Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / June 2007
{OT:} YAY!!! Cindy Sheehan calls it quits!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
hachiroku ハチロク - 29 May 2007 14:13 GMT From her blog:
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.
CindySheehan's diary :: :: I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.
The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong." ___________________________________________
The left has also started calling her a Media Whore (Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard that before ;)
AnneCoultersAdamsApple - 29 May 2007 16:01 GMT > From her blog: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) > and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard that before ;) You should have compassion for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her son in Iraq. What have you lost during this Iraq war? What have you given up?
I find it amazing that our "Christian" culture shows none of the compassion taught by Jesus.
A.
hachiroku ハチロク - 29 May 2007 16:33 GMT > On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > A. Her son knew going in what the consequences were. Yeah, I feel bad for anyone who dies in any war.
But she made it a crusade, and a lot of people knew she was being used by the Democratic party as a shill. The rest of the world knew it by last year around this time
I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough...
DH - 29 May 2007 18:51 GMT >> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough... Right. "Thinks the President is an idiot" = "Used by the Democrat Party."
Check Paul Mulshine's May 24th column. Who's using Mulshine and Schlafly?
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
hachiroku ハチロク - 29 May 2007 22:37 GMT >>> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Right. "Thinks the President is an idiot" = "Used by the Democrat Party." Are you that clueless? They schlepped her around the country until they started realizing she was a DOPE and then dropped her like a hot potato. As long as she was reading the script and drinking the kool-aid everything was OK. Then she started promoting herself. You didn't see that?!?!?!
I didn't *think* you were as dumb as she is...
> Check Paul Mulshine's May 24th column. Who's using Mulshine and Schlafly? Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 29 May 2007 23:11 GMT In message news:pan.2007.05.29.22.38.58.137000@ae86.gts, =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
> Are you that clueless? They schlepped her around the country until they > started realizing she was a DOPE and then dropped her like a hot > potato. As long as she was reading the script and drinking the kool-aid > everything was OK. Wrong. The Democrats caved on Iraq. They caved on Iran. Pelosi dropped language requiring the President to seek Congressional approval for military action against Iran (you know, like the Constitution REQUIRES) the SAME DAY she visited AIPAC's annual conference.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 00:48 GMT > In message news:pan.2007.05.29.22.38.58.137000@ae86.gts, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wrong. What do you mean, wrong? They dumped her over a year ago.
> The Democrats caved on Iraq. They caved on Iran. Pelosi dropped > language requiring the President to seek Congressional approval for > military action against Iran (you know, like the Constitution REQUIRES) > the SAME DAY she visited AIPAC's annual conference. What the hell does *THAT* have to do with Cindy Sheehan?!?!?!
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 14:23 GMT In message news:gZ27i.1858$aW5.1083@trndny09, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>> In message news:pan.2007.05.29.22.38.58.137000@ae86.gts, >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What the hell does *THAT* have to do with Cindy Sheehan?!?!?! 1. The timing of her recusal from being "the voice of the anti-war crowd" closely follows the Democrat cave-in to Bush on Iraq (deadlines) and Iran (Constitutional protocols).
2. Another poster made some unverified (their own characterization) accusation of Sheehan as being "anti-Israel". The timing of Pelosi's supplication to Bush on Iran demonstratest that rather than Sheehan being "anti-Israel", the more accurate characterization would be of Pelosi as an "Israel-firster".
hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 14:52 GMT > In message news:gZ27i.1858$aW5.1083@trndny09, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "anti-Israel", the more accurate characterization would be of Pelosi as > an "Israel-firster". Dude...she's just a k00k that finally woke up and realised the world was laughing at her.
You're putting *WAY* too much into it.
Art - 30 May 2007 04:36 GMT So you are saying that 68% of the US population is Democrat...
>> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough... Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 05:32 GMT > So you are saying that 68% of the US population is Democrat... I'm afraid I don't follow your math, Art.
The Democrats knew they were using her right from the start. The Republicans caught on shortly after that.
Most everyone else caught on by last summer.
It took Sheehan an entire year after that to figure it out.
>>> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough... Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 14:48 GMT >So you are saying that 68% of the US population is Democrat... That can't be true.
America isn't 68 percent dumb.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
Leythos - 30 May 2007 14:57 GMT > >So you are saying that 68% of the US population is Democrat... > > That can't be true. > > America isn't 68 percent dumb..... No, but 68% of Americans are Sheep that believe the MSM.
 Signature spam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me
Tom Levigne - 30 May 2007 17:32 GMT Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our country. TL
>> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough... Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 19:10 GMT > Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She is a > disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our country. Nobody in Iraq is "serving our country"*.
* Except if you're an Israeli.
Leythos - 30 May 2007 19:36 GMT > > Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She is a > > disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our country. > > Nobody in Iraq is "serving our country"*. > > * Except if you're an Israeli. Fred - are you a honorable member of CAIR?
 Signature Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 05:04 GMT >> > Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >> > is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fred - are you a honorable member of CAIR? I think we better lay off Fred or we'll have a human China Syndrome here...
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 05:30 GMT On Thu, 31 May 2007 04:04:33 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>>> > Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>> > is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I think we better lay off Fred or we'll have a human China Syndrome here... Why would you want to prevent that?
 Signature Scott in Florida
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 19:52 GMT >> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She is a >> disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our country. > >Nobody in Iraq is "serving our country"*. Two of my son's were in Iraq and they were serving their country...
