GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:40:32 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

smb wrote:

Other than getting 3,000+ US soldiers killed for nothing what has
Bush done for us? The "cheap" oil we are trying to steal from Iraq
doesn't seem to be that cheap to us at the pumps. I guess just as
long as Exxon shows quarterly profits in the billions squandering
the lives of 3,000+ of someone else's kids are a real bargain?

Ah, the "no blood for oil" slogan raises its head again.... Keep
reading the liberal blogs and you'll find all sorts of things to
justify Bush bashing to yourself.

Hey, Bush even came out and said, "it's about the oil" in a press
conference. I give him credit for coming clean on that one when cornered.

Provide the full quote and entire context of Bush's statement before I
respond to it.


Since when were were trying to steal cheap oil from Iraq? That has
been a liberal fantasy from day one. You just don't want to face the
real reason for this war, and it isn't to make the price at the pump
lower, nor does it have anything to do with Haliburton. Go ahead
and get fitted for that burka, you may need it sooner than you think.

Tell us what the real reason for this war is?

The real reason? At the global level, radical Islam has declared
"holy" war on us and has been waging it for over two decades. We are
finally responding and demonstrating that "enough is enough."


You, like William, are more
than welcome to send your children and grandchildren off to die for this
cause you believe in so much. Again, I'll bet you are just another coward's
ass that doesn't mind sending someone else's kids off to die while you sit
on your ass collecting your SS check.


Sorry, I won't be getting a SS check for quite a few more years, thank
you.

I'm not sending off anyone's kids to die. There is no draft. Any
kid that joins the military knows full well what he/she is getting
into. Most of them, unlike yourself, understand that our way of life
and ultimately our survival may be at stake if we don't do something
about it now. Unlike the days of the VietNam draft, today's soldier
is the cream of the crop of our youth and most of them are actually
doing what they believe in.

Would you have had the same opinion if this were the 1930's and we
were sending our military over to Europe to fight the Nazis before
they gained a critical mass of military power? Would that be worth
sending anyone's children off to die?



It's funny how attitudes change when
this hits closer to home.

If I had a son who was eligible and who wanted to enlist and go over
there, I would be proud. Worried, concerned, yes. But very proud.

As for the burka, it doesn't bother me since we
are trading one dictatorship's burka for another.


I'm afraid you'll have to explain that one a little better...



Steve

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:59:55 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 7/29/07 10:14 AM, in article ,
"Alan Browne" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

Stick to your own politics, eh? You guys have one of the most screwed up
Socialist p.o.s. Govt. in the Wewstern Hemisphere, besides Chavez's little
circus.

Yawn. At least we do have reducing Fed debt and, compared to the US:

Stronger government accountability:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Vo...0-%20chart.png

Higher political stability:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Po...0-%20chart.png

Better governmental effectiveness:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Go...0-%20chart.png

Slightly higher regulatory quality:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Re...ty%20chart.png

Stronger rule of law:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Ru...0-%20chart.png

and better corruption control:
http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Co...ls%20chart.png

Source: http://info.worldbank.org/governance..._countries.asp

(I included Venezuela in the charts so you can see what a totally
ignorant idiot you are).

;-)
Snort!

Tell me about your Healthcare system, while you are at it. You cross over
the Border seeking help, otherwise you would croak waiting in line.

We should have let John Candy have his way with you: "It Gets Lonely at the
Top, When There's No More Butt to Kick."


Is he talking about Canada? Let's not forget that our friends up
north have seriously limited freedom of speech...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:37:11 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:36:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:

I'm also a veteran, and I know that the price of freedom is not just a
right-wing slogan. If the pacifists had their way in WWII, we
wouldn't be arguing today about whether Nikons are better than Canons.
We would likely be slave labor in their factories making them.
You ignoramus! The Pacificts DID have their way in WW II which resulted
in the US and Brits not attacking the Soviet Union.


