X-No-Archive: yes
"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:"MWL" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:You must be kidding yourself that Bush had more substance than Kerry.
"It's hard work" - 9 times. WoW, that is some substance.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Brother Daniel,
Praise the lord. You are good at rhetoric, ain't you? Unfortunately,
it is FALSE and you know it just like everyone else. HELL, if you go
and check news anywhere, (instead of listening to right wing talk
radio), you might be shocked to learn that even ultra conservatives
like Bill Kristol think that Bush lost. Now, if you still believe in
your own little fantasy, may the good Lord help you. I challenge you
to show me one personality who said Bush won?!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Quoted message said:
Bush doesn't hang his hat on unilateralism, as any thinking person would
know (and I assume that since you appear to be intelligent, that you know
this too). He simply says that American policies must be decided based on
our needs, not on passing a vague "test" of the international community.
Sometimes you go it only with 5 or 10 or 20 countries (as in Iraq). And
sometimes you go it alone.
And because you didn't watch the debate yourself, let me englighten
you.
What Kerry meant by international test is to provide scrutiny to
decisions and it is always helpful like he pointed out when Kennedy
went to Charles de Gaulle about the Bay of Pigs. de Gaulle was fully
supportive. If Bush had gone to others instead to trying to put them
down and jumping in to Iraq, we would not be in the mess in Iraq
today. If you tell me, Iraq is improving, you should get your head
examined. Powell himself said last week that the situation is getting
worse. So did the CIA who don't think elections can be held there in
January.
42 US troops killed in June, 54 in July, 76 in August, 86 in
September,,,,
That wouldnot be if we had "passed a vague test." You can play with
semantics for all you want, but you, in your heart, should know the
truth.
As for your "coalition", please don't mislead us by "20 countries".
Question is how many troops are from there? Take away the US, and UK,
you have Poland as the next highest contributor with a grand total of
500 troops. Then a few little countries like Estonia, El Salvador, and
what-not with a few dozen each. So, the choice is yours - you can
fool yourself like Bush is doing. 90% of the troops being killed are
U.S. What kind of a coalition is that?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Good one, mah brother Daniel. China a big stick! So you want us to
believe that we are beating North Korea with the big communist
stick??!! Incredible!! What are you smoking?? You think communist
China likes the US better than communist North Korea. If you got out
of your rightwing radio induced fantasy world, you would know that
China will use any means at its disposal to put down the US. And
believe me, eventually it will. Latest by 2015.
We went it alone, and got worse than nothing.
Is that all you have to say?? But, you are wrong. We were engaged in
talks with North Korea along with 4 other countries (China, Japan,
South Korea, Russia) but they seem to be going nowhere.
http://www.kezi.com/content/contentID/6891
One of the participants - south Korea - didn't even much hope to begin
with:
http://daga.dhs.org/daga/readingroom/newsclips/2004/korea/40205scmp01.htm
Another participant - China - is not convinced that North Korea has a
nuclear bomb or intentions.
"Zhou Wenzhong, China's deputy foreign minister, told The New York
Times the mainland had yet to be persuaded over North Korea's uranium
programme.
"We know nothing about the uranium programme," Mr Zhou said. "We don't
know whether it exists. So far the US has not presented convincing
evidence."
This is from Reuters as late as June this year.
http://daga.dhs.org/daga/readingroom/newsclips/2004/korea/40611scmp02.htm
Now what does North Korea think ?
"On Monday, Pyongyang said the US "has destroyed the foundation for
the talks, making it impossible for the DPRK [North Korea] to go to
the [six-party] meeting".
This is as recently as August 19th.
http://daga.dhs.org/daga/readingroom/newsclips/2004/korea/40819scmp02.htm
So, in spite of all this, you say we should still keep talking to them
in multilateral format. Whatever happened to that we won't let other
countries decide our security for us macho-rhetoric. You say we should
take China's help in resolving this. But maybe we need to convince
China about North Korean nuclear bombs/plans, don't you think. Maybe
we should have a round of bilateral talks with china to do this.
Quoted message said:This is another go at it...I
generally agree that China is our greatest enemy long term, if it doesn't
evolve democratically. But for now it is relatively weak.
And yet Bush said that we should take China's help in resolving the
North Korean issue. You seem to agree. How about convincing China that
North Korea is bad. Please Mr.Jintao, North Korea is a bad guy, They
really really really have nuclear ambitions. Help us.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
Me likes your style, Brother Stumpus. From "the brilliant Albright" to
"the fluffy headed Allbright(sic)" in the same paragraph. I really
doubt if you aced that SAT test. You would be better on the talk radio
circuit, mah brother.
It's called irony, my musclebound boy. Maybe if you'd aced the SAT you'd
have recognized it...
You keep bringing up your acing of the SAT yet your arguments are
pretty weak as I have shown above (I challenge you to come up with a
truthful argument) and I will show below. And unlike you, I am yet to
call you a derogatory name. What do they say about ad-hominem attacks
when you don't have substance,,,,,
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
Aha, so you're saying that it's okay that Bush says we should go into
nationbuilding?? Would that be, like, breaking his 2000 campaign
promise where he said that he would never go into nation building.
Different world since 9/11. New thinking required. Undercuts the
dunderheaded unchanging stereotype, doesn't it?
So you are saying that it is okay to spend $190 billion in Iraq when
it could be better spent strengthening security inside the US?