>* Except if you're an Israeli.  Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 20:48 GMT In message news:kthr535ud16s40gtj1pegeq7arcfol4l8r@4ax.com, Scott in Florida sprach forth the following:
>>> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>> is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Two of my son's were in Iraq and they were serving their country... No they weren't. They'd better serve their country by teaching their father how to use apostrophes correctly.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:16 GMT >>>> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>>> is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No they weren't. They'd better serve their country by teaching their > father how to use apostrophes correctly. HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to personal attacks.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:30 GMT >>>>> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>>>> is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to personal > attacks. No, nobody has explained how any American in Iraq is "serving our country". You care to take a shot, Mr. 4F?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:42 GMT >> HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to >> personal attacks. > > No, nobody has explained how any American in Iraq is "serving our > country". You care to take a shot, Mr. 4F? Sure...The President and Congress asked them to go there.
Simple...No Brainer...that's why I can't see why you didn't get it...
Is life simple, being unencumbered by the Thought Process?
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 23:37 GMT On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>>> HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to >>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Is life simple, being unencumbered by the Thought Process? You are not 'asked' to do anything in the military.....
 Signature Scott in Florida
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 01:51 GMT >>>> HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to >>>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > You are not 'asked' to do anything in the military..... Well, yeah, we knew that...
Leythos - 31 May 2007 02:04 GMT > On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You are not 'asked' to do anything in the military..... Wrong, you are asked many things - one of them is to follow the orders of the President and your officers - the President and Congress asked the Military to go to War on Terror and we did.
 Signature Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 02:09 GMT >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >of the President and your officers - the President and Congress asked >the Military to go to War on Terror and we did. I've never seen orders in the military called 'asked'.
All I ever got were 'orders'.
The President does not ask....he tells.
All the 'orders' I've seen from my son's sure as hell didn't 'ask' them to do such and such.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Leythos - 31 May 2007 02:16 GMT > >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > All the 'orders' I've seen from my son's sure as hell didn't 'ask' > them to do such and such. The President asks his Generals/Advisors, they reach a decision, they Military issues Orders to the troops/officers - The President doesn't order the military to do anything they don't want to do.
 Signature Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 02:26 GMT >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Military issues Orders to the troops/officers - The President doesn't >order the military to do anything they don't want to do. You are in a dream world.
The President is the Commander in Chief.
If he orders....the military obeys.
It is his Constructional duty.
Now that does not mean he won't ask his Generals for advice, but when he makes up his mind....it becomes an order.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Leythos - 31 May 2007 02:42 GMT > >> >> On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> > >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > The President is the Commander in Chief. Good to see you were able to google that.
> If he orders....the military obeys. And you believe, for 1 second, that he's going to "Order" the military to do something without talking to them first?
> It is his Constructional duty. Good that you can use Google to look things up that all of us already know.
> Now that does not mean he won't ask his Generals for advice, but when > he makes up his mind....it becomes an order. And that was the point, entirely, he discussed it with the Military, they all agreed, as did congress, and the order was issued - Bush didn't do this against the wishes of Congress, he didn't do it against the wishes of the Military... He also did it with the blessing of the people of this country.
 Signature Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 03:21 GMT >> The President is the Commander in Chief. > >Good to see you were able to google that. Didn't have to.
I was taught the military chain of command in Navy Boot Camp in June of 1961.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 03:21 GMT >> If he orders....the military obeys. > >And you believe, for 1 second, that he's going to "Order" the military >to do something without talking to them first? The President could and has.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 03:22 GMT >> It is his Constructional duty. > >Good that you can use Google to look things up that all of us already >know. If you know it....why argue about it?
 Signature Scott in Florida
Scott in Florida - 31 May 2007 03:25 GMT >> Now that does not mean he won't ask his Generals for advice, but when >> he makes up his mind....it becomes an order. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >wishes of the Military... He also did it with the blessing of the people >of this country. You miss the whole point.
He does not have to.
George W. Bush is a great leader.
Not all presidents are.
Billy Bob Blow Job Clintoon is a prime example of a president that did not do his duty.
Johnson was another idiot. He did order the military to strike North Viet Nam targets without input from Generals.
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:13 GMT > The President is the Commander in Chief. > > If he orders....the military obeys. > > It is his Constructional duty. You're one ballsy f.ck to bring up "Constitutional duty" to backup the murderous insanity you endorse.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 05:02 GMT >> The President is the Commander in Chief. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're one ballsy f.ck to bring up "Constitutional duty" to backup the > murderous insanity you endorse. And of course, Muslisms didn't bring down the WTC on 9/11.
You must drink Rosie's Kool-Aid and think it's a Government plot...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 05:12 GMT >>> The President is the Commander in Chief. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And of course, Muslisms didn't bring down the WTC on 9/11. Which "Muslisms" who brought down the WTC are in Iraq?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:31 GMT >>>> The President is the Commander in Chief. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which "Muslisms" who brought down the WTC are in Iraq? Does it make a difference?
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 13:21 GMT >>>>> The President is the Commander in Chief. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Does it make a difference? Not to barbarians like you.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jun 2007 05:01 GMT >>> Which "Muslisms" who brought down the WTC are in Iraq? >> >> Does it make a difference? > > Not to barbarians like you. Gee, I can't recall ever bringing down the WTC, killing 3300 innocent men, women and children, blowing myself up in order to kill more innocent people (ooops, sorry, we all know women and kids at open markets are all carrying weapons under their clothing), beheading people like Wall Street Journal reporters, and making a tape of it, *AND* broadcasting the tape on the Internet. All because American women expose their belly buttons...
