Calling all Belgians

On Apr 18, 7:12 pm, Fred Fredburger wrote:
Bill C wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:49 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Kveck, you are a lying son of a bitch because that's what you want to be.

Looks like these lying Commies agree with Kveck too!:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-06-voa14.cfm

Pentagon Probe Finds No Ties Between Saddam, Bin Laden
By VOA News
06 April 2007

Bill C

And while we're on the subject, check out the rant by this commie, pinko
*******:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17516.htm

As long as all you ****ing retards keep voting for a *leader* rather
than *servant*, then trouble will be worse than it could otherwise be,
and people with sense (i.e. me), will be worse off than we could
otherwise be. Democracy doesn't work, but you could at least attempt
to mitigate its damage.

"Its commonplace that self-selecting groups do not in fact find the
right answers via collective decision making. Rather, they end up in a
feast of groupthink, actually moving further and further away from
reality." -- tim worstall

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace.
We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may
posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams,
"Founding Father" and Angles-Land Public Enemy #1

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 19, 9:32 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence.

The evidence is seen in here every day, Tom. You cannot allow anyone to say
anything negative about much of any Republican and in the process, you do exactly
what he said you do: you hold him (actually *them*) accountable for nothing.

We didn't have a choice of Good vs Evil. We had mediocre vs a complete idiot and
we chose mediocre. We can't be too critical of him now.

Calling Bush "mediocre" gives him entirely too much credit. And, yes, we *can*
be critical of him - that's the first step of holding him accountable for his
actions.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move? And you don't even have the
courage to post under your own name and yet believe that someone
should destroy their entire life for you!

Posting "under your own name" doesn't take courage.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Fred Fredburger wrote:

wrote:
On Apr 19, 9:32 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
You are confused:

1. I don't blame Bush for everything; you simply hold him accountable
for NOTHING.

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence.

Funny, funny Tom!

There is GREAT evidence that I don't blame Bush for everything. Just
read anything I've had to say about Afghanistan, for instance.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move?

You're so funny!!!

Are you saying there has never been and never will be a President that
YOU criticize?

No, you're just saying you're a hypocrite.

As I mentioned elsewhere, he doesn't limit his non-accountability program to
just GWB. It applies to pretty much any Republican. See his comments on Watergate,
which he classifies as a "third-rate burglary":
___________________

It was a simple case of Nixon wanting not to win the election - for
which he was the run-away favorite - but he wanted to win it by an
overwhelming majority. If that is the case, AND IT WAS, then Watergate
was nothing but a third rate dirty election trick as both parties have
always pulled in each other.
___________________

Or see him wax poetic over Iran-Contra:
___________________

This was something that had to be dreamed up in the mind of some
standup comic of the time. Iran was going to get spare parts for their
US weapons systems one way or another. We all know that and don't
pretend that most of this stuff isn't available off of the black
market. This lunatic idea of selling the spare parts to the Iranians
(which probably the property of the Iranians to begin with) making a
profit on it and then using that to fund the contra war did have a
certain strange genius. The only real objection to all of this was
that Congress had made it illegal and not that anyone found anything
so morally illegitamate about it.
___________________

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...877af0ea067?hl

Tom's operating principle on this is "It's OK if you're a Republican" - IOKIYAR.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Apr 19, 4:21 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Bill, how long were we in WW II before we stopped retreating?

I'm not sure what you two are talking about Iran, and
for Iraq this really requires a Chung Chart, but here goes:

WW 2
US attacked: December 1941
First major strategic US victory: Midway, June 1942, 7 months later
(This is my opinion on what counts as stopping retreating.
On the Eastern front, it was 18 months from invasion to
Stalingrad.)
V-E day: May 1945, 42 months later
V-J day: August 1945, 45 months later

Iraq:
Invasion starts: March 2003
"Mission accomplished": May 2003, 2 months later
Current date: April 2007, 49 months later.

So, accepting your point that WW 2 and Iraq are strategically
identical, we should have tied it up about four months ago.
Maybe our problem is that we haven't dropped any atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look out, Hiroshima -
it worked last time.

Ben
RBR Dept. of Military History

wrote:

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence. We didn't have a choice of Good
vs Evil. We had mediocre vs a complete idiot and we chose mediocre. We
can't be too critical of him now.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move? And you don't even have the
courage to post under your own name and yet believe that someone
should destroy their entire life for you!


Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that the best argument against
democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter ??

Pretty well sums up this entire thread.


Bill

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:54:49 -0700, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Calling Bush "mediocre" gives him entirely too much credit. And, yes, we *can*
be critical of him - that's the first step of holding him accountable for his
actions.

I'm not sure why the Kunich wants a president that can't handle
criticism (OK, other than it would be a president much more likely to
be just like the Kunich). Last I heard, it comes with the territory.
If you want to be the controller, you answer to the board of
directors. If you want to be CFO or CEO, the same but more so. And if
you want to be POTUS, you answer to the citizens of the U.S. first and
the world second. You don't get elected to the head of the most
powerful country in the world to get a free ride for your actions and
miscarriages.

If you can't handle that, then stay home and ride your bike.

Sounds like the Kunich worries overly much about us hurting GWBs
feelings.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

wrote in message
oups.com...

So, accepting your point that WW 2 and Iraq are strategically
identical

I don't think we need to discuss anything with you.

"William R. Mattil" wrote in message
...
wrote:

It is always enlightening to see someone such as yourself making
claims like that without any evidence. We didn't have a choice of Good
vs Evil. We had mediocre vs a complete idiot and we chose mediocre. We
can't be too critical of him now.

Tell me, what competent person would want to be president with dopes
like you waiting to critique every move? And you don't even have the
courage to post under your own name and yet believe that someone
should destroy their entire life for you!

Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said that the best argument against
democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter ??

Pretty well sums up this entire thread.

Winston had a few astute observations under his belt.

Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't criticise Presidents for trying and failing. I criticize them if
they don't try at all. Maybe you don't understand the distinction but then
apparently most of those here are in the same boat as you.

Well, you need to communicate that a lot more clearly. A LOT of what you
say is strictly partisan. Your clear and unmistakable message is that
you support everything done by Republicans and denounce anything done by
Democrats.

Strangely, criticizing the Bush administration has become nonpartisan.
Stories like this are everywhere these days:

http://tinyurl.com/3e5zme

Damn - I thought this was about Franky VdB finishing 111th yesterday.....