 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / January 2009{OT} PROOF Barry is an empty suit and traitor....
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 Impeach this idiot before we are attacked! You heard it here FIRST. Who the HELL voted for this traitor?  SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > > Impeach this idiot before we are attacked! That's what all smart people were saying on January 20, 2001, and they were right. I heard that the now-retired GW Bush cuts his coke with Tang. Is that true, orange nose? > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who the HELL voted for this traitor? Shouldn't we negotiate with the Chinese and Russians for such a ban, particularly in light of recent Chinese and past Russian conduct? They're obviously trustworthy. I'd trust them in a heartbeat to adhere to a treaty, wouldn't you? Obama certainly has his priorities, is informed, and is obviously on top of things. Right. >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Right. "The issue is being closely watched by Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, the biggest U.S. defense contractors, and other companies involved in military and civilian space contracts." He'd better sleep with one eye open at all times. Call me cynical. Go ahead. This is how little trust I have nowadays. Did JFK threaten to step on any corporate toes? I don't remember. Too young at the time. >> Shouldn't we negotiate with the Chinese and Russians for such a ban, >> particularly in light of recent Chinese and past Russian conduct? They're [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > This is how little trust I have nowadays. Did JFK threaten to step on any > corporate toes? I don't remember. Too young at the time. There were, and still are, rumors aplenty. I'm not worried about his life and much as our survival. This is getting dicier by the day. > Shouldn't we negotiate with the Chinese and Russians for such a ban, > particularly in light of recent Chinese and past Russian conduct? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Right. How can you criticize the President and commander-in-chief while we are at war? You must be a terrorist sympathizer and an al qaeda supporter. >>http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Right. Do you think the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Al Qaeda have recovered from all the patting on their backs they've been doing lately? >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do you think the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Al Qaeda have > recovered from all the patting on their backs they've been doing lately? It's a conga line. > > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Shouldn't we negotiate with the Chinese and Russians for such a ban, > particularly in light of recent Chinese and past Russian conduct? Yes. > They're obviously trustworthy. > > I'd trust them in a heartbeat to adhere to a treaty, wouldn't you? They can be made to be trusted. How many times has the USSR violated the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty, the SALT treaty, and the START treaty (never ratified by US). And how many times has China violated the comprehensive test ban treaty? Even India and Pakistan haven't tested a nuke in a decade, and they have strong incentives because they haven't miniaturized their nukes, especially Pakistan. >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes. Then you're hopelessly naive and stupid. >>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Then you're hopelessly naive and stupid. Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger approach to the Chinese? >>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger > approach to the Chinese? Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our lesson. The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than Muslims. They lie as a matter of culture. Perversely, it's an accepted norm and way of doing business on any plane. >>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our lesson. > The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than Muslims. Neither can we (be trusted entirely). > They lie as a matter of culture. Perversely, it's an accepted norm and > way of doing business on any plane. >>Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our >>lesson. The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than >>Muslims. > >Neither can we (be trusted entirely). I've chosen our side -- have you? >>>Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our >>>lesson. The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've chosen our side -- have you? Yes. >>>>Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our >>>>lesson. The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yes. Bull sh.t. SignatureScott in Florida >>>Not at the time. However, since then, we should have learned our >>>lesson. The Chinese or Russians can't be trusted any more than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I've chosen our side -- have you? Brilliant.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger >>> approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neither can we (be trusted entirely). I'd rather trust our most untrustworthy day than the most trustworthy day of any other country. Period. >>>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger >>>> approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Period. Well, since oil and natural gas are what's motivating the Russians (and us), I'll choose to assume the worst about both sides. This approach never seems to fail. >>>>>Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the >>>>>Nixon/Kissinger approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(and us), I'll choose to assume the worst about both sides. This >approach never seems to fail. Whose worst is worse? >>>>>>Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the >>>>>>Nixon/Kissinger approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Whose worst is worse? Regarding which aspect of our behavior? Let's take spying, for example. Back in December, I read a terrific book about our exploits and theirs. They were equally deceitful (as spying should be) and often entertaining. Our gadgetry was way ahead of theirs, though, because they concentrated their research in one big government institution, while our agencies went to any company they could think of when they needed something crazy. Here's the book. It's a long one. I doubt you'll find anyone with enough patience to read it to you. Maybe if you pay someone.... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949801 >>>>>>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the >>>>>>> Nixon/Kissinger approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Regarding which aspect of our behavior? Any aspect whatsoever. You're treading on the dangerously thin ice of moral equivalency. > Let's take spying, for example. Back > in December, I read a terrific book about our exploits and theirs. They were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > patience to read it to you. Maybe if you pay someone.... > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525949801 Methods aren't motives. >>>>>>>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the >>>>>>>> Nixon/Kissinger approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Methods aren't motives. No, but the methods are interesting. And, since someone always responds with "Cite please!", there it is. Motives: Do you think ours were glorious and theirs were snakey? > No, but the methods are interesting. And, since someone always responds with > "Cite please!", there it is. Stories are always interesting and varied. > Motives: Do you think ours were glorious and theirs were snakey? Both are subjective terms. What I think is glorious is undoubtedly far different than what you might think. The same is true for snakey. It would be very entertaining to ask that question among the different portions of the political spectrum, within different states, among educational levels, different races, those who've lived in the real world affected directly or indirectly by said methods, and finally those who actively or passively participated. >> No, but the methods are interesting. And, since someone always responds >> with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > affected directly or indirectly by said methods, and finally those who > actively or passively participated. Actually, I think the approach of both sides was patriotic, viewed FROM those sides. Both sides spy for the good of their country. We don't like it when the other side succeeds, but it's infantile to call it evil when we're doing the exact same things. >>> No, but the methods are interesting. And, since someone always responds >>> with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Actually, I think the approach of both sides was patriotic, viewed FROM > those sides. Which is why it was/is, as I said, subjective. One need only choose sides as to which you think was/is more beneficial to the world in general. > Both sides spy for the good of their country. We don't like it when > the other side succeeds, but it's infantile to call it evil when we're > doing the exact same things. Bullshit. Man is imperfect. Governments are imperfect, and often subject to the lesser of two evils. If the FSB murders someone to preserve the Russian government or CIA murders someone to preserve the U.S. government, you're going to claim that we're just as bad because we preserve liberty versus their dictatorship? A better example of the fallacy of moral equivalency could not be found. >>>>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger >>>>> approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'll choose to assume the worst about both sides. This approach never seems > to fail. I'm guessing you use pad paper one inch wide. > >>>> Is it safe to assume you feel the same way about the Nixon/Kissinger > >>>> approach to the Chinese? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I'll choose to assume the worst about both sides. This approach never seems > to fail. Joe - you are dealing with the remaining hardcore 13% of the republican party and I doubt they even are aware of anything outside their bubble. They are like cornered wolverines juiced up on maximum adrenaline. Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not deserve a reply On Jan 26, 1:41 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Conscience" <nob...@gov.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > seems > to fail. Joe - you are dealing with the remaining hardcore 13% of the republican party and I doubt they even are aware of anything outside their bubble. They are like cornered wolverines juiced up on maximum adrenaline. >> On 2009-01-26 09:14:40 -0800, "larry moe 'n curly" >> <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > They lie as a matter of culture. Perversely, it's an accepted norm and > way of doing business on any plane. So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? Larry, I've got news for you. We can't. No matter what's signed, sealed, and delivered, every country capable will continue development. Even if only in the lab, this will be done. > > So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > > Larry, I've got news for you. We can't. > > No matter what's signed, sealed, and delivered, every country capable > will continue development. Even if only in the lab, this will be done. larrymoecurly thinks if we sit nice and bark for China, then kiss their a.ses they will stop their ambitions in space and not develop space based weapons. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra His uninformed or misinformed opinion did not deserve a reply >> > So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a.ses they will stop their ambitions in space and not develop space > based weapons. > > > So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a.ses they will stop their ambitions in space and not develop space > based weapons. So why have I criticized the US for being too soft on China? And what have I meant by being able to make foreign countries trustworthy? Larry's uninformed or misinformed opinion did not deserve a reply >> So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > > Larry, I've got news for you. We can't. > > No matter what's signed, sealed, and delivered, every country capable will > continue development. Even if only in the lab, this will be done. >> So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > >Larry, I've got news for you. We can't. > >No matter what's signed, sealed, and delivered, every country capable >will continue development. Even if only in the lab, this will be done. Barry proves he is the terrorists friend... SignatureScott in Florida >>> So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Barry proves he is the terrorists friend... Poor syph. If only you had the balls to support a president who's smarter than you. Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== >>>> So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Poor syph. If only you had the balls to support a president who's smarter > than you. Do you know where we can find one? Scott in Florida wrote: > Barry proves he is the terrorists friend... You're the one who had Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden over at your house for beer and pizza. > > So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? > > Larry, I've got news for you. We can't. > > No matter what's signed, sealed, and delivered, every country capable > will continue development. Even if only in the lab, this will be done If it's all so futile, why should our foreign policy consist of anything but gunboat diplomacy? >>> So how should we handle the issue of weapons in space? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it's all so futile, why should our foreign policy consist of > anything but gunboat diplomacy? You're several decades too late with that question. Look at what's happened due to the regular version. > >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Then you're hopelessly naive and stupid. You conveniently left out the rest: > They're obviously trustworthy. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > haven't tested a nuke in a decade, and they have strong incentives > > because they haven't miniaturized their nukes, especially Pakistan. Reagan trusted them, so why can't you? And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You conveniently left out the rest: No I didn't. Past performance in no way generates trust from those two countries. They've done nothing to indicate they have as much "honor" now as they did then. In fact, the reverse is more likely. Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > You conveniently left out the rest: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > They're obviously trustworthy. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > No I didn't. Past performance in no way generates trust from those two > countries. Who cares if it generates it? In the past, they've adhered to treaties, and, given the right incentives (positive and negative), they'll do the same in the future. > They've done nothing to indicate they have as much "honor" > now as they did then. In fact, the reverse is more likely. That's probably true of Russia (no need to avoid WWIII between Russia and the US because that issue has been settled) but not China. What does China want? How do they think they can achieve it best, other than through economic growth? Hint: according to China's schedule, they have about 40 more years to accomplish it. > Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. Reagan dealt with them in the way that made them trustworthy. You don't seem to understand what "made them trustworthy" means or how important it's always been. >>> And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No >> I didn't. Past performance in no way generates trust from those two >> countries. > > Who cares if it generates it? I suppose we could just blindly trust them because you say we can? > In the past, they've adhered to > treaties, and, given the right incentives (positive and negative), [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than through economic growth? Hint: according to China's schedule, > they have about 40 more years to accomplish it. Economic growth to be sure. You and I just have differing opinions on what they will, or will not, let stand in their way. >> Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. > > Reagan dealt with them in the way that made them trustworthy. You > don't seem to understand what "made them trustworthy" means or how > important it's always been. The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe your rhetoric, or my personal knowledge gained from people you won't see mentioned on the front page of any newspaper. Due to this knowledge, I DID get a chuckle out of "You don't seem to understand." IOW, we can disagree agreeably. Or not. >> And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? > Then you're hopelessly naive and stupid. > > You conveniently left out the rest: > No I didn't. Past performance in no way generates > trust from those two countries. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > They're obviously trustworthy. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose we could just blindly trust them because you say we can? No, and that's why I said, "they can made to be trusted". How did we make the Soviets trustworthy in regards to nuclear weapons limitations? By threatening to violate the treaty and force them into an expensive program of escalation that they couldn't win. > > In the past, they've adhered to> treaties, and, given the right > > incentives (positive and negative), they'll do the same in the future. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Economic growth to be sure. You and I just have differing opinions on > what they will, or will not, let stand in their way. I asked you how they'd do it through means _other_ than prosperity. And the issue has nothing to do with opinion but with what China has explicitly stated and summarized in just five words. > Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mentioned on the front page of any newspaper. Due to this knowledge, I > DID get a chuckle out of "You don't seem to understand." My opinions are based on the writings of some hawkish China and foreign policy hands. China, like any other united country, can be made to uphold treaties and generally stay out of international mischief if we apply proper economic, diplomatic, and military pressure, which we haven't always done or done well. >> I suppose we could just blindly trust them because you say we can? > > No, and that's why I said, "they can made to be trusted". How did we > make the Soviets trustworthy in regards to nuclear weapons > limitations? By threatening to violate the treaty and force them into > an expensive program of escalation that they couldn't win. Who gets credit for that one, Larry? >>> In the past, they've adhered to> treaties, and, given the right >>> incentives (positive and negative), they'll do the same in the future. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And the issue has nothing to do with opinion but with what China has > explicitly stated and summarized in just five words. I'm all ears. Let's hear 'em. >> Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > My opinions are based on the writings of some hawkish China and > foreign policy hands. Good for you. I'll still trust what I hear first-hand. > China, like any other united country, can be > made to uphold treaties and generally stay out of international > mischief if we apply proper economic, diplomatic, and military > pressure, which we haven't always done or done well. That much is certain. the "haven't always done well" part. >>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe your >>> rhetoric, or my personal knowledge gained from people you won't see [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Good for you. I'll still trust what I hear first-hand. First hand? Who would you hear it from first hand? Are you meeting regularly with Chinese politicians? >>>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe your >>>> rhetoric, or my personal knowledge gained from people you won't see [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > First hand? Who would you hear it from first hand? Are you meeting regularly > with Chinese politicians? You have no demonstrable reason for knowing who this is. >>>>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe your >>>>> rhetoric, or my personal knowledge gained from people you won't see [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You have no demonstrable reason for knowing who this is. Your sources are no better than LMC's. You know that. I know that. You read what you read, he reads what he reads. Your sources are of identical quality. >>>>>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe your >>>>>> rhetoric, or my personal knowledge gained from people you won't see [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Your sources are of identical quality. If you say so. I have nothing more to say on that subject. >>>>>>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe >>>>>>> your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > If you say so. I have nothing more to say on that subject. Of course you don't. You're not acquainted with any Chinese policy makers. Those would be the only people you could define as "first-hand". You're not acquainted with any diplomats from China or the U.S. You have no first-hand sources, and you wish you'd never made the claim. >>>>>>>> The way I see it, I've got two choices. I can trust and believe >>>>>>>> your [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > You have no first-hand sources, and you wish you'd never made the claim. I'll qualify my absolutely final statement on just who I know, and why I know them, by saying I've never claimed to know any Chinese policy makers. >>>>> On 2009-01-27 09:28:01 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I'll qualify my absolutely final statement on just who I know, and why I > know them, by saying I've never claimed to know any Chinese policy makers. Nonsense. You wish you'd never said a word about this. You have no first-hand sources. If you did, you could provide a generic description of their job function. >>>> If you say so. I have nothing more to say on that subject. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You have no first-hand sources. If you did, you could provide a generic > description of their job function. It just eats at you, doesn't it? >>>>> If you say so. I have nothing more to say on that subject. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It just eats at you, doesn't it? Not at all. This is fun. You claim to have knowledge which you got from an imaginary source. You're a psychiatrist's next Volvo. >>>>>> If you say so. I have nothing more to say on that subject. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Not at all. This is fun. You claim to have knowledge which you got from an > imaginary source. You're a psychiatrist's next Volvo. Have fun, Joe. Imagine his Volvo. > >> I suppose we could just blindly trust them because you say we can? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who gets credit for that one, Larry? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Reagan. > > In the past, they've adhered to treaties, and, given the right > > incentives (positive and negative), they'll do the same in the future. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'm all ears. Let's hear 'em. 50 years of peace and diplomacy. Why didn't you know the basis of current Chinese foreign policy. > Reagan dealt with them in a far different political and economic world. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Good for you. I'll still trust what I hear first-hand. From whom? > > China, like any other united country, can be > > made to uphold treaties and generally stay out of international > > mischief if we apply proper economic, diplomatic, and military > > pressure, which we haven't always done or done well. > > That much is certain. the "haven't always done well" part. But he's gone now. Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not deserve a reply >>> On 2009-01-26 07:55:08 -0800, Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> >>> said: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > don't seem to understand what "made them trustworthy" means or how > important it's always been. > Hint: according to China's schedule, > they have about 40 more years to accomplish it. According to what the BBC reported last year, it's more like 11. > > What does China want? How do they think they can > > achieve it best, other than through economic growth? > > Hint: according to China's schedule, > > they have about 40 more years to accomplish it. > > According to what the BBC reported last year, it's more like 11. How, when their Africa plan isn't anywhere close to completion? >> > What does China want? How do they think they can >> > achieve it best, other than through economic growth? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How, when their Africa plan isn't anywhere close to completion? China has big plans for 2020. Man on the moon and some others I don't recall. But I do recollect they were pretty scary. Hmmmm...wonder what it says on the motherboard of your computer? Do you know how many lines of code are required in the BIOS to bring your computer to it's knees 01/01/20? Not a lot... k00k idea? Maybe...but maybe not... >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Reagan trusted them, so why can't you? Reagan backed up his 'trust' with a Big Stick. Barack is walking softly...but throwing the Big Stick aside... > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? Um, I think he was being sarcastic.... > >> They're obviously trustworthy. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Um, I think he was being sarcastic.... Countries can be made trustworthy if we credibly explain to them the consequences they'll face if they cheat. Almost exactly seven years ago, we could have done our explaining a lot more convincingly. >>> And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > consequences they'll face if they cheat. Almost exactly seven years > ago, we could have done our explaining a lot more convincingly. I agree with you in principle, but just how do you verify treaty compliance? Haven't we seen enough of what happens when dictatorial regimes promise access but scoff and U.N. inspectors? What do you do then when the only verifiable problem is that access denial? When dealing with these amoral countries, the value of the treaties are the paper and ink with which they're written. No more than that. > > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I agree with you in principle, but just how do you verify treaty > compliance? How many atomic bombs were exploded in the atmosphere among parties that signed the limited test ban treaty or anywhere by nations that signed the full test ban? By how much did the USSR exceed SALT and START limits on missiles, throw weight, and number of warheads? > Haven't we seen enough of what happens when dictatorial > regimes promise access but scoff and U.N. inspectors? Not in the case of Iraq, which fully but begrudgingly complied with UN disarmament requirements, with some encouragement from US military threats (GW Bush ordering the US Navy into the Persian Gulf in late 2002) and actions (Bill Clinton authorizing Operation Desert Fox in 1998). The Iraq Survey Group did a thorough examination of Iraq in 2003-2004, at a cost of $600M, and found that Saddam had complied with all international requirements, so well that not a single insurgent attack used WMDs from the Iraqi military stockpile. > What do you do then when the only verifiable problem is that access denial? That was handled rather well, in the case of pre-invasion IRAQ, and even North Korea was managable (basically, GW Bush went back to the Clinton framework, after letting Kim Il Jong build some nukes). > When dealing with these amoral countries, the value of the treaties are > the paper and ink with which they're written. No more than that. Plus the military or economic power of the other party. >>> And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > signed the full test ban? By how much did the USSR exceed SALT and > START limits on missiles, throw weight, and number of warheads? Strawman alert. The only assertion I made earlier was that work IN THE LAB would not be detectable. Try to keep up. >> Haven't we seen enough of what happens when dictatorial >> regimes promise access but scoff and U.N. inspectors? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > all international requirements, so well that not a single insurgent > attack used WMDs from the Iraqi military stockpile. Look back at every presidential and congressional name who agreed with the existence of WMDs. >> What do you do then when the only verifiable problem is that access denial? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Plus the military or economic power of the other party. So we're getting closer now to how you handle treaty violations? >> And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Strawman alert. The only assertion I made earlier was that work IN THE > LAB would not be detectable. Try to keep up. Try to keep up with yourself and also not give false strawman alerts or be a tease who won't address points seriously. Treaties don't deal with mere lab work but with programs that have already been developed or deployed to considerable extent. I gave examples of treaties obeyed by parties that were hostile to one another, disproving your contention that they were unenforcable. > Haven't we seen enough of what happens when dictatorial > regimes promise access but scoff and U.N. inspectors? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Look back at every presidential and congressional name who agreed with > the existence of WMDs. I'm talking about the reality that all but one of them knew, not the rhetoric they spread for political gain or the appeasement of the stupid. All but one of them enforced the Gulf War treaty properly, and even that one exception had done a good job until 2003. Again, you're dodging the issue: you implied that regimes didn't comply with inspectors, and I showed where one dictator did comply. You're not being honest. > What do you do then when the only verifiable problem is that access denial? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So we're getting closer now to how you handle treaty violations? I've been consistent, while your examples have been either merely hypothetical or wrong. You could have mentioned a doozy of an example where a treaty didn't work at all and affirmed your contention, but for some reason you never brought it up. >> > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Plus the military or economic power of the other party. Enough of your lies. The FACTS are that Iraq WAS NOT fully complicit with UN disarmament requirements. Period. Saddam did NOT allow full access or access without delay to facilities. Inspectors were often made to wait for hours while truckloads of materiel roared off to Syria. > >> > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Inspectors were often made to wait for hours while truckloads > of materiel roared off to Syria. Mooseboy, STFU. >>> > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Inspectors were often made to wait for hours while truckloads > of materiel roared off to Syria. You were drunk when you used the word "lies" to describe the findings of the Iraq Study Group. You need to read their report in its entirety. It's 160 pages long, and you'll never get past the first few pages, but you can pretend. The group was chosen with input from George H.W. Bush, also known as the "real president Bush". He wanted the best people in the group because it was a shot at saving his son's sorry a.s. Here's the report (PDF file) which you will not read: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/iraq_study_group_report Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not deserve a reply. >>>> > And what do I mean by, "they can made to be trusted"? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > "real president Bush". He wanted the best people in the group because it > was a shot at saving his son's sorry a.s. > Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not deserve a reply. Your "non-reply" is a reply. Mike sitting with a box of chocolates on a park bench. > >> Haven't we seen enough of what happens when dictatorial > >> regimes promise access but scoff and U.N. inspectors? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Enough of your lies. The FACTS are that Iraq WAS NOT fully complicit with > UN disarmament requirements. Period. You just proved I was right because your track record has been that every time you disagree with somebody on politics, you're wrong. > Saddam did NOT allow full access or access without delay to facilities. > Inspectors were often made to wait for hours while truckloads > of materiel roared off to Syria. If he didn't allow full access to the UN and US weapons inspectors, why didn't he keep some of his WMDs? And why did our inspectors say, after the invasion, that there was no evidence Saddam had shipped off WMDs or their materials off to Syria? Furthermore, why didn't any of the Sunni insurgents, who crossed the Iraq-Syria border all the time, use any WMDs in their attacks against US or Shiite forces in Iraq, except for homemade stuff, like trucks full of commercially produced chlorine? You're on thin ice, as usual, Sharky. You'll probably prove it with a loud, brainless retort. >> They're obviously trustworthy. >> >> I'd trust them in a heartbeat to adhere to a treaty, wouldn't you? > > They can be made to be trusted. Here I just get done telling you that I often respect your opinion, and you spew something like this!!!! I bet the NKs are already revising their plans now that they see weakness in the White House. The Chinese are probably taking another good hard look at us. I bet Putin has already fallen on the floor in his glee. Part of the game of chess is to be doing one thing to distract attention from another. Maybe this is what Barack is doing? However, i doubt it. It seems he is rushing to do what is popular rather than doing what is required. Anyone in Canada have a room to rent? > >> They're obviously trustworthy. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > seems he is rushing to do what is popular rather than doing what is > required. The Obama presidency strengthens the US abroad, just as a McCain presidency would have, because most foreign countries, including many of our allies, just didn't like GW Bush. Cite examples of Obama rushing to do what's popular in foreign policy. >> I bet the NKs are already revising their plans now that they see weakness >> in the White House. The Chinese are probably taking another good hard look [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cite examples of Obama rushing to do what's popular in foreign policy. Closing Gitmo and stopping space weapon research. > >> I bet the NKs are already revising their plans now that they see weakness > >> in the White House. The Chinese are probably taking another good hard look [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Closing Gitmo and stopping space weapon research. Closing Gitmo was an example of doing what's right and in our interest. I said show me an example of what Obama has done that's merely popular. We haven't stopped space weapons research. We've simply stopped bragging about it needlessly and stupidly because real presidents don't swagger. You're 0 for 2. Try again, or withdraw your claim. >> >> I bet the NKs are already revising their plans now that they see >> >> weakness [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You're 0 for 2. Try again, or withdraw your claim. When your mother failed to abort your worthless fetus, she was 0 for 1. >> >> I bet the NKs are already revising their plans now that they see weakness >> >> in the White House. The Chinese are probably taking another good hard look [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > interest. I said show me an example of what Obama has done that's > merely popular. You're going to have to explain this one to me. Closing Gitmo is just nodding along with what's 'popular'. Where the hell are we going to put 270 terrorists until they get a 'fair trial'? My thoughts on this is that the remaining 270 are the most dangerous of the thousands that have gone through Gitmo, and we're supposed to transfer them to US soil?! WTF?!?! That's about the dumbest thing I've heard yet! And it's all done because it's 'popular' with the Liberals. No thought, just trying to win a Popularity Contest. Dumb. > We haven't stopped space weapons research. We've simply stopped > bragging about it needlessly and stupidly because real presidents > don't swagger. > > You're 0 for 2. Try again, or withdraw your claim. Guess you'd better yank the paper from the other day and see where he wants Congress to pass a BAN on space weapons research. Hopefully there are enough smart people left in Congress that won't sign onto this. Dumb. As far as 'real Presidents don't swagger', turn on you TIVO and have another look at the inauguration. Sure as hell looked like a 'swagger' to me. On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:29:04 