I think you'd better have a rethink as to exactly what a barbarian is, Freddy...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:11 GMT > The President does not ask....he tells. So you're admitting that Bush has elevated himself to the position of dictator, and that you have no problem with that.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 05:01 GMT >> The President does not ask....he tells. > > So you're admitting that Bush has elevated himself to the position of > dictator, and that you have no problem with that. No, it's called "Commander In Chief of the Armed Services".
When you got naturalized, did you study *ANY* US Government at all?!?!
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 05:11 GMT >>> The President does not ask....he tells. >> >> So you're admitting that Bush has elevated himself to the position of >> dictator, and that you have no problem with that. > > No, it's called "Commander In Chief of the Armed Services". Oh yeah, I forgot all about that "Mission Accomplished" picture with him dressed up like G.I. Joe. What mission was that that he accomplished, btw?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:31 GMT >>>> The President does not ask....he tells. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dressed up like G.I. Joe. What mission was that that he accomplished, > btw? Well, since you missed it, he was congratulating the crew of the carrier for accomplishing *THEIR* mission. But, most Rosie O'Donnell Liberal Kool-Aid drinkers *missed* that little detail.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 13:21 GMT >>>>> The President does not ask....he tells. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, since you missed it, he was congratulating the crew of the carrier > for accomplishing *THEIR* mission. Killing Pat Tillman, lying about Jessica Lynch, torturing innocents at Abu Ghraib and carrying out the Haditha massacre?
Someone should have sunk that boat he was on, then.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jun 2007 04:58 GMT >>>>>> The President does not ask....he tells. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Someone should have sunk that boat he was on, then. I didn't know George Bush had anything to do with 'torturing' anybody at Abu Ghraib. I thought is was a bunch of sophomoric soldiers abusing their power.
dbu,. - 31 May 2007 10:43 GMT > > The President does not ask....he tells. > > So you're admitting that Bush has elevated himself to the position of > dictator, and that you have no problem with that. LOL. Either you are just funning, or really don't understand. Which is it?
 Signature
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the President." Hillary Clinton
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:10 GMT > On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:42:00 GMT, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You are not 'asked' to do anything in the military..... If the mission is just, you don't NEED to be asked.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:09 GMT >>> HAHAHAHAHA! As usual, when losing an arguement, it comes down to >>> personal attacks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sure...The President and Congress asked them to go there. The President and the Congress take oaths to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution gives neither the authorization to deploy troops without a declaration of war, and no declaration of war was made. The Constitution also prohibits the Congress and the President from performing any act not explicitly enumerated in said Constitution (Amendment X).
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 20:50 GMT In message news:kthr535ud16s40gtj1pegeq7arcfol4l8r@4ax.com, Scott in Florida sprach forth the following:
>>> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>> is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Two of my son's were in Iraq and they were serving their country... Too bad they came home. Had they not, then maybe you'd start to get it.
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 23:38 GMT >In message news:kthr535ud16s40gtj1pegeq7arcfol4l8r@4ax.com, Scott in >Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Too bad they came home. Had they not, then maybe you'd start to get it. You want my son's to be killed?
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:15 GMT >>In message news:kthr535ud16s40gtj1pegeq7arcfol4l8r@4ax.com, Scott in >>Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You want my son's to be killed? I'm surprised you care - after all you seem to revel in the blood of the 668,000 they've helped kill. Aren't you a supporter of the death penalty for murderers? If you're actually a C O N S E R V A T I V E you are.
P.S. - Still haven't mastered those apostrophes have you?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:59 GMT >>>>>> Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She >>>>>> is a disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > P.S. - Still haven't mastered those apostrophes have you? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Scott's *SOFT*!
If *I* were calling the shots, I'd call them ALL out of the region...
And then *NUKE* it into a big oil slick.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 05:13 GMT > And then *NUKE* it into a big oil slick. Yeah, since what we're doing right now hasn't produced the promised "cheap oil to pay for the war".
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:29 GMT >> And then *NUKE* it into a big oil slick. > > Yeah, since what we're doing right now hasn't produced the promised "cheap > oil to pay for the war". What's oil have to do with it?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:15 GMT > Her son is a hero who I have the greatest possible respect for. She is a > disgrace who only makes matters worse for those serving our country. TL Thank you man! You expressed the ideas I didn't think of.
>>> On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >>>> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> I guess she was the only one who didn't...took her long enough... DH - 29 May 2007 19:05 GMT On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku ???? <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote:
> From her blog: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) > and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard that before ;) [quoting AnneCoultersAdamsApple] You should have compassion for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her son in Iraq. What have you lost during this Iraq war? What have you given up?
I find it amazing that our "Christian" culture shows none of the compassion taught by Jesus.
A. [end quote]
Yeah, well, it's all "support the troops" until unpleasant reality intrudes and/or the troops start to think for themselves. They'll get thrown under the bus, too, when it suits the Hachis of this world.
Cindy Sheehan didn't get the memo: the proper place of Gold Star Mothers in the NeoCon world is to shut up and provide photo-ops for the Presidunce.
Anne Coulter had to teach that lesson to some inconveniently noisy 9/11 widows, too. There'll be no questioning the Wisdom of The Dear Leader!
As for Christianity as per the actual teaching of Jesus, there's precious little of that in the general population. Most of the Christians in Name Only I've met are happier thinking they'll be alone in heaven and pointing out the sins of others. Churches that preach concepts like "The Two Great Commandments" don't do half as well as churches that preach "God Does Not Hear the Prayers of Jew."
One of my Muslim friends was surprised to hear me say that Christianity was the most difficult religion in the world to follow. "Oh, no," he said, "we have to pray, fast, [etc, etc,] and you don't have to do any of that."
