vpFREE2 Forums

STATE OF THE UNION....or Casino Visit?

#1

While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines, and
eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great GWB
was giving his 5th SOTU address.

I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot" had
more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your face"
speech any president has ever delivered. While you and your cowardly,
traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other fanatic's
videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being more willing
to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs -- our
president stood tall and firm. And begore he came on we were told of
some polls you weirdos would never talk about here: More people want
GWB to continue his eavesdropping than don't (i.e., critics for the
sake of criticism); and more people want him to deal a death hand to
Iran.

Did he get your attention over that 2-pair or full-house? (Or is John-
Boy's case, those hairy armpits)!

#2

rsing1111 wrote:

While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines, and
eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great GWB
was giving his 5th SOTU address.

I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot" had
more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your
face" speech any president has ever delivered.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna get those frickin' terrorists this year! I'd
sure as hell have led off with that -- domestic issues don't bear up
under full scrutiny.

But, hey, I'll give the admin credit on the foreign democracy thing --
I don't think there's been another administration that could make the
inroads this one has, even when it comes to the local elections the
Saudis felt compelled to hold ... mighty oaks from little acorns, you
know.

I'll also give him his due on the Iraq stuff -- I think we've screwed
up big time, but I could well be proven wrong when all is said and done.

Did this guy really have the nerve to mention our noble efforts in
combatting AIDS on the global front? Yeah, we won't fund
international agencies because they're clearly all whacked out and
don't know what they're doing. Better to trust our neophytes who know
it all, despite a fraction of the practical experience in dealing with
the problem. (Remind me, is "abstinence" still the name of the game?)
Hard to believe he even backed away from "faith based" missions last
year.

Well, well -- the speech is half over, how time flies ...

We move into domestic economics. Good choice ... we're continuing on
the track that started with improvements in 2004. But I'm still
troubled in that I perceive that the non-6+ figure income households
of the nation don't feel like they're moving ahead economically. But,
hell, why should any of us who fare more strongly be concerned about
that. The overall numbers look very good.

It's just that given that Bev are feeling a pinch and sliding back
just a bit due to added healthcare contributions and housing-related
costs that continue to handily outstrip inflation. What's going on
with middle and lower America?

Hey, I'm not laying these issues at the president's doorstep but,
damn, listen to him and you'd think the average wage earner is
partying on an economic boon. Wait 'til America really comes to grips
with the SS/Medicare realities Bush inherited and must deal with.

Of course, at least we're ensuring that their children move ahead --
gonna get them up to speed in their math and science. I'm sure we can
count on the states to muster funding just as they have in meeting "No
Child Left Behind" mandates.

Well, let's close out the speech with a round chorus of "We Are So
Great! We Are So Great!" and assure everyone that we'll take care of
those pesky problems in N.O. and "go boldly where no nation has
before" in dealing with the domestic AIDS problem. I'm sure our
displaced souls down south have been greatly comforted.

Why, we're going to take care of the shaky federal budget with a few
more slashes at entitlements -- surely that'll take care of existing
budget deficits and the ongoing fight against terrorism.

Hmmm, "best in your face speech"? I'm not looking for a doom and
gloom recitation, but I'd have appreciated a real attempt to put a
believable prospect "in our face" of how the administration intends to
cope with the domestic challenges facing us.

- Harry

#3

Harry:

What would a presiden't speech be without criticism? Who could have
done it better--Howard Dean?

When talking about the terrorist issues, most people missed what the
administration is not going to be saying for all to hear:
Unfortunately, this generation will very likely, unless we DON'T
continue a full-fledged operation without any further domestic
undermining, be involved in a limited...but deadly nuclear 'war' in
the not too distant future. It will be one-sided as expected, but we
will experience one or two devastated cities as it takes it's course.
The military will systematically take out every area of radical
Islamic support in the Middle East once we experience a WMD of any
kind attack. The main hurt on these thugs? That they were the cause
of millions and millions of innocent Muslim deaths in the course of
wiping out the barbarians. So to 'dismiss' our actions against
terrorists as lightly as you have here when it is so vital that we
work together even harder at a time like this dorsn't seem to fit.

The aids issue has me baffled. I don't much care about it here
because it's value as important in the news seems to have waned over
the years, and I don't hang with people affected by or even
interested in it. Now and then we hear of a few homos getting it -
and they ask for it anyway with their mutated lifestyle - but where's
all the Magic Johnsons who supposedly picked it up along their merry
way? Hey, if those truck drivers in Africa were issued locks for
their zippers and kept their wangers in then maybe this disease could
have been kept in check. But they still don't get it over there, and
it's a hopeless cause on that continent.

Where's the trouble with 6-figure income households? Maybe I don't
get it, but I was taught that when times get challenging then
prosperous, motivated people work a little harder. I've seen that
work and that's what makes us grow as better people in a society
that's as competitive as the world has ever seen.

I agree the lower-end wage-earner must be feeling the pinch, and that
the Medicade program for the elderly is confusing enough to make many
just give up trying to use it properly. But who has the answers on
such issues--Ted Kennedy?

The New Orleans issue is so odd that I dont watch it any longer when
a piece shows on the news. I don't understand what the problems are
and I'm tired of hearing about how there's still major looting and
housing problems that have yet to be addressed. Who's fault is it?
Blame Bush?? Why? How about starting at the State level where it all
started in the first place.

The deficit/budget: I'll gladly give up whatever asked to help fight
terrorism. Anyone who doesn't is selfish and misguided.

