Kendricks to JamesBR on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 03:38 pm

"...Traitors (like you) would have us sit around with our thumbs up our collective ass..."

Kendricks on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 10:45 am

"...All of you pussies and handwringers (Jackoff, Explorer, Dogbreath, and anyone else supporting Hussein)..."

Kendricks on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 08:34 pm

"...This is not a surprise, since none of your treasonous rantings can defeat the very simple truths which Batster and I have set forth..."

But I wouldn't expect you to remember what you posted anyways.

Dartagnan,

If you want to go back and search through this voluminous thread you will find that:

1. I have always talked about Anti-War Protesters. You know, the guys with the signs equating Bush with Hitler. And spouting all of the silly "No blood for Oil" chants. Those guys are, in my opinion, at worst traitors because they either actively attack the US or they aid Saddam in the propaganda wars. Or, at a minimum, they are useful idiots for Saddam. They are in effect apologists on his behalf by trying to put him on the same moral plane as Bush. If you are one of these placard carrying agitators, then I guess I consider you either a traitor or a useful idiot. But I have never said that people who are simply opposed to the war are traitors.

2. I have respected and even agreed with much of Actionjacksons argument. I would like to quaff a moosehead with him someday. I would probably like him. I definitely like his writing. Even if our opinons are at loggerheads.

I agree with some of what Jamesbr has said. But he lost me when he started to get way out in the realms of conspiracy. In my opinion, his opposition to the war, like most war protesters, is based in an extreme dislike for Bush. With his animosity to Bush, I doubt he ever really voted for him.

I think you have been eloquent in defense of your opinions also. But in the end we are all expressing nothing more than opinions. Inasmuch as they are only opinions, yours are as valid as mine.

3. I have avoided direct attacks on fellow hombres, except when directly responding to a comentary directed at me. The only persons I have mocked are ActionCanuckson( in spirit of good fun)and Jamesbr because I could not help but laugh at the conspiracy theories.

4. While I am passionate about my beliefs, I rarely get angry during flame wars. One of the only people I have ever got mad at is Kendricks. A few weeks back, we got into it about race, uncle toms, and I dont remember what else. He told me, and not politely, that I am an imbecile with the intellect of a slug. He flamed me pretty good. But I understand that his rhetoric is always inflamatory, so I did not let it get to me too much. I suggest that you dont let it get to you either. I am surprised that he has gotten under your skin.

4. On this issue, Kendricks and I share many of the same opinions. His style may be more inflammatory than mine but we share many of the same beliefs. I think he feels, as I do, that the anti-war movement is a sham. It is not a peace movement. It is an anti-american and anti-bush movement. It is orchestrated principally by people who are indeed against the US. Its ranks are full of people who are indeed traitorous. It plays into the hands of Sadamm and others who do not have the best interests of the US in mind. While there are assuredly some people with good intentions involved in the movement they need to consider their associations. If you are against George Bush, there are far better ways to show it than protesting against the war and thus aiding Saddamm. If they hate America, as many certainly do, they should be clear about their motives and not by default support and assist a brutal dictator who has killed far more of his people than the US ever will.

5. Finally I believe that most of the arguments against the war are intellectually weak. At least formo a geopolitical point of view. I believe that history will show that most of the worst fears of the anti-war crowd will be proved unfounded. But these are just my opinions and nothing else. I have also said if everyon eis goinf to get so riled up, it is time to go back to concentrating on Panocha.

That is one thing we can definitely agree on. I have yet to do Asia, but I lived in Europe for three years, I have been to Canada, Africa and Central America. I have been living in Mexico for five. And I have decided that no matter what part of the world it is from, Panocha is gooood. Anybody care to argue that point? Cause if you do, you are definitely on the wrong board.

Kendricks, Batster,

So am I a patriot or not?

Prior to the start of the war I was completely against it. Since the start, I am have been wishing for an utterly devastating victory (the kind that will send a message to the rest of the middle east that we have no qualms about invading any country that pisses us off). Fuck the civilian or infrastructure losses. It's fucking war. What's a couple thousand more deaths when tens of thousands of people die every month for non-war reasons.

