Mission accomplished +5

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d6b6f25b-ae26-442d-ab79-7c32178be015@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah- Bush is # 43 all right- dead last out of all the Presidents. We
> wouldn't be in this mess if either McCain or Gore had been the 43rd
> president.

Let's note that Al Gore claims that the earth is coming to an end from
Global Warming.

Insanity is the preferred mental state of Liberals.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 20:08:25 -0700, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Tell me Diego, who do you think benefits directly from war profits that
>>> might control the efforts?
>>
>> **** Cheney still gets a salary from Haliburton. It may be deferred,
>> but he gets
>>it nonetheless.
>
> Wrong. Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
> fool.

Remember you're talking to Howard Kveck.

 

[Paul G.]

On May 2, 5:02 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 2, 4:17 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 1:58 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But again- dumberassbag- when did you ever say anything that made any
> > sense?
>
> "It is any guvmint."
>
> It works the same way in any country.

It works the same in any country. Countries are not the same as
"guvmints" You're confused.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 2, 5:42 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d6b6f25b-ae26-442d-ab79-7c32178be015@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Yeah- Bush is # 43 all right- dead last out of all the Presidents. We
> > wouldn't be in this mess if either McCain or Gore had been the 43rd
> > president.
>
> Let's note that Al Gore claims that the earth is coming to an end from
> Global Warming.
>
> Insanity is the preferred mental state of Liberals.

He wouldn't have sent thousands of troops to their deaths over
imaginary WMD's. Now THAT was insane.
-Paul

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f894559a-feaa-4f53-91d0-234a1e366633@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> He wouldn't have sent thousands of troops to their deaths over
> imaginary WMD's. Now THAT was insane.

What would be interesting is if you actually knew what you were talking
about.

Here is the speech from which that was taken:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

My guess is that you don't actually want to know what you're talking about
so you won't read the entire speech.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
>
>
> Am I too late for dessert?

It's never too late for dessert, Steve!

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[[email protected]]

On May 2, 4:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > Thank everyone who supported Bush in the 2004 elections.  Thank them
> > for it all.  It was obvious by then.  So they're culpable.  If anyone
> > sees Danny Callen or Mark Hickey, thank him for this mess.
>
> There you go - John Tomlinson - the person who believes that John Kerry
> would have been a better President. The man who had been given a
> dishonorable discharge and lied to the American people about where he was
> and what he saw.

The grammar here is a little funny. Are you saying
John Tomlinson got a dishonorable discharge?

I assume you're not saying it about John Kerry, because
although he wasn't a great presidential candidate, he
did have an honorable discharge from service, in addition
to a Bronze Star and Silver Star. I know lots of people
like to talk about how he wasn't really a super duper hero,
but those people usually weren't in a position to be shot
at. I haven't been in a position to be shot at myself, so I
don't usually go around spreading lies about veterans'
military records when they are matters of verifiable fact.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Ben
I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that
John Tomlinson did not earn a Silver Star!

 

[Paul G.]

On May 2, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f894559a-feaa-4f53-91d0-234a1e366633@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > He wouldn't have sent thousands of troops to their deaths over
> > imaginary WMD's. Now THAT was insane.
>
> What would be interesting is if you actually knew what you were talking
> about.
>
> Here is the speech from which that was taken:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
> My guess is that you don't actually want to know what you're talking about
> so you won't read the entire speech.

I don't have to guess about you. It's all over. Bush is going down as
the worst president in history. People who supported him are already a
joke.
-Paul

 

[Donald Munro]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> Am I too late for dessert?

Howard Kveck wrote:
> It's never too late for dessert, Steve!

Yummy, andouillette !

 

[Bill C]

On May 2, 7:39 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 16:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 2, 6:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> Thank everyone who supported Bush in the 2004 elections.  Thank them
> >> for it all.  It was obvious by then.  So they're culpable.  If anyone
> >> sees Danny Callen or Mark Hickey, thank him for this mess.
>
> >Don't forget to thank the DNC folks for giving us totally shitty
> >options too.
>
> Oh ********. Grow up.  Every democrat running was orders of magnitude
> better than what we have.
>
> JT

Yeah, but not anyone I, and a lot of others could actively support. I
voted Libertarian because there was no way in hell I was voting Kerry,
or Bush. Lots of others stayed home. That's reality JT, and how Bush
won.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On May 3, 8:21 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > Oh ********. Grow up.  Every democrat running was orders of magnitude
> > better than what we have.
>
> > JT
>
> Yeah, but not anyone I, and a lot of others could actively support. I
> voted Libertarian because there was no way in hell I was voting Kerry,
> or Bush. Lots of others stayed home. That's reality JT, and how Bush
> won.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just over 55% bothered to turn out to vote.
Good chart here to put it in perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

