Mission accomplished +5



On May 4, 7:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Bush administration has interpreted the theory more expansively than previous
> administrations.


"The ________ administration has interpreted the theory more
expansively than previous administrations."

Of course, that is the general trend I keep warning all you dumbasses
against.
 
On May 4, 8:06 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'm saying you're as horrendous as someone not voting. You're watching
> the country being wrecked and you let your emotions prevent you from
> actually trying to make a difference.


Actually, it is people like you who make Kerry and Bush possible.

It is not people -- who say by their non-marginal voting choice --
that there are minimum baseline principles that must be met to garner
a vote.

You are the problem.

Plus, you assume that "democracy works."

Paul G made the cover:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691129428/

You are the problem.
 
On May 5, 6:45 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:8bcf1f62-26aa-42cd-bdb6-fde37a637338@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Losers are never regarded as "great".

>
> I see you understand yourself a great deal better than I thought.


Hey, you're the fanatic Bush supporter. How's it feel to be proven
wrong over and over again? I wouldn't know. I called Bush a "scumbag"
back in 2003. Now 71% of Americans agree with that. I have had the
luxury of quoting myself over the years, and time has proven that I
was right all along:

Jan 31 2005 "Bush's place in history is secure. The war will drag on
for years. Our troops have borne the brunt of Bush's incompetence, as
the years go by they'll get sick of spending every other year in that
hole. It's already a crisis. Imagine what it will be like in another 2
years, let alone 10."

Feb 1 2005 "Easy prediction: as the war drags on, "W"uss's popularity
wanes. It'll get a bump up from the elections, but the long-term trend
is clear. As casualties and costs mount, and war fever abates, the
American people will wise up."

28 Feb 2006 I'd say that was right on. Of course, as I said, it was an
easy prediction- people don't like losing wars, and they don't like
the presidents who lose them.

So go ahead, make a fool of yourself posting pro-Bush propaganda.
Reality always wins.
-Paul
 
Donald Munro wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> Don't be a partisan ideologue. It will make you stupid. This
>>> administration's conduct has been especially egregious.

>
> Michael Press wrote:
>> Unnecessary to qualify egregious.
>> egregious: Surpassing; extraordinary; distinguished (in a bad sense);

>
> Perhaps justified in this case.
>


So you are arguing that qualifying egregious with especially is not an
egregious use of especially?

Someday, I am going to construct a logically and syntactically correct
sentence using only "especially," "egregious," and a verb (knowing me, it
will be a verb related to a sexual act). At that point, my powers will
have increased to the point where I will rule the world. bwahaha

--
Bill Asher
 
On May 5, 12:19 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not really all that sure that Iran is a serious threat to anyone.


Iran is not a serious threat today, but as soon as they get the bomb
they will be extremely dangerous, and that is just a matter of time.
The hard, expensive part of making a nuke is making the fissile
material- either plutonium or enriched uranium. The former takes a
reactor, the latter takes thousands of centrifuges. Iraq had neither
of those, so when leaders in the Bush admin started talking about
Iraqi "mushroom clouds" I knew that was propaganda of the worst kind-
outright lies intended to scare the American public into an
unnecessary war with Iraq.

Iran has at least one working reactor, uranium mines, and thousands of
centrifuges. Compare that with the imaginary yellow cake uranium they
used to justify invading Iraq. This is why I called Bush a "scumbag"
for invading Iraq.

Making the bomb is easy, particularly if you go the uranium route. The
Little Boy bomb was a glorified pipe bomb, made from a howitzer
barrel. They simply used conventional explosives to fire a slug of sub-
critical enriched uranium into another piece of sub-critical uranium,
which summed up to a critical mass, and BOOM!

So it's a joke to say that the Iranians are enriching uranium but not
working on a bomb. There's nothing to making the bomb once you have
enriched uranium. Plutonium bombs are a little more complex- you have
to implode a hollow sphere of plutonium, but it's still 60+ year old
technology.

The Iranians are also religious fanatics. They're just dying to go to
paradise, the sooner the better... This is a major reason Bush will
be regarded as the worst president in history. If he had focussed on
Afghanistan and gotten the job done there, he would have had a lot of
leverage against the Iranians AND Iraqis. Instead, he's made the US
look weak and handed Iraq to the Iranians on a silver platter. He's
driven up the price of oil, which is giving the Iranians money for
their nuke program. All this is a calamity for the security of the
US. Bush supporters are a bunch of dupes and traitors.
-Paul
-Paul
 
William Asher wrote:
> Someday, I am going to construct a logically and syntactically correct
> sentence using only "especially," "egregious," and a verb (knowing me, it
> will be a verb related to a sexual act). At that point, my powers will
> have increased to the point where I will rule the world. bwahaha


Of the back side be not seduced, young master bill.
 
On May 5, 9:46 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 4, 8:06 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm saying you're as horrendous as someone not voting. You're watching
> > the country being wrecked and you let your emotions prevent you from
> > actually trying to make a difference.

>
> Actually, it is people like you who make Kerry and Bush possible.
>
> It is not people -- who say by their non-marginal voting choice --
> that there are minimum baseline principles that must be met to garner
> a vote.
>
> You are the problem.
>
> Plus, you assume that "democracy works."
>
> Paul G made the cover:http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/069...
>
> You are the problem.