The Pres. first said it was to remove weapons of mass destruction. But just about everybody nowadays has them. What next, North Korea then Pakistan then India? What about us? While we're liberating these countries from their weapons, we're pulling out of non-proliferation treaties with the Russians. Do as I say and not as I do?

The Pres. says Osama and Sadam are in cahoots. But out of all the western intelligence organizations (including the CIA) the only ones that could make the connection was the Israeli Intel. and Iraqi Expats (like they don't have any ulterior motives).

The Pres. says a free Iraq will make the middle east a more stable region. I see a post-war democratic Iraq surrounded by totalitarian regimes (many of which we support) with populations angry and fatalistic enough to be willing to die to make a political statement. How does that stabilize the region?

So who do I believe? Do I trust my opinion reached through gathering information from various sources or do I listen to the Pres. (because I can only be with him or against him and his "GW superduper ultra hush-hush secret" information).

Even fricken Canada (our largest national park) is doubtful of the reasons for this war. Russia, Germany, France, fuck them, they have reasons for not going to war just like we have reasons for war. But Canada? Do I assume that the Pres. is smarter than the entire Canadian government?

How do I as an American with a well thought out and defendable opinion express it and still remain a patriot?


Now having said that, I think they did "shock and awe" all wrong. First, they should have filled every 4th missile with fireworks. Then, every night, pick a new suburb of Baghdad, drop enough of those MOABs to spell out the initial "W" while filling the sky with fireworks. Then for the icing, have the guys that did the fountains at the Ballegio coordinate the bombing and music broadcast via VOA or BBC. We awe them with our precision and shock them with our total disregard for cost for lost of life. Now that would be something worth being shocked and awed over. As long as my foot is in the boot I don't have any problems with stepping on a few heads to keep my standard of living.


But seriously am I a patriot? And why am I (or not)?


" We watch our kids get bullied for being different. We watch our children settle their differences by blowing each other away at school. We wrench our hands in agony and confusion and wonder where they could have possibly learned this behavior. Oh well, it's time to put down another country that disagrees with us (at least the ones that are too weak to hurt us back)." Me.

Actionjackson,

If you ever want to drop me a line, my email is batster37@hotmail.com. No hate mail or virus bombs please.

I still owe you a response on why some of us wacky americans are so strange and why foreigners dont understand us and why we dont understand foreigners. I just have not had time to respond.

I am out for the weekend guys. Anyone going to TJ or anywhere else please play safe. I might think your ideas are idiotic, but I hope to see everyone back on Monday or Tuesday( I love my long weekends)

Basterwhoisinamakepeacemood

Batster, I have no issue with most of what you say. I have little to say about card-carrying protesters, particularly disruptive ones. I do believe, though, that the right to protest is valuable. I do not believe that the anti-war movement is anti-Bush driven.

As a proud American, I do take issue with being called a traitor to my country for EXPRESSING my thoughts on what I THINK is best for my country. Call me a gaping bleeding pussy or whatever...ha, ha...but a traitor to my country? I won't laugh at that.

You've been coherent and intelligent in your arguments and I knew YOU were referring to the street crowd, but what amazed me is that you missed that this discussion went beyond discussion of what's happening in the street and that people posting here are being accused (in JamesBR's case) or at a minimum strongly suggested of being traitors just for posting. You didn't seem to disagree with Kendricks on that one or maybe just didn't pay close attention. I just wanted to make sure you didn't lose your mind.

Hey, did I mention to you guys that I met this very nice hard bodied 19 year old (birthday March 25) and we fucked and jacuzzied for three hours at La Mansion Thursday evening.

She drank three shots of tequila and two beers before we left for the motel. I don't ever remember being with such an uninhibited teenager.

She sucked my balls and licked my ass and tried to get me to stick the big fella in her culo.

After giving me a great sin condom blowjob we fucked in the bed in every position she or I could come up with and then I filled her nice young pussy with cum.

We then relaxed and watched some porn, which she seemed to enjoy, and then took a hot sudsy jacuzzi where she started sucking my cock until it came back to attention. She then squatted on top of me and started going up and down, slowly at first and then grinding down had on me and rapidly moving back and forth. She did this until she had a groaning climax.