"Try loving your enemy," I replied. And I explained the relevant passage from the New Testament.
"Jesus was surely not expecting you do do this?" I was asked.
"As far as I can tell, he was quite serious about it."
"But none of you do."
"I know. Hate is better for the collection plate. Your clergy know this, too."
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
hachiroku ハチロク - 29 May 2007 22:35 GMT > On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku ???? <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote: >> From her blog: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > and/or the troops start to think for themselves. They'll get thrown under > the bus, too, when it suits the Hachis of this world. When the hell did I say this??!
I supported the troops when I was 12 years old and they were in another 'unpopular' war! I have NEVFER turned my back on the men and women that serve this country and face the prospect of losing their lives!
Don't go putting a label on me that I will turn my back. I didn't spit on them then, and I WON'T spit on them ever, no matter what the war or the purpose of the war.
> Cindy Sheehan didn't get the memo: the proper place of Gold Star Mothers in > the NeoCon world is to shut up and provide photo-ops for the Presidunce. She's an idiot. Plain and simple, and the Democrats stood by her as long as it served *their* purpose. If you didn't see that over a year ago, you suffer from anal myopia.
> Anne Coulter had to teach that lesson to some inconveniently noisy 9/11 > widows, too. There'll be no questioning the Wisdom of The Dear Leader! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "I know. Hate is better for the collection plate. Your clergy know this, > too." Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 29 May 2007 23:06 GMT > the men and women that serve this country Those in Iraq are not.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 00:46 GMT >> the men and women that serve this country > > Those in Iraq are not. How's that? Please, do explain.
Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country.
If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 14:12 GMT >>> the men and women that serve this country >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President *AND* > Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. Not when the actions of the President and Congress violate the Constitution.
> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. Who taught you to grunt thusly - Hannity or Malkin?
hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 14:51 GMT >>>> the men and women that serve this country >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not when the actions of the President and Congress violate the > Constitution. Please remove the tin-foil hat and explain what the hell you're talking about, thank you...
>> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. > > Who taught you to grunt thusly - Hannity or Malkin? Nah, I've been grunting like this ever since I was in high school. Unlike most libs, I don't *NEED* anyone to tell me how or what to think. I'm perfectly capable all on my own. That comes from not drinking the kool-aid.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 15:28 GMT In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>>>>> the men and women that serve this country >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Please remove the tin-foil hat and explain what the hell you're talking > about, thank you... When did Congress declare war? Month, day, year, please.
>>> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. YOU support the war, so get you fat faggot a.s off your barcalounger and YOU go "serve your country", dickwad.
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 17:46 GMT >In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >=?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >When did Congress declare war? Month, day, year, please. That is not required in the Constitution...
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 19:11 GMT >>In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >>=?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That is not required in the Constitution... Bull. f.cking. sh.t.
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 19:53 GMT >>>In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >>>=?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Bull. f.cking. sh.t. Is that you Dizzy?
Where in the Constitution does it require Congress to declare war?
 Signature Scott in Florida
n5hsr - 31 May 2007 00:26 GMT >>>>In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >>>>=?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Where in the Constitution does it require Congress to declare war? I think he's thinking about that POS legislation the Dims passed in '74. The War Powers Act. It's not part of the Constitution.
1. If Pro is the opposite of Con, does that mean Progress is the opposite of Congress?
2. If Pro is the opposite of Con, does that mean Prostitution is the opposite of the Constitution?
Charles of Schaumburg
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:14 GMT > In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > When did Congress declare war? Month, day, year, please. Um, remember when they voted on it in 2003?
>>>> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. > > YOU support the war, so get you fat faggot a.s off your barcalounger and > YOU go "serve your country", dickwad. Too old and 4F. But I did work for a defense contractor and received Thank Yous from AF Pilots.
That's good enough for me!
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:29 GMT >> In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Um, remember when they voted on it in 2003? Can you f.cking READ? There was NO DECLARATION OF WAR, cuntfuck.
>>>>> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. >> >> YOU support the war, so get you fat faggot a.s off your barcalounger and >> YOU go "serve your country", dickwad. > > Too old and 4F. The latter most likely due to mental incapacity.
> But I did work for a defense contractor Ever work in a real job where you had to earn business instead of receiving it through taxes?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:40 GMT >>> In message news:pan.2007.05.30.14.52.01.678000@ae86.gts, >>> =?iso-2022-jp?q?hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Can you f.cking READ? There was NO DECLARATION OF WAR, cuntfuck. Nice meltdown.
Then what DID Congress vote on in 2003? A Tea Party with Saddam Hussein?
>>>>>> If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ever work in a real job where you had to earn business instead of > receiving it through taxes? I take great pride in the work I did concerning the US Government, NASA, the Air Force, Navy and Army (don't know if any work I did wound up on Marine Helos or Harriers...)
I was personally thanked by two different pilots on two different occasions.
But, nice Meltdown anyway...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:08 GMT >> Ever work in a real job where you had to earn business instead of >> receiving it through taxes? > > I take great pride in the work I did concerning the US Government, NASA, > the Air Force, Navy and Army (don't know if any work I did wound up on > Marine Helos or Harriers...) That didn't answer my question. Have you ever worked in a real job where you had to earn business instead of receiving it through taxes?
Yes or no.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:57 GMT >>> Ever work in a real job where you had to earn business instead of >>> receiving it through taxes? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes or no. You don't anser 85% of the questions that are posed to you, so I guess my work record is none of your concern.
And, for the record, that company's contribution to the tax burden was 40%. The other 60% came from Commercial Aviation.
so there.