How about securing our ports or how about those 110,000 (One hundred
and 10 thousand) hours of FBI tape logs that could have information
about another (God forbid) potential September 11?? Instead they are
still lying around gathering dust because we do not have enough
resouces.
Indeed, We do require some new thinking.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Oh, he supports the international court of Criminal Justice! To Kerry,
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:US army should be the lap dog of the UN.
Better than what Bush believes - that US should be a lapdog of China.
Please Mr. Jintao, help us. Protect us from the bully - North Korea.
How you go from multilateral talks involving Japan, etc, to being a lap dog
of China is quite a leap...Nice try, but zero points.
Kerry never said we should be a lap dog of the UN. You are merely
convincing yourself. Do you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity by any
chance?
As I clearly showed above, we are very much dependent on China to
convince North Korea. The others don't really seem to care. South
Korea is pessimisstic. Japan is just a little country with not much
say anyways. Russia would prefer the current stalemate. If you've been
reading Putin and what he's saying, you should know very well that it
is in Russia's interest and intention to keep the US down. HELL, we
haven't even been able to convince china. Why are we trying to hard to
convince China?? Is China so important??
Nice try to dodge the issue, but zero points.
Makes me wonder if you really aced your SAT.
The point is it is very easy to go from multilateral talks to being a
lap dog as you yourself have done above.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Or that the US should be a lapdog of Mr.Sharon of Israel. BTW, Brother
Stumpus, are you a Jew by any chance?
No. Would your musclebound self be anti-semitic, by any chance? FYI, most
Jews support your swiss finishing school undertaker, Kerry.
No I am not. I am a humanitarian. The reason I said that it because
most people who support Sharon's policies are Jews or right wing
radical Christians in the US who think that their destiny is tied to
that of the Jews. I don't have anything against Jews. I have Jewish
friends.
But I dont understand why Sharon has defied Bush in the past and Bush
seemingly did nothing. HELL, he ripped up Bush's plans for middle East
peace. Bush said nothing. Is he afraid of Sharon?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Kerry is for getting better equipment for the troops -- except he is one
of
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:the few votes against funding just that.
Unlike Bush who sent our troops into Iraq without enough body armour.
Equipment given the troops has been and is being upgraded -- check out some
of the military blogs.
Nice try to dodge the question, brother Daniel, but zero points.
Question was and still is - why did we send our troops into Iraq
without sufficient equipment? You did not answer that. Did you really
ace the SAT?
What you describe is like trying the secure the stable after the horse
has bolted.
Quoted message said:A lot of that was in the $56million supplimental
appropriation Kerry voted against.
And you mean to say that the Bush administration did not cut the $75
imminent danger allowance and the $150 family separation allowance
(both monthly) in August 2003?
http://www.iht.com/articles/536423.html
Thanks to the subsequent outrage, they had to restate it. But what
kind of message does this send to the troops? That their lives are not
worth that extra $225 a month? Daniel, think about it - you accuse
Kerry of voting against stuff and yet when Bush did it, you have
nothing to say. Are you just a plain old hypocrite?
As for the Kerry vote against the $87 billion package, that was
because he was against the $20 billion dollar blank check to the
administration contained therein. Read up stuff (I've already given
you tons of links) and you will see why it was prudent. The Bush
administration wanted $20 billion with no accountability. Why? So that
they can let Halliburton overcharge us?
No wonder Halliburton had to return a few million dollars back.
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20040123a.asp
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many more millions
they scammed? They were charging the US government about $1.65 a
gallon for gasoline when the Iraqis were getting it for between 5 to
15 cents (yes, cents).
If you can't see through this, you really don't comprehend or you are
in denial.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Since he didn't have enough money left over after handing out those
wads to Halliburton and the tax cuts to the rich like you.
Kerry's rich ($1b?). Bush is rich (25 mil?). I'm not in their league.
Nice try, brother. You dodged the main point of the question - you
know it.
Let me reiterate: If we had not given out those tax cuts to the rich
(don't tell me about tax cuts to everyone - middle income families got
about a couple of hundred dollars - not even enough to pay for the
increase in their health insurance premium.), do you think we could
have sent that money instead to buy equipment for our brave troops? Or
do you think their lives are not worth that much?. Bah, those
minorities, who cares?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:(We all
know from your earlier posts how much you spend on dinner with your
wife. Heck, brother, you spend on one dinner what I spend on one
month's groceries.)
I posted a $35 dinner. Look at the post again. We also live in an
expensive town (LA).
"Spinach salad w/Pine nuts, Gorgonzola, and roasted red
peppers. Ricotta Gnocci in Amatriciana sauce (both shared w/Wife).
Cadillac Margarita. Cost: $35.00" (including tip, and we self-parked).
Kinda makes me hungry all over again...
Ok, my bad. Still $35 for a dinner is what 70-80% of this country do
not have the luxury of affording. Which means you are a rich guy
(Ok,nobody said you are in the league of presidents or senators) who
can't really identify with the problems of the poor (mainly
minorities) that go into the army in the hopes of a better future.
Quoted message said:I'm sorry if you have to live on a few hundred bucks a month, but you sound
smart enough to make some real dough if you applied yourself...and if you're
as poor as you say, you don't pay *any* income taxes, which means that the
middle class is supporting you.
I do pay taxes. Maybe not as much as you.