I think you're the ignoramus... I'm talking about fighting Japan,
not the Soviets. Pay attention before you launch into lame name
calling.

You pay attention. The point is that because there was no US/Europe war
against the Sovs at the time that the Sovs were weakest; such a war
would have prevented the cold war; nuclear arms races, the Korean War,
the Vietnam War, the US luring the Sovs into Afghanistan, etc.


Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the fact that the
pacifists didn't keep us out of WWII? As I recall you called me an
ignoramus for that. What the Soviets may or may not have done after
WWII had nothing to do with my point.




If we had sat back after Pearl Harbor and tried to reason with them as
to why they attacked us, they would have been in California just as
soon as they were finished raping China.

I never suggested any different

Instead, we aggressively
pursued them across the Pacific, destroyed their empire, all but
eliminated their navy and laid waste to their cities. All at the cost
of far many more American lives than have been lost in Iraq. If
that's a case of the pacifists having their way, then you need to
spend some serious library time.

Very nice retort if evading the truth. The truth is that Churchill,
Eisenhower, Roosevelt (pre-death), Patton, MacArthur and many others
recognized the end game required defeating the Soviets. But war weary
and weak knee'd Truman was ball-less and led to his "containment" theory
for the Sovs. 40 years of crap resulted.

That's the result of pacificism (I'm as much for pacificism as for
ending wars properly).

The ONLY US General with the balls to tell the Sovs where to head in
was
MacArthur who DENIED Russian post war occupation of Japan. That would
have led to a "North Japan" and a "South Japan" with unfathomable
consequences to the Japanese (indeed world) economy.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:19 -0700, Ben Miller
wrote:

On Jul 29, 4:55 am, smb wrote:

but don't
understand that this war was forced on us by a some very evil people
who would love nothing better than to come over here and kill every
one of us.

Rhetoric. Grandiose, re-hashed, rhetoric.

Just as your diatribe below against Corporate America is equally so...
:-)




snip

We are still
"The Great Satan" to them simply because we exist and because we have
the freedom to believe what we want and the freedom to criticize our
own leaders.

We are the "great satan" because we occupy their contries and
marginalize their labor forces in pursuit of oil and profit.
Regardless of your political affiliation, regardless of your view of
Islam, we are the "great satan" because we are at the mercy of our
corporations that don't give two ****s that we are treading on their
"holy land" - for better or worse, believe it or not. And to
attribute blame to one party or another is just what the machine wants
- you blame the left, others blame the right, when the real culprit is
Corporate America. The old CIA axiom "follow the money trail" and
there you have it. George Bush isn't having truckloads of oil money
deposited in some mysterious Swiss bank account. Politicians aren't
(directly) profiting financially, but those with government contracts
are; Halliburton and Bechtel and their subsidaries come to mind,
Boeing, Raytheon - et al. Oil company profits are at an all time
high. As badly as we want to make Dick Cheney the poster boy for war
profiteering, he's just an easy target...after all, this is the man
whose office claims he is not entirely within the Executive Branch of
the Government, and is therefore immune to executive orders...that
kind of stuff doesn't exactly build credibility to an already shaky
house of cards.

And if you're dumb enough to think that the left is the answer, just
look at their recent pending record v. their anti-war, evacuation
timeline rhetoric: "Must set a timeline for withdrawal! No? Ok, but
this is the LAST $100,000,000,000 we're giving for this effort!" I
suspect there were many and various riders attached to the war
spending bill that, if vetoed, would have affected the political
futures of many congresspeople...which is inexcusable unto itself.
This is NOT a right v. left issue - don't make that mistake.

Anyway, Muslims don't hate us because our women wear skirts and
tanktops, they hate us because we occupy their countries in the name
of US profits, because of our boundless greed and corruption, because
of the ****storms we cause to get at what they have. We will stop at
nothing to ensure we get what they have at a cheap price. And that
won't change no matter what talking head is in the white house.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:30:26 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

smb wrote:

It must be since a well worn Thong is the best thing since sliced
bread.