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 14:51 GMT >> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President *AND* >> Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. > >Not when the actions of the President and Congress violate the >Constitution. How did the President and Congress violate the Constitution ?
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 15:29 GMT In message news:d90r53plkl7835dpvsgdmhocf9tp68iiic@4ax.com, Scott in Florida sprach forth the following:
>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President >>> *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How did the President and Congress violate the Constitution ? Waging war without a declaration thereof. Are you really that stupid?
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 17:47 GMT >In message news:d90r53plkl7835dpvsgdmhocf9tp68iiic@4ax.com, Scott in >Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Waging war without a declaration thereof. Are you really that stupid? Where in the Constitution is that 'required'?
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 19:12 GMT >>In message news:d90r53plkl7835dpvsgdmhocf9tp68iiic@4ax.com, Scott in >>Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Where in the Constitution is that 'required'? What Constitutional justification is there for the war? Article, Section, Paragraph, and Clause, please:
_______________________________________________
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 19:54 GMT >>>In message news:d90r53plkl7835dpvsgdmhocf9tp68iiic@4ax.com, Scott in >>>Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >What Constitutional justification is there for the war? Article, Section, >Paragraph, and Clause, please: Where in the Constitution is it required that Congress declare war...Article, Section, Paragraph and Clause....
 Signature Scott in Florida
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 20:52 GMT In message news:11ir539f86rfkb8nln593d19f6i5t4pgk7@4ax.com, Scott in Florida sprach forth the following:
>>>>In message news:d90r53plkl7835dpvsgdmhocf9tp68iiic@4ax.com, Scott in >>>>Florida sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Where in the Constitution is it required that Congress declare > war...Article, Section, Paragraph and Clause.... So you're a big-government liberal who belives in a "living Constitution" that imposes no limits on Congress or the President? I hope your sons go back to Iraq and come back in bags, you sick son of a bitch.
Leythos - 30 May 2007 20:59 GMT > I hope your sons go > back to Iraq and come back in bags, you sick son of a bitch. Fred - you really are a sick person, not to mention an Anti-American.
 Signature Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:20 GMT >> I hope your sons go >> back to Iraq and come back in bags, you sick son of a bitch. > > Fred - you really are a sick person, not to mention an Anti-American. Want to say that to my face, chickenhawk chickenshit?
n5hsr - 31 May 2007 00:28 GMT >> I hope your sons go >> back to Iraq and come back in bags, you sick son of a bitch. > > Fred - you really are a sick person, not to mention an Anti-American. That's why I finally put him in the Hall of Shame next to (F)Art, JoeNoBedroom and a bunch of others. They all keep ranting the SAME OLD THING.
Charles of Schaumburg
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:24 GMT > They all keep ranting the SAME OLD > THING. You mean like that more Americans have been killed by George Bush and Scott In Florida's sons than on 9/11?
That 665,000 others, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed by George Bush and Scott in Florida's sons?
That the war of George Bush and Scott in Florida's sons has cost $13,000 per American household - OFF budget?
That George Bush calls Scott in Florida and his sons and others who oppose illegal immigration "those who do not want to do what's right for America", and that Scott in Florida and his sons still wait in line to fellate George Bush?
Yeah, those rants will continue. And you can't stop them.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:56 GMT > That 665,000 others, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed by George > Bush and Scott in Florida's sons? How do you figure this? Oh, yeah...that 'extrapolation' that came out in the Christian Science Monitor...
Not hardly. And, most of the civilians that have been killed were killed by Muslims.
so there.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 05:15 GMT In message news:RHr7i.6244$Au6.2598@trndny04, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>> That 665,000 others, mostly innocent civilians, have been killed by >> George Bush and Scott in Florida's sons? > > How do you figure this? Oh, yeah...that 'extrapolation' that came out > in the Christian Science Monitor... Does a news source need to fellate Sean Hannity before you will subscribe to it?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:29 GMT > In message news:RHr7i.6244$Au6.2598@trndny04, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Does a news source need to fellate Sean Hannity before you will subscribe > to it? Who's Sean Hannity?
Cathy F. - 30 May 2007 21:24 GMT >>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that imposes no limits on Congress or the President? I hope your sons go > back to Iraq and come back in bags, you sick son of a bitch. Holy sh*t, but this is one mean-spirited post. To put it mildly.
Cathy
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:39 GMT In message news:vY-dnb6rXtXzQMDb4p2dnA@giganews.com, Cathy F. sprach forth the following:
>>>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Holy sh*t, but this is one mean-spirited post. But all of Scott's in favor of 668,000 deaths aren't? Ever wonder how many of those 668,000 deaths Scott's little toy soldiers might be personally responsible for? What makes their lives more valuable than the ones they were ordered to end?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:36 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > personally responsible for? What makes their lives more valuable than the > ones they were ordered to end? And Hussein murdered how many because of a hair across his a.s, or because he wanted to test a new weapon?
Guess you aren't related to any Kurds, eh?
n5hsr - 31 May 2007 00:32 GMT >> In message news:vY-dnb6rXtXzQMDb4p2dnA@giganews.com, Cathy F. sprach >> forth [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Guess you aren't related to any Kurds, eh? He is related to something that rhymes with Kurd. . . .