I was not finished so we got out of the jacuzzi took a shower together where we fucked some more. After toweling off I led her back to bed where I spread her slender long legs and slid the big guy back in her soaking tight pussy. I hammered away with her on bottom until I filled her up a second time (admittedly allot less leche).
When we finished we were both sweating and so we both took a second shower.

While she was cleaning up I ordered a shrimp cocktail and a club sandwich, which we split along with two cold Tecates. The food is quite good at La Mansion.

We never once talked about the war and I am going to see her on Monday.


(Message edited by ben on April 05, 2003)

(Message edited by ben on April 05, 2003)

Batster,

As always, thanks for the response. I'll take advantage of your peaceful mood to say that the beer is on me if we ever meet up here. Ever tried Creemore? ;)

I suspect you and I would agree on much, though I just cannot agree with some of the language you use to describe these misguided protesters. I've always thought 'Traitor' is a pretty strong word, and nothing I've seen suggests that the majority of protesters in the U.S. want anything but the best for their country. It's rhetoric like that that keeps good people from recognizing common ground.

I'm guilty of it myself from time to time, as my insults of Kendricks show. If only it wasn't so much fun to openly speculate about the latent tendencies that make him so funny. ;)

Xhoner, (do you pronounce that "zoner"?)

you said,

" Even fricken Canada (our largest national park) is doubtful of the reasons for this war. Russia, Germany, France, fuck them, they have reasons for not going to war just like we have reasons for war. But Canada? Do I assume that the Pres. is smarter than the entire Canadian government? "

You couldn't expect me not to touch that one could you? First, thanks for the backhanded, "Even fricken Canada".

Your last sentence is a question that would not be safe to ask anywhere in Canada EVEN with Dubya as Prez. Let me tell you why the Canadian government decided not to support the U.S.

There's one reason, and one reason only. Jean Chretien. My take on politicians is that it's very very rare to find one who's in politics for the right reasons, (i.e. public service). Most are there for power, and J.C. epitomizes the type. Worked his way up from the mean streets of a tough little working class Quebec town and never looked back. As politicians go, I like the guy cuz he's a wily mean bastard and always good for a laugh.

The decision to go against the U.S. on this war was made by him alone, because he's leaving in February of 2004. That's right, he gave the nation 18 months notice of his departure! He will be replaced by a guy who's already taken control of the Liberal party, Paul Martin. Martin is poised to become Prime Minister when Chretien leaves. The two are enemies.

Chretien sniffed the political wind, decided correctly that the public mood would interpret his thumbing his nose at Dubya as 'gutsy and independent', and stood up in Parliament to shout, "Canada will not participate!", to roaring applause from every party except our version of conservatives. In doing so, he made himself wildly popular with the anti-war majority, AND left a U.S. relations mess for Martin to clean up. He wins two ways, looks good to the people, and kicks his enemy in the teeth.

Trust me, if anyone else had been Prime Minister, Canada would've been right where it always is, tagging along with the U.S., asking if we could play with some of your shiny new military equipment instead of our obsolete broken down stuff, and reassuring ourselves that we're still a sovereign country dammit!

Ben,

That sounds like an excellent time. I've been out of extra curricular action for a while, but also resumed yesterday. Up here in Toronto a lot of the action is in massage places. There are over 300 in the GTA. (If any of you guys ever need info, I'm your man. Nothing as good as Mexico I'm sure, but with the weak Canadian $ you can still get a pretty good deal up here).

Anyway, though I love to get to Thailand when I can, while I'm home I indulge in the many Russian cuties that staff the MP places. Olga is one I met at an MP several months ago, we hit it off, and now we fuck for free at her place. She's in her early 30's, (I'm 38), she's got the biggest natural wonder of the world tits, and a still firm but curvy body. What I like about Russians is the work ethic they bring to fun. She takes my shoes off when I come through the door, massages me, gets me a drink, always wears the lingerie I like. Amazing. It's why I read Explorer's posts with such envy - Imagine being set loose in the country this type of gal comes from!