#4

rsing1111 wrote:

So to 'dismiss' our actions against terrorists as lightly as you
have here when it is so vital that we work together even harder at a
time like this dorsn't seem to fit.

Er, you did read my post, right? The only thing I'm dismissive of is
Bush's obvious effort to largely circumvent serious commentary on
domestic issues by waving the flag and spending the greater part of
his time on terrorist concerns.

If his speech represents his proportional priorities for the coming
year, his intentions are misplaced. Acting on terrorism is critical,
but it's only a modest piece of the pie of the challenges we face.

The aids issue has me baffled. I don't much care about it here
because it's value as important in the news seems to have waned over
the years, and I don't hang with people affected by or even
interested in it. Now and then we hear of a few homos getting it -
and they ask for it anyway with their mutated lifestyle ...

I should expect as much here, Rob ...

Where's the trouble with 6-figure income households? Maybe I don't
get it, but I was taught that when times get challenging then
prosperous, motivated people work a little harder.

Again, what translation of my comments did you pick up? My point is
that middle America isn't throwing a party over their economic
advances this last year, and I suspect the same of the coming one.

I agree the lower-end wage-earner must be feeling the pinch, and
that the Medicade program for the elderly is confusing enough to
make many just give up trying to use it properly. But who has the
answers on such issues--Ted Kennedy?

The problem is that I don't think Bush feel compelled to even look for
real solutions here. Bush came within an inch of shouting "Happy Days
Are Here Again!"

The New Orleans issue is so odd that I dont watch it any longer when
a piece shows on the news. I don't understand what the problems are
and I'm tired of hearing about how there's still major looting and
housing problems that have yet to be addressed. Who's fault is it?
Blame Bush?? Why? How about starting at the State level where it all
started in the first place.

How about recognizing that Louisiana simply doesn't have the resources
to effectively deal with the magnitude of the problem. But, hey, the
Feds are getting it together, slowly. But the vacuum of leadership in
DC as the storm unfolded was disgraceful.

The deficit/budget: I'll gladly give up whatever asked to help fight
terrorism. Anyone who doesn't is selfish and misguided.

Yet, the affluent will eagerly embrace any suggestion of another tax
cut. Economic stimulus? Right ... more like looting the store. I
suspect even Arthur Laffer is beginning to think that we've gone
around the bend on that panacea.

#5

Excellent post Harry. I'm sure Rob will exude is usual BS in a poor
thought out response.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

rsing1111 wrote:
>
> While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines,

and

> eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great

GWB

> was giving his 5th SOTU address.
>
> I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot"

had

> more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your
> face" speech any president has ever delivered.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna get those frickin' terrorists this year! I'd
sure as hell have led off with that -- domestic issues don't bear up
under full scrutiny.

But, hey, I'll give the admin credit on the foreign democracy

thing --

I don't think there's been another administration that could make

the

inroads this one has, even when it comes to the local elections the
Saudis felt compelled to hold ... mighty oaks from little acorns,

you

know.

I'll also give him his due on the Iraq stuff -- I think we've

screwed

up big time, but I could well be proven wrong when all is said and

done.

Did this guy really have the nerve to mention our noble efforts in
combatting AIDS on the global front? Yeah, we won't fund
international agencies because they're clearly all whacked out and
don't know what they're doing. Better to trust our neophytes who

know

it all, despite a fraction of the practical experience in dealing

with

the problem. (Remind me, is "abstinence" still the name of the

game?)

Hard to believe he even backed away from "faith based" missions

last

year.

Well, well -- the speech is half over, how time flies ...

We move into domestic economics. Good choice ... we're continuing

on

the track that started with improvements in 2004. But I'm still
troubled in that I perceive that the non-6+ figure income households
of the nation don't feel like they're moving ahead economically.

But,

hell, why should any of us who fare more strongly be concerned about
that. The overall numbers look very good.

It's just that given that Bev are feeling a pinch and sliding back
just a bit due to added healthcare contributions and housing-related
costs that continue to handily outstrip inflation. What's going on
with middle and lower America?

Hey, I'm not laying these issues at the president's doorstep but,
damn, listen to him and you'd think the average wage earner is
partying on an economic boon. Wait 'til America really comes to

grips

with the SS/Medicare realities Bush inherited and must deal with.

Of course, at least we're ensuring that their children move ahead --
gonna get them up to speed in their math and science. I'm sure we

can

count on the states to muster funding just as they have in

meeting "No

Child Left Behind" mandates.

Well, let's close out the speech with a round chorus of "We Are So
Great! We Are So Great!" and assure everyone that we'll take care

of

those pesky problems in N.O. and "go boldly where no nation has
before" in dealing with the domestic AIDS problem. I'm sure our
displaced souls down south have been greatly comforted.

Why, we're going to take care of the shaky federal budget with a few
more slashes at entitlements -- surely that'll take care of existing
budget deficits and the ongoing fight against terrorism.

Hmmm, "best in your face speech"? I'm not looking for a doom and
gloom recitation, but I'd have appreciated a real attempt to put a
believable prospect "in our face" of how the administration intends

to

···

cope with the domestic challenges facing us.

