons and militants. I'm surprised the
US has shown the resolve it has so far and not flattened Fallujah.

The data that drove the leadership to the decision for war may have been
flawed but eradicating a dictator whose country is a haven for terrorists

is

Quoted message said:

justified in my opinion. I still believe in an offensive strategy to fight
terrorism. Maybe the next will think twice.. Interesting that the
"entertainment" news channels like CNN aren't focusing on the thousands of
people in Irag that have been freed from tyranny as much as they are the

few

Quoted message said:

insurgents.

Ok, enough of my views; I like the banter, but I broke my own rule
here...this is all just my opinion. Please go vote and express your

opinion

Quoted message said:

next tuesday, regardless of affiliation!!

Danny Callen

Danny Callen said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amen Bill!

It's disturbing that this gets an "Amen" from you rather than a "sad
but true."

It's also worth pointing out that Iraq didn't attack us. We're there
because of our government's leaderships decision.

JT

I recognize your sentiment and somewhat agree with your wording; however,
it's not disturbing, it's reality.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying that "Amen" which is usually an
expression of joy, was used by you in confirming a [censored] up
situation. That's what's distrurbing and surprising to me. Of course
children and families involved in war is disturbing.

JT

Quoted message said:

The data that drove the leadership to the decision for war may have been

Quoted message said:

flawed but eradicating a dictator whose country is a haven for terrorists is
justified in my opinion.

Danny, you're neglecting the fact that Iraq is now even more of a
haven for terrorists than before the war.

If we end up with a safer Iraq that's great. And also the Iraqi
people, despite being free of Saddam, are suffering overall more than
before. If in a few years their situation improves, then great. I
hope that happens. But only time will tell and at the moment the
situation does not look good.

As I've said before, I did not agree with the invasion. But even if
you do, it's been completely [censored] up and was sold on lies and
distortions. It's one thing to say "Saddam is bad, we're doing this
for human rights reasons and the good of the Iraqi people." OK, let's
have a political argument about that. That'd be reasonable
discussion with points on both sides.

But that wasn't the argument the Bush government made. Look at the
Powell presentation to the UN. Look at Cheney and Rumsfeld's and
Rice's comments before the invasion. Now you claim that the guy who
sold the war on reason that were made up is a great leader? That's
what I don't understand. How can you support that?

Quoted message said:

I still believe in an offensive strategy to fight
terrorism. Maybe the next will think twice..

No way. The US is screwed. If I was a leader of, say, North Korea,
I'd be much more confident because I'd know the American people would
be far more dubious of a goverment call for war. Plus our military is
overstretched. Libya is an exception, because it has such strong
economic interests with Europe, so Qaddafi is opening up..

But Iran and North Korea will call our bluff if we claim we're going
to take military action. We just can't. We don't have enough people
in the military due to the Iraq war, plus our government has lost
crediblity needed to gain support to carry out these actions by
selling the war under false pretences. It's like the boy who cried
wolf.

Quoted message said:

Interesting that the
"entertainment" news channels like CNN
aren't focusing on the thousands of
people in Irag that have been freed from tyranny as
much as they are the few
insurgents.

At the moment, the freedom has no meaning. If things settle down,
great. But when people can't go out at night, when fear being
kidnapped or raped, when there is disease spreading and even less
access to running water and electricity then before, it has no
meaning. Maybe this suffering is an investment in the future -- I
hope so. But at the moment, it's just rhetoric and hope. I hope it
comes true, but how can anyone focus on that, when five Americans and
at least 50 Iraqis are dying violently everyday, and hundreds of
thousands of people's lives are materialally worse off than before?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jr. said:

Danny,

I see your "ends justify the means point" but disagree with it 100%.

Even if the ends do justify the means (which I don't agree with) the
Bush adminstration hasn't even achieved it's stated ends other than
removing Saddam. The Iraq war has * increased* the problem of
terrorism, not decresed it. It has not made America safer from WMDs
because there were't any. It has distracted from OBL and provided him
with more sympathizers around the world.

So what are the ends? Freedom for the Iraqi people? That's a good
ends I could agree with, but it has to be a real freedom with some
security and hope too. They don't have that yet.

So what ends? I don't even see that. The thing is a debacle.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Add me to that list. These politicos won't go to a REAL politics group
because they are afraid to mix it up there so they try to shovel their
stuff here expecting a less sophisticated audience. You insult us when
when pitch your drivel.

Papai Digital said:

How many in RBR, besides me, are sick of all these off-topic political
BS posts?

Some of the worst offenders are the newbie poster & barrister Philip
Moore from Texas and Robert Chung, who should know better.

-Ken

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:03:12 -0500, "Philip W. Moore, Jr."
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Danny,

I see your "ends justify the means point" but disagree with it 100%.

Quoted message said:

Even if the ends do justify the means (which I don't agree with) the
Bush adminstration hasn't even achieved it's stated ends other than
removing Saddam. The Iraq war has * increased* the problem of
terrorism, not decresed it. It has not made America safer from WMDs
because there were't any. It has distracted from OBL and provided him
with more sympathizers around the world.

Quoted message said:

So what are the ends? Freedom for the Iraqi people? That's a good
ends I could agree with, but it has to be a real freedom with some
security and hope too. They don't have that yet.

Quoted message said:

So what ends? I don't even see that. The thing is a debacle.

Quoted message said:

JT

1. In removing Hussein, Bush created a power vacuum which he now seeks to
mend by handing power to Baathists, Hussein's own party.

2. In removing Hussein, Bush removed the final obstacle to an elected
theocracy, thus damning women's rights in Iraq.

3. In removing Hussein, Bush initiated a new bloodbath that has resulted
in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, by all counts. This number
is now approaching comparison to Hussein's bloodbaths.

4. In removing Hussein, all control of sensitive weaponry in Iraqi
bunkers, once sealed by the UN, has been open to looters. Al Qaqaa has
now been joined by a second site.

5. In removing Hussein, malcontents in the Islamic world have been
galvanized into action. They share a common feeling: the US is their
enemy.

These are the true ends. Did the means justify them? In January, when,
as all polls indicate, the vote is divided between Shiite and Sunni
clerics, what will Bush's new rationale be?

Meanwhile, on Channel 7: Osama...

Quoted message said:

**************************** > Remove "remove" to reply

Quoted message said:

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

"More tragically, they mean that
if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another
9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the
American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi
civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush
has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit
anti-American terrorists-indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism
that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think
how they may eventually take their own revenge"

Unfortunately the "civilians", once again like Vietnam are hiding weapons,
ambushing patrols, and supporting their fighters. That's fine with me as
long
as the press gets it right. Leveling a village that is the site of
recurring
ambushes is a legitimate act of war when the women claim they don't know
where
the men are, the children throw grenades or wear explosive girdles, and
the old
people clean weapons and load clips.
The rest of the world uses human resources no matter age or gender as
support
troops and takes pride in it. US troops killing them is the same as them
taking
out one of our supply convoys, though the press will NEVER portray it this
way.
Bill C

It sounds a lot like what our ancestors were doing during the revolutionary
war.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying that "Amen" which is usually an
expression of joy, was used by you in confirming a [censored] up

Amen = "So be it".
Hallelujah = expression of joy.