Xhonher said, "Since the start, I am have been wishing for an utterly devastating victory (the kind that will send a message to the rest of the middle east that we have no qualms about invading any country that pisses us off). Fuck the civilian or infrastructure losses. It's fucking war. What's a couple thousand more deaths when tens of thousands of people die every month for non-war reasons."

That's all that counts, brother. Once the fireworks started, you are on our side. Consider yourself a patriot.

People get too caught up in whether the stated reasons for anything given by any politician are true. The truth is, everyone uses propaganda.

One disgusting truth is that the typical American soccer mom and her pussywhipped boy-man of a husband cannot come to grips with the fact that sometimes, you need to take the gloves off and rip some fuckers intestines out. Period. So, the prez and his men need to come up with some happy sounding bullshit to keep the weak-willed and weak-kneed on our side. So don't get upset when you hear this crap, just chuckle, and understand that the prez is simply doing his job.

A lot of you guys would seriously benefit from reading "The Art Of War" by Sun Tzu. One of the most important passages is:

"Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:

(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (

4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."

Pay special attention to Point 5.

The whole text of this work can be viewed at: http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

LJ,

Jean Chretien is almost a communist and should have converted to capitalism like your Russian girlfriend.

I have never cared much for the people of Quebec and the liberal crowd of eastern Canada. The guys I have always enjoyed being around come from Calgary and western Canada. These canucks are fun loving and know how to party,

I once hooked up with a bunch of Okie friends in Vancouver and we took off in an old PBY WW II vintage plane to fly up north to go salmon fishing. These four guys from Calgary showed up (late) and rolled on the plane and we took off. As I was watching oil flying off the engines on to the wings, one of these Canadian guys opens a bottle of Canadian Club, throws away the cap and passes it up to us as a way of introduction. We all hit it off great for a week together.

They worked and owned a trucking company in Calgary and were hell raisers, but genuinely good guys.

Nothing like your current sour faced PM.

Ben,

I guess by American standards Chretien would be seen as a commie...but believe me, he can sound like anyone from Lenin to Henry Ford, depending on the latest poll.

There's definately a culture clash between east and west up here. My job used to require regular travel from Vancouver to Halifax, so I learned to get along with all types. Don't be so quick to write off the Quebekers, believe me, they know how to party and they have a lot of hot women!

Kendricks, ah Kendricks.

Once again, you open your mouth and reveal a world class echo chamber. Here's why you're wrong...again.

I agree that once a country declares and engages in a war - the fighting should be waged with all the power that can be brought against the enemy to inflict as devastating a victory as possible. That's how you teach people to think twice before messing with you. In the long term such an approach will save lives.

However, the waging of the war is a wholly separate business from deciding when and why to go to war.

Even after a war starts, people should not be obligated to agree with the government - or else be considered unpatriotic.

As a free society, the U.S. has recognized the right of people to object to a war, but remain good citizens in the eyes of the government. Your kind of patriotism is of the type that gives American patriotism a bad name. It's shallow and doesn't bear examination, like most of your arguments.

If we reduce your logic to a formula and apply it to any other government process, the absurdity is obvious. For example, the government may wish to reduce the highway speed limit to 20 mph. If they manage to pass that law, and I remain a vocal opponent of it, should I be considered a malcontent? Would I be wrong to continue to agitate to have the law changed? No, and many people would consider it 'civic minded' of me to continue my efforts to change such a law.

It's the same with the protesters. They believe the war was a bad idea for America and see it as their civic duty and right to try and get the policy changed. You may disagree with them, but if tomorrow there's a government in power that tries to take action which YOU do not agree with, you would not appreciate being called a traitor just because you voice your dissent.



(Message edited by luckyjackson on April 05, 2003)

Kendricks,

Are we on the side that sees this war as creating more problems than solutions?

The only benefit(?) I see coming from this war is it will eventually lead to a redistribution of wealth and power. Since the end of the cold war, all military and economic power has been centralized in one nation. This war will force the world to recognize the inherent dangers of that. Look closely and you will see the laws of nature being played out on CSPAN.

