Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 03:02 AM
Ann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

"Vox Humana" expounded:

I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.


No, he'll run it like the elitist snob he is.

We have no good choice this November. At all.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************
  #32   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 04:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:52:54 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher)

opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good

choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry

may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and

none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.


I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records

tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.


The fact remains that you will get either Bush or Kerry. Not voting won't
get you "none of the above."


I do plan on voting. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those two.
  #33   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 04:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:53:53 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry

may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and

none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.


I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.


I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.


No, Kerry seems more likely to run the government based on some unrealistic idea
of a Nanny State, with big dreams involving the government doing everything for
everybody. Of course, somebody is going to have to pay for that, and I don't see
Kerry raiding his wife's trust funds, so he'll have to get the money from the
liberal's favorite source, the taxpayers. No problem. American taxpayers have
deep pockets. :/
  #34   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 04:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:53:20 GMT, "John Watson" wrote:

(snip)
Why did they kick you out before retirement?


I had my back go bad, and had to have surgery. I was looking at a drastic change
in career direction, and they offered a bonus right then, so I decided to take
it and get out. Until my back went bad I was pretty active, and I don't think I
would have liked changing to a more sedentary job. I was in the combat arms, and
other jobs just wouldn't have been the same.
  #35   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 04:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:00:34 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:




Did his saying "Bring it on" cause any terrorist attacks?



Actually, yes. The terrorist attacks launched in the middle east have more than
doubled since he said that.


OK, now all you have to do is prove that Bush's comment is the CAUSE of that.
Good luck.
Maybe Michael Moore would be willing to help you try. I wouldn't count on him
actually being much help, since he's not much in the credibility department, but
he'd be willing to try, I'm sure.

About a thousand dead kids in the armed services, to
date.


As a former soldier, I'd still say many of those dead would hardly be called
kids, unless you happen to be 80 or so.

Nice use of emotional slant there, equating soldiers with "kids". Some of those
soldiers are in their 30's. I spent 15 years in the Army, and don't even
consider the younger soldiers "kids". They're old enough to kill(and die) for
their country, so calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Oh, sorry. Eighteen is not kids. My bad.


Sometimes 18 is kids. Sometimes it isn't. I work with a 29-year-old who acts
like he's going on 13, so chronological age isn't a guarantee of maturity.

(snip)


  #36   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 04:03 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?


"Ann" wrote in message
...
"Vox Humana" expounded:

I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.


No, he'll run it like the elitist snob he is.


You aren't suggesting that the Bush dynasty isn't elitist are you? That
rancher façade is all talk, or as they say in Texas, "he's all hat and no
cattle."


  #37   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 05:02 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:52:54 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:00 GMT, escapee


wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:20:03 GMT, (The Watcher)

opined:


Just because Bush isn't a good choice doesn't make Kerry a good

choice.



Got any other ideas? You want Nader?

Voting for Kerry because Bush is bad seems foolish to me. I prefer
avoiding
foolish decisions like that whenever possible.

If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry

may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and

none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I don't plan on voting for either of those bozos. Their proven records

tell me I
wouldn't want EITHER of them as president.


The fact remains that you will get either Bush or Kerry. Not voting

won't
get you "none of the above."


I do plan on voting. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of those

two.

I understand your position. I would rather have two different choices. I
don't like Nader, so make that three choices. The fact remains that the
next president will be Bush or Kerry. While Kerry isn't my first choice,
Bush is out of the question. If the election were predicted to be a
landslide for Kerry, I might be tempted to vote for a third party candidate
as a way of protesting. Since it is going to be very close, I see a vote
for a third-party candidate as cutting of my own nose to spite my face. It
means that the Luddites who hang on every word spewed by the likes of Shawn
Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will have the last word. I would rather have a
president than a messiah.


  #38   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 05:02 AM
Vox Humana
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:53:53 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:21:10 GMT, "Vox Humana"

wrote:

(snip)
If you accept that bush is bad, then voting for him is foolish. Kerry

may
not be perfect, but he has years of proven service to the country and

none
of it points to the likelihood of him being as bad as George W. Bush.

I've seen no evidence that Kerry is any better than Bush either.


I think it is unlike that Kerry will run the government based on some
religious superstition.


No, Kerry seems more likely to run the government based on some

unrealistic idea
of a Nanny State, with big dreams involving the government doing

everything for
everybody. Of course, somebody is going to have to pay for that, and I

don't see
Kerry raiding his wife's trust funds, so he'll have to get the money from

the
liberal's favorite source, the taxpayers. No problem. American taxpayers

have
deep pockets. :/


Actually, Kerry has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy and that
would include his wife. You give me the impression that the choice is
between a big spending Kerry and a thrifty Bush. That simply isn't the
case. Bush is such a huge spender that even the truly conservative (as
opposed to the neo-cons) are starting to revolt. Bush has already spent
money that will come from future taxes - taxes that will be paid by you and
your children. Unfortunately Bush has decided to spend your money on a war
in Iraq. More money is being spent to rebuild that country while people go
without here. The defense contractors and the Carlisle Group are raking in
your tax money as we speak. Money for social programs is being ****ed away
on "faith based" programs that are about as sound as witchcraft and alchemy.
Given the choice between socialism and fascism, I'll take socialism. You
can have Bush's "big Brother" state.


  #39   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 06:02 AM
remove munged
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:32:24 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:45:37 -0700, Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.



Kids pure and simple! they're kids!


And that includes the senior NCO's in their late 30's?