- Harry

#6

Since you insist on attaching statements to me that I never made I
feel the need to respond: once.
I never have nor never will praise OBL. I was in favor of the USA
attacks on Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were. We have
succeeded in relocating terrorists to Iraq for reasons unknown to
me. Plus I hear the Afghan heroin trade is back up to pre 9-11
levels. Personally the freedon of the Iraqi people isn't worth a
billion a week to me. A democracy has never worked in that part of
the world and isn't likely to work now.
Now a few facts about the great State of the Union Address.
Let's look at the numbers, shall we??
Percentage (sorry rob, it's that pesky math again) of people who
feel w made his case on:
Iraq: Yes-25%
     No-75%

Terrorism: Yes -26%
           No-74%

Taxes: Yes 24%
       No-76%

Energy: Yes-30%
        No-70%

Science: Yes-27%
         No-73%

I know it's hard to find high ground in this administration, but you
dont have to keep lying about everything. Try looking at things
objectively as a novelty.
Results listed above courtesy of MSNBC.COM
John
P.S.-Has anyone seen my Constitutional rights??

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines,

and

eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great

GWB

was giving his 5th SOTU address.

I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot"

had

more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your

face"

speech any president has ever delivered. While you and your

cowardly,

traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other

fanatic's

videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being more

willing

to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs -- our
president stood tall and firm. And begore he came on we were told

of

some polls you weirdos would never talk about here: More people

want

GWB to continue his eavesdropping than don't (i.e., critics for

the

sake of criticism); and more people want him to deal a death hand

to

Iran.

Did he get your attention over that 2-pair or full-house? (Or is

John-

···

Boy's case, those hairy armpits)!

#7

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:

While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines,

and

eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great

GWB

was giving his 5th SOTU address.

We shared 24 oz steak a Fuego's steakhouse. Yes, it was free. Did not
gamble other than the minute it took to collect my BB. Are you always
wrong?

Sure beats listening to more BS. I did make it home in time to hear a
conservative democratic response calling for more bipartisan
politics. I wonder why the president believes his way is the only way?

I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot"

had

more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your

face"

speech any president has ever delivered.

I think I'll believe Harry's summary. Did you spend the entire
evening on your knees with that mesmerized look in you eyes.

While you and your cowardly,
traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other

fanatic's

videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being more

willing

to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs

It would be nice if we actually spent a lot more resources going
after OBL. That's where you and I differ. You'd rather fight a
meaningless war then go after the real threat. Why do you think they
keep helping the insurgents? It helps them recruit more bodies while
keeps them safe and sound far away from the action. The terrorists
really do appreciate your hero.

-- our
president stood tall and firm.

As much as an Afred E Newman look-a-like could muster.

#8

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

The only thing I'm dismissive of is
Bush's obvious effort to largely circumvent serious commentary on
domestic issues by waving the flag and spending the greater part of
his time on terrorist concerns.

If his speech represents his proportional priorities for the coming
year, his intentions are misplaced. Acting on terrorism is

critical,but it's only a modest piece of the pie of the challenges we
face.

I don't think he addressed issues in any specific order of
importance, other than to place terrorism far above all else--which
is where it should be. His 'flag-waving' over firm rallying around
domestic issues is simply because politics is a game, and he's on the
home stretch of his double grand-slam. He has no chance of being
remembered for his domestic issue prowess, and indeed, fifty years
from now will be honored as the one who did not back down to
terrorists, and was the father of our fight in the ultimate
destruction of that kind of mentality.

> The aids issue has me baffled. I don't much care about it here
> because it's value as important in the news seems to have waned

over the years, and I don't hang with people affected by or even

> interested in it. Now and then we hear of a few homos getting it -

and they ask for it anyway with their mutated lifestyle ...

I should expect as much here, Rob ...

Would you have preferred I give the Rosie O'Donnell pervert's point
of view instead of the spot-on truth?

#9

Typical of someone who consistently gets ripped on a forum and seeks
out comfort in any manner. They search and wait and wait and search
like a lost child until someone else finds their way into responding
with even the slightest possible disagreement to their nemisis' posts.
Then they join in with a confidence-building one liner while continuing
to let the original responder do all the work.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

Excellent post Harry. I'm sure Rob will exude is usual BS in a poor
thought out response.

#10

rgmustain wrote:

Excellent post Harry. I'm sure Rob will exude is usual BS in a poor
thought out response.

Hey, it should be clear that I've got a lot of respect for Rob's
viewpoints. But, of course, I know those were "terms of endearment"
on your part. :wink:

- H.

#11

Since you insist on attaching statements to me that I never made I
feel the need to respond: once.

Oh goody. Another self-proclaimed whipping post to have fun with!
Once.

I never have nor never will praise OBL.

You didn't get it. Anyone who undermines the president's efforts
while bragging that we haven't 'caught him' (yet--his day will come
as we heard last evening) is using fuzzy wording to describe the
respect they have for such a beast.

I was in favor of the USA

attacks on Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were. We have
succeeded in relocating terrorists to Iraq for reasons unknown to
me.

The terrorists will go wherever our fighting machine is. If we were
fighting them in Chechnia they'd all go there. Then critics would
say "we're creating more of them" when all we're really doing is
concentrating their sorry butts in one centralized location and
killing more of them. You guys have never seen that what used to be a
secret strategy.

Plus I hear the Afghan heroin trade is back up to pre 9-11

levels.

Who cares about the heroin? Any American who gets some - just like
anyone else - deserves to die.

Personally the freedon of the Iraqi people isn't worth a

billion a week to me. A democracy has never worked in that part of
the world and isn't likely to work now.

