 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008Big rig drivers slow down to save fuel
Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for everyone - and enforce it strictly?. Along with saving gas it would also prevent thousands of highways murders each year. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23757347/ Big rig drivers slow down to save fuel With diesel fuel at $4 per gallon, truckers say slowing down saves money updated 1:35 p.m. MT, Sat., March. 22, 2008 BISMARCK, N.D. - (snip) Truckers and industry officials say slowing a tractor-trailer rig from 75 mph to 65 mph increases fuel mileage by more than a mile a gallon, a significant bump for machines that get less than 10 miles per gallon hauling thousands of pounds of freight. Even sitting still with the engine idling, a rig gulps about a gallon of diesel every hour. The nationwide average for a gallon of diesel on Thursday was $4.03, up from $2.74 one year earlier, AAA North Dakota spokesman Gene LaDoucer said. The average in North Dakota on Thursday was $3.98, up from $2.82 a year ago, he said. "Twenty-four states are paying $4 or higher," LaDoucer said Thursday. State troopers have noticed the decline in truckers' speeds, said North Dakota Highway Patrol Capt. Eric Pederson. "We see it when we're out patrolling," Pederson said. "In talking to the drivers, a lot of the large companies are setting policies that give the drivers a little more leeway on the time on their loads — just to save on the fuel." (snip) Trucking company Con-way Inc. of Ann Arbor, Mich., announced this month that it adjusted speed governors on the engines of the 8,400 semis in its less-than-truckload division, Con-way Freight. Con-way spokesman Gary Frantz said the maximum speed of the trucks has been cut from 65 mph to 62, a move that should cut fuel consumption by 3.2 million gallons a year. On Mar 22, 5:59 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for > everyone - and enforce it strictly?. Along with saving gas it would also [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > been cut from 65 mph to 62, a move that should cut fuel consumption by > 3.2 million gallons a year. if you look at 18 wheelers on interstate, you might find out they are empty if look inside. > Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for > everyone - and enforce it strictly?. Why don't you shut up?  SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for >> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. >> > Why don't you shut up? We did in WWII....but we won that war when all of America mobilized...instead of this fiasco. 3,966 dead...no end in sight >>> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for >>> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 3,966 dead...no end in sight I forgot to mention that the nationwide speed limit was 35 MPH "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:eniFj.24449$vr3.1955 @bignews2.bellsouth.net: >> We did in WWII....but >> we won that war when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I forgot to mention that the nationwide speed limit was 35 MPH I've read that also. 35 mph would be fantastic now. If it was enforced, road deaths would drop by half at least. SFB spewed: >I've read that also. 35 mph would be fantastic now. If it was enforced, >road deaths would drop by half at least. 15 would be even better. At that speed, deaths would be virtually nil. Why do you want to send 22,000 people to their deaths so you can zip down the highway at 35MPH, you blood thirsty faggot? -- S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater: "Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like 2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl Msg ID: Xns9A59DDA463296riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70 > SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why do you want to send 22,000 people to their deaths so you can zip > down the highway at 35MPH, you blood thirsty faggot? Heck, using that "logic" you could set it at 5 MPH and the death rate would go negative. <eyeroll> Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) On Mar 22, 6:01 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:eniFj.24449$vr3.1955 > @bignews2.bellsouth.net: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've read that also. 35 mph would be fantastic now. If it was enforced, > road deaths would drop by half at least. The speed limit in WWII took into account that the tires were needed for the war and that no cars would be buolt until the war was over. Fuel was rationed not just to save gas. Lots of needless things are done to make those not fighting or building weapons feel part of the war. In Britain, they collected miles of lovely wrought-iron fences, then dumped them in a forest, as it was just about useless, but those who donated or collected felt part of the effort. (I did my share of stamping cans flat.) > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:eniFj.24449$vr3.1955 > @bignews2.bellsouth.net: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've read that also. 35 mph would be fantastic now. If it was enforced, > road deaths would drop by half at least. Most road deaths, you idiot, happen on side streets, not on freeways. In fact, it's even more glaring when you talk about time spent on the road. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47E5F272.B9FE4483@yahoo.co.uk >> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in >> news:eniFj.24449$vr3.1955 @bignews2.bellsouth.net: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > on freeways. In fact, it's even more glaring when you > talk about time spent on the road. You are so right there Bondo. I have no time to stay alive. I have to get to work. >>> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for >>> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 3,966 dead...no end in sight KIAs; http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/images/tab.by.name.gif >We did in WWII....but Damn straight! >we won that war when >all of America >mobilized... That was a fight for the very existence of our nation. >instead of >this fiasco. Instead of this war of aggression where we have invaded two sovergn nations..... >3,966 dead...no end in sight Interesting how the Brits could send one of their royalty (prince Harry) to fight, but the american (sic) princesses (jenna and barbara) stay home and get drunk..... -- necromancer Official Overseer Of KoOkS And Trolls In rec.autos.driving > >We did in WWII....but > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That was a fight for the very existence of our nation. It would be nice if Americans could or would be mobilized. I think the lack of that has been a real problem. > >instead of > >this fiasco. > > Instead of this war of aggression where we have invaded two sovergn > nations..... So you oppose not only Iraq but also Afghanistan? This is just more evidence that Bush shouldn't listen to the likes of you. > >3,966 dead...no end in sight > > Interesting how the Brits could send one of their royalty (prince > Harry) to fight, but the american (sic) princesses (jenna and barbara) > stay home and get drunk..... That's interesting. I think that Jenna and Barbara are women. Furthermore, we see the difficulties that the UK had in utilizing Harry in either action. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". > >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for > >> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 3,966 dead...no end in sight How many Americans died in WWII? SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for >> >> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > How many Americans died in WWII? What does WWII have to do the Iraq Quagmire? Mitchell Holman World War I (US involvement), 19 months War II (US involvement), 44 months Iraq War, *60* months, with no end in sight.... > >> >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits for > >> >> everyone - and enforce it strictly?. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What does WWII have to do the Iraq Quagmire? You brought up WWII. > World War I (US involvement), 19 months > War II (US involvement), 44 months > Iraq War, *60* months, with no end in sight.... What is your point? How long should the US have fought the Cold War? Or were you one of those Liberals who wanted to give up in 1958? SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> >> >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits >> >> >> for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> > You brought up WWII. We won WWII decisively because the American people supported it. We won WWII because the whole country mobilized. We won WWII because we had competent leadership. We lost jr's clusterfuck because he did have America's support when he started it We lost jr's clusterfuck because he did not mobilize the entire country We lost jr's clusterfuck because he is an incompetent leader >> World War I (US involvement), 19 months >> War II (US involvement), 44 months [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > War? Or were you one of those Liberals who wanted to give up in > 1958? > >> >> >> Why doesn't this stupid country get smart and lower speed limits > >> >> >> for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > We won WWII decisively because the American people supported it. So the American people don't support winning the war against bin Ladenism? > We won WWII because the whole country mobilized. How come the Cold War took so long? > We won WWII because we had competent leadership. Tell me what different policies you'd suggest? > We lost jr's clusterfuck because he did have America's support when he > started it So he had support when he started to the fight? > We lost jr's clusterfuck because he did not mobilize the entire country How would you suggest doing that? > We lost jr's clusterfuck because he is an incompetent leader What would you do differently? > >> World War I (US involvement), 19 months > >> War II (US involvement), 44 months [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > War? Or were you one of those Liberals who wanted to give up in > > 1958? Answer these questions. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So the American people don't support winning the war against bin > Ladenism? What is "bin Ladenism"? > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the > frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > What is "bin Ladenism"? The ability to kick Bush's a.s and have him stop hunting you and say he doesn't care anymore. IOW surrendering to the terrorists. > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' > >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > What is "bin Ladenism"? You don't know what it is even though I've told you a hundred times? SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' >> >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You don't know what it is even though I've told you a hundred > times? This is your term, you tell us. > >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' > >> >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > This is your term, you tell us. So you deny that Osama has a Weltanschauung? SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > You brought up WWII. No, I didn't. >> World War I (US involvement), 19 months >> War II (US involvement), 44 months >> Iraq War, *60* months, with no end in sight.... >> > What is your point? The point is that no public will support an overseas war indefinately. The British public tired of the US revolution, the American public tired of Vietnam, the Russian public tired of Afghanistan. Overseas wars cannot sustained for decades, as Bush and McCain expect the US to be doing in Iraq. > How long should the US have fought the Cold War? The Cold War was a political confrontation, not a war. > Or were you one of those Liberals who wanted to give > up in 1958? The US was actively engaged in overseas war in 1958? Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' > >> >> )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > The US was actively engaged in overseas war in 1958? I'm guessing righties are thinking that just because Germany, Japan, and South Korea like having us around to provide them free military security, all countries want it. The difference is that there aren't many religious nuts in Germany, Japan, and SK that want to kill us because we are there. Signature- Gary > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > The difference is that there aren't many religious nuts in Germany, Japan, > and SK that want to kill us because we are there. You have to wonder how the rightwingers would react to other countries (say, France) having military bases in the US. Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > > I'm guessing righties are thinking that just because Germany, Japan, and > > South Korea like having us around to provide them free military security, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have to wonder how the rightwingers would react to > other countries (say, France) having military bases in the US. Their 2nd Amendment guns would prevent it. Signature- Gary > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Their 2nd Amendment guns would prevent it. Our land is sacred, everyone else's is disposable. > > Mitchell Holman's at Noem...@comcast.com wisdom: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - BILL BONDE GREETS HIS MOTHER EVERY MORNING WITH HI HO, BECAUSE SHE IS A RIGHT WING WHORE > Our land is sacred, everyone else's is disposable. You hate America so why do you care? > > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Our land is sacred, everyone else's is disposable. It's difficult to connect that comment to reality. Do you think the US is treating Iraq as "disposable" when it tries to help Iraqis build a democracy? What do you think about the people in the Balkans or Darfur? SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > US is treating Iraq as "disposable" when it tries to help Iraqis > build a democracy? Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave 3/16/2008 LONDON - More than two-thirds of Iraqis believe US-led coalition forces should leave, according to a poll conducted for British television ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion. The ORB/Channel 4 News survey suggested that 70 percent thought multinational forces should withdraw. Yet some 40 percent of the 4,000 people surveyed said they wanted the United States to play a bigger role in rebuilding Iraq and 36 percent wanted more British involvement. Overall, the wide-ranging poll painted a mixed picture of Iraqi attitudes, contrasting their bleak daily existence with a surprisingly positive attitude about the future. It threw up stark statistics on the human cost of war, which began on March 20, 2003, its effect on infrastructure and daily life, plus the bloody sectarian violence that erupted in the aftermath of the invasion. A quarter of those surveyed said they had lost a family member to murder. In Baghdad, that figure rose to nearly half (45 percent). Some 81 percent had suffered power cuts and 43 percent had experienced drinking water shortages. In the last month, more than a quarter (28 percent) had been short of food. http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=220624 The American public wants the US to leave Iraq. The Iraqi public wants the US to leave Iraq. Why isn't the US leaving Iraq? > What do you think about the people in the > Balkans or Darfur? And you dare to accuse others of trying to change the subject? Sigh............... > >> > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > bleak daily existence with a surprisingly positive attitude about > the future. So that doesn't really follow, does it? It looks like Iraqis want to be running Iraq without any foreign troops there but understand that they can't do that right now and expect any sort of long term reduction in violence. Clearly they need help. Clearly getting help isn't something that is wrong. The Americans got help in their Revolutionary War, didn't they? > The American public wants the US to leave Iraq. > The Iraqi public wants the US to leave Iraq. > > Why isn't the US leaving Iraq? Because the US is fighting a global war against terrorism, a "world war", and Iraq is a vital aspect of that fight, especially of the military part of it. > > What do you think about the people in the > > Balkans or Darfur? > > And you dare to accuse others of trying to > change the subject? Sigh............... The problem is that you don't want to talk about other countries where there are threats to people and you either would let them did too or would involve the US and other countries in efforts to save them. You can't distinguish this from Iraq, therefore you don't want to talk about it. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >>> Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > build a democracy? What do you think about the people in the > Balkans or Darfur? Your sarcasm here is too obvious, I'm disappointed. > >>> Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > Your sarcasm here is too obvious, I'm disappointed. What do you think about those people? Either all peoples of the world deserve their chance at freedom or there's some other rule that no one will elucidate. I kind of know what the rule might be but I don't think it works well if we hope for a different kind of future than we've had in the past. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" > Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > The difference is that there aren't many religious nuts in Germany, Japan, > and SK that want to kill us because we are there. Keep in mind that 9/11 happened *before* the US invaded either Iraq or Afghanistan. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47E947CE.D4AC9E17@yahoo.co.uk >> Mitchell Holman's at Noemail@comcast.com wisdom: >> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Keep in mind that 9/11 happened *before* the US invaded > either Iraq or Afghanistan. Right after he was warned by the previous administration. > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Right after he was warned by the previous administration. 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, why didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy against terrorism when he didn't actively engage that policy until after 9/11. This is means that 9/11 happened without the impetus of Bush's policies, they happened under Clinton type policies, which you and others seek to return to. SignatureLike the Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes mountains, Hillary is "ALIVE!". >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, why > didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? They were doing a smart thing...they had a large anti-terrorism task force operating...that's the one Aschroft disbanded in favor of some trivial morality issue he like better...... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/03/b39039.html Clinton...much much smarter than jr.... > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy > against terrorism when he didn't actively engage that policy until > after 9/11. This is means that 9/11 happened without the impetus of > Bush's policies, they happened under Clinton type policies, which > you and others seek to return to. > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > of some trivial morality > issue he like better...... A task force? Why didn't they catch the 9/11 plotters? Why didn't they catch anyone? Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > A task force? Why didn't they catch the 9/11 plotters? Why didn't > they catch anyone? They did. They caught arrested, tried, and convicted and jailed the first WTC bombers.....you didn't know that? They warned jr. They warned Rice. They warned Ashcroft but the blue cloth over the naked statue was more important You keep bring up the same old discredited sh.t over and over again. Try for some new material you're getting boring > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > They caught arrested, tried, and convicted and jailed the first WTC > bombers.....you didn't know that? The first WTC attack, a bombing, wasn't on 9/11, you doff. > They warned jr. > They warned Rice. > They warned Ashcroft but the blue cloth over the naked statue was more > important Just answer the question. Don't claim they caught the 9/11 attackers, they didn't. > You keep bring up the same old discredited sh.t over and over again. > > Try for some new material you're getting boring I keep kicking you in the head. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47E99898.8D93E1FD@yahoo.co.uk >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the >> frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] >> > I keep kicking you in the head. You keep making a fool out of yourself. Clinton was willing to keep after Bin Laden but his blow job was more important to you sissies. He was accused of wagging the dog and was left defending himself over nothing. Why did Bush give up even after 911 and attack a helpless nation that was no threat to anyone? You have no answer because you are a fool. > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > You keep making a fool out of yourself. By responding to the likes of you? > Clinton was willing to keep after > Bin Laden but his blow job was more important to you sissies. Wait a minute. Clinton was willing to "keep after" bin Laden but the bl.wj.b was more important to whom?! I don't recall anyone else putting bl.wj.bs above doing their jobs other than Bill Clinton. What means was Clinton willing to use to "keep after" bin Laden? I only recall some cruise missiles sent flying to "wag the dog" as Clinton planned that day to lie under oath about blow jobs. So maybe holding his feet to the fire about bl.wj.bs is the only thing that got him to "keep after" bin Laden in he first place. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47EA8C50.EF07A354@yahoo.co.uk >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the >> frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > bl.wj.bs is the only thing that got him to "keep after" > bin Laden in he first place. You don't remember Clinton being tied up in hearings about his private life? Compared to the war crimes of the neo-cons what Clinton did looks rather small right about now. Clinton was accused more than once of trying to "wag the dog". Bush was warned and turned away. Very simple. The attack on 911 was due to this. Even the look on his face when he was told about it shows what a fool he is. He is a disgrace. > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 167 lines] > > You don't remember Clinton being tied up If Clinton was tied up, I don't want to know about it. > in hearings about his private > life? When you do things in your private life that create havoc in your public life, don't blame other people. See "john" Spritzer for details. >Compared to the war crimes of the neo-cons what Clinton did looks > rather small right about now. Clinton was accused more than once of trying > to "wag the dog". Trying to? > Bush was warned and turned away. Very simple. Really? So the White House is personally responsible for going out and stopping terror? That isn't delegated to such agencies as the FBI and CIA? > The attack > on 911 was due to this. Even the look on his face when he was told about it > shows what a fool he is. He is a disgrace. What was the look on your face when you heard about 9/11? No one else was on video when they were told, were they? I know I was shocked. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" | >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal | >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] | They caught arrested, tried, and convicted and jailed the first WTC | bombers.....you didn't know that? %%%% Why didn't they arrest, try, convict and jail the terrorist planning and training the 9/11 attack right under their noses for 8 years? I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job. | They warned jr. | They warned Rice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Try for some new material you're getting boring | >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal | >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] | | Clinton...much much smarter than jr.... %%%% Really? Then why don't you tell us why Clinton allowed the terrorist to: (1) Come here during his administration. (2) Plan the 9/11 attack during his administration. (3) Train here in America during his administration for the 9/11 attack. Use all of the white space you need to explain why the Clinton administration allowed it to happen. | > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact | > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy | > against terrorism when he didn't actively engage that policy until | > after 9/11. This is means that 9/11 happened without the impetus of | > Bush's policies, they happened under Clinton type policies, which | > you and others seek to return to. > | "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the > | frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > Use all of the white space you need to explain why the > Clinton administration allowed it to happen. They weren't terrorists before 911. Bush allowed them to become what many wanted. Bush has created more terrorists than Bin Laden himself. How