"(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." That's the one that's the big stickler right now ain'tit. Do we win with the conquest of Iraq? Or do we win when there's a stable world with a healthy economy that would allow Americans (and the occasional Canadian, speaking of which, did you hear Dominoes will now deliver you a Hawaiian pizza with pineapple and Freedom bacon in 30 minutes or less) to travel safely to foreign countries so I can fuck their young virgin daughters.



Xhohner = zoner…hmm, my sublimanable mind at work I guess.

Kendricks,

Are we on the side that sees this war as creating more problems than solutions?

The only benefit(?) I see coming from this war is it will eventually lead to a redistribution of wealth and power. Since the end of the cold war, all military and economic power has been centralized in one nation. This war will force the world to recognize the inherent dangers of that. Look closely and you will see the laws of nature being played out on CSPAN.

"(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." That's the one that's the big stickler right now ain'tit. Do we win with the conquest of Iraq? Or do we win when there's a stable world with a healthy economy that would allow Americans (and the occasional Canadian, speaking of which, did you hear Dominoes will now deliver you a Hawaiian pizza with pineapple and Freedom bacon in 30 minutes or less) to travel safely to foreign countries so I can fuck their young virgin daughters.



Xhohner = zoner…hmm, my sublimanable mind at work I guess.

A post so nice he posted it twice...

If by 'benefits' you mean directly to the U.S., then an increase in stability, (the kind that comes from stable pro U.S. gov's that is), is the major benefit.

The other benefit, and the chief reason for my support of the war, is the chance that Iraqis get to make something better for themselves. After Hussein, they'd have to be pretty damn unlucky, stupid, or both to wind up with something worse.

Nice story Ben

(Message edited by snapper on April 05, 2003)

Batster wrote,

"I have avoided direct attacks on fellow hombres, except when directly responding to a comentary directed at me. The only persons I have mocked are ActionCanuckson( in spirit of good fun)and Jamesbr because I could not help but laugh at the conspiracy theories.... While I am passionate about my beliefs, I rarely get angry during flame wars. One of the only people I have ever got mad at is Kendricks. A few weeks back, we got into it about race, uncle toms, and I dont remember what else. He told me, and not politely, that I am an imbecile with the intellect of a slug. He flamed me pretty good. But I understand that his rhetoric is always inflamatory, so I did not let it get to me too much. I suggest that you dont let it get to you either. I am surprised that he has gotten under your skin. "

Well, I have to agree with Batster. At the same time, I just want to say that there's no shortage of utter whack jobs at this site and on this thread, not just (obviously) Kendricks. May I suggest that you all put yourselves out of your misery by blowing your collective brains out? Make the world a better place. And please take Florida with you.

peace on earth

Dogster

Dogster,

Where the hell is your trip report?

Also, stay away from Milkman, he is nothing but trouble. Imagine having Kramer as one of your friends.

If you just chopped off the upper half of Florida and saved on the east side say Jupiter on down and on the west side from Sarasota on down you would have a great state.

I think it is silly to be angry at Bush over the fact that Democrats don't understand how to use punch cards or follow directions (low intellect). Boohoohoo

Please quit spreading the rumor that Kendricks is not 100% sincere regarding his posts. It takes away from his credibility.

I agree that there are many strange people on this board and I am one of the few 'normal" ones.

Go Kansas and never take advice from Sampson.

Dogster, if you are referring to me as one of these "whack jobs" I must let you know I am highly offended. Just because I take this computer stuff extremely seriously doesn't mean I'm a "whack job". Here I thought you liberals were supposed to be of a more compassionate ideological makeup. I would really appreciate it if you a little more sensitive to others feelings when you post. thanks

CHSnapper

Saddam Hussein is riding in a limo, crossing Iraq. As they near a farm, a pig darts in front of the limo and is struck and killed. Saddam instructs the driver to tell the farmer about the pig's death. The driver goes.

An hour goes by and Saddam is getting impatient. Finally, the limo driver comes back. He's got a bottle of booze in one hand, a cigar in the other, and his clothes are half torn-off. "What happened to you?", Saddam exclaims.