Charles of Schaumburg.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:07 GMT In message news:G7m7i.3390$J76.2409@trndny03, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>> But all of Scott's in favor of 668,000 deaths aren't? Ever wonder >> how many of those 668,000 deaths Scott's little toy soldiers might be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Guess you aren't related to any Kurds, eh? The Kurdish killings happened in 1988. Reagan didn't respond. Bush Senior didn't respond. Guess they didn't have penises like Bush Junior does, huh? Guess Reagan wasn't a C O N S E R V A T I V E. Of course - Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon! What a pussy he was, huh?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:54 GMT > In message news:G7m7i.3390$J76.2409@trndny03, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > does, huh? Guess Reagan wasn't a C O N S E R V A T I V E. Of course - > Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon! What a pussy he was, huh? Typical Liberal. Doesn't like Reagan.
Dutch was probably the best President we had in the the last 50 years...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 05:09 GMT In message news:eGr7i.6243$Au6.5369@trndny04, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>> In message news:G7m7i.3390$J76.2409@trndny03, >> =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Typical Liberal. Doesn't like Reagan. Typical idiot. Doesn't catch sarcasm.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:28 GMT > In message news:eGr7i.6243$Au6.5369@trndny04, > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Typical idiot. Doesn't catch sarcasm. You said it. You sure didn't.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:35 GMT >>>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Cathy Typical Meltdown when a vapid Liberal paints himself into a wall with a Conservative...
n5hsr - 31 May 2007 00:31 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Typical Meltdown when a vapid Liberal paints himself into a wall with a > Conservative... .Yep.
1. Liberals get mad when you try to make them think. 2. Liberals get mad when you challenge their 'facts'. 3. Liberals get mad when you trot out proof for your side. 4. Liberals get mad when you prove they are wrong. 5. Liberals get mad when you don't just automatically believe what they say.
I wonder how ol' Gigolo Fred lives with his head that far up his arse.
Charles of Schaumburg
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:05 GMT > 1. Liberals get mad when you try to make them think. > 2. Liberals get mad when you challenge their 'facts'. > 3. Liberals get mad when you trot out proof for your side. > 4. Liberals get mad when you prove they are wrong. > 5. Liberals get mad when you don't just automatically believe what they > say. 6. Conservatives from Schaumberg don't know what the f.ck they're talking about.
7. Conservatives from Schaumberg vote for crossdressing abortionists like Rudy Giuliani, Hillarycare copycats like Mitt Romney, and amnesty-granting censors like John McCain.
Intelligent conservatives vote for Ron Paul.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 04:03 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the >>>>>>>>>> President *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Typical Meltdown when a vapid Liberal paints himself into a wall with a > Conservative... You f.cking warmongering chickenhawks don't even KNOW the difference between a liberal, a conservative and a libertarian.
I'm voting for the only CONSERVATIVE in this race: Ron Paul.
What makes a candidate a conservative? Is is Rudy Giuliani's pro-abortion, pro-gay crossdressing? Maybe John McCain's campaign censorship bill and amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens. How about Mitt Romney's Hillarycare Lite? Is that your definition of "conservative"?
And on foreign policy, do you know who "cut and ran" from a middle eastern country when our troops were attacked? RONALD WILSON REAGAN, that's who.
So do you want to wear one of Reagan's brown suits, or Rudy Giuliani's dress?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:53 GMT > You f.cking warmongering chickenhawks don't even KNOW the difference > between a liberal, a conservative and a libertarian. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What makes a candidate a conservative? Is is Rudy Giuliani's > pro-abortion, pro-gay crossdressing? I'm more of a Moderate. Rudy looks good to me. And, give me a reference to the cross-dressing that doesn't go back to college...
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:12 GMT >>>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President >>>>>>> *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Where in the Constitution is it required that Congress declare > war...Article, Section, Paragraph and Clause.... Give UP, Scott...you aren't going to get an answer.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:11 GMT >>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President >>>> *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Waging war without a declaration thereof. Are you really that stupid? Huh? Congress called in the War Powers Act. What else do you need?
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:27 GMT >>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President >>>>> *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Huh? Congress called in the War Powers Act. What else do you need? War Powers Act, Section 8(d)(2):
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
So the WPA grants no additional authority to the President.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:34 GMT >>>>>> Here's how I see it: they were called into service by the President >>>>>> *AND* Congress. To me, that qualifies as serving this country. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So the WPA grants no additional authority to the President. Sec. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of \cf2 war\cf0 , (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
___________________________________________________
Hmmmm...attack upon the United States, eh? ___________________________________________________
Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. _____________________________________________________
Yup...he did that...
_____________________________________________________
Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of \cf2 war\cf0 , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced --
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth --
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to \cf2 war\cf0 and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situations as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once very six months.
_____________________________________________________________
Well, this does apply, but then, Congress approved the action in Iraq, didn't it? ______________________________________________________________
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 03:58 GMT > Hmmmm...attack upon the United States, eh? Yeah. When did Iraq or anyone linked to Iraq attack the United States?
Date:______________
Name of attacker(s):_____________
Link to Iraq:________________
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 19:14 GMT >>> the men and women that serve this country >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you see it differently, please do move to Baghdad. Please. Why? So the Iraqis can throw flowers at my feet? Larf.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:10 GMT >>>> the men and women that serve this country >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why? So the Iraqis can throw flowers at my feet? Larf. I'd like to see that.
But my bet is that you'd be skinned by the people we're 'not' fighting...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 30 May 2007 21:21 GMT >>>>> the men and women that serve this country >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But my bet is that you'd be skinned by the people we're 'not' fighting... Well, considering that I'd be f.cking INVADING THEIR f.cking COUNTRY I'D f.cking EXPECT THAT. Too bad you're too stupid to realize the same thing, chickenshit a.shole.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:27 GMT >>> Why? So the Iraqis can throw flowers at my feet? Larf. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > f.cking EXPECT THAT. Too bad you're too stupid to realize the same thing, > chickenshit a.shole. Struck a nreve, eh? Not very thick-skinned?