75 were 19 0r under

179 were less than 20 and under

534 were under 25 or under

279 were over 30

MOST WERE KIDS!!!!!
  #40   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 08:02 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:24:20 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:

(snip)
Actually, Kerry has said that he would raise taxes on the wealthy and that
would include his wife.


Yes, Kerry has said MANY things(as well as the opposite of those many things).
Do you really expect him to actually raise taxes on the wealthy? I don't. Even
if he does manage to do that, I wouldn't be too surprised if the wealthy still
manage to find ways to get out of paying more taxes anyway.

You give me the impression that the choice is
between a big spending Kerry and a thrifty Bush.


Nope, I don't see it a a choice between Kerry and Bush. I see it as a choice
between ALL the candidates on the ballot.

That simply isn't the
case. Bush is such a huge spender that even the truly conservative (as
opposed to the neo-cons) are starting to revolt. Bush has already spent
money that will come from future taxes - taxes that will be paid by you and
your children. Unfortunately Bush has decided to spend your money on a war
in Iraq. More money is being spent to rebuild that country while people go
without here. The defense contractors and the Carlisle Group are raking in
your tax money as we speak. Money for social programs is being ****ed away
on "faith based" programs that are about as sound as witchcraft and alchemy.
Given the choice between socialism and fascism, I'll take socialism. You
can have Bush's "big Brother" state.


I prefer neither of those choices.


  #41   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 08:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:27:01 -0700, remove munged
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:32:24 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:45:37 -0700, Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Kids pure and simple! they're kids!


And that includes the senior NCO's in their late 30's?



75 were 19 0r under

179 were less than 20 and under

534 were under 25 or under

279 were over 30

MOST WERE KIDS!!!!!


Yep, good emotional label to use for people old enough to vote for president,
drink alcohol, kill for their country, die for their country, get married, have
children, and do everything else anyone who's reached the age of majority can
do.
I prefer to avoid emotional arguments like that, especially when discussing
logical questions.

  #42   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 08:03 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:53:20 GMT, "John Watson" wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:14:02 GMT, escapee
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:51:15 -0400, (D) opined:

I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

How do you explain that a teenager was able to get two box cutters onto
planes,
through security gates, at two airports? Bush has nothing to do with
terrorist
attack cessation. Matter of fact, he said, "Bring it on."


Did his saying "Bring it on" cause any terrorist attacks?

So, if you think
about a thousand dead kids (soldiers)


Nice use of emotional slant there, equating soldiers with "kids". Some of
those
soldiers are in their 30's. I spent 15 years in the Army, and don't even
consider the younger soldiers "kids". They're old enough to kill(and die)
for
their country, so calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Why did they kick you out before retirement?


Gotta watch those ASSumptions. As they say in the Army, they make an ASS out of
U and ME. Hardly a logical thing to do(making assumptions like that).
They didn't kick me out before retirement. I got out voluntarily when they
offered a bonus program.
  #43   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 12:02 PM
Ann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

"Vox Humana" expounded:

You aren't suggesting that the Bush dynasty isn't elitist are you? That
rancher façade is all talk, or as they say in Texas, "he's all hat and no
cattle."


No, I'm not, I'm suggesting that Kerry is. I live in Massachusetts,
you know, the state where he's been junior senator for years, and I
can't think of a single thing he's done for the state, other than move
an inconvenient fire hydrant in front of his mansion in Lafayette
Square. He's known around here for the way he treats the help. And
the help is anyone other than his circle of friends.

Bush has other problems.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************
  #44   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 01:02 PM
Tim Wisniewski
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?


Some folks said, in discussing the Iraq war......

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.


Kids pure and simple! they're kids!

And that includes the senior NCO's in their late 30's?



75 were 19 0r under

179 were less than 20 and under

534 were under 25 or under

279 were over 30

MOST WERE KIDS!!!!!


Yep, good emotional label to use for people old enough to vote for

president,
drink alcohol, kill for their country, die for their country, get married,

have
children, and do everything else anyone who's reached the age of majority

can
do.
I prefer to avoid emotional arguments like that, especially when

discussing
logical questions.


Oh my........i really tried to not respond.......but.......a logical
argument that i would make is that the lives of the men and women lost in
the current Iraq war are a great loss to the nation, their families, their
communities, and the value of our heritage. To dismiss such numbers based
on a pretense of the numbers being emotional is NOT logical. It's a great
loss......! Especially in a war that 'dub' chose to take the country into,
in a pre-emptive strike based on what he now says was bad intelligence. I
think the loss is very logical and very sad.........from a logical point of
view.

cubanpole


  #45   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2004, 02:02 PM
escapee
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush intel?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:45:37 -0700, Tom Jaszewski opined:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:13:12 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

calling them kids seems a bit disingenious.



Kids pure and simple! they're kids!


Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold



Someone in the military for fifteen years is career military. Someone from
Yackadoo, Spawfunk who joins because there are no jobs in their area, and they
recruiters tell these kids they will see the world, get a free education,
blather and more blather. The majority of the armed service is compiled of
eighteen year old people. Period.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bradley method bush regeneration David Hare-Scott Australia 8 03-04-2003 03:32 PM
Planting new rosemary bush/shrub Anita Blanchard Gardening 1 04-02-2003 10:16 PM
Chilean Fire Tree/Bush Embothrium coccineum Mark or Travis Gardening 5 25-01-2003 07:21 PM
Bush plan eases forest rules Daniel B. Wheeler alt.forestry 0 28-11-2002 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017