The driver responds "the farmer gave me the
booze, the famer's wife gave me the cigar, and the farmer's daughter drug me into the bedroom and fucked me silly. And all I said when
they opened the door was 'I am sorry to bring bad news, but I am Saddam Hussein's chauffer and I just killed the pig!'"

Ben and the rest of you nut cases, settle down for chrissakes.

Lately I think you've been poking holes in too many butterfly ballots, Ben.

See the article, "Butterfly ballot cost Gore White House"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/

Key quote from article:

"Are these stupid voters? Or is it a stupid voting system? There's certainly evidence here that these were not stupid voters," University of California-Berkeley Professor Henry Brady said. Regarding elderly voters, "The butterfly ballot discombobulated them," Brady said.

Feel the power. Listen to the experts.

Withoutn reading the article, I do know the Democratic party had to approve the ballot format before the ballots were printed.

This is very old news and I still say it was a much bigger problem for Democrats to understand than Republicans.

I remember seing one little old lady who obviously had immigrated from New York crying because she had been confused by the butterfly vote.

Dog, Just get over it. ITS OVER!!

Benwhoisabutterflyconservative

Dogster, getting past your denial is the first step. Thanks for crack'n me up again-lol


"The newspaper said the result was "an indictment of the butterfly ballot, political experts and partisan observers agree."

So this writer for The Palm Beach Post feels he can speak for ALL political experts and partisan observers, or can I assume that he/she means democrats when he/she says "political experts and partisan observers". In fact that's exactly what he/she means because a few lines later he goes out of his way in pointing out the political affiliation Marc Racicot when he/she writes, "But former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, a Republican who advised Bush's recount effort in Florida, dismissed the Post's findings."


"The confusion hurt Bush, too: 1,631 people punched Bush and Buchanan, whose hole was below his on the ballot. But Gore was the bigger loser: the two Gore combinations, minus the Bush-Buchanan votes, totaled 6,607 lost votes for Gore, the Post found."

This just proves that on average the Democrats have a much higher percentage of voters that aren't intelligent enough to punch out the hole next to their candidate's name. Ok ok, I won't say they "aren't intelligent". How about "easier to confuse".


Have you ever noticed that you never see a picture of this "ever so confusing" ballot that goes along with is story, why is that? After all this was the biggest news story 2000.
This is just another fine example of a journalist pushing his/her agenda and not looking at the story objectively.


-snapper-who takes this computer stuff just as seriously as Dogster

Did you guys know I am meeting a just turned 19 year old for mucho whisky and sex tomorrow?

Now the question for me is it politically correct to fuck her in the ass tommorow?

What if she has a butterfly ass?

YES___ NO____

As a Palm Beach County resident (when I'm not whoring in another country), permit me to eggsplain something here.

First and foremost, the Palm Beach Post is a liberal rag unfit for lining the bottom of your birdcage. Don't believe a word they write.

Second, Palm Beach County is urban and demographically bent towards the left. Democrats run this burg, get the picture? The ballot was produced by and approved by democrats - a crime that will haunt them into their next life (likely somewhere in a burning inferno with their sordid leader Slick Willy, no doubt)

Third, EVERY opportunity to skew the election results to the left was explored by the Palm Beach Liberals. None was found.

Fourth, we now have a beautiful new elections and ballots building at the corner of "Gun Club Rd" and "Military Trail". Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?

Fifth. I've met Dogster. Believe me, he's no John F Kennedy.

Donwhojustwantsusalltogetalong

"I knew John F. Kennedy and you are no John F. Kennedy."

We need to work on Doggie. He would be allot happier if he would just forget about his college days.

I think Bush will win in a landside next year and Doggie had better get use to it.

benwhoisgoingoutsidetosmokeacubanwithmonicalewinsky

This is funny... Read the right column..

http://www.fromthepen.com/swings/index.html

Y'all just listen to that UC Berkeley professor in the article and get over yourselves, ok? GO BEARS.

Making allusions to Lloyd Bentsen??? He was one of ours... I mean... a democrat, and Dan Quayle was a product of Bush Senior. So piss off and die all of you.

Snapper, I can't believe you are quoting former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot from that article. As I recall, he had nothing bright to say...