I meant move there. But you're absolutely correct. As an Infidel, even if you followed all the rules for immigrating to Baghdad, you would still be invading their country, and more importantly, their culture. That scares them more than anything.
As far as being a chickenshit a.shole, what branch of the military was it you said you were in? I was signing up for the Navy but was then deemed 4F.
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 31 May 2007 03:56 GMT In message news:d%l7i.8207$2v5.4213@trndny06, =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= sprach forth the following:
>>>> Why? So the Iraqis can throw flowers at my feet? Larf. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > still be invading their country, and more importantly, their culture. > That scares them more than anything. So I take it you're a big fan of illegal immigration, Pedro?
> As far as being a chickenshit a.shole, what branch of the military was > it you said you were in? No war has been declared during my lifetime, therefore there has been no mandate for me to serve.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 04:05 GMT >> I meant move there. But you're absolutely correct. As an Infidel, even >> if you followed all the rules for immigrating to Baghdad, you would >> still be invading their country, and more importantly, their culture. >> That scares them more than anything. > > So I take it you're a big fan of illegal immigration, Pedro? From the above paragraph:
As an Infidel, evenif you followed all the rules for immigrating to Baghdad, you would still be invading their country, and more importantly, their culture.
Guess you missed that one, eh?
>> As far as being a chickenshit a.shole, what branch of the military was >> it you said you were in? > > No war has been declared during my lifetime, therefore there has been no > mandate for me to serve. Oh. OK. Well, since no war was declared in my lifetime, I guess I'm off the same hook as you.
dh - 31 May 2007 05:01 GMT >>> I meant move there. But you're absolutely correct. As an Infidel, even >>> if you followed all the rules for immigrating to Baghdad, you would [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Guess you missed that one, eh? Saddam's government, however, didn't care if you were an infidel or not. I don't recall if any of his top people were Jews but one of his top ministers, I think it was Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Our invasion has established another nascent Islamic theocracy.
>>> As far as being a chickenshit a.shole, what branch of the military was >>> it you said you were in? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh. OK. Well, since no war was declared in my lifetime, I guess I'm off > the same hook as you.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hachiroku ハチロク - 31 May 2007 06:28 GMT >> As an Infidel, evenif you followed all the rules for immigrating to >> Baghdad, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ministers, I think it was Tariq Aziz, was a Christian. Our invasion has > established another nascent Islamic theocracy. That's going to happen no mater what in that part of the world.
There isn't anything else...
DH - 31 May 2007 14:35 GMT >>> As an Infidel, evenif you followed all the rules for immigrating to >>> Baghdad, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There isn't anything else... Sure there is. Secular dictatorships (like Saddam's Iraq and Syria) kept the theocrats at bay and the Jihadists out of government and, of course, there was always the hope of a democracy. But change must come from within to achieve that.
Actually our best chance for a new Middle-Eastern democracy would have been Iran but our ham-fisted foreign policy has allowed Ahmedinejad to focus Iranian attention away from the corrpution of the clergy and back onto The Great Satan, thus elimintating hopes for a popular takeover of the government and a reduced role for the mullahs.
With the rise of a theocratic government, the Jihadists will have access to resources they had formerly been denied.
Ah, of course, I forgot our friend, Jordan. The monarchy clings to life. The surplus of Jihadis motivated and mobilized by our invasion of Iraq, and now trained and experienced in that theater, are now available to destabilize Jordan (an easier task because of the displaced Palestinian population that resides there).
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hachiroku ハチロク - 01 Jun 2007 04:56 GMT >>>> As an Infidel, evenif you followed all the rules for immigrating to >>>> Baghdad, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > destabilize Jordan (an easier task because of the displaced Palestinian > population that resides there). Damn, DH, did *YOU* write that!?!
Yes, I believe you are correct on the points you hit. Esp with 'helping' Iran realize Democracy. The government doesn't like us, but I have heard the people do (um, did?).
And Jordan has become a boiling point, with a US friendly leader and a staging are for Insurgents to Iraq.
Wickeddoll - 29 May 2007 20:50 GMT "AnneCoultersAdamsApple" ... , hachiroku ???? :
> From her blog: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) > and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard that before ;) You should have compassion for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her son in Iraq. What have you lost during this Iraq war? What have you given up?
I find it amazing that our "Christian" culture shows none of the compassion taught by Jesus.
A.
Personally, I didn't have a problem with her protesting the war, I had a problem with her hypocrisy. She didn't even get him a headstone for two effing years! Absolutely hideous, IMO. She tried to glom over that with "I didn't want to believe he was dead." Well, if she was in denial, politics should have been the last thing on her tiny mind. I heard she uses him to promote her anti-Israeli political agenda as well (this I cannot verify, but doesn't matter). She's a showboating vainglorious loser, who should be ashamed of herself.
I'm *not* a conservative, but I am Roman Catholic, who has never hated the woman, but she did more to sour the anti-war movement's stance than enrich it. She came off as a kook reveling in her 15 minutes of fame, at the expense of the son she not only gave up custody of, but whose funeral she didn't even attend.
Mothers like that, we can do without.
Natalie
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 29 May 2007 21:51 GMT In message news:f3hi53.224.1@news.evilcabal.org, Wickeddoll sprach forth the following:
> I heard she uses him to > promote her anti-Israeli political agenda as well (this I cannot > verify, but doesn't matter). Doesn't matter that you can't verify it? Any smear is OK as long as it paints Israel as a victim? Yeesh.
