George W. Bush

[Stephen Baker]

I hoped you guys might have given this up and f'ed of somewhere else over
Thanksgiving - try to get over yourselves by Christmas, wouldya?

 

[Ian St. John]

the Moderator wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>>
>>>> The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
>>>
>>> Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.
>>
>> Unlike those whose morals seem to consist of spreading unfounded
>> accusations and then conduction a witch hunt based on the
>> allegations.
>>
>> And I see that the 'support' for these allegations is a political
>> poll, probably with biased questions. How dumb is that?
>>
>> But then, nobody has EVER said that Ken(NY) is not a moron.
>>
>
> Did you read where Koffi wants to use the Oil for Food money to
> conduct the investigation on the Oil for Food Program? Does that
> sound like the moral thing to do?

Debatable. Who do you consider the proper person to pay for it? Kuwait? The
U.S. ?? The 1991 Gulf 1 coalition? The 'coalition of the bought'?

Personally, I'd choose the U.S. since they are the only ones making
allegations and should have to pay for the costs of 'legal harassment'.

However, it can also be made a case that, since the U.N. was forced to
create and administer the program, the program should pay for it's own
management including audits, even those forced by outside harassment.

 

[Ian St. John]

B i l l S o r n s o n wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> Ken [NY] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:11:37 -0500, "Ian St. John"
>>> <[email protected]> claims:
>>>
>>>> The U.N. has kept it's moral principles.
>>>
>>> Oil-for-Food Scandal Draws Scrutiny to U.N.
>>
>> Unlike those whose morals seem to consist of spreading unfounded
>> accusations and then conduction a witch hunt based on the
>> allegations.
>
> The accusations are founded

No. No solid evidence has ever been made public. It consists entirely of
accusations. If there were any 'facts' in evidence, there would be no need
for an investigation into the allegations.

> and the investigation of them is not a
> witch hunt.

Yes it is. Also mud slinging. Character assassination, and all those good
things we have come to expect from a morally bankrupt U.S. administration.

>
>> And I see that the 'support' for these allegations is a political
>> poll, probably with biased questions. How dumb is that?
>
> Not dumb at all.

There is always someone too dumb to see the point.

>
>> But then, nobody has EVER said that Ken(NY) is not a moron.
>
> Ken(NY) is not a moron.

I guess it takes one to know one? Or rather, to know who isn't? What? You
figure that he's stupider than you and can't qualify as a moron?

>
> Ian's oh-fer-three, and it's only 7:30 AM on a Monday...

Drink your prune juice. You need the sugar rush to get your brain started.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 04 11:25:14 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>claims:
>
>>>>And this from Wesley Clark: "It came from the White House, it came from
>>>>other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a
call
>>on
>>>>9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say
>>>>this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be
>>>>connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
>>>
>>>So you take the word of a Democratic candidate for President... yeah,
>>>no bias at all there. Even then, I'm not quite sure WHAT he's saying
>>>anyway ("it came from all over"???).
>>>
>>>Mark Hickey
>>>Habanero Cycles
>>>http://www.habcycles.com
>>>Home of the $695 ti frame
>>
>>That was before Gen. Clark became a candidate. And yes, I'd take the
word
>>of a former commander of NATO over chickenhawks Bush and Cheney.
>
>The Fox News Angle
>Exclusive commentary by CK Rairden
>

Gee, next will we have Fox News exposing the liberal conspiracy to
assassinate JFK?

>A funny thing happened on the way to the 9/11-commission coronation of
>Richard Clarke. FOX News reporter Jim Angle changed the course of the
>hearings, and perhaps history. In dramatic fashion, roughly two hours
>before would-be star witness Richard Clarke was to testify, the
>reporter released both transcripts and a tape recording from a
>conference call interview with Clarke from August 2002 on the FOX News
>Channel. The bombshell release had Clarke praising the Bush plan to
>fight terrorism, and that contradicted much of what Clarke had already
>said in interviews and would soon testify to under oath.
>http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_8555.shtml
>
>

An adminstration official is expected to fully support the administration
policy.