"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all the others that have been tried."
-Sir Winston Churchill

So you're half right, but "half right" is also wrong. The voters can
screw up big-time, but democracy is self-correcting. Bush's 71%
disapproval rating is a good example. I was calling him a scumbag
when he had an 80% approval rating, and took a lot of heat for it.
Time has proven me right.
-Paul
 
Donald Munro wrote:

>
> Of the back side be not seduced, young master bill.


But if you are going to be seduced, the back side is as good a way as any.

--
Bill Asher
 
> Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
> including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily you'll
> be using if you end up in an ICU.


No offense to your equipment, but I don't think I'll be feeling like I'm
"lucky" if/when I first wake up in an ICU someday.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:436096c2-9b5c-4b33-9d58-6a823a7f898e@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 4, 7:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As opposed to the great insight of a guy who refueled planes on
>>> Okinawa for a few
>>> months?

>>
>> Heh heh... you take a lot of tests and based on your scores they offer
>> you some jobs. They offered me jobs in electronic warfare and foreign
>> languages. Needless to say those aren't jobs they offer to recruits
>> with low test scores, and you have to be worth spending a lot of money
>> to train. The dummies got offered **** jobs like bomb loading and
>> refueling.

>
> Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
> including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily you'll
> be using if you end up in an ICU.
>
> But then since Kveck is one of those really intelligent people who run an
> automated machine, he's more reliable.
>
 
On May 5, 12:35 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 5, 9:46 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:


> > Plus, you assume that "democracy works."

>
> > You are the problem.

>
> "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
> except all the others that have been tried."
>     -Sir Winston Churchill


Yes, the favorite quote of every statist, particularly (these days)
social democrats. It sort of makes one wonder if there should be any
guvmint, since even "the best" is very bad.

> So you're half right, but "half right" is also wrong.  The voters can
> screw up big-time,  but democracy is self-correcting.


laughs -- A presidential election in the US seems little more than a
cult of personality with a bit of polemic thrown in for spice.

"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own weapons. … If democracy is so stupid as to
give us free tickets and salaries for this bear’s work, that is its
affair. … We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as
enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come." -- Joseph
Goebbels

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

>> It is not people -- who say by their non-marginal voting choice --
>> that there are minimum baseline principles that must be met to garner
>> a vote.


**** -- I was trying to say you can't blame the voters who have
standards. (Assuming democracy could work.)
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
>> including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily
>> you'll be using if you end up in an ICU.

>
> No offense to your equipment, but I don't think I'll be feeling like I'm
> "lucky" if/when I first wake up in an ICU someday.


Think of it this way Mike - there's every chance you'll wake-up because of
the monitoring instruments which signal any physiological problems and call
medical help as required.
 
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:27:42 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Wrong. Check your facts before you talk and you wont look like a
>> fool.

>
> That's a good idea, Jack: check your facts.


It's you who should check your facts. Cheney had no financial
interest in Halliburton while he served as VP.

Zip, nada.
 
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:27:35 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> **** 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.

>
> The Congressional Research Service says that deferred compensation *is* a
>financial interest, as is holding stock options (of which Cheney has 433,000 as of
>'05).


CRS is entitled to their opinion, however, one way or the other the
comment that Cheney is STILL receiving deferred salary from
Halliburton is incorrect.
 
On Sun, 04 May 2008 19:32:12 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Yes, most of the major medical advances come out of the US.

>
> The mistake that you two make is to assume that the great technological advances
>that happen in the US are what constitutes "Medical Care" and that they are available
>to everyone. They aren't.


I never said that they are. Most new technological advances and
improved treatment methods have to show efficacy in practice before
they are covered by insurance.
 
On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Al Qaeda changed strategy once we invaded Iraq. It's easier for them
>to attack us there.


Suckers, they fell for Bush's plan.
 
On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:07:37 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Saddam, when he controlled Iraq, was easily the most dangerous man in
>> the world from the US point of view.

>
>That's absurd. He was a danger to his own people and his neighbors,
>but never to us.


I disagree. Saddam had to be dealt with sooner or later. Best to get
the job done now. Mission accomplished.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>> Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
>>> including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily
>>> you'll be using if you end up in an ICU.

>>
>> No offense to your equipment, but I don't think I'll be feeling like
>> I'm "lucky" if/when I first wake up in an ICU someday.

>
> Think of it this way Mike - there's every chance you'll wake-up because
> of the monitoring instruments which signal any physiological problems
> and call medical help as required.




Are there bongos playing like on "ER"?

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:35:51 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The voters can
>screw up big-time, but democracy is self-correcting. Bush's 71%
>disapproval rating is a good example.


There are systemic problems in the mass media that are weakening that
self-correcting capacity.

> I was calling him a scumbag
>when he had an 80% approval rating, and took a lot of heat for it.
>Time has proven me right.
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 12:35:51 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The voters can
>>screw up big-time, but democracy is self-correcting. Bush's 71%
>>disapproval rating is a good example.

>
> There are systemic problems in the mass media that are weakening that
> self-correcting capacity.


Then perhaps you can pass a lot of laws against the freedom of the press.
 
On May 5, 1:47 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 5, 12:35 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 9:46 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Plus, you assume that "democracy works."

>
> > > You are the problem.

>
> > "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
> > except all the others that have been tried."
> > -Sir Winston Churchill

>
> Yes, the favorite quote of every statist, particularly (these days)
> social democrats. It sort of makes one wonder if there should be any
> guvmint, since even "the best" is very bad.
>


<shrug> So what is it you want? Anarchy? It's been tried. See the
Churchill quote. But go ahead, what's your dream situation?