The main problem that the demos had in Fla was their own constituency.When you give a crackhead a pack of cigarettes, write down the name and send him into the booth by himself,you never know whats going to happen.

You recall incorrectly. He was the only person in that article that wasn't discombobulated.

Ben,

"I think Bush will win in a landside next year"

Actually, eventhough he's not my idea of a President as I pointed out in a recent rant ((((hic))))), and I usually vote demo, I hope you're correct.

Why? Because if he wins in a landslide, that would be due to a prosperous economy and victory in Iraq. Two very difficut tasks. If he accomplishes them, he deserves another term. Unless of course, there is an obviously better choice, and I haven't seen any yet.

Dogdukakis,

Lloyd Bentsen may have been a Democrat, but he was a very intelligent man in spite of his party affiliation. It seems to me almost all elected congressman from Texas in his era had to be Democrats to be elected. He was a friend to the oil and gas industry and not exactly your kind of guy. Also started a bunch of banks, insurance companies and mutual funds.

He did an excellent job at the Treasury before another quasi Democrat by the name of Robert Rubin took over.

The only bear I like is Oso Negro

OPEC calling a special meeting as they fear there will be a glut of oil once Iraq settles down. OPEC fears that oil will drop down under $20 once Iraq lets AMERICAN COMPANIES come in and develope the oil fields.

I think the Middle East will be very U.S. friendly once this is all over.

U.S coalition is kicking Iraq worse than Kansas beat Marquette

I think I've won five in a row (having said that it will end now). Ben will win this week.

Dow 8292

Hey,

You posted in the wrong area, but I will move it.

Yep, this really has been a great fucking war.

Reasons this has been a great fucking war:

*As long as the rednecks 'round here don't have to go trading in their gas-guzzlin', SUV-style Ford F-350's for a Toyota Tacoma? Great war

*Provided not too many American military persons had to die? Fab baby

*The U.S. of A. has now colonized a significant portion of the middle east, enabling us to reopen the pipeline to cheaper oil. Yeah!

How do you spell disaster for our economy? Get a growing share of a diminishing resource. Oil dependency MORE than terrorism or muslim extremism or ANYTHING else, is what this country must come to terms with.

This recession that we're in MAY have something to do with the fact that Johnny Paycheck don't have too much left over after filling his 30 gallon tank with gas prices up by 50%. Increased shipping and transportation costs are tacked onto every purchase we make, and have slowed our economy.

Sure the economy will rebound after this war. But will we do anything proactive to lessen our dependency on oil? I seriously doubt it.

I happen to have the utmost respect for both Bush presidents. Finer men have never held office. Should you disagree with their policies, so be it. At least they haven't turned out scandals by the hour like BillyBoy.

Donwhothinksdogsterisagravelenema

For me the best part has been before the war seeing the Ari Fleischer press briefings. I love the way he speaks with a somewhat monotone voice along with that annoying rhythm. I swear he probably does it just 'cause he knows that it bugs the shit out of Helen Thomas. She gets so worked up you can hear her blood pressure rising while Ari just loves watching lose her composure like a journalist with Terrets Syndrome.



"And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions. Helen.

Q At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --

Q They're not attacking you.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --

Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.

Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

Q So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown."

"Finer men have never held office. "

That whirring sound is Richard Nixon and Sam Grant spinning in their graves. ;)

Don, dogster is a step below a gravel enema, which some people actually might enjoy.

I thought this was humorous. Although I'm not sure I agree with the first statement in number 8.

Stolen from all over the internet and posted for those who may have somehow missed it:
***********************************************

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

And until you can find the bastard that made 9-11 possible, you could do worse than to practice on Saddam and his ilk. ;)

You know what I don't get? How is it that with all this marvellous technology, they can't find a 6'4 130 lb Arab? What's he doing, travelling on his knees with a pillow stuffed in his shirt?

I certainly don´t agree with pacifism under all circumstances. Clearly, the US was justified in taking out the Taliban in Afganistan, and - surprise - the rest of the world mostly agreed with us, and many countries participated.

Iraq is a different case, they never landed a punch on our nose.

We have been sucker-punched three times already. Thankfully this administration is protecting us from taking another hit. Only suckers get sucker-punched.

