symplastless wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"symplastless" wrote:


What's you favorite tree?
Usenet mandatory Monty Python reference

The Larch

/Usenet mandatory Monty Python reference

Unique tree. A deciduous conifer. Other than ginkgo that's the only
deciduous conifer I know of.

There's also the dawn redwood (Metasequoia) and the bald cypress.

Back to a gardening subject, who would have thunk.

Paulo

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Comics Momma WebTV wrote:

He McCain is a lefty pinko.
Did not fight in viet nam, helped and assisted the viet cong by
turning himself in and being a prisoner.

OK, Mr. brave guy. What wars did you fight in? What medals did
you get? I think this is big talk from someone who has never been
in battle.


Real patriot would not have surrendered.

That's what the Nazi SS did. We had to kill every one of the *******s.

Pinkos surrender. My son
comic would not have surrendered, he would hide under his bed like
during this war.
I see somebody left the door open. Thanks for the weirdoes "Doo", not
that a fascist, zionist pig would know any better.

Billy

Look what just crawled out from under a rock!

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Running from Vietnam wasn't so bad. ****ed off a lot of or Vietnamese
supporters but it was good for America because otherwise we would have
stayed and bled even more lives away.

Obviously, there is a political faction in Iraq that is using American
muscle for their own ends. Let's cut the crap.

It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in spite of
that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan
have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or policeman
understands the risks in his chosen profession, our warrior class accepts
similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is their
life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just won't cut it.
Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no or little chance of
fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become a soldier if there were no
wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of the
spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to kill?
There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in the
fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are still there
and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends are still in
the meat-grinder.

American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name. Each
one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one of them
are patriots who answered the call of their country. How did they know
that the commander in chief was a jive-ass, draft-dodging, mother-****er
who was just going to be helping himself, his daddy, and his friends to
make a little money. Welcome to the New American Century. All Profit,
All the Time. Hell, the ones who got killed are the lucky ones. It's the
other 90% who got broke and are coming home with post-traumatic stress
disorder, who are going to suffer. And you want to put a happy face on
it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did what they were told. They went to
Bagdad and occupied the Ministry of Oil and left the munition dumps
unprotected.

The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us. But
we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US military
to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the doctors who
counted the bodies.

Nor, by late yesterday, had US commanders been to the home of a
13-year-old boy who was among the dead, even though it is located less
than a mile from the main American base in Fallujah, a conservative
Sunni town 35 miles west of Baghdad.

The Americans' conduct over the Fallujah affair * and their highly
implausible version of events * has compounded the anger in Iraq over
the killings, in which 13 people died after being hit by a hail of US
bullets outside a school which the troops were occupying. It combines
all the worst elements of the occupation: panicky troops firing at
Iraqis instead of seeking to engage with them or understand their
circumstances, then insisting that local people have no cause for anger.
---------

Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough to
strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want to kill
westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed back. "W"
needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial complex could
keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier, just full of
crap?

American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia militias.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In ,
Doobie Keebler wrote:
On Jan 31, 5:10 am, wrote:

... Michelle Malkin reports...

You're joking, right?

What's the punchline?

Punhchline or not, Micelle Malkin surely appears to me to be a joke by
being a party line follower for the party line that I see her putting her
thought into following.

I consider even Christine Flowers to produce more independent thought
than Michelle Malkin!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Comics Momma WebTV wrote:

He McCain is a lefty pinko.
Did not fight in viet nam, helped and assisted the viet cong by
turning himself in and being a prisoner.

OK, Mr. brave guy. What wars did you fight in? What medals did
you get? I think this is big talk from someone who has never been
in battle.


Real patriot would not have surrendered.

That's what the Nazi SS did. We had to kill every one of the *******s.

Pinkos surrender. My son
comic would not have surrendered, he would hide under his bed like
during this war.
I see somebody left the door open. Thanks for the weirdoes "Doo", not
that a fascist, zionist pig would know any better.

Billy

Look what just crawled out from under a rock!

You must be looking in a mirror, Doo.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In ,
wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:11=EF=BF=BDpm, MajorOz wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:03 am, Comics Momma WebTV wrote:

He McCain is a lefty pinko.
Did not fight in viet nam, helped and assisted the viet cong by
turning himself in and being a prisoner.
Real patriot would not have surrendered. Pinkos surrender.
My son
comic would not have surrendered, he would hide under his bed like
during this war.

...realizing I may be feeding a troll.......

John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.
People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

oz, who has, for the first time since voting age, no candidate.
SNIP a slight bit where editing takes more than a few seconds
only I could cut and paste from those running.

he was a hero, but whats left is a shell of what WAS a great american.

he is a war monger, wants to remain in iraq for 20 years or more as a
occupying force.

the US needs a new start, that leaves obama.........