>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 04 11:29:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>claims:
>
>>>As the death toll rises in Iraq -- the number of U.S. military
>>>casualties is now above 1,000 and Iraqi citizens continue to die daily
>>>from insurgent attacks -- the question arises: Can the United Nations
>>>help now?
>>>
>>>A new FOX News poll finds that 54 percent of the U.S. public
>>
>>No, that'd be 54% of Fox News type of folks, I'd bet.
>
> You obviously have no idea how telephone poll takers operate.
>For instance, the New York Times does not have a list of communists to
>call for their own polls.
>
>>> believes
>>>the United Nations does not reflect the values of average Americans.
>>>Only 29 percent say that U.N. policies reflect said values.
>>
>>Boo-hoo. The UN isn't a right-wing theocracy trying to impose its moral
>>values on the world.
>
> It isn't? LOL!
>
>THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
>U.N. accused of rape, pedophilia, prostitution
>Civilians, staff in Congo under internal investigation
>Posted: November 24, 2004
>1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


Yeah, when you can't come up with a real source, it's WorldNet Daily or
NewsMax.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 04 11:10:15 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>claims:
>
>>>>> "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
>>>>
>>>> See those words "if necessary" there? Turns out it wasn't.
>>>
>>>And how was that fact discovered?
>>
>>If we'd let the inspectors finish their work, we'd have discovered it
>>before invading.
>
> The UN inspectors had twelve years to do their work of
>searching a country the size of California. They were inept and were
>being led around by the nose by their Iraqi handlers.
>
>"It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
>lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
>lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002

And in 2003, they said they were getting cooperation and access.

>
>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[n@th@n]

>
> The UN inspectors had twelve years to do their work of
> searching a country the size of California. They were inept and were
> being led around by the nose by their Iraqi handlers.
>
> "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
> lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
> lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>

The American people should have been told that the reason we needed to
go to war was due to problems with the inspections, not because we
(BushCo) KNOW they have WMDs and are giving them away to terrorists who
have the will to use them against the U.S. even if the Iraqi's don't!

.......wait a second....that would have been a much tougher sell...

 

[n@th@n]

>
> The UN inspectors had twelve years to do their work of
> searching a country the size of California. They were inept and were
> being led around by the nose by their Iraqi handlers.
>
> "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
> lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
> lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>

The American people should have been told that the reason we needed to
go to war was due to problems with the inspections, not because we
(BushCo) KNOW they have WMDs and are giving them away to terrorists who
have the will to use them against the U.S. even if the Iraqi's don't!

.......wait a second....that would have been a much tougher sell...

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:03:24 -0600, "n@th@n" <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>>
>>>
>>> The UN inspectors had twelve years to do their work of
>>> searching a country the size of California. They were inept and were
>>> being led around by the nose by their Iraqi handlers.
>>>
>>> "It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis. But the
>>> lesson was learned. ... Not seeing an indication of something does not
>>> lead automatically to the conclusion there is nothing."
>>> --Hans Blix, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Sept. 2002
>>
>>The American people should have been told that the reason we needed to
>>go to war was due to problems with the inspections, not because we
>>(BushCo) KNOW they have WMDs and are giving them away to terrorists who
>>have the will to use them against the U.S. even if the Iraqi's don't!
>>
>>......wait a second....that would have been a much tougher sell...
>
> Americans should have been told about "problems with the
>inspections", you say?
>
>" In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head
>of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime
>was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of
>anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however,
>concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount.
>This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been
>accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
> - President G. W. Bush, speech, October 7, 2002 Cincinnati
>Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
>

Once again, Bush misstates. Nowhere did the inspectors say Iraq had
produced that much anthrax, just that they could have. If we'd let them
finish their jobs, we'd have known then what we know now -- that Iraq had
no anthrax or any other WMD in 2002.