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >And it's all done because it's 'popular' with the Liberals. No thought, >just trying to win a Popularity Contest. Dumb. I see you are coming around.... Obama...whom I call Barry....is an empty suit. SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:53:22 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>You're going to have to explain this one to me. Closing Gitmo is just >>nodding along with what's 'popular'. Where the hell are we going to put [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I see you are coming around.... Already there, dude...lasted all of 3 days... > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:53:22 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Already there, dude...lasted all of 3 days... Barry: In your guts, you know he's nuts. (Stealing one of LBJ's campaign slogans.) Sir Charles the Curmudgeon Scott in Florida wrote: > Obama...whom I call Barry....is an empty suit. And you just want to snuggle up in that suit. > > The Obama presidency strengthens the US abroad, just as a McCain > > presidency would have, because most foreign countries, including many [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the thousands that have gone through Gitmo, and we're supposed to transfer > them to US soil?! WTF?!?! That's about the dumbest thing I've heard yet! Why is it dumb to you? Gitmo, like Abu Graib, is a great recruiting tool for the terrorists, and it was outright stupid to not classify the prisoners as POWs because you don't have to give POWs trials. But GW Bush just couldn't resist the urge to brag & swagger. > > We haven't stopped space weapons research. We've simply stopped > > bragging about it needlessly and stupidly because real presidents [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hopefully there are enough smart people left in Congress that won't sign > onto this. Dumb. Obama has called for a ban on space weapons, but where's your evidence that he or Congress wants a ban on research, too? Are you confusing that research with missile defense research (another thing that will continue, as it should, unlike deployment of our rocket-powered camera smashers). > As far as 'real Presidents don't swagger', turn on you TIVO and have > another look at the inauguration. Sure as hell looked like a 'swagger' to > me. Dignity != swagger. Maybe you're just jealous or an admirer of childish behavior. >> As far as 'real Presidents don't swagger', turn on you TIVO and have >> another look at the inauguration. Sure as hell looked like a 'swagger' to >> me. > > Dignity != swagger. Maybe you're just jealous or an admirer of > childish behavior. Guess you saw a different inauguration from the one I saw. >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'd trust them in a heartbeat to adhere to a treaty, wouldn't you? There you go obfuscating the issue with facts. Last year, as China was preparing for the Olympics, the BBC did an entire week of broadcasting from China. China has big plans for 2020. Barack gets done in 2012. (Come to think of it, don't the Mayan and another ancient calendar end Dec 21, 2012???). If he goes two term that gives us only 8 years to catch up. Of course, maybe some of our 'opponents' will see Obama rolling on his back and redouble their efforts to have things in place before the possible end of his second term so that when America wakes up and elects another Reagan, it'll be too late. > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott in Florida How can you criticize the President and commander-in-chief while we are at war? You must be a terrorist sympathizer and an al qaeda supporter. On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott in Florida How can you criticize the President and commander-in-chief while we are at war? You must be a terrorist sympathizer and an al qaeda supporter. =============== Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. > On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. Not until we get a real CiC whose concerns are ours rather than those of our sworn enemies. >> On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not until we get a real CiC whose concerns are ours rather than those of > our sworn enemies. Nah...this tactic was used by Sot and other fools constantly around here for the longest time. No criticizing the president while a war's going on. It's a stupid tactic, it's illogical, and it's 100% unAmerican. But, since it's considered fair game around here, we're going to use it for the next four years. >>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > considered fair game around here, we're going to use it for the next four > years. Oh, you'll definitely use it. No doubt. Like a knife in a gunfight. >>>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Like a knife in a gunfight. This is yet another example of the fact that you've missed a lot of interesting things in this newsgroup. I'm sure you don't agree that a president shouldn't be criticized simply because there's a war going on. Or, maybe you do agree with that. >>>>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Or, maybe you do agree with that. To agree or disagree requires more info than you're including. >>>>>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every >>>>>> day. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > To agree or disagree requires more info than you're including. Since the tactic is so pathetically simplistic, no further info is required. Person #1 says "The war is ridiculous." Person #2 responds with "It's wrong to criticize the president's ideas because it demoralize the troops." >>>> Oh, you'll definitely use it. No doubt. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Person #1 says "The war is ridiculous." Person #2 responds with "It's wrong > to criticize the president's ideas because it demoralize the troops." If that's it, then further info IS needed. To say only that the war is ridiculous is hardly demoralizing to the troops. Trust me when I tell you that what thoughtless idiots say along this strict vein is easily ignored. To hammer the troops, call them baby-killers, terrorists, and the like is treasonous. At least two members of Congress should be shot or hung for having done this. Media representatives also deserving of this fate are legion. >>>>> Oh, you'll definitely use it. No doubt. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > having done this. Media representatives also deserving of this fate are > legion. I'm not talking about the baby-killing diatribes, which I agree are obnoxious, especially considering that a tiny fraction of soldiers have done things no soldier should do. It's not easy for any employer to spot a bad apple 100% of the time, and the military is no different. I'm talking about criticizing the president and his various associates. I find the tactic annoying for another reason: It implies that our troops are mindless robots who don't have their own private thoughts about the war. Any sane person knows this is not true. To suggest that some soldiers have their own doubts about the war is patently absurd. >> If that's it, then further info IS needed. To say only that the war is >> ridiculous is hardly demoralizing to the troops. Trust me when I tell you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm talking about criticizing the president and his various associates. That depends on the level or detail of the criticism(s). > I find the tactic annoying for another reason: It implies that our troops > are mindless robots who don't have their own private thoughts about the war. > Any sane person knows this is not true. To suggest that some soldiers have > their own doubts about the war is patently absurd. To suggest that some soldiers have their own doubts about the war is absurd? That statment is absurd. Every soldier has, at one time or another no matter how brief, doubts about any war. Being shot at can do that immediately, though it passes. >>> If that's it, then further info IS needed. To say only that the war is >>> ridiculous is hardly demoralizing to the troops. Trust me when I tell [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That depends on the level or detail of the criticism(s). I don't agree. I'm sure that surprises you to the point where it knocks you off your chair. :-) >> I find the tactic annoying for another reason: It implies that our troops >> are mindless robots who don't have their own private thoughts about the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > matter how brief, doubts about any war. Being shot at can do that > immediately, though it passes. Typo. Should've said "...don't have their own doubts". >>> I'm talking about criticizing the president and his various associates. >> >> That depends on the level or detail of the criticism(s). > > I don't agree. I'm sure that surprises you to the point where it knocks you > off your chair. :-) So criticizing the prez over his favorite vegetable or his war strategy is the same to you? We definitely do disagree. >>> I find the tactic annoying for another reason: It implies that our troops >>> are mindless robots who don't have their own private thoughts about the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Typo. Should've said "...don't have their own doubts". Much better. >>>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Like a knife in a gunfight. That's about where we're going to be as long as Obama keeps neutering our military... On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:45:17 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >>>>> Oooh....good point. I forgot about that tactic. Let's use it every day. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >That's about where we're going to be as long as Obama keeps neutering our >military... Do you realize how dangerous it is to have an empty suit in the White House? SignatureScott in Florida On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:45:17 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Do you realize how dangerous it is to have an empty suit in the White > House? If you recall, I said I'd give the guy a chance? OK...he's had his chance. A tax cheat as SOT, closing Guantanamo (and either releasing 270 terrorists or moving them to US soil) and stopping research on space weapons... All... for... FEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!!!!!! > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > FEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS!!!!!! Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be used in foreign countries for "family planning". $0.4 Billion dollars, which benefits the U.S. citizen suffering in this economy not a whit. >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > $0.4 Billion dollars, which benefits the U.S. citizen suffering in this > economy not a whit. Sure it does! iT SAVES ON BULLETS... > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > $0.4 Billion dollars, which benefits the U.S. citizen suffering in this > economy not a whit. That's YOUR money, taxpayer money. Why in hell we should be supporting that BS should be a big question in the taxpayers mind. So this is the mindset of the dimmies, hand them a bunch of money and they get back to spending it on pet social projects. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > So this is the mindset of the dimmies, hand them a bunch of money and they > get back to spending it on pet social projects. A mere 400 million here, a mere 400 million there... Add to it the crippling economic measures in this mess that are his intentionally-placed potholes on any recovery road we might take. > Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be > used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's YOUR money, taxpayer money. Why in hell we should be supporting > that BS should be a big question in the taxpayers mind. Birth control isn't BS but a great way to keep poor people from starving, getting abortions, having kids who die when young, and breeding future Osama BLs. > > So this is the mindset of the dimmies, hand them a bunch of money and they > > get back to spending it on pet social projects. > > A mere 400 million here, a mere 400 million there... ...and it's still a pittance compared to the completely useless $750 billion bailout of the Wall Street fat cats. >> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > starving, getting abortions, having kids who die when young, and > breeding future Osama BLs. And we pay for it? What else? New horses, oxen, goats, farmland, combines, and cars to prevent their starvation? After all, we don't want any more OBLs or Wahabi extremists being brainwashed due to their being impoverished. >>> So this is the mindset of the dimmies, hand them a bunch of money and they >>> get back to spending it on pet social projects. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ...and it's still a pittance compared to the completely useless $750 > billion bailout of the Wall Street fat cats. So because your party ramrods through a bailout package, that justified further unnecessary expenditures? Got it. >>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > any more OBLs or Wahabi extremists being brainwashed due to their being > impoverished. Are you suggesting that living conditions do not contribute to strange, violent behavior? Never? Not anywhere? >>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Are you suggesting that living conditions do not contribute to strange, > violent behavior? Never? Not anywhere? Where did I say that? Show me right now. >>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Where did I say that? Show me right now. You said "....extremists being brainwashed due to their being impoverished" Sounded to me like you were trashing the theory. Were you, in fact, acknowledging that it's accurate? >>>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Sounded to me like you were trashing the theory. Were you, in fact, > acknowledging that it's accurate? Of course it's accurate. Here's some help for you, Joe: http://esl.about.com/library/lessons/blreadcontext.htm http://www.homeschool.com/LetsGoLearn/Articles/ReadingImprovement/default.asp Now you can re-read the entire thread and determine easily, as can anyone, that the thread had to do with what WE are financially required to do, or not do, and the stupidity of us throwing around millions to billions of dollars at problems for which we bear no responsibility. >>>>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to >>>>>>> be [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > not do, and the stupidity of us throwing around millions to billions of > dollars at problems for which we bear no responsibility. Generally speaking, when an American company enriches some tribal leader to get him to stay out of the way while the company mines copper (for instance), but the people of that country are desperately poor, it actually is our concern if the poverty breeds terrorists. >>>>>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to >>>>>>>> be [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > instance), but the people of that country are desperately poor, it actually > is our concern if the poverty breeds terrorists. Wow. If, if, and if. Great comeback. >>>>> On 2009-01-28 06:08:51 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Great comeback. If? Not "if" at all. I guess your news sources don't mention much about this sort of thing. Either that, or you see the information, but manage to somehow rationalize it. One of hundreds of examples: http://lrights.igc.org/press/oxy_aba_0605.htm ""It's the richest state in Colombia because we have Occidental," says Alberto Galvis, 32, now a criminal justice major at La Roche College, a small liberal arts school in suburban Pittsburgh. "But we don't get the money. The only thing we get from Occidental is military occupation." >>>>>> On 2009-01-28 06:08:51 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > small liberal arts school in suburban Pittsburgh. "But we don't get the > money. The only thing we get from Occidental is military occupation." There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not playing your deflection game. Stay in the same region, in context, Joe. Read those links again. >>>>> On 2009-01-28 07:25:05 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Stay in the same region, in context, Joe. Read those links again. I saw your links. They were viewed for 1/2 second each, evaluated, and ignored. Onward: "In the Sudan, where thousands of people have been killed and thousands more displaced in a brutal civil war between the Muslim regime in Khartoum and rebels in the Christian and animist black South, the operations of the Canadian company Talisman Energy and other multinational oil companies are under attack by a coalition of NGOs and religious groups. The companies are accused of fueling the civil war by supplying equipment used by the Khartoum Government in human rights abuses against civilians and funding its repressive activities through their royalty payments. The Canadian Government's 'Harker Report' confirmed that Talisman's oil operations are exacerbating the conflict in the Sudan, and that the Khartoum regime is responsible for grave human rights abuses, including the systematic enslavement of children and women. In response to these criticisms, Talisman is now drafting a corporate responsibility report to be audited by Price Waterhouse Cooper of London, and is developing a human rights monitoring programme that will include training its own security forces to respect human rights. See Amnesty International's recent report "Sudan the Human Price of Oil" for further details." Perhaps but now Obama will give them US taxpayer money to kill their babies, so there should be fewer mouths to feed in the future. ') > I saw your links. They were viewed for 1/2 second each, evaluated, and > ignored. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > respect human rights. See Amnesty International's recent report "Sudan the > Human Price of Oil" for further details." >> There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not playing >> your deflection game. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I saw your links. They were viewed for 1/2 second each, evaluated, and > ignored. Undoubtedly. > Onward: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > human rights. See Amnesty International's recent report "Sudan the Human > Price of Oil" for further details." This has what to do with Iran, Saudi extremists, and those wanting Israel's destruction? >>> There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not playing >>> your deflection game. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > This has what to do with Iran, Saudi extremists, and those wanting > Israel's destruction? Go back a few messages to where you said "if". >>>> There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not playing >>>> your deflection game. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Go back a few messages to where you said "if". I did. In context, the purpose was to mock your tin can. You really should re-read those links. >>>>> There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not >>>>> playing [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > You really should re-read those links. Your "if" followed my comment about corporations causing problems in countries where they do business, resulting in blowback we sometimes act surprised at. Do you doubt that this happens? >>>>>> There's another incorrect assumption on your part. I'm just not >>>>>> playing [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Do you doubt that this happens? Definitely. From all countries. For some really strange reason, our media seldom, if ever, covers the conduct of foreign corporations. Do you wonder why that is, when their media certainly cover ours? >>>>> On 2009-01-28 08:16:41 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > For some really strange reason, our media seldom, if ever, covers the > conduct of foreign corporations. Most people can't possibly find the time to access enough sources to keep up with it all. Better to look to sources which make it their mission to gather the information and present it in one place, with references. Example: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/conflict_prevention/meetings_and_workshops /Reg_stability.html > Do you wonder why that is, when their media certainly cover ours? Because they should. Many of us work for the companies involved, invest in them, and buy from them. >>>>>> On 2009-01-28 08:16:41 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Example: > http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/conflict_prevention/meetings_and_workshops /Reg_stability.html Do >> you wonder why that is, when their media certainly cover ours? > > Because they should. Many of us work for the companies involved, invest in > them, and buy from them. "Because they should." ??? If worldwide media cover out corporations, and criticize them for the aforementioned offenses, should they not also cover foreign corporations for the same reasons? >>>>> On 2009-01-28 08:27:40 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > criticize them for the aforementioned offenses, should they not also cover > foreign corporations for the same reasons? Our media *do* cover foreign corporations. Like most people (and me), you don't have enough time to find the stories, and you can't possibly have knowledge of all the domestic media which cover the stories. >>>>>> On 2009-01-28 08:27:40 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >>> Example: >>> http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/conflict_prevention/meetings_and_workshops /Reg_stability.html Do you >>>> wonder why that is, when their media certainly cover ours? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > don't have enough time to find the stories, and you can't possibly have > knowledge of all the domestic media which cover the stories. Ratio? Show me three articles in the NYT that cover what you claim is being done. >>>>> On 2009-01-28 09:01:25 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > Ratio? Show me three articles in the NYT that cover what you claim is > being done. I'm not your research assistant. You're retired. You have loads of spare time. Do it yourself. This may be helpful, since it names its sources: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/conflict_prevention/meetings_and_workshops /Reg_stability.html >>> Our media *do* cover foreign corporations. Like most people (and me), you >>> don't have enough time to find the stories, and you can't possibly have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not your research assistant. You're retired. You have loads of spare > time. Do it yourself. I didn't think you'd be able to deliver. Remember that next time you ask of another in a similar way. >>>> Our media *do* cover foreign corporations. Like most people (and me), you >>>> don't have enough time to find the stories, and you can't possibly have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I didn't think you'd be able to deliver. Remember that next time you >ask of another in a similar way. Spin Spin Spin.... Dougie is famous for it..... SignatureScott in Florida >>>> Our media *do* cover foreign corporations. Like most people (and me), >>>> you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I didn't think you'd be able to deliver. Remember that next time you ask > of another in a similar way. First of all, I never mentioned the NYT. You did. Second, I haven't kept notes for the past 30 years, awaiting the day when you would ask for information. Here's a great hint: What international organization is extremely active in kicking corporate butts all over the world? Their web site will most certainly contain stories about their efforts. Using keywords from those articles, you should be able to search for the information you want at normal news sites. > Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be > used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And we pay for it? What else? New horses, oxen, goats, farmland, > combines, and cars to prevent their starvation? Cost-benefit ratio -- if we don't pay one way, then we pay another way, possibly a lot more. > After all, we don't want any more OBLs or Wahabi extremists > being brainwashed due to their being impoverished. How many Nazis did the Marshall Plan prevent? > So this is the mindset of the dimmies, hand them a bunch of money and they > get back to spending it on pet social projects. All the social programs in Afghanistan are a lot cheaper than the military operations and are an important complement to them. > A mere 400 million here, a mere 400 million there... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So because your party ramrods through a bailout package, that justified > further unnecessary expenditures? No, my party's President pushed the useless $750B bailout of his buddies, and then my party pretended to be a bunch of fiscal conservatives by opposing the useful $400M birth control foreign aid program. >> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cost-benefit ratio -- if we don't pay one way, then we pay another > way, possibly a lot more. You mean: look at the long-term effects & ramifications? Holy crow, but that's an intelligent & rational POV. ;-P Cathy >> After all, we don't want any more OBLs or Wahabi extremists >> being brainwashed due to their being impoverished. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > conservatives by opposing the useful $400M birth control foreign aid > program. >>> And we pay for it? What else? New horses, oxen, goats, farmland, >>> combines, and cars to prevent their starvation? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cathy I'm gonna barf... Let's put it this way: remember how you felt about Bush? That's how I am beginning to feel about Obama...in spades. And the Liberal Left just laps it right up without question. That's the *REAL* disgusting part. Even my Mom, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat is saying, "I think we'd be better off with McCain." AND SHE HATES MCCAIN!!!!!!!!!!! All this, after only one week! Amazing! On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:53:13 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >>>> And we pay for it? What else? New horses, oxen, goats, farmland, >>>> combines, and cars to prevent their starvation? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >All this, after only one week! Amazing! The hell with wanting to meet you....I wanna meet MOM! SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:06 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:53:13 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > The hell with wanting to meet you....I wanna meet MOM! LOL! I dunno. She's about your age, IIRC..."Dad"... On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:31:06 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:06 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >LOL! I dunno. She's about your age, IIRC..."Dad"... THAT would be a HOOT! We would work your young arse over....but good! SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:25:50 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:31:06 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > We would work your young arse over....but good! I'M TELLIN MY MOM!!! On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:26:15 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:25:50 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >I'M TELLIN MY MOM!!! That would NOT be advisable...... SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:56:07 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:26:15 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > That would NOT be advisable...... Too late... She laughed so hard I thought I was going to have to call 911... On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:17:23 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:56:07 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >She laughed so hard I thought I was going to have to call 911... LOL.... Glad to be of service! SignatureScott in Florida >>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You mean: look at the long-term effects & ramifications? Holy crow, but > that's an intelligent & rational POV. ;-P Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. >>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only > those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. Did you feel the same way about Bush's large expenditures on aid to Africa? It's being touted as one of his only true success stories. >> Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only >> those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. > > Did you feel the same way about Bush's large expenditures on aid to Africa? > It's being touted as one of his only true success stories. The two facets of your question are not necessarily dovetailed as neatly as you'd like to believe. >>> Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only >>> those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The two facets of your question are not necessarily dovetailed as neatly > as you'd like to believe. I was wondering if you were about to venture into the "Where is foreign aid mentioned in the constitution" thing..... >>>> Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only >>>> those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I was wondering if you were about to venture into the "Where is foreign aid > mentioned in the constitution" thing..... And if I did? >>>>> Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only >>>>> those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And if I did? I wouldn't touch the subject. :-) >>>>>> Then we should just send the bill for this type of expenditure to only >>>>>> those who want to see their hard-earned money spent overseas. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I wouldn't touch the subject. :-) Say it isn't so. >>>>> On 2009-01-28 13:54:23 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Say it isn't so. What the thing about being wise enough to recognize the things you can't change? >>>>>> On 2009-01-28 13:54:23 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom" >>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What the thing about being wise enough to recognize the things you can't > change? That's an adequate summation. >>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Did you feel the same way about Bush's large expenditures on aid to Africa? > It's being touted as one of his only true success stories. Conservative Africans are even finding fault with that. About a year ago on the BBC they have an African correspondent I think is great. The first thing he said as a BBC commentator was, "If sending money to Africa created wealth, Africa would be the richest continent on Earth." >>>>>> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >>>>>> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > thing he said as a BBC commentator was, "If sending money to Africa > created wealth, Africa would be the richest continent on Earth." We don't send it out of the good of our hearts. It's a trick. It doesn't work. >> Don't forget Friday's Executive Order restoring $400,000,000.00 to be >> used in foreign countries for "family planning". [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > conservatives by opposing the useful $400M birth control foreign aid > program. You're going to have to be more careful in your attributes. You've included quotes that are not mine. Pretty dishonest, if you ask me. >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > $0.4 Billion dollars, which benefits the U.S. citizen suffering in this > economy not a whit. I didn't read the details about that. Are you sure it wasn't his way of restoring one part of an existing program which Big Time Christians forced Bush to eliminate? There was a bit of a dust-up a few years back about condoms causing sin. >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Bush to eliminate? There was a bit of a dust-up a few years back about > condoms causing sin. What difference would that make if it's a restoration or something new? Tell me, Joe. What's the net financial loss to the taxpayer either way? What business do we have spending, particularly right now, that kind of money on foreign entities of any kind? >>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > What business do we have spending, particularly right now, that kind of > money on foreign entities of any kind? I think that like many new presidents, he's throwing a bone here and there to certain people or groups. They have to do this. Remember the things Bush was told to say or do regarding the assault weapons ban? Same thing: a bone. Other than the band, we didn't hear a peep out of him about gun issues. Meanwhile, you or I could've handed him a long list of ongoing gun issues to address, just by reviewing 2-3 copies of the NRA magazines. If you read any more about this Africa thing, do so very carefully and watch for the real objections, written between the lines. >>> I didn't read the details about that. Are you sure it wasn't his way of >>> restoring one part of an existing program which Big Time Christians [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think that like many new presidents, he's throwing a bone here and there > to certain people or groups. They have to do this. Bullshit. Not if he wants "change" in the economy, etc. > Remember the things Bush > was told to say or do regarding the assault weapons ban? Same thing: a bone. So you're telling me this is a fiscal equivalent? Or even relevant? > Other than the band, we didn't hear a peep out of him about gun issues. > Meanwhile, you or I could've handed him a long list of ongoing gun issues to > address, just by reviewing 2-3 copies of the NRA magazines. > > If you read any more about this Africa thing, do so very carefully and watch > for the real objections, written between the lines. I don't care about what anyone thinks is written between the lines. Capitulation stinks here. And the money is more than just a bone to foreign countries in this case. Read between THOSE lines. >>>> I didn't read the details about that. Are you sure it wasn't his way of >>>> restoring one part of an existing program which Big Time Christians [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Capitulation stinks here. And the money is more than just a bone to > foreign countries in this case. Read between THOSE lines. You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be spending it. But, all presidents **MUST** throw bones or they'll get no cooperation from certain quarters in the future. If you think our elected barnacles are beyond tit-for-tat games like that, you're naive. I'll bet you'll never see Obama get in the way of Arlen Spector's endless demands for funding abstinence education that doesn't work. Why? Because he's going to need Spector for more important things at some point. > You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be spending > it. But, all presidents **MUST** throw bones or they'll get no cooperation > from certain quarters in the future. Maybe it's time to grow a set and say to hell with those "quarters". > If you think our elected barnacles are > beyond tit-for-tat games like that, you're naive. I'll bet you'll never see > Obama get in the way of Arlen Spector's endless demands for funding > abstinence education that doesn't work. Why? Because he's going to need > Spector for more important things at some point. Spector is a turncoat RINO, up for the highest bid, who make Texas maggots puke. To him, Obama could yell "Jump!", and he'd say "Off what skyscraper, sir?" >> You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be >> spending [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe it's time to grow a set and say to hell with those "quarters". That would mean eliminating both houses of Congress completely. Everyone is there to strike bargains. There's also the Beatrix Potter version, which you can entertain in your own fantasies if you so choose. >> If you think our elected barnacles are >> beyond tit-for-tat games like that, you're naive. I'll bet you'll never [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > To him, Obama could yell "Jump!", and he'd say "Off what skyscraper, sir?" Spector will blow anyone who asks. One day, a Democrat asks. The next, it's Christian wackos who insist that he get funding for church-based abstinence programs which do not work. I'm agreeing with you, in case you missed it. >>> You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be >>> spending [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That would mean eliminating both houses of Congress completely. Everyone is > there to strike bargains. No. It means eliminating the tit-for-tat way of doing business. This would, unfortunately, involve voters actually knowing something about the "sausage making" in D.C., and voting for meaningful change rather than, as was illustrated in November, merely the word. >> Spector is a turncoat RINO, up for the highest bid, who makes Texas >> maggots puke. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm agreeing with you, in case you missed it. Because you have more than ten firing brain cells. Tongue-in-cheek comment, in case you missed it. >>>> You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be >>>> spending [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "sausage making" in D.C., and voting for meaningful change rather than, as > was illustrated in November, merely the word. Some of the bargaining is what you pay your legislators for. When they stop bargaining for things their districts need, they get voted out of office. You can't have it both ways. >>>>> You're right about the money, of course. This is a lousy time to be >>>>> spending [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bargaining for things their districts need, they get voted out of office. > You can't have it both ways. Sure wen can. But we won't. Ever. >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Bush to eliminate? There was a bit of a dust-up a few years back about > condoms causing sin. Who cares? Why send $400M to fund abortions elsewhere? >>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Who cares? Why send $400M to fund abortions elsewhere? Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other armies use ammo. Why don't you write to the appropriate policy makers and find out why they think it's important to spend this money? >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other > armies use ammo. So what? > Why don't you write to the appropriate policy makers and find out why they > think it's important to spend this money? Think I will. Looks to me like yet another way to push Baracks stance on abortion. If you can't do it at home, do it elsewhere. >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:57:47 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > So what? Don't you think raped women should be able to obtain abortions, especially if they're so dirt-poor that they can barely feed themselves much less a child? >> Why don't you write to the appropriate policy makers and find out why >> they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Looks to me like yet another way to push Baracks stance on abortion. If > you can't do it at home, do it elsewhere. That was one of the stupidest things you've ever struggled to say. >>> Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other >>> armies use ammo. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > if they're so dirt-poor that they can barely feed themselves much less a > child? Sure. Not a problem. I'm not paying for it. >>> Why don't you write to the appropriate policy makers and find out why >>> they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That was one of the stupidest things you've ever struggled to say. How do you read it? Have you looked into his stance on abortion? He is in favor of Partial-Birth Abortion, he is in favor of letting aborted fetuses that didn't die immediately rot in closets or dumpsters; this is just another way to advance his stance on abortion since he can't do it here. It is perhaps the dumbest thing he has done to date. Even Clinton didn't do this many stupid things in one week. Thought Barack was supposed to be smart, but so far all he's done is what's popular with the Left. Not prudent, popular. As far as one of the "stupidest things I've ever struggled to say", you've just displayed your ignorance on the subject. >>>> Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other >>>> armies use ammo. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that didn't die immediately rot in closets or dumpsters; this is just > another way to advance his stance on abortion since he can't do it here. He does favor keeping "partial-birth" abortions legal, since in rare cases, that is the best method for protecting the life and health of the woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion As for the rest of your comment, it's nonsense: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html > It is perhaps the dumbest thing he has done to date. Even Clinton didn't > do this many stupid things in one week. Clinton reversed the Mexico City Policy on the second full day of his administration; Obama reversed it on the third of his: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/01/1993-01-22-aid-family-planning-grants-mexico-ci ty-policy.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationP lanning/ > Thought Barack was supposed to be smart, but so far all he's done is > what's popular with the Left. Not prudent, popular. > > As far as one of the "stupidest things I've ever struggled to say", you've > just displayed your ignorance on the subject. >>>>> Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other >>>>> armies use ammo. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/01/1993-01-22-aid-family-planning-grants-mexico-ci ty-policy.html > http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationP lanning/ Clinton was a dumb a.s, too. Here: These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants. What it means by "These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted." is that the money can be used any way the receiver sees fit, which means it is free to be used for abortions. If you look in the first section, "The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."" It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or performs abortions. Sorry. Barack is supporting paying for abortions in other countries. He's a dumbass. >> Thought Barack was supposed to be smart, but so far all he's done is >> what's popular with the Left. Not prudent, popular. >> >> As far as one of the "stupidest things I've ever struggled to say", you've >> just displayed your ignorance on the subject. >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > He's a dumbass. Do you think rape victims should be prevented from ending pregnancies resulting from the attacks? >> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you think rape victims should be prevented from ending pregnancies > resulting from the attacks? Go right ahead. I'm not paying for it. Not here *OR* abroad. And I misread Lucius' original post. He was trying to explain that Clinton did do as many stupid things in his first week as Barry did... >>> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >>> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'm not paying for it. Not here *OR* abroad. Yes, you are. >>>> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >>>> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes, you are. Yeah, and I shouldn't be. BTW, read this, please: These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. First of all, abortion is not Family Planning. *PLANNING* means thinking about something in advance. Abortion occurs after the fact. Second, Rape /= "Family Planning", So your 'rape' argument doesn't hold water either. The money is disbursed for family planning. Not abortion. >>>>> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >>>>> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > *PLANNING* means thinking about something in advance. Abortion occurs > after the fact. The issue here arises because most groups involved with family planning, such as Planned Parenthood, also offer either abortion services, advise, or referrals. According to the Mexico City Policy, such groups may not receive any government funds for any purpose. With the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, they are now allowed to receive funds for non-abortion related family planning programs. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 still prohibits any of those funds being used for abortions. > Second, Rape /= "Family Planning", So your 'rape' argument doesn't hold > water either. The money is disbursed for family planning. Not abortion. >>>>>> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >>>>>> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 1961 still prohibits any of those funds being used for > abortions. That's not the way I read it. It's suppertime, but I'll read it again later. From what I read, Obama REMOVED the restrictions on using the money for abortions entirely. >> Second, Rape /= "Family Planning", So your 'rape' argument doesn't hold >> water either. The money is disbursed for family planning. Not abortion. >>>>>>> It removes any restrictions from giving money to anyone who advocates or >>>>>>> performs abortions. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > From what I read, Obama REMOVED the restrictions on using the money for > abortions entirely. Then you need to give it another read. Obama's memorandum rescinded the Mexico City Policy, not the Foreign Assistance Act. Obama could not, even if he wanted to, rescind the Foreign Assistance Act, as it was an act of Congress. >>> Second, Rape /= "Family Planning", So your 'rape' argument doesn't hold >>> water either. The money is disbursed for family planning. Not abortion. >>> It is perhaps the dumbest thing he has done to date. Even Clinton didn't >>> do this many stupid things in one week. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/01/1993-01-22-aid-family-planning-grants-mexico-ci ty-policy.html >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationP lanning/ Oh, I'm sorry, I misread that. You're saying Clinton *DID* do as many dumb-a.s things in one week as Obama! > He is in favor of Partial-Birth Abortion, There's no such thing, at least not medically, and late term abortions aren't done except to save the mother. You've been duped by Jerry Falwell. >> He is in favor of Partial-Birth Abortion, > > There's no such thing, at least not medically, That's what they're called. > and late term abortions > aren't done except to save the mother. You've been duped by Jerry > Falwell. Who? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who? Whoever told you that late term abortions were done for any reason other than to save the mother. If not Jerry Falwell, lying Kristian pig of a preacher, then.... WHO TOLD YOU incorrect information about late term abortions? Your uninformed or misinformed opinion does not deserve a reply. >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > WHO TOLD YOU incorrect information about late term abortions? > >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > WHO TOLD YOU incorrect information about late term abortions? Reasons for later abortion In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3] ? 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation ? 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion ? 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents ? 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion ? 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change ? 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion ? 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant ? 6% Woman didn't know timing is important ? 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion ? 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy ? 11% Other Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >>> and late term abortions >>> aren't done except to save the mother. You've been duped by Jerry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whoever told you that late term abortions were done for any reason other > than to save the mother. But that wasn't what was in the legislation, IIRC. It was open-ended. >>>> and late term abortions >>>> aren't done except to save the mother. You've been duped by Jerry [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But that wasn't what was in the legislation, IIRC. It was open-ended. The legislation would have outlawed intact dilation & extraction (the medical procedure otherwise known as partial-birth abortion) with no exceptions whatsoever. > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > extraction (the medical procedure otherwise known as > partial-birth abortion) with no exceptions whatsoever. Those last 3 words being the sticking point. Cathy >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Cathy Yup. I would have voted against it until it was reworded. >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I would have voted against it until it was reworded. And yet you have a problem with Obama voting against it for the very same reason? If I recall correctly, Democrats tried to amend the bill to add an exception clause, but were shot down by the Republicans, who saw it a big campaign issue. >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clause, but were shot down by the Republicans, who saw > it a big campaign issue. Every once in a while the Democrats screw up and do something right. >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I would have voted against it until it was reworded. O-kay... but you seemd to be complaining about Obama voting against it, which doesn't tally with what you're saying now... Cathy >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Cathy He voted to allow partial birth abortion with no restrictions. I would have voted against pba under any circumstances until wording was changed. >>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > He voted to allow partial birth abortion with no restrictions. I would > have voted against pba under any circumstances until wording was changed. But where would that leave a woman whose pregnancy had extenuating circumstances, in the meantime?? Up the creek with no boat & no paddle. Cathy >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Cathy Bed. Made. Lie in it. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Cathy There are other ways. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Cathy My wife had a pregnancy that had extenuating circumstances. Instead of killing the kid....she let him live. He is a magnificent human being. ....and a Conservative. You libs would have killed him. SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Scott in Florida If a rape victim was desperately poor, had the baby, and ended up on welfare, you'd bitch about her being a single mother who couldn't keep her legs shut, and now she was leeching off society. Shut the f.ck up, you drunken old piece of sh.t. >Shut the f.ck up, you drunken old piece of sh.t. I suggest you check your facts. The last drink that entered my body was a Captain Morgan with Egg Nog. Only one.... SignatureScott in Florida > If a rape victim was desperately poor, had the baby, and ended up on > welfare, You know, most rapists are caught and sentanced. In prison they are supposed to have jobs and get paid for them. Here's a novel idea, and one that Liberals will *NEVER* go for: take the rapists pay to cover the cost of the abortion. Works for me. He didn't need to smoke, anyway. >> If a rape victim was desperately poor, had the baby, and ended up on >> welfare, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Works for me. He didn't need to smoke, anyway. I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about this. >I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and >rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about >this. I heard about that in Iraq also. >>I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and >>rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about >>this. > > I heard about that in Iraq also. Right. Hack doesn't know about these things. His news source is a cereal box. >>>I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and >>>rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right. Hack doesn't know about these things. His news source is a cereal > box. Not at all. From what I've seen recently, my news sources are better (or at least more up to date) than yours. Tell me, why should i care, and why should I pay for it? >>>>I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and >>>>rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tell me, why should i care, Because those women are human, as you are. Does compassion quit at one's borders?? Cathy >>>>I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and >>>>rape is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tell me, why should i care, and why should I pay for it? Because you agreed with one of the reasons we skull f.cked Iraq: We're humanitarians who save foreigners from bad things. >>> If a rape victim was desperately poor, had the baby, and ended up on >>> welfare, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I was thinking more of Africa, where most rapists are in uniform, and rape > is used to terrorize the population. Certainly you've read about this. Yup. Tell me, why should I pay for it? >> If a rape victim was desperately poor, had the baby, and ended up on >> welfare, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's a novel idea, and one that Liberals will *NEVER* go for: take the > rapists pay to cover the cost of the abortion. Why not? Seems fair to me. Cathy > Works for me. He didn't need to smoke, anyway. >>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > He voted to allow partial birth abortion with no restrictions. I would > have voted against pba under any circumstances until wording was changed. No, he voted against a bill to outlaw it with no exceptions. Legislation that you wrote that you, too, would oppose. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > No, he voted against a bill to outlaw it with no exceptions. > Legislation that you wrote that you, too, would oppose. I'd vote for that first and then work on a different bill. Oh, wait! Barry presented NO bills in Congress... > >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Oh, wait! Barry presented NO bills in Congress... So Dubya is your baseline. How many bills did Dubya present to Congress in his 8 years as cheney stooge? >On Jan 29, 12:00 am, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >> > Hachiroku ???? wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >So Dubya is your baseline. How many bills did Dubya present to >Congress in his 8 years as cheney stooge? Wiretap terrorists and irritate the liberals....for one. SignatureScott in Florida >>On Jan 29, 12:00 am, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote: >>> > Hachiroku ???? wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Wiretap terrorists and irritate the liberals....for one. Having a battle of wits with another unarmed LIEberal again, eh? Sir Charles the Curmudgeon >> I'd vote for that first and then work on a different bill. >> >> Oh, wait! Barry presented NO bills in Congress... > > So Dubya is your baseline. How many bills did Dubya present to > Congress in his 8 years as cheney stooge? No, he's not. I never really liked Bush right from the beginning. I've said that about a hundred tmes before. Bear that in mind next time. >>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I'd vote for that first and then work on a different bill. Consistent, aren't we? Look at what you wrote just a few minutes earlier: "I would have voted against it until it was reworded." > Oh, wait! Barry presented NO bills in Congress... Actually, Obama presented quite a few bills in the Senate. I recall listing a few dozen of them here a few months ago. Ah, yes, here it is. Here are a few of the bills Obama introduced: > 13. S.115 : A bill to suspend royalty relief, to repeal certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > 126. S.AMDT.4330 to S.CON.RES.70 To provide an additional $5 million to the military departments' respective Boards for Correction of Military Records to expedite review of cases in which service members with combat-related psychological injuries (such as PTSD) or closed head injuries (such as TBIs) were administered discharges for personality disorders or other discharges resulting in a loss of benefits or care and seek a correction of records or upgraded discharge. > How do you read it? Have you looked into his stance on abortion? He is in > favor of Partial-Birth Abortion, he is in favor of letting aborted fetuses > that didn't die immediately rot in closets or dumpsters; this is just > another way to advance his stance on abortion since he can't do it here. You need to stop getting your "facts" from your geologist friends. >> How do you read it? Have you looked into his stance on abortion? He is in >> favor of Partial-Birth Abortion, he is in favor of letting aborted fetuses >> that didn't die immediately rot in closets or dumpsters; this is just >> another way to advance his stance on abortion since he can't do it here. > > You need to stop getting your "facts" from your geologist friends. YOU need to get more current information sources. I wasn't aware you were wearing Obama Blinders, too... >>>> Maybe because we do nothing about warmongers who use rape the way other >>>> armies use ammo. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that didn't die immediately rot in closets or dumpsters; this is just > another way to advance his stance on abortion since he can't do it here. You are letting yourself be duped by the extreme right wing idiots. He voted in favor of late term abortions because there was no clause in the bill which allowed for the health/life of the mother to come into play. Cathy > It is perhaps the dumbest thing he has done to date. Even Clinton didn't > do this many stupid things in one week. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > As far as one of the "stupidest things I've ever struggled to say", you've > just displayed your ignorance on the subject. >>> That was one of the stupidest things you've ever struggled to say. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > voted in favor of late term abortions because there was no clause in the > bill which allowed for the health/life of the mother to come into play. True. That's the way I heard it worded, also. Splitting hairs. He also supported no medical care for aborted fetuses that LIVED, too. Somehow, the left never found a good way to spin this to a positive... >> Not until we get a real CiC whose concerns are ours rather than those of >> our sworn enemies. > > Nah...this tactic was used by Sot and other fools constantly around here for > the longest time. No criticizing the president while a war's going on. That's great as long as the President doesn't roll over on his back to have his belly rubbed... > > On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Not until we get a real CiC whose concerns are ours rather than those > of our sworn enemies. then your sworn enemies must be the USA and freedom because President Obama is for those things and is against terrorism and al Qaeda. No wonder your credit card accounts show no purchases of pork or porn. >>> On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Obama is for those things and is against terrorism and al Qaeda. No > wonder your credit card accounts show no purchases of pork or porn. That was actually funny, Larry. No joke. Clever. But all I've seen so far is an order of priorities that I saw in 1992. Just a rerun, which leads me to my previously stated conclusion. Your rhetoric doesn't change what he's done already. Your uninformed or misinformed does not deserve a reply >> > On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Obama is for those things and is against terrorism and al Qaeda. No > wonder your credit card accounts show no purchases of pork or porn. > President > Obama is for those things and is against terrorism and al Qaeda they're going to walk all over him. As our some of our 'friends' who have other plans. This was a dumb move... In article <88cdf2b9-8888-4b02-9c9c-a9008b9e7aa1@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are at war? You > must be a terrorist sympathizer and an al qaeda supporter. because noboma is an idiot. Signature"It's deja vu all over again" Yogi Berra >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are at war? You > must be a terrorist sympathizer and an al qaeda supporter. it's pretty easy when he does stupid things that put us behind the 8 ball because the lefty-k00ks think it will 'heal the world'. > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott in Florida This is excellent news. This will help keep space from becoming a military zone. This is an example of Obama using his brain to help the US and the world. Jeff You mean like allowing US taxpayer money to pay for abortions in Africa will not lead to more babies being killed On Jan 26, 10:55 am, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott in Florida This is excellent news. This will help keep space from becoming a military zone. This is an example of Obama using his brain to help the US and the world. Jeff >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Jeff You have to be f.cking kidding.... Did YOU see what China did with a satellite? You are a f.cking moron.... SignatureScott in Florida >> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50O15X20090125 >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff You'll soon realize the rest of the world doesn't give a DAMN what the US thinks or does, and some will go ahead and produce and deploy space weapons whether we approve or not. The plans are already in the works. Obama is playing a dangerous game, just like Carter did in thinking if we do the 'right' thing the rest of the world will play by our rules. Carter found out different and luckily it was only one term until Reagan came in and remedied the situation. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.