Yep, trying to reason with a liberal is like a well worn thong... it
just becomes an irritation in the butt crack.

NONSENSE! This and most Republicans don't have to worry about thong
problems.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/cameltoe.htm



LOL ! Pardon the political incorrectness, but if most demographic
data are correct, the woman pictured in that photo is most likely a
DEMOCRAT !







Rita

smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:16:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:

The point you miss is that it isn't about those countries you don't
care about. It's about this country. They have already killed
thousands of us over here and around the world.
Cars (well drivers), smoking, guns, poor medical coverage all kill a LOT
MORE Americans each year than ME terrorists have killed in total over
the past 20 years worldwide.

Meanwhile, gas guzzler makers (Ford, GM, Chrylser) are laying off
workers in droves while the big US oil co's are making record profits
channeling US dollars to the ME to fill those same gas guzzlers. In the
meantime, smarter, leaner co's (Toyota, Honda...) are taking over the US
auto market...

You really DO NEED to step back and see what the hell is really happening.


Spoken like a true left-winger who has his slogans right but never
really bothered to understand what is really happening in the world.

Why are the US auto makers laying off workers and the Japanese are
gaining ground? The largest reason is cost structure. US makers have
union wages and worker legacy costs that the Japanese don't have to
deal with. A HUGE percentage of the price of an American car is from
labor costs. It has NOTHING to do with what you call gas guzzlers.
US car makers have demonstrated that they can make high quality fuel
efficient cars, too. They just can't compete with the lower costs of
the Japanese.

They can't compete with the _quality_ of the Japanese cars. As to the
US auto labour unions, if they're too stupid to read the writing on the
walls and negotiate for their employers to be more competitive, that's
their own problem ... but the root of Japanese success in the US market
(and world markets) is the quality of the cars. The top reliability:

Acura, Lexus, Toyota, Honda. And then a large gap before European and
US cars.

As to price, an American car of the same size and same features as a
Japanese car is _less_ expensive. Why? Because the LACK of quality
lowers the price people are willing to pay.

That's what started the avalanche: quality (Ironically, part of Japanese
quality comes from the quality approaches of Demming and Juran who were
told "no thanks" by the US auto and other industries...). Initially,
Japanese cars were cheaper (and of lower quality) than US cars
(60's/early 70s') by the 80's, the Japanese had the quality nut cracked.

Reagan, PO'd at FatCat Detroit awarding its executives huge bonuses
(after wailing about "unfair Japanese practices", re-opened the market
to the Japanese).

Then US auto makers, inefficient as they are have to depend on the
higher margin products (SUV's, light trucks) to keep the bottom line up.
A reasonable business approach as long as the price of gas can support
it. Now people are leaving those vehicles in the lots and the "big 3"
are squeaking and laying off people.


Look, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth: You blame
the US companies for laying off workers but in the same breath you
praise the Japanese for being leaner and more efficient. Why do you
think they are leaner and more efficent? They have fewer workers
doing the same job... duh.

See above. While they have a lower cost base, they mainly have
satisfied customers. Why? Quality.

So let me get this straight. We shouldn't be aggressively fighting
terrorists who have vowed to kill us because people are also killed by
smoking, guns and bad health care?

As usual you twist things around to suit you. What is being done (sort
of) right is tighter security and the efforts in Afghanistan (terrorist
breeding/training ground);

What is being done wrong is the war in Iraq. (Iraq had nothing to do
with the Sept 11 attacks; had no WMD's).

Money wasted in the Iraq adventure is gone forever and there will never
be a useful return for it. Iraq cannot be democratized in the US model
with three major religious sects in the territory that do not like nor
trust one another.