For a Bush supporter, you seem to post a lot of things he said that were
proven wrong.

>
>Cordially,
>Ken (NY)
>
>email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>spammers can send mail to [email protected]
>
>http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/6402

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
"B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Americans should have been told about "problems with the
>>> inspections", you say?
>>>
>>> " In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the
>>> head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the
>>> regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000
>>> liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The
>>> inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to
>>> four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological
>>> weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
>>> millions." - President G. W. Bush, speech, October 7, 2002 Cincinnati
>>> Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
>>>
>>
>> Once again, Bush misstates. Nowhere did the inspectors say Iraq had
>> produced that much anthrax, just that they could have.
>
>"Likely produced" = "could have"? Even if so, they ADMITTED producing >
>30,000 liters.

When did they do that?

> Where is it???

Same place the other WMD are -- destroyed, deteriorated, whatever. The UN
also rounded up lots of materials and destroyed it (or earmarked it for
destruction; the US didn't guard the sites so who knows where lots of the
material got to after the invasion).

>
>> If we'd let
>> them finish their jobs, we'd have known then what we know now -- that
>> Iraq had no anthrax or any other WMD in 2002.
>
>And if my aunt had a package she'd be my uncle.
>
>Lloyd Parker: King of the Misstaters.

And we found how many tons of WMD? Or do you want to tell us about Iraq
trying to buy uranium? Or those metal tubes for "centrifuges"? The
"mobile labs"? At least Colin Powell had enough integrity to apologize for
misleading; do you?

 

[B i l l S o r n s o n]

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Americans should have been told about "problems with the
>> inspections", you say?
>>
>> " In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the
>> head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the
>> regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000
>> liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The
>> inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to
>> four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological
>> weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
>> millions." - President G. W. Bush, speech, October 7, 2002 Cincinnati
>> Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
>>
>
> Once again, Bush misstates. Nowhere did the inspectors say Iraq had
> produced that much anthrax, just that they could have.

"Likely produced" = "could have"? Even if so, they ADMITTED producing >
30,000 liters. Where is it???

> If we'd let
> them finish their jobs, we'd have known then what we know now -- that
> Iraq had no anthrax or any other WMD in 2002.

And if my aunt had a package she'd be my uncle.

Lloyd Parker: King of the Misstaters.
--
BS (no, really)

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> " In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the
>>>> head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the
>>>> regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000
>>>> liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The
>>>> inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to
>>>> four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological
>>>> weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
>>>> millions." - President G. W. Bush, speech, October 7, 2002 Cincinnati
>>>> Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
>>>
>>> Once again, Bush misstates. Nowhere did the inspectors say Iraq had
>>> produced that much anthrax, just that they could have.
>>
>>"Likely produced" = "could have"? Even if so, they ADMITTED producing >
>>30,000 liters.
>
>When did they do that?

Guys, you're wasting your time on one of Ian St. John's sock
puppets... if he can't connect the dots (or read the paragraph he pans
above), you're not going to get through to him...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "B i l l S o r n s o n" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> " In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the
>>>>> head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the
>>>>> regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000
>>>>> liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The
>>>>> inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to
>>>>> four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological
>>>>> weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
>>>>> millions." - President G. W. Bush, speech, October 7, 2002 Cincinnati
>>>>> Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
>>>>
>>>> Once again, Bush misstates. Nowhere did the inspectors say Iraq had
>>>> produced that much anthrax, just that they could have.
>>>
>>>"Likely produced" = "could have"? Even if so, they ADMITTED producing >
>>>30,000 liters.
>>
>>When did they do that?
>
>Guys, you're wasting your time on one of Ian St. John's sock
>puppets... if he can't connect the dots (or read the paragraph he pans
>above), you're not going to get through to him...
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $695 ti frame

So you cannot provide a source for Iraq saying they had produced that much.
Why am I not surprised?