Doesn't put any dinero in my pockets either. Free people are supposed
to be happy when democracy spreads. I don't personally it'll work
there very long either. Some other dictator will try to take over
anyway, and not until they have their own civil war down the road
will they truly become free. We're just laying the foundation for
them to have an easier go at it when the day comes.

Now a few facts about the great State of the Union Address.
Let's look at the numbers, shall we??
Percentage (sorry rob, it's that pesky math again) of people who
feel w made his case on:
Iraq: Yes-25%
     No-75%

Terrorism: Yes -26%
           No-74%

Taxes: Yes 24%
       No-76%

Energy: Yes-30%
        No-70%

Science: Yes-27%
         No-73%

I know it's hard to find high ground in this administration, but

you dont have to keep lying about everything. Try looking at things

objectively as a novelty.
Results listed above courtesy of MSNBC.COM

Now maybe you see why MSNBC isn't making it in the polls themselves.
Fox predicts they'll be history sometime this year. The address
wasn't given to 'make cases' or win any votes. The SOTH gives facts
as to what we're doing and why. That liberal station you mentioned
only shows meaningless, unrelated polls like that because it's part
of their anti-Gov't agenda==the same one that's losing viewers at a
greater rate than has ever been seen on cable.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:

#12

> While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the machines,
and
> eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the great
GWB
> was giving his 5th SOTU address.

We shared 24 oz steak a Fuego's steakhouse. Yes, it was free. Did

not gamble other than the minute it took to collect my BB. Are you
always wrong?

Fuego's? HA! When it was Tusks it was something special. Now it's
nothing but another joint inside one of those locals dumps you
frequent. It oughta be free given the quality.

Sure beats listening to more BS. I did make it home in time to hear

a

conservative democratic response calling for more bipartisan
politics. I wonder why the president believes his way is the only

way?

It's time he got to the business of laying the groundwork for his
future legendary status, and that's exactly what he's doing. As "The
Father of Our Fight Against Terrorism" he has to put aside some
issues and work on his legacy.

> I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling idiot"
had
> more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in your
face"
> speech any president has ever delivered.

I think I'll believe Harry's summary. Did you spend the entire
evening on your knees with that mesmerized look in you eyes.

No, but I spent it with my 2-yr.-old granddaughter who was absolutely
mesmerized by the stature of a great president, and my wife & son-in-
law and daughter all understood my positions that I sometimes tell
them about. They know I know what I'm talking about, and they realize
that, like most Americans, you have to put trust in the hands of
those elected in a democracy. They also know those who disagree or
protest are a bunch of low life losers who criticize for the sake of
criticizing, and that Teddy Kennedy--GWB's chief rival--is a murderer
who got away with it because of wealth and power. This is what
teaches generations, and this is why there's hope.

> While you and your cowardly,
> traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other
fanatic's
> videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being more
willing
> to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs

It would be nice if we actually spent a lot more resources going
after OBL. That's where you and I differ. You'd rather fight a
meaningless war then go after the real threat. Why do you think

they keep helping the insurgents? It helps them recruit more bodies
while keeps them safe and sound far away from the action. The
terrorists really do appreciate your hero.

On the contrary. In my comments last night I said we should just go
to the Afghan-Pakistani border and set off a dozen nukes that'll kill
most or all of the Al-Q leaders. We don't know where they're hidden
but we know they're there somewhere. Bury them alive or blow them to
bits. So what if we kill millions of innocents--simple casualties of
war, and almost every one of them in that area will be put out of
their misery anyway. The main purpose after the kill? No remaining Al-
Q will mess with our country again. They only understand and respect
viscious violence, and they use our coddled, pacifist ways against us
while they slowly peel away. One BIG message would eliminate the
threat forever.

> -- our
> president stood tall and firm.

As much as an Afred E Newman look-a-like could muster.

Some resemblance, but much more power.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#13

Just a list of the top 10 general news sites on the web. What!! No
Faux News. Damn Liberal media. I don't expect you to believe the
facts (you never have before), but you may want to pull your head
out of Bill O'Reiley's posterior long enough to get some fresh air
and clear your muddled head. If you don't have facts, shut up. You
are making a huge right-wing fool of yourself. From this point on, I
will not be bothered by facts perceived by you but unsubstantiated.
You are a liar and a pest. Since Faux went from actual news to
coining the phrase "People say", let me add this "People say you are
a fracking moron".

Top General News Sites Unique
visitors1 (thousands)

  Total Internet audience 164,961
  General News category 94,375
1. New York Times Digital 29,762
2. MSNBC 26,588
3. Yahoo! News 25,093
4. AOL News 23,042
5. CNN 20,904
6. IBS Network 9,580
7. USATODAY sites 7,925
8. Knight Ridder Digital 7,619
9. Google News 7,050
10. Tribune Newspapers 6,557

NOTE: Audience: All persons at U.S. home/work/college/university
locations

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>

wrote:

> Since you insist on attaching statements to me that I never made

I

> feel the need to respond: once.

Oh goody. Another self-proclaimed whipping post to have fun with!
Once.

> I never have nor never will praise OBL.

You didn't get it. Anyone who undermines the president's efforts
while bragging that we haven't 'caught him' (yet--his day will

come

as we heard last evening) is using fuzzy wording to describe the
respect they have for such a beast.

I was in favor of the USA
> attacks on Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were. We

have

> succeeded in relocating terrorists to Iraq for reasons unknown

to

> me.