The very small upside is that the US will sell some $20B in arms to the
region (Egypt, Israel, S.A., Jordan, Iraq) over the next 10 years...
small return on what will likely exceed $1T in tax bucks plus the
increased hemorrhaging of personal expenses towards oil. Oh, and that
$20B? At least $10B will be directly subsidized ... by the US taxpayer.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:30:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:

Yes, the fact is that wars cost lots of money. You may not agree with
or understand the reason for the war, but that's the way it is.
LOL There was _no_ reason to go into Iraq and the rationales have all
proven to be at best wishful thinking and at worse political
manipulations of the worst kind.

"Proven" on the left wing blogs and your limited view of reality,
perhaps, but not in the real world.

Okay, show me "right wing" proof that the Sept. 11 terrorists originated
in Iraq? Show me "right wing" proof that there were WMD's in Iraq?
Show me that Saddam and Osama were plotting together.




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Jul 29, 3:31 pm, smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:03:19 -0700, Ben Miller
wrote:

On Jul 29, 4:55 am, smb wrote:

but don't
understand that this war was forced on us by a some very evil people
who would love nothing better than to come over here and kill every
one of us.

Rhetoric. Grandiose, re-hashed, rhetoric.

Just as your diatribe below against Corporate America is equally so...

I suppose you could say that, but gubmint contracts _are_ in place,
big business IS profitting. I am mixing my opinion with empirical
facts. War means big money - oil means big money. You, OTOH, are
speaking in the abstract extreme. And let's not get confused here -
Al Quaeda is nothing like any terror group we've seen before. They
are so decentralized, in many cases remote and "passive" that it is
all but impossible to predict and prevent them from attacking. A cell
may be comprised of 30 or 40 individuals who have never met or seen
one-another in their lives. They maintain "radio silence" for the
large part, but when the order is given, they all do their part to
carry out the act - from materials, to implementation, to action. So
the fact that they haven't attacked US soil since 2001 is not
surprising at all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our war in
Iraq.

smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:37:11 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:36:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

smb wrote:

I'm also a veteran, and I know that the price of freedom is not just a
right-wing slogan. If the pacifists had their way in WWII, we
wouldn't be arguing today about whether Nikons are better than Canons.
We would likely be slave labor in their factories making them.
You ignoramus! The Pacificts DID have their way in WW II which resulted
in the US and Brits not attacking the Soviet Union.

I think you're the ignoramus... I'm talking about fighting Japan,
not the Soviets. Pay attention before you launch into lame name
calling.
You pay attention. The point is that because there was no US/Europe war
against the Sovs at the time that the Sovs were weakest; such a war
would have prevented the cold war; nuclear arms races, the Korean War,
the Vietnam War, the US luring the Sovs into Afghanistan, etc.


Perhaps, but what does that have to do with the fact that the
pacifists didn't keep us out of WWII?

I never said that. What I said, you can go back and read what you
snipped out above, was that the pacifists prevented a continuation of WW
II to defeat the Sovs. The consequences of that speak for themselves
and were much worse than the consequences of 2 more years of war. (As a
side point, Stalin murdered more people than the Nazis; and Mao likewise
in China. Had the Sovs been wiped out, Communist China would never have
happened).

I brought up the MacArthur point to illustrate one small area that "went
right". (MacArthur had his bad points too, but the denial of Sov.
occupation of Japan is one of the great things he did. If only Truman
had the balls to go after Stalin.)


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"smb" wrote in message
...
Elect Hillary or Obama or Edwards and you can guarantee your
disposable income will shrink, so buy those toys now while you can,
and thank Mr. Bush for making it possible while it lasts.

Yes, as an Australian I thank GBW for reducing the value of the US dollar
to
almost nothing. During the Clinton Administration our dollar was worthless
against the US dollar. Since GBW, it's now worth twice as much :-)
(It's hardly changed against the Euro or NZ dollar, nearly all the
increase
is due to the devaluation of the US dollar)
I'm not really sure why a US citizen would consider that a good thing
though?

MrT.


Neither Clinton nor Bush have anything to do with that.....You can blame
China and our huge trade deficit with China for that....And, it's going to
get a lot worse before it gets better, too....Regardless of who wins in
2008.