 

[Ian St. John]

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> "Likely produced" = "could have"? Even if so, they ADMITTED
>>>> producing > 30,000 liters.
>>>
>>> When did they do that?
>>
>> Guys, you're wasting your time on one of Ian St. John's sock
>> puppets... if he can't connect the dots (or read the paragraph he
>> pans above), you're not going to get through to him...
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> http://www.habcycles.com
>> Home of the $695 ti frame
>
> So you cannot provide a source for Iraq saying they had produced that
> much. Why am I not surprised?

Because you know that someone so dim as to confuse two posters from nearly
opposite sides of the continent and posting from two different countries is
probably none too bright? He really should stop breaking rocks with his
'face plants'. That might allow for some brain function to return.

However, he also has the problem that there is no reference to support his
dumb assertions..

 

[John Smith]

No, the saddest thing about this election is that extremists, such as those
who want to legalize gay marriage, and environmental nazis like Mike, caused
otherwise left-leaning folks to support Bush.



"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The saddest thing about this election is that so many Americans support a
> "president" who (1) was not legitimately elected, (2) violates binding
treaties,
> (3) puts the profits of corporations above the protection of our health
and our
> environment, (4) waged war without the Congressional declaration of war
required
> by our Constitution, (5) killed approximately 40 times as many innocent
people
> as Osama Bin Laden, (6) has no respect for the United Nations, and (7) is
almost
> universally hated around the world. And we are expected to be PROUD to be
an
> American? Not at the moment.
>
> Michael J. Vandeman
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[mark]

"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ybGyd.4962$2X6.4284@trnddc07...
> No, the saddest thing about this election is that extremists, such as
those
> who want to legalize gay marriage, and environmental nazis like Mike,
caused
> otherwise left-leaning folks to support Bush.
>
thankfully.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

And for that we are eternally thankful.

"John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ybGyd.4962$2X6.4284@trnddc07...
> No, the saddest thing about this election is that extremists, such as
those
> who want to legalize gay marriage, and environmental nazis like Mike,
caused
> otherwise left-leaning folks to support Bush.
>
>
>
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The saddest thing about this election is that so many Americans support
a
> > "president" who (1) was not legitimately elected, (2) violates binding
> treaties,
> > (3) puts the profits of corporations above the protection of our health
> and our
> > environment, (4) waged war without the Congressional declaration of war
> required
> > by our Constitution, (5) killed approximately 40 times as many innocent
> people
> > as Osama Bin Laden, (6) has no respect for the United Nations, and (7)
is
> almost
> > universally hated around the world. And we are expected to be PROUD to
be
> an
> > American? Not at the moment.
> >
> > Michael J. Vandeman
> >
> > ===
> > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> > humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> > years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
> >
> > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>

 

[Erasmus]

mark wrote:

> "John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ybGyd.4962$2X6.4284@trnddc07...
>
>>No, the saddest thing about this election is that extremists, such as
>
> those
>
>>who want to legalize gay marriage, and environmental nazis like Mike,
>
> caused
>
>>otherwise left-leaning folks to support Bush.
>>
>
> thankfully.
>

Whee. We have gone off to the Vishnu Schist?

jimbat

 

[mark]

"Erasmus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:N3Pyd.4968$tG3.105@trnddc02...
>
>
> mark wrote:
>
> > "John Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:ybGyd.4962$2X6.4284@trnddc07...
> >
> >>No, the saddest thing about this election is that extremists, such as
> >
> > those
> >
> >>who want to legalize gay marriage, and environmental nazis like Mike,
> >
> > caused
> >
> >>otherwise left-leaning folks to support Bush.
> >>
> >
> > thankfully.
> >
>
> Whee. We have gone off to the Vishnu Schist?
>
i'm not that bored.

 

[[email protected]]

I was on poll duty and those fags were bugging me
pushing their stories on me. I can't use the word gay,it means happy.
And for the *** couple that lives above they aren't happy. And
its about if you want same sex weddings go to Canada and stay there.

I MTB 2004