many do you think are training on US soil right now? he facts are that Bush was warned and he turn away.No matter how you try to Blame someone else this will always be in your face. You are kicking your own a.s by being such a liar and fool. | > | "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the | > | frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] | > | They weren't terrorists before 911. %%%% Try to stick to the subject.: Why the Clinton administration allowed it to happen. That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man's company That fears his fellowship to die with us." - Wm. Shakespeare "Henry V", Act IV, scene III Bush allowed them to become what many | wanted. Bush has created more terrorists than Bin Laden himself. How many do | you think are training on US soil right now? he facts are that Bush was | warned and he turn away.No matter how you try to Blame someone else this | will always be in your face. You are kicking your own a.s by being such a | liar and fool. > > | "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the > > | frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > will always be in your face. You are kicking your own a.s by being such a > liar and fool. I think you should just answer the three points that he made. You haven't done that. This is an example of what I was talking about, kicking you in the head. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47EA8CBE.555B9D0F@yahoo.co.uk >> > | "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the >> > | frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > made. You haven't done that. This is an example of what I > was talking about, kicking you in the head. You are not kicking anyone in the head. The facts are what they are. You and Bush got kicked in the head on 911. This continues to happen as long as he is in the WhiteHouse and you worship this criminal. > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > You are not kicking anyone in the head. The facts are what they are. You and > Bush got kicked in the head on 911. You think we all didn't get a kick in the head on that dark day? > This continues to happen as long as he > is in the WhiteHouse and you worship this criminal. Your comments are ridiculous. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" In article <47E9895D.CC86AD7C@yahoo.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, why > didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? He'd rather point his finger at us and lie? >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, why > didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? Clinton attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 2 Bush attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 0 > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy > against terrorism when he didn't actively engage that policy until > after 9/11. This is means that 9/11 happened without the impetus of > Bush's policies, they happened under Clinton type policies, which > you and others seek to return to. Clinton's policy was to actively engage terrorists and attack terrorists and talk about terrorists. Bush's policy was to ignore terrorists. No attacks on terrorists, no policy on terrorists, to not even MENTION terrorism. His priorities were abortion restrictions, tax cuts for the wealthy, taking vacations and otherwise ignoring his role as commander in chief. PS: For 2 extra points, tell us what Bush was doing while the 9/11 attacks were taking place. | >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal | >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] | Clinton attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 2 | Bush attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 0 %%%% Bin Laden handed to Clinton on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 1 Bin Laden handed to Bush on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 0 | > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact | > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | Clinton's policy was to actively engage terrorists and | attack terrorists and talk about terrorists. %%%% So why did he allow terrorist to come into the country plan and train for the 9/11 attack right under his cocaine snorting nose? We have another NEW grouping.... "Cowardly sniveling leftard girly-boyz against Bush" ---- Amanda (girl-boy) Williams revealing his “orientation” 11/30/2006 in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh | Bush's policy was to ignore terrorists. No attacks on | terrorists, no policy on terrorists, to not even MENTION [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | PS: For 2 extra points, tell us what Bush was doing | while the 9/11 attacks were taking place. <snip> >| > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, why >| > didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >%%%% Bin Laden handed to Clinton on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 1 >Bin Laden handed to Bush on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 0 Sudan offered bin Laden to the Saudis, who refused to take him. He was never offered to Clinton. That was a lie and political urban myth and is directly addressed and contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. " We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim. Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all." Staff Statement No. 5 So, the Sudanese offered bin Laden to the Saudis, and they only did so on the understanding that bin Laden would be pardoned. The Saudis refused to take him under those conditions. "David Moffitt" <dmoffitt@weaselstomping.org> wrote in news:13ujof1tnnpk165 @corp.supernews.com: >| "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" >| <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > %%%% Bin Laden handed to Clinton on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 1 > Bin Laden handed to Bush on a silver platter prior to 9/11 = 0 Urban legend. >| > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact >| > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > %%%% So why did he allow terrorist to come into the country plan and train > for the 9/11 attack right under his cocaine snorting nose? Yes, the president WAS warned about suspected terrorists training at flight schools and did nothing about that warning. But that president was BUSH! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/chronicle/archive/2001/12/22/MN145401.DTL > We have another NEW grouping.... "Cowardly sniveling leftard girly-boyz > against Bush" ---- Amanda (girl-boy) Williams revealing his “orientation” [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >| PS: For 2 extra points, tell us what Bush was doing >| while the 9/11 attacks were taking place. Aw, come on Muffy. Tell us what your hero Bush was doing at the time the attacks were taking place. > Yes, the president WAS warned about suspected terrorists > training at flight schools and did nothing about that warning. The president isn't the FBI. The FBI was run by the Clinton era appointee. Why didn't the FBI do something about the training at the flight schools? You don't have an answer for that because it doesn't involve your prime reason for discussing this, to blame Bush for the fact that *all* Americans weren't ready on 9/11. There were people sounding the alarm, of course, but they weren't named Bill Clinton or Al Gore. They also weren't treated very well by the Clinton administration, see how the security chief of the WTC who died that day *was* an FBI agent directly trying to deal with the threat but was fired and had to fall back into a defence mode. > Aw, come on Muffy. Tell us what your hero Bush was > doing at the time the attacks were taking place. You mean reading a book to school kids? Presidents and other politicians do these sorts of things all the time. It's part of their daily agenda. Do you think that Clinton didn't do that sort of thing? Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" > >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Clinton attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 2 > Bush attacks on Bin Laden prior to 9/11 = 0 You mean each wave of cruise missiles counts as a separate attack even though they all happened at the same time just at two different targets? Why not count each cruise missile as an "attack" so that Clinton can get credit for hundreds of attacks on bin Laden? > > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact > > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Clinton's policy was to actively engage terrorists and > attack terrorists and talk about terrorists. 1) Why didn't he actively engage the terrorists after the 1998 cruise missile response and before leaving office on Jan 20, 2001? That is literally years later. 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 campaign? If it was so important and the Clinton administration was so engaged, why didn't that translate into making it a campaign issue. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > so that Clinton can get credit for hundreds of attacks on bin > Laden? Clinton attacked bin Laden. Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. >> > 2) Don't change the subject. The issue on the table is the fact >> > that you and others are arguing against Bush's foreign policy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cruise missile response and before leaving office on Jan 20, 2001? > That is literally years later. What did you expect Clinton to, and why didn't Bush do it too? > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 > campaign? He did. Why do you embarrass yourself like this? "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in one of the most important challenges our country faces today: protecting Americans against the threat of terrorism here at home. We established multiple National Guard teams around the country to provide rapid assessment and response in the event of a terrorist incident. We're also using National Guard "know how" to help in the fight against cyber-terrorism." Al Gore, Sept 2000 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200009/ai_n8912142 Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his inauguration and 9/11. One quote, any quote. Put it right here:________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ > >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Clinton attacked bin Laden. In what year? In what year did Clinton leave office? Put your answers right here ------> > Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. Did Gore? > > 1) Why didn't he actively engage the terrorists after the 1998 > > cruise missile response and before leaving office on Jan 20, 2001? > > That is literally years later. > > What did you expect Clinton to, and why didn't > Bush do it too? Bush didn't have time, 9/11 happened as the reports were coming back detailing the situation and what should be done. Clinton, however, had eight years and yet what did he do? You claim he attacked bin Laden twice. Why not claim each of the cruise missiles was an "attack" and that means Clinton attacked bin Laden at least 150 times! > > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be > > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why do you embarrass yourself like this? I keep kicking you in the head. Why didn't Gore talk about bin Laden. > "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in > one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Al Gore, Sept 2000 > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200009/ai_n8912142 Where is bin Laden in there? We know that Al Gore invented the internet so he had to talk about "cyberterrorism". > Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his > inauguration and 9/11. > > One quote, any quote. Not interesting. I claim that no one was fully engaged against this threat until 9/11. The new president was just getting his feet grounded and 9/11 hit. But why should we limit what he did to before 9/11? Isn't it because if you take the totality of Bush's actions as president and you compare them to Clinton's, Clinton spent most of his time getting bl.wj.bs. Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > In what year? In what year did Clinton leave office? Put your > answers right here ------> http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/ >> Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > Bush didn't have time, Let's see: Bush had time to curtail abortion rights, cut taxes for the wealthy, destroy the budget surplus and then take the longest vacation in presidential history but he "didn't have time" to to even MENTION terrorism? You are as lame as he is. > 9/11 happened as the reports were coming > back detailing the situation and what should be done. Clinton, > however, had eight years and yet what did he do? You claim he > attacked bin Laden twice. Why not claim each of the cruise missiles > was an "attack" and that means Clinton attacked bin Laden at least > 150 times! Clinton attacked terrorism without waiting for 3000 Americans to be killed by it first. Bush, on the other hand.... >> > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be >> > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I keep kicking you in the head. Why didn't Gore talk about bin > Laden. You asked for Gore's quote about TERRORISM. I supplied a Gore quote about terrorism. Now you want to move the goalposts without even admitting you were wrong. Have you always been this much of a weenie? >> "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in >> one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Where is bin Laden in there? Where is bin Laden in any quote from Bush prior to 9/11? > We know that Al Gore invented the > internet so he had to talk about "cyberterrorism". When did Gore claim to have invented the internet? >> Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his >> inauguration and 9/11. >> >> One quote, any quote. >> > Not interesting. You demand quotes but can't supply any, it seems. I claim that no one was fully engaged against this > threat until 9/11. The new president was just getting his feet > grounded and 9/11 hit. But why should we limit what he did to > before 9/11? Isn't it because if you take the totality of Bush's > actions as president and you compare them to Clinton's, Clinton > spent most of his time getting bl.wj.bs. Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 9,491 > >> >> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > >> >> >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/ Since you won't answer, I'll point out that Clinton's 150 attacks on bin Laden, one for each cruise missile, occurred in 1998. Clinton left office in 2001. How many years did Clinton go without attacking bin Laden? Did the 150 attacks in 1998 count enough to allow him to pause for those many years and have no attacks. > >> Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You are as lame as he is. No one was ready for 9/11. The time I'm talking about though is the time for the results of what to do to come back. > > 9/11 happened as the reports were coming > > back detailing the situation and what should be done. Clinton, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Clinton attacked terrorism without waiting for 3000 > Americans to be killed by it first. Bush, on the other hand.... You can't explain why Clinton attacked in 1998 and then did nothing until 2001 when he left office without attacking again. > >> > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be > >> > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You asked for Gore's quote about TERRORISM. Gore was talking about "cyberterrorism", his usual topic about how he invented the internet. > I supplied a Gore quote about terrorism. > > Now you want to move the goalposts without > even admitting you were wrong. This is what I said: 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 campaign? > Have you always been this much of a weenie? I'm directly engaging you, so what's your problem? > >> "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in > >> one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where is bin Laden in any quote from Bush prior to 9/11? I don't know of any such quote. > > We know that Al Gore invented the > > internet so he had to talk about "cyberterrorism". > > When did Gore claim to have invented the internet? Earlier. > >> Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his > >> inauguration and 9/11. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You demand quotes but can't supply any, it seems. I don't claim that Bush made terrorism the most important part of his campaign or early administration. I claim that neither did Clinton or Gore. Your attempt at a strawman is what I'm resisting. > I claim that no one was fully engaged against this > > threat until 9/11. The new president was just getting his feet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93 > Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 9,491 Can you back those numbers up? Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:47EB15A9.B4C000BA@yahoo.co.uk >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the >> frontal attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > though is the time for the results of what to do to come > back. Why not? Bush was warned and he turned away. Now tell me that Bush was NOT warned. >> >> >> > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, >> >> >> > why didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > attacking bin Laden? Did the 150 attacks in 1998 count enough to > allow him to pause for those many years and have no attacks. Remember the GOP outrage over Clinton attacking terrorism? Republicans were more interested in attacking Clinton than attacking Bin Laden. >> >> Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No one was ready for 9/11. The time I'm talking about though is the > time for the results of what to do to come back. Bush had time for abortion restrictions, tax cuts and vacations but none for dealing with terrorism. It was a matter of priorities, you know. >> > 9/11 happened as the reports were coming >> > back detailing the situation and what should be done. Clinton, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can't explain why Clinton attacked in 1998 and then did nothing > until 2001 when he left office without attacking again. Clinton was busy trying defend himself against the GOP trying to dethrone him. What was Bush's excuse for ignoring terrorism? >> >> > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be >> >> > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Gore was talking about "cyberterrorism", his usual topic about how > he invented the internet. Do you not even READ the quotes that prove you wrong? "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in one of the most important challenges our country faces today: protecting Americans against the threat of terrorism here at home." Al Gore, Sept 200 Now tell us what BUSH said about bin Laden. >> I supplied a Gore quote about terrorism. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and would-be successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the > 2000 campaign? Read the below quote and stop acting like it isn't there. >> >> "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in >> >> one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > I don't know of any such quote. That is because Bush IGNORED terrorism!!!! >> > We know that Al Gore invented the >> > internet so he had to talk about "cyberterrorism". >> >> When did Gore claim to have invented the internet? >> > Earlier. Prove it. >> >> Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his >> >> inauguration and 9/11. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > his campaign or early administration. I claim that neither did > Clinton or Gore. Your attempt at a strawman is what I'm resisting. Clinton talked about terrorism, attacked terrorism. Gore talked about terrorism. Bush didn't attack terrorism, Bush didn't talk about terrorism, Bush didn't CARE about terrorism. Case closed. >> I claim that no one was fully engaged against this >> > threat until 9/11. The new president was just getting his feet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Can you back those numbers up? 9/11 = 3000 Irag combat deaths to date = 4000 Afghanistan combat deaths to date = 491 (http://icasualties.org/oef/) You do the math................. > >> >> >> > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, > >> >> >> > why didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Remember the GOP outrage over Clinton attacking terrorism? Not at all. No one was "outraged" that Clinton "attacked terrorism". That's just a lie. > Republicans were more interested in attacking Clinton than > attacking Bin Laden. That's just a lie. > >> >> Bush never even MENTIONED bin Laden. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Bush had time for abortion restrictions, tax cuts and > vacations but none for dealing with terrorism. The question is what to do. What did Clinton do between 1998 and 2001? Nichts it looks like. But that's plenty in your view because he supposedly said, "Bin Laden is bad and out to get ya." > It was a matter of priorities, you know. No, it's a matter of doing the right things. Bush was waiting for the analysis to come back before deciding on a course of action. We see from the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco what it is like to just blindly follow the advice of a previous president who didn't actually implement his own plan. > >> > 9/11 happened as the reports were coming > >> > back detailing the situation and what should be done. Clinton, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the GOP trying to dethrone him. What was Bush's excuse > for ignoring terrorism? Bush didn't ignore terrorism, that's more of your nonsense. Is Clinton incapable of doing more than one thing at a time? He sure managed to "attack" bin Laden 150 times in 1998, why not once after that? > >> >> > 2) Why didn't Gore, Clinton's vice president and would-be > >> >> > successor, talk about the terrorist threat during the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Do you not even READ the quotes that prove you wrong? Your quote doesn't mention bin Laden, doff. > "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in > one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now tell us what BUSH said about bin Laden. I don't have any quotes of Bush saying things not about bin Laden. I don't claim to. I don't see bin Laden mentioned in the Gore quote. > >> I supplied a Gore quote about terrorism. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Read the below quote and stop acting like it isn't there. Just answer the question. > >> >> "The National Guard has been entrusted with a leading role in > >> >> one of the most important challenges our country faces today: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That is because Bush IGNORED terrorism!!!! No he didn't. FBI, CIA and NSA are primary on these issues and they were in play. Why didn't they succeed is the real question. The answer to that is Clinton era dogma preventing communication, even communication, between agencies. > >> > We know that Al Gore invented the > >> > internet so he had to talk about "cyberterrorism". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Prove it. I think we've been through this before. > >> >> Now tell us what BUSH said about terrorism between his > >> >> inauguration and 9/11. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Case closed. What did Clinton do after 1998? He was president until 2001. I know, nothing. Well, he told Bush, supposedly, to deal with the threat. > >> I claim that no one was fully engaged against this > >> > threat until 9/11. The new president was just getting his feet [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Irag combat deaths to date = 4000 So Iraq is about terrorism? I didn't think you'd admit it so easily. > Afghanistan combat deaths to date = 491 So you oppose efforts in Afghanistan and pretend that the place wasn't a problem under Clinton? Signature"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like spaghetti. Is that funny?" "Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh." -+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow" >> >> >> >> > 1) If Clinton though Bush should do something about al Qaeda, >> >> >> >> > why didn't Clinton do it in the eight years he had? [quoted text clipped - 221 lines] > So you oppose efforts in Afghanistan and pretend that the place > wasn't a problem under Clinton? When you have no argument...spin, twist, obfuscate, divert! > "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal > attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Right after he was warned by the previous administration. that didn't do anything about it. Probably because it was too busy pointing its bony finger at the American people and lying. Snicker. Harold Burton <hal.i.burton@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hal.i.burton- 53DDDF.21154925032008@comcast.dca.giganews.com: >> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal >> attack' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > that didn't do anything about it. Tell us what Bush did about terrorism prior to 9/11. Then tell us where Bush WAS on 9/11. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message