The terrorists will go wherever our fighting machine is. If we

were

fighting them in Chechnia they'd all go there. Then critics would
say "we're creating more of them" when all we're really doing is
concentrating their sorry butts in one centralized location and
killing more of them. You guys have never seen that what used to

be a

secret strategy.

Plus I hear the Afghan heroin trade is back up to pre 9-11
> levels.

Who cares about the heroin? Any American who gets some - just like
anyone else - deserves to die.

Personally the freedon of the Iraqi people isn't worth a
> billion a week to me. A democracy has never worked in that part

of

> the world and isn't likely to work now.

Doesn't put any dinero in my pockets either. Free people are

supposed

to be happy when democracy spreads. I don't personally it'll work
there very long either. Some other dictator will try to take over
anyway, and not until they have their own civil war down the road
will they truly become free. We're just laying the foundation for
them to have an easier go at it when the day comes.

> Now a few facts about the great State of the Union Address.
> Let's look at the numbers, shall we??
> Percentage (sorry rob, it's that pesky math again) of people who
> feel w made his case on:
> Iraq: Yes-25%
> No-75%
>
> Terrorism: Yes -26%
> No-74%
>
> Taxes: Yes 24%
> No-76%
>
> Energy: Yes-30%
> No-70%
>
> Science: Yes-27%
> No-73%
>
> I know it's hard to find high ground in this administration, but
you dont have to keep lying about everything. Try looking at

things

> objectively as a novelty.
> Results listed above courtesy of MSNBC.COM

Now maybe you see why MSNBC isn't making it in the polls

themselves.

Fox predicts they'll be history sometime this year. The address
wasn't given to 'make cases' or win any votes. The SOTH gives

facts

as to what we're doing and why. That liberal station you mentioned
only shows meaningless, unrelated polls like that because it's

part

of their anti-Gov't agenda==the same one that's losing viewers at

a

···

greater rate than has ever been seen on cable.

#14

I didn't realize you watch Bill O'Reilly--some newfound respect!

News sites on the Web? Who cares? The tube is where it counts, and
after Fox being number 1 for over FOUR YEARS now, the rest are all
noise. MSNBC is about to be dumped due to poor ratings and NOBODY
WATCHES IT!

I love it when you liberal fools get riled up when trying to respond
to the truth with deception. You lib pal little dicky prefers the
selective reasoning method of looking stupid. I think you're just
plain stupid.

Just a list of the top 10 general news sites on the web. What!! No
Faux News. Damn Liberal media. I don't expect you to believe the
facts (you never have before), but you may want to pull your head
out of Bill O'Reiley's posterior long enough to get some fresh air
and clear your muddled head. If you don't have facts, shut up. You
are making a huge right-wing fool of yourself. From this point on,

I

will not be bothered by facts perceived by you but unsubstantiated.
You are a liar and a pest. Since Faux went from actual news to
coining the phrase "People say", let me add this "People say you

are

a fracking moron".

Top General News Sites Unique
visitors1 (thousands)

  Total Internet audience 164,961
  General News category 94,375
1. New York Times Digital 29,762
2. MSNBC 26,588
3. Yahoo! News 25,093
4. AOL News 23,042
5. CNN 20,904
6. IBS Network 9,580
7. USATODAY sites 7,925
8. Knight Ridder Digital 7,619
9. Google News 7,050
10. Tribune Newspapers 6,557

NOTE: Audience: All persons at U.S. home/work/college/university
locations

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
> > Since you insist on attaching statements to me that I never

made

I
> > feel the need to respond: once.
>
> Oh goody. Another self-proclaimed whipping post to have fun with!
> Once.
>
> > I never have nor never will praise OBL.
>
> You didn't get it. Anyone who undermines the president's efforts
> while bragging that we haven't 'caught him' (yet--his day will
come
> as we heard last evening) is using fuzzy wording to describe the
> respect they have for such a beast.
>
> I was in favor of the USA
> > attacks on Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were. We
have
> > succeeded in relocating terrorists to Iraq for reasons unknown
to
> > me.
>
> The terrorists will go wherever our fighting machine is. If we
were
> fighting them in Chechnia they'd all go there. Then critics would
> say "we're creating more of them" when all we're really doing is
> concentrating their sorry butts in one centralized location and
> killing more of them. You guys have never seen that what used to
be a
> secret strategy.
>
> Plus I hear the Afghan heroin trade is back up to pre 9-11
> > levels.
>
> Who cares about the heroin? Any American who gets some - just

like

> anyone else - deserves to die.
>
> Personally the freedon of the Iraqi people isn't worth a
> > billion a week to me. A democracy has never worked in that part
of
> > the world and isn't likely to work now.
>
> Doesn't put any dinero in my pockets either. Free people are
supposed
> to be happy when democracy spreads. I don't personally it'll work
> there very long either. Some other dictator will try to take over
> anyway, and not until they have their own civil war down the road
> will they truly become free. We're just laying the foundation for
> them to have an easier go at it when the day comes.
>
> > Now a few facts about the great State of the Union Address.
> > Let's look at the numbers, shall we??
> > Percentage (sorry rob, it's that pesky math again) of people

who

> > feel w made his case on:
> > Iraq: Yes-25%
> > No-75%
> >
> > Terrorism: Yes -26%
> > No-74%
> >
> > Taxes: Yes 24%
> > No-76%
> >
> > Energy: Yes-30%
> > No-70%
> >
> > Science: Yes-27%
> > No-73%
> >
> > I know it's hard to find high ground in this administration,

but

> you dont have to keep lying about everything. Try looking at
things
> > objectively as a novelty.
> > Results listed above courtesy of MSNBC.COM
>
> Now maybe you see why MSNBC isn't making it in the polls
themselves.
> Fox predicts they'll be history sometime this year. The address
> wasn't given to 'make cases' or win any votes. The SOTH gives
facts
> as to what we're doing and why. That liberal station you

mentioned

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@...> wrote:

> only shows meaningless, unrelated polls like that because it's
part
> of their anti-Gov't agenda==the same one that's losing viewers at
a
> greater rate than has ever been seen on cable.
>

#15

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > While little ans missus dicky were banging away at the

machines,

> and
> > eating another "free" greasy mean at some locals dump, the

great

> GWB
> > was giving his 5th SOTU address.
>
> We shared 24 oz steak a Fuego's steakhouse. Yes, it was free. Did
not gamble other than the minute it took to collect my BB. Are you
always wrong?

Fuego's? HA! When it was Tusks it was something special. Now it's
nothing but another joint inside one of those locals dumps you
frequent. It oughta be free given the quality.

I guess not being someplace makes you an expert. Is that why you
claim to know so much>

>
> Sure beats listening to more BS. I did make it home in time to

hear

a
> conservative democratic response calling for more bipartisan
> politics. I wonder why the president believes his way is the only
way?

It's time he got to the business of laying the groundwork for his
future legendary status, and that's exactly what he's doing.

As "The

Father of Our Fight Against Terrorism" he has to put aside some
issues and work on his legacy.

I wonder when "Dad" is going to get started?

>
> > I hope you recorded it, because this as you say "bumbling

idiot"

> had
> > more stature, more character, and gave the absolute best "in

your

> face"
> > speech any president has ever delivered.
>
> I think I'll believe Harry's summary. Did you spend the entire
> evening on your knees with that mesmerized look in you eyes.

No, but I spent it with my 2-yr.-old granddaughter who was

absolutely

mesmerized by the stature of a great president, and my wife & son-

in-

law and daughter all understood my positions that I sometimes tell
them about. They know I know what I'm talking about,

ROTFLMAO.

and they realize
that, like most Americans, you have to put trust in the hands of
those elected in a democracy. They also know those who disagree or
protest are a bunch of low life losers who criticize for the sake

of

criticizing, and that Teddy Kennedy--GWB's chief rival--is a

murderer

who got away with it because of wealth and power.

Ted Kennedy is an ELECTED senator. What happened to "put trust in the
hands of those elected in a democracy"? You can't go one single
sentence without contradicting yourself. Put the clown mask back on,
please, it is so fitting.

>
> > While you and your cowardly,
> > traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other
> fanatic's
> > videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being more
> willing
> > to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs
>
> It would be nice if we actually spent a lot more resources going
> after OBL. That's where you and I differ. You'd rather fight a
> meaningless war then go after the real threat. Why do you think
they keep helping the insurgents? It helps them recruit more bodies
while keeps them safe and sound far away from the action. The
terrorists really do appreciate your hero.

On the contrary. In my comments last night I said we should just go
to the Afghan-Pakistani border and set off a dozen nukes that'll

kill

most or all of the Al-Q leaders.

Or ... maybe just kill a lot of innocent people, give Muslims good
reasons to hate America, create a few thousand more OBLs, and give
America a black eye in the rest of the world that would be impossible
to remove. Good idea, moron.

We don't know where they're hidden
but we know they're there somewhere. Bury them alive or blow them

to

bits. So what if we kill millions of innocents--simple casualties

of

war, and almost every one of them in that area will be put out of
their misery anyway. The main purpose after the kill? No remaining

Al-

Q will mess with our country again. They only understand and

respect

viscious violence, and they use our coddled, pacifist ways against

us

while they slowly peel away. One BIG message would eliminate the
threat forever.

Are you really this naive? It would NOT remove the threat. Instead,
it would multiply the threat 100 times over. You really should try
using that wasted space above your neck every now and then. Have you
ever read a history book in your life?

#16

> Fuego's? HA! When it was Tusks it was something special. Now it's
> nothing but another joint inside one of those locals dumps you
> frequent. It oughta be free given the quality.

I guess not being someplace makes you an expert. Is that why you
claim to know so much>

I've been to it and was disgusted. Next time you try to impress the
missus, ask me where to go FIRST so you don't look so stupid.

> It's time he got to the business of laying the groundwork for his
> future legendary status, and that's exactly what he's doing.
As "The
> Father of Our Fight Against Terrorism" he has to put aside some
> issues and work on his legacy.

I wonder when "Dad" is going to get started?

> > I think I'll believe Harry's summary. Did you spend the entire
> > evening on your knees with that mesmerized look in you eyes.
>
> No, but I spent it with my 2-yr.-old granddaughter who was
absolutely mesmerized by the stature of a great president, and my

wife & son-in-law and daughter all understood my positions that I
sometimes tell them about. They know I know what I'm talking about,

ROTFLMAO.

Is that the laughing thing you're struggling with explaining?

> and they realize
> that, like most Americans, you have to put trust in the hands of
> those elected in a democracy. They also know those who disagree

or

> protest are a bunch of low life losers who criticize for the sake
of
> criticizing, and that Teddy Kennedy--GWB's chief rival--is a
murderer
> who got away with it because of wealth and power.

Ted Kennedy is an ELECTED senator. What happened to "put trust in

the hands of those elected in a democracy"? You can't go one single

sentence without contradicting yourself. Put the clown mask back

on, please, it is so fitting.