So we can take that as a guarantee of no more terrorist attacks? Please. 9-11 was no sucker punch.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein's government is soon to be history, but this war did nothing to resolve any of the terrorist threats facing the U.S. At this point, the danger to the U.S. is probably higher than it's ever been because of the resentment and hatred the war has stirred up among Arabs. I'm not saying they're right to hate the U.S., personally I wonder at how that anger bypasses their own corrupt and cruel governments. I'm just observing the fact that they do feel that way. And as long they do, there's a bigger pool of people to recruit terrorists from. These are elementary truths.

The people of Iraq may now be better off, and the thirst for revenge, or more accurately violence, may have been temporarily slaked among some in America, but Osama is laughing somewhere.

In the aftermath of the war, the U.S. will have an opportunity to "win hearts and minds", as the currently popular saying goes. Trouble is, the work of helping rather than killing people ain't sexy, and takes longer. For America and the world's sake, I hope Mr. Bush's resolve doesn't end with the petty toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Was going to post this in the humour section, but somehown I think it's need more here,

> "Axis of Evil"
> by John Cleese
>
> Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis
> of Evil", Libya,China and Syria today announced that
> they had formed the "Axis of Just
> as Evil", which they said would be more evil than that
> stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush
> warned of in his State of the Union address.
>
> Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed
> the new Axis as having, for starters, a really dumb
> name. "Right. They are just as evil . . . in their
> dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
> "Everybody knows we're the best evils . . . best at
> being evil . . . we're the best."
>
> Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over
> being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if
> they could join the Axis of Evil. They told us it was
> full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
>
> "An axis can't have more than three countries",
> explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not
> my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had
> Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you
> can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is
> wicked cool."
>
> International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil
> declaration was swift, as within minutes, France
> surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations
> rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become
> a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that
> they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil", forcing Somalia to join
> with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil", while
> Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much
> Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable".
>
> With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the
> desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador,
> and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries
> That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to
> Host the Olympics".
>
> Canada, Mexico and Australia formed the "Axis of
> Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have
> Some Nasty Thoughts About America", while Scotland,
> New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of
> Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick".
> "That's not a threat, really, just something we
> like to do", said Scottish Executive First Minister
> Jack McConnell.
>
> While wondering if the other nations of the world
> weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush
> granted approval for most axis, although he rejected
> the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose
> Names End in 'Guay", accusing one of its members of
> filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay,
> Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
>
> Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any
> Axis, but privately world leaders said that's only
> because no one asked them.
>
>


(Message edited by luckyjackson on April 08, 2003)

(Message edited by luckyjackson on April 08, 2003)

let's see

March 19, war started, DOW 8194

April 8, war still going but the Iraqi troops are getting slaughtered, DOW 8299

I currently don't see much point to all this.

Interesting TV tho, sort of.

Guess I have some Ferengi blood.

http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm

Gee, it looks like the war might be over. I feel safer already.

What great pictures on TV this morning of the Iraqis celebrating their freedom from Hussein!

All the handwringers and protesters can go pour themselves a nice big glass of "shut the fuck up" now. How terrible that we crushed an evil dictatorship, and kicked the fuck out of his military.

How ironic that there are still some Americans protesting this great campaign (it's over with now guys, go find another loser cause to waste your time on), when the Iraqi people themselves are ecstatic about their liberation!

So who's next? N. Korea? Iran? Bush has been awfully quiet about Castro. Are we gonna volunteer to referee the civil war in the Congo? Or are there no profits to be gained from such 'freedom ventures'?

Speaking of profits, any chance of selling fake looting booty from Iraq on Ebay? Shouldn't be THAT hard to find suckers to buy it, should it?

1. There is nothing wrong with profiting off of good deeds.

2. There is no obligation to perform good deeds, if there is no profit motive.

3. We only have so many military resources; they are best spent performing good deeds that will strengthen our economy, as well as confer a benefit on others.

4. If we squander our resources performing good deeds that have no profit motive, our ability to perform future good deeds, as well as our own economic interests, would suffer.

These are not particularly difficult concepts...