Anyway, here's Sheehan's posting that came in response to attempts to smear her as "anti-Israel" (smears which apparently fooled you):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/18/13217/6996
And here's an article about her being honored by the Shalom Center in Philadelphia:
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1098
Wickeddoll - 29 May 2007 22:22 GMT >> I heard she uses him to >> promote her anti-Israeli political agenda as well (this I cannot >> verify, but doesn't matter). > > Doesn't matter that you can't verify it? Any smear is OK as long as it > paints Israel as a victim? Yeesh. It mattered if I didn't even say it was not verified. She's the one who stuck her head out for all to vilify. My point was to mention that, because I figured someone would. I just wanted to point out that it was not a factor in my opinion of her.
> Anyway, here's Sheehan's posting that came in response to attempts to > smear [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1098 Cool - thanks for the info
Natalie
Jeff Strickland - 29 May 2007 20:52 GMT On May 29, 9:13 am, hachiroku ハチロク <Tru...@ae86.gts> wrote:
> From her blog: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that before? ;) > and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard that before ;) You should have compassion for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her son in Iraq. What have you lost during this Iraq war? What have you given up?
I find it amazing that our "Christian" culture shows none of the compassion taught by Jesus.
A.
I have plenty of compassion for Cindy, it's her cause that I have trouble with.
Her son went willingly, indeed he was excited at the prospect of serving his country there. It's sad that he lost his life, but his mother has become a disgrace to the nation.
Do you see the compassion, and the trouble with the cause?
The compassion is the part where it is sad that he lost his life, and she lost him. The trouble with the cause part is where she has become a disgrace.
Leythos - 29 May 2007 21:00 GMT > You should have compassion for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her son in > Iraq. What have you lost during this Iraq war? What have you given > up? > > I find it amazing that our "Christian" culture shows none of the > compassion taught by Jesus. Compassion is for those that have not harmed the troops out of their own greed - her greed was that she dishonored her son's memory for her own needs, and in the process she harmed our troops and nation.
 Signature spam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me
badgolferman - 30 May 2007 03:31 GMT hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B, 5/29/2007,9:13:37 AM, wrote:
> The left has also started calling her a Media Whore (Gee, where have I > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that > before? ;) and that the Democrats used her (gee, where have I heard > that before ;) People vowed she would be the cause of Bush resigning. Looks like she has resigned before he ever will. It's really too bad she allowed herself to be used as a pawn by the George Soros/Michael Moore types. She could have received quite a bit of sympathy by Americans if she hadn't used their scripts.
ToMh - 30 May 2007 18:25 GMT On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The left has also started calling her a Media Whore (Gee, where have I > > heard that before? ;) and a k00k(Gee, where have I heard that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > She could have received quite a bit of sympathy by Americans if she > hadn't used their scripts. Evidently she had some impact, since 90% of the press she received came from the conservative news media. Bottom line is that the conservatives need villains to promote their agendas, they're the ones that used Sheehan. The rest of us pretty much ignored her.
Scott in Florida - 30 May 2007 19:56 GMT >On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >conservatives need villains to promote their agendas, they're the ones >that used Sheehan. The rest of us pretty much ignored her. ROFLMAO
Conservatives don't have to rely on any tricks. If we could get our damned 'Republican' Congress Idiots to be Conservative it would be easy.
Conservatism is easily expressed and makes sense.
Liberalism is the idea that never wins if expressed honestly....
 Signature Scott in Florida
ToMh - 30 May 2007 21:42 GMT On May 30, 10:56 am, Scott in Florida <askifyouw...@mindspring.net> wrote:
> >On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > damned 'Republican' Congress Idiots to be Conservative it would be > easy. Congress? Like Bush is a true conservative? Don't make me laugh. True conservatism has been done in by the neo cons and the religious right. Instead of letting actions and results define who they are, they have to resort to vilifying the opposition. That's why everybody that opposes their way of thinking is now a kook.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 22:24 GMT >> Conservatives don't have to rely on any tricks. If we could get our >> damned 'Republican' Congress Idiots to be Conservative it would be easy. >> > Congress? Like Bush is a true conservative? Don't make me laugh. True > conservatism has been done in by the neo cons and the religious right. Hmmmm....methinks perhaps TomH speaks the truth...
This is why I reserve my opinions to the stance of a Moderate, until I make up my mind on something.
n5hsr - 31 May 2007 00:34 GMT >>On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Liberalism is the idea that never wins if expressed honestly.... Rush nailed it today. Liberalism is a feel-good ism that doesn't require thought. When you think it out, it doesn't make sense.
Charles of Schaumburg
Hachiroku ハチロク - 30 May 2007 21:09 GMT > On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > need villains to promote their agendas, they're the ones that used > Sheehan. The rest of us pretty much ignored her. Nah, we just like watching k00ks meltdown...
dbu,. - 30 May 2007 23:00 GMT > On May 29, 6:31 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > conservatives need villains to promote their agendas, they're the ones > that used Sheehan. The rest of us pretty much ignored her. Not true. MSNBC and CNN used her extensively.
 Signature
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the President." Hillary Clinton
ToMh - 30 May 2007 23:52 GMT > In article <1180545944.393737.195...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not true. MSNBC and CNN used her extensively. > -- Hardly. They reported on her. The conservatives are obsessed with her.
dbu,. - 30 May 2007 23:57 GMT > > In article <1180545944.393737.195...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Hardly. They reported on her. The conservatives are obsessed with her. Nobody was more obsessed with her than MSNBC.
 Signature
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the President." Hillary Clinton
|
|
|