And he's also a murderer that got away with it. First and foremost.
He was elected by paying off lobbyists. A real loser and you should
be so proud to be tied to his ideals.

> >
> > > While you and your cowardly,
> > > traiterous pal John 3-royals were praising OBL and that other
> > fanatic's
> > > videos/audios from the past few weeks -- essentially being

more

> > willing
> > > to give up rather than fight on to eliminate these maniacs
> >
> > It would be nice if we actually spent a lot more resources

going

> > after OBL. That's where you and I differ. You'd rather fight a
> > meaningless war then go after the real threat. Why do you think
> they keep helping the insurgents? It helps them recruit more

bodies

> while keeps them safe and sound far away from the action. The
> terrorists really do appreciate your hero.
>
> On the contrary. In my comments last night I said we should just

go

> to the Afghan-Pakistani border and set off a dozen nukes that'll
kill
> most or all of the Al-Q leaders.

Or ... maybe just kill a lot of innocent people, give Muslims good
reasons to hate America, create a few thousand more OBLs, and give
America a black eye in the rest of the world that would be

impossible to remove. Good idea, moron.

Typical twisted and cowardly logic. If we don't create millions of
collateral victims while blasting the terrorist leaders into Allah-
land over there, you and I will become THEIR collateral damage over
here.

> We don't know where they're hidden
> but we know they're there somewhere. Bury them alive or blow them
to
> bits. So what if we kill millions of innocents--simple casualties
of
> war, and almost every one of them in that area will be put out of
> their misery anyway. The main purpose after the kill? No

remaining

Al-
> Q will mess with our country again. They only understand and
respect
> viscious violence, and they use our coddled, pacifist ways

against

us while they slowly peel away. One BIG message would eliminate the
> threat forever.

Are you really this naive? It would NOT remove the threat. Instead,
it would multiply the threat 100 times over. You really should try
using that wasted space above your neck every now and then. Have

you ever read a history book in your life?

Your position is that of most sissified scardy cats in the country.
You're afraid that your daily visits to degenerate casinos would be
disrupted, or you might have to hold a gun for a change. Explain
where the 'threat' would come from if we wiped out their leaders,
killed millions of their followers, and made the firm statement that
any further terror attacks would lead to more innocent Islamic
destruction in the effort to kill the hiding wussies amongst them.
That's what they understand. Violence. Hit the schools and mosques
where the terrorists hide like yellow cowards. No conscience---just
like them!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#17

Don't watch O'Reiley, just know him from the sexual harrassment case
he paid off a couple years ago and watching David Letterman kick his
ass on TV. I think Letterman was being liberal when he told O'Reiley
that "60% of what he says is crap". Truth be told ABC is #1 in the
TV news spot. Now go away little man and scream at your windmills.
John
P.S. – Has anyone seen my Constitutional rights??

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

I didn't realize you watch Bill O'Reilly--some newfound respect!

News sites on the Web? Who cares? The tube is where it counts, and
after Fox being number 1 for over FOUR YEARS now, the rest are all
noise. MSNBC is about to be dumped due to poor ratings and NOBODY
WATCHES IT!

I love it when you liberal fools get riled up when trying to

respond

to the truth with deception. You lib pal little dicky prefers the
selective reasoning method of looking stupid. I think you're just
plain stupid.

>
> Just a list of the top 10 general news sites on the web. What!!

No

> Faux News. Damn Liberal media. I don't expect you to believe the
> facts (you never have before), but you may want to pull your

head

> out of Bill O'Reiley's posterior long enough to get some fresh

air

> and clear your muddled head. If you don't have facts, shut up.

You

> are making a huge right-wing fool of yourself. From this point

on,

I
> will not be bothered by facts perceived by you but

unsubstantiated.

> You are a liar and a pest. Since Faux went from actual news to
> coining the phrase "People say", let me add this "People say you
are
> a fracking moron".
>
> Top General News Sites Unique
> visitors1 (thousands)
>
> Total Internet audience 164,961
> General News category 94,375
> 1. New York Times Digital 29,762
> 2. MSNBC 26,588
> 3. Yahoo! News 25,093
> 4. AOL News 23,042
> 5. CNN 20,904
> 6. IBS Network 9,580
> 7. USATODAY sites 7,925
> 8. Knight Ridder Digital 7,619
> 9. Google News 7,050
> 10. Tribune Newspapers 6,557
>
> NOTE: Audience: All persons at U.S. home/work/college/university
> locations
>
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John"

<three2theroyal@y...>

> wrote:
> > > Since you insist on attaching statements to me that I never
made
> I
> > > feel the need to respond: once.
> >
> > Oh goody. Another self-proclaimed whipping post to have fun

with!