I would vote for McCain over someone who rose awfully fast in the realm
of "Chicagoland Politics"! My mother grew up there, and from 25 years ago
to now tells me that Chicago politics stink worse than even Philadelphia
politics!
And I consider Philadelphia to be so bad there that I think Philadelphia
makes the outside-of-Philly-and-Pittsburgh-metro-areas of Pennsylvania to
"look good" (usually when compared to Philadelphia) while being
"more-like-Alabama" than Alabama is!!! For one thing, count membership
of the Ku Klux Klan in AL and PA!

And since my mother has lived decades each in/near both Philadelphia
and Chicago and so far I got from her the impression that Chicago has even
stinkier politics than the stinky politics of Philadelphia in the
politically stinky US "state" of PA, I have a dim view of anyone rising
fast from or within either of these cesspools/septictanks!

Not that I have any higher opinion of Missouri - which had a "state
supreme court" decision only a couple decades ago upholding their sodomy
law on basis of need to keep "fecal matter" out of the water supply - in a
case where an appealing defendant lost overturn of his "sodomy law"
conviction for a "hand job"! Does that not make it easy to claim where
"fecal matter" is/was?

- Don Klipstein )

In article , CJT wrote:
Shawn Hirn wrote:

In article
,
Doobie Keebler wrote:

On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, " wrote:

John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.

Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for Hillary/
Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es off a
lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the religious
wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will either sit out this
election or vote third party. I know know who will win the Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our next
president.

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

I doubt anyone who is now or ever was a front-runner for the current
presidential election is going to win the job by honestly promising to fix
what is now broken. I see winning the job by either promising to keep
most broken things broken or by being expected to break promises to fix
what is broken.

I sorely wish that American voters would change this state!

- Don Klipstein )

In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

clipped

It averages out, unless one side or the other obtains an unfair advantage,
such as having dead people vote in Chicago or limiting the power of the
elite such as with McCain-Feingold.




At least da' dead people in Chicago are smart enough not to vote for a
loser like Bush.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a
(successful) attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not
finding OBL.

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , CJT wrote:

Shawn Hirn wrote:


In article
,
Doobie Keebler wrote:


On Jan 31, 2:44 pm, " wrote:


John McCain .. wants to remain in iraq for 20 years...

This is why McCain is not electable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM&NR=1

"100 Years In Iraq" is not a good campaign slogan for 2008.
Nobody wants their grandkids to still be fighting this war.

Rudy's toast, Huckabee is a religious nut, Mitt is a douchebag,
so that leaves St. John of McCain and his Holy War.

There are no good choices on the GOP ticket: get ready for Hillary/
Obama

I agree. McCain will get the Republican nomination, but he ****es off a
lot of conservatives, and he won't be able to rely on the religious
wing-nut base, which means a lot of Republicans will either sit out this
election or vote third party. I know know who will win the Democratic
nomination, but whomever it turns out to be will surely be our next
president.

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.


I doubt anyone who is now or ever was a front-runner for the current
presidential election is going to win the job by honestly promising to fix
what is now broken. I see winning the job by either promising to keep
most broken things broken or by being expected to break promises to fix
what is broken.

I sorely wish that American voters would change this state!

- Don Klipstein )

A good start would be admitting that there's more wrong than a couple
minor issues and that there is stuff that's broken that needs fixed...

It's like there's this 400 lb. gorilla in the room and both parties are
ignoring it... debt, war, recession, etc. etc. etc...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without
capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!


Yeah, there's that.

It took the FBI five years to locate Eric Rudolph, despite a high reward
being offered. As we all know, the hills and caves of North Carolina make it
difficult to track a vagabond on foot.

Billy wrote:
It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in
spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in
Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or
policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession, our
warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is
their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just
won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no
or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become
a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of
the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to
kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in
the fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are
still there and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends
are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties, some retire,
some move on to other endeavors, some are pussy-whipped by whining wives or
sweethearts.



American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name. Each
one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one of them
are patriots who answered the call of their country. How did they
know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass, draft-dodging,
mother-****er who was just going to be helping himself, his daddy,
and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for being a
draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that in time of war,
he joined the National Guard...

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for them,
but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did what
they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry of Oil
and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential
terrorists.


The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.



Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough to
strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want to
kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed back.
"W" needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial complex
could keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier,
just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas McArthur, "...would
make an adequate staff officer."


American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia
militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have killed or
know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of such in Iraq are not
from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a
(successful) attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not
finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east
as easy targets.

Count total American losses and then figure out how
well this is working.

It's not working, whether you count losses
as bodies or losses as dollars.
In fact it's a total disaster.