Country # of elections Turnout
Australia* 14 95%
Malta 6 94%
Austria 9 92%
Belgium* 12 91%
Italy 9 90%
Luxembourg* 7 90%
Iceland 10 89%
New Zealand 12 88%
Denmark 14 87%
Germany 9 86%
Sweden 14 86%
Greece* 10 86%
Venezuela** 7 85%
Czech Republic 2 85%
Brazil* 3 83%
Netherlands*** 7 83%
Costa Rica 8 81%
Norway 9 81%
Romania 2 81%
Bulgaria 2 80%
Israel 9 80%
Portugal 9 79%
Finland 10 78%
Canada 11 76%
France 9 76%
United Kingdom 9 76%
Ireland 11 74%
Spain 6 73%
Japan 12 71%
Estonia 2 69%
Hungary 2 66%
Russia 2 61%
India 6 58%
United States**** 9 54%
Switzerland 8 54%
Poland 2 51%

No matter how you want to spin it the Democrats put someone up who
lost to someone who could easily be the worst President in US history,
and that was for his re-election when the Country knew whwt they were
getting. That's incredible, and indefensible. Look at the current
Democrats, one is the second most divisive politician in the Country
behind Bush, and Obama who's making Hillary look good, and a
sympathetic figure.
Bill C

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On May 1, 2:04 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
> > > Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
> > > evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
> > > commanders on the ground.  The next sixth months will be critical.
>
> > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago.
>
> And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> based on what experience?

20 years in the USN as a Fighter Pilot.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On May 1, 3:46 pm, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 3:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On May 1, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:9da6b02a-ad1a-4d65-aa91-37121a01f570@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > > > > > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years
> > > > > > ago.
>
> > > > > And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> > > > > based on what experience?
>
> > > > He was an officer. What about you?
>
> > > Scott was an army officer. Peter was a pilot.
>
> > Are you unaware that pilots are officers?
>
> No, I am not unaware that pilots are officers. Are pilot officers
> typically well trained in operational war planning?
>
> Bret

If you stay in the USN log enough and stay operational, you will do
lots of war planning, as I did in the squadrons(7) I was in, on the
staff I was on(COMFITAEWWINGPAC) and also in the Naval War College,
which I attended. I was in the USN from Dec, 1972 until Jan 1993.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On May 1, 5:06 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:04 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On May 1, 4:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
> > > > Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
> > > > evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
> > > > commanders on the ground.  The next sixth months will be critical.
>
> > > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago..
>
> > And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> > based on what experience?
>
> All that was needed to prevent this mess from ever happening was
> common sense and the right priorities. The first priorities should
> have been taking out bin Laden and wiping out Al-Qaeda, then
> stabilizing Afghanistan.
>
> Is that not obvious?
>
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and presented no threat to us. Saudi
> Arabia is the root source of Sunni fanaticism and Iran is the root
> source of Shia fanaticism.  They should have been the next targets,
> not Iraq.
>
> The Iraq war is Bush's gift to the Iranian ayatollahs. They are the
> big winners in all this, he's handed them Iraq on a silver platter.
>
> You don't need any "expertise in strategic and/or operational war-
> planning" to see the obvious-  immediately after 9/11 the commander-in-
> chief should have given the order to wipe out bin Laden and Al-Qaeda
> at all costs.   Instead they diverted assets to the totally
> unnecessary Iraq invasion and allowed bin Laden to escape and
> regroup.  This"war on terror" precisely meets the definition of FUBAR.
> -Paul

hear, hear..hopefully the next POTUS, whomever they may be, will fight
the war that needs to be fought to rid this world of the person and
organization that attacked us...nobody in Iraq or Iran.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 17:45:52 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>>> **** Cheney still gets a salary from Haliburton. It may be deferred,
>>> but he gets
>>>it nonetheless.
>>
>> Wrong. Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
>> fool.
>
>Remember you're talking to Howard Kveck.


Liberalism is the politics of wishful thinking and despite their good
intentions, I look at all liberals as somewhat foolish.

However, liberal or conservative, posting information that is wrong is
a sign of intellectual laziness.

**** Cheney did defer the payments of his last year's salary, but the
last installment was made in 2005. Anyone who says that Cheney had
any financial interest in Halliburton after he took office is wrong.

 

[Bill C]

On May 3, 1:32 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 17:45:52 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>   **** Cheney still gets a salary from Haliburton. It may be deferred,
> >>> but he gets
> >>>it nonetheless.
>
> >> Wrong.  Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
> >> fool.
>
> >Remember you're talking to Howard Kveck.
>
> Liberalism is the politics of wishful thinking and despite their good
> intentions, I look at all liberals as somewhat foolish.
>
> However, liberal or conservative, posting information that is wrong is
> a sign of intellectual laziness.
>
> **** Cheney did defer the payments of his last year's salary, but the
> last installment was made in 2005.  Anyone who says that Cheney had
> any financial interest in Halliburton after he took office is wrong.

Yeah and the military contracting clowns have no financial interest in
the companies they are steering contracts to while they are still
active military, and we all KNOW that what is currently happening has
nothing to do with past, or future considerations.
Bill C

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On May 3, 6:48 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Are you unaware that pilots are officers?
>
> > No, I am not unaware that pilots are officers. Are pilot officers
> > typically well trained in operational war planning?
>
> > Bret
>
> If you stay in the USN log enough and stay operational, you will do
> lots of war planning, as I did in the squadrons(7) I was in, on the
> staff I was on(COMFITAEWWINGPAC) and also in the Naval War College,
> which I attended. I was in the USN from Dec, 1972 until Jan 1993.




Dumbass -


The war went fine. Saddam's military was defeated very easily.

It was the postwar that was/is lost. Getting rid of the Baathist power
structure. Barring the only people who had any expertise in
administration from participating in the new government. Taking away
the jobs of the only people who had any police training (thereby
turning them into resistors).

Did they instruct you on nation building?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >>> =A0 **** Cheney still gets a salary from Haliburton. It may be deferre=
>d,
>> >>> but he gets
>> >>>it nonetheless.
>>
>> >> Wrong. =A0Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
>> >> fool.
>>
>> >Remember you're talking to Howard Kveck.
>>
>> Liberalism is the politics of wishful thinking and despite their good
>> intentions, I look at all liberals as somewhat foolish.
>>
>> However, liberal or conservative, posting information that is wrong is
>> a sign of intellectual laziness.
>>
>> **** Cheney did defer the payments of his last year's salary, but the
>> last installment was made in 2005. =A0Anyone who says that Cheney had
>> any financial interest in Halliburton after he took office is wrong.
>
>Yeah and the military contracting clowns have no financial interest in
>the companies they are steering contracts to while they are still
>active military, and we all KNOW that what is currently happening has
>nothing to do with past, or future considerations.
> Bill C

What does this have to do with the fact that **** Cheney is not still
getting money from Halliburton?

In any case, the awarding of all government contracts, not just the
military, is full of both legal and illegal corruption. I make the
basic assumption that virtually all politicians are corrupt. Anyone
who thinks that one political party is more corrupt than the other is
living in a fantasy world.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:21:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On May 2, 7:39 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 16:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On May 2, 6:08 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Thank everyone who supported Bush in the 2004 elections.  Thank them
>> >> for it all.  It was obvious by then.  So they're culpable.  If anyone
>> >> sees Danny Callen or Mark Hickey, thank him for this mess.
>>
>> >Don't forget to thank the DNC folks for giving us totally shitty
>> >options too.
>>
>> Oh ********. Grow up.  Every democrat running was orders of magnitude
>> better than what we have.
>>
>> JT
>
>Yeah, but not anyone I, and a lot of others could actively support. I
>voted Libertarian because there was no way in hell I was voting Kerry,
>or Bush. Lots of others stayed home. That's reality JT, and how Bush
>won.


Thanks. You helped Bush win. It was your choice. You're smart enough
to know Kerry would be better than Bush, but you didn't act. That's
like not voting. How can you claim to care about politics and do
that.

Lame.

 

[Bill C]

On May 3, 8:14 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> =A0 **** Cheney still gets a salary from Haliburton. It may be deferre=
> >d,
> >> >>> but he gets
> >> >>>it nonetheless.
>
> >> >> Wrong. =A0Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
> >> >> fool.
>
> >> >Remember you're talking to Howard Kveck.
>
> >> Liberalism is the politics of wishful thinking and despite their good
> >> intentions, I look at all liberals as somewhat foolish.
>
> >> However, liberal or conservative, posting information that is wrong is
> >> a sign of intellectual laziness.
>
> >> **** Cheney did defer the payments of his last year's salary, but the
> >> last installment was made in 2005. =A0Anyone who says that Cheney had
> >> any financial interest in Halliburton after he took office is wrong.
>
> >Yeah and the military contracting clowns have no financial interest in
> >the companies they are steering contracts to while they are still
> >active military, and we all KNOW that what is currently happening has
> >nothing to do with past, or future considerations.
> > Bill C
>
> What does this have to do with the fact that **** Cheney is not still
> getting money from Halliburton?
>
> In any case, the awarding of all government contracts, not just the
> military, is full of both legal and illegal corruption.  I make the
> basic assumption that virtually all politicians are corrupt.  Anyone
> who thinks that one political party is more corrupt than the other is
> living in a fantasy world.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok so Cheney has done a VERY good job taking care of his friends at
Haliburton/KBR despite all the overbilling, and fraud the GAO found
they still got paid, and are getting paid. Cheney's fingerprints are
all over anything important, and this is.
Bill C