> > Once.
> >
> > > I never have nor never will praise OBL.
> >
> > You didn't get it. Anyone who undermines the president's

efforts

> > while bragging that we haven't 'caught him' (yet--his day will
> come
> > as we heard last evening) is using fuzzy wording to describe

the

> > respect they have for such a beast.
> >
> > I was in favor of the USA
> > > attacks on Afghanistan. That's where the terrorists were. We
> have
> > > succeeded in relocating terrorists to Iraq for reasons

unknown

> to
> > > me.
> >
> > The terrorists will go wherever our fighting machine is. If we
> were
> > fighting them in Chechnia they'd all go there. Then critics

would

> > say "we're creating more of them" when all we're really doing

is

> > concentrating their sorry butts in one centralized location

and

> > killing more of them. You guys have never seen that what used

to

> be a
> > secret strategy.
> >
> > Plus I hear the Afghan heroin trade is back up to pre 9-11
> > > levels.
> >
> > Who cares about the heroin? Any American who gets some - just
like
> > anyone else - deserves to die.
> >
> > Personally the freedon of the Iraqi people isn't worth a
> > > billion a week to me. A democracy has never worked in that

part

> of
> > > the world and isn't likely to work now.
> >
> > Doesn't put any dinero in my pockets either. Free people are
> supposed
> > to be happy when democracy spreads. I don't personally it'll

work

> > there very long either. Some other dictator will try to take

over

> > anyway, and not until they have their own civil war down the

road

> > will they truly become free. We're just laying the foundation

for

> > them to have an easier go at it when the day comes.
> >
> > > Now a few facts about the great State of the Union Address.
> > > Let's look at the numbers, shall we??
> > > Percentage (sorry rob, it's that pesky math again) of people
who
> > > feel w made his case on:
> > > Iraq: Yes-25%
> > > No-75%
> > >
> > > Terrorism: Yes -26%
> > > No-74%
> > >
> > > Taxes: Yes 24%
> > > No-76%
> > >
> > > Energy: Yes-30%
> > > No-70%
> > >
> > > Science: Yes-27%
> > > No-73%
> > >
> > > I know it's hard to find high ground in this administration,
but
> > you dont have to keep lying about everything. Try looking at
> things
> > > objectively as a novelty.
> > > Results listed above courtesy of MSNBC.COM
> >
> > Now maybe you see why MSNBC isn't making it in the polls
> themselves.
> > Fox predicts they'll be history sometime this year. The

address

> > wasn't given to 'make cases' or win any votes. The SOTH gives
> facts
> > as to what we're doing and why. That liberal station you
mentioned
> > only shows meaningless, unrelated polls like that because it's
> part
> > of their anti-Gov't agenda==the same one that's losing viewers

at

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@> wrote:
> a
> > greater rate than has ever been seen on cable.
> >
>

#18

Wrong Johnny---Fox News is and has been #1....to your chagrin. And
guess where O'Reilly fits in??

Letterman did exactly as you and little dicky do here (when he's not
out in some casino gambling). He threw out guesses and supposed facts
about the #1 news show in history, but when O'Reilly challenged him to
substantiate his assertions, he said "Um, I don't watch your show." It
truly was a one-sided affair, so much so that O'Reilly has had the
entire interview up on his site ever since.

Now go chase those hairy legs before dicky's Sasquatch gets them.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@...> wrote:

Don't watch O'Reiley, just know him from the sexual harrassment case
he paid off a couple years ago and watching David Letterman kick his
ass on TV. I think Letterman was being liberal when he told O'Reiley
that "60% of what he says is crap". Truth be told ABC is #1 in the
TV news spot. Now go away little man and scream at your windmills.

#19

My research showed ABC being #1. Not that I doubt your honesty (ha-
ha-ha) but if you could provide a little proof, that would be
appreciated. O'reiley is a windbag sex pervert. Just your type of
hero. As more and more critiques come in w's SOTU address is being
touted as self-serving, distorted views. Didn't you say year before
last that OBL would be caught right before the election?
John
P.S.- Has anyone seen my constitutional rights??

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@...>
wrote:

Wrong Johnny---Fox News is and has been #1....to your chagrin. And
guess where O'Reilly fits in??

Letterman did exactly as you and little dicky do here (when he's

not

out in some casino gambling). He threw out guesses and supposed

facts

about the #1 news show in history, but when O'Reilly challenged

him to

substantiate his assertions, he said "Um, I don't watch your

show." It

truly was a one-sided affair, so much so that O'Reilly has had the
entire interview up on his site ever since.

Now go chase those hairy legs before dicky's Sasquatch gets them.

>
> Don't watch O'Reiley, just know him from the sexual harrassment

case

> he paid off a couple years ago and watching David Letterman kick

his

> ass on TV. I think Letterman was being liberal when he told

O'Reiley

> that "60% of what he says is crap". Truth be told ABC is #1 in

the

> TV news spot. Now go away little man and scream at your

windmills.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@> wrote:

#20

My research showed ABC being #1. Not that I doubt your honesty (ha-
ha-ha) but if you could provide a little proof, that would be
appreciated.

Just as I expected, you throw out what you believe are facts in a
deceptive sort of way. ABC is #1....of the Networks. Fox is #1 in cable
and overall. There's talk that the network news won't last the decade.
I don't see the need to look up something that'll waste my time.
Besides, little dicky will do that for us!

O'reiley is a windbag sex pervert. Just your type of

hero. As more and more critiques come in w's SOTU address is being
touted as self-serving, distorted views. Didn't you say year before
last that OBL would be caught right before the election?

O'Reilly is a fine Catholic gentleman living in a conservative area of
Long Island who, because of his fame, was chased by a short skirt at
Fox. Even Michael Jackson gets accused of things he doesn't do.

I said OBL would be caught before the NEXT election--in a few years. I
don't remember saying it before last election. See if you can get the
dicker to research that too.

I just saw a CBS far left network poll that showed 73% felt GWB's SOTU
had true bite with no giving into the radical left. And most agreed to
force Iran to stand down. Walter Cronkite is probably chattering his
false teeth right about now.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@...> wrote: