vpFREE2 Forums

Veteran Status

#21

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

wrote:

> I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the next
> election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you can't or
> won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was
>someone to idolize can't be too bright to begin with ...

I love the sour grapes....both with video poker expertise and the
election you lost,

I see your reading comprehension is as bad as ever.

but if you had spent enough time LISTENING to the
news during the campaign instead of constantly going to that Indian
casino up there, you'd have heard every current administration

member

say "It's not going to be easy, and it's going to be a long war".

If you paid any attention, most of those statements were made BEFORE
we thought we had won the war and GWB made his idiotic flight deck
appearance to claim victory. He clearly wasn't prepared for what has
happened since then.

? And

who in this country cares about gasoline prices anyway? (Oh, yes,
it's those 'advantage players' who drive all over town getting

roped

into casino promotions, and too high a price at the pump would 'cut
into' their EV!" HA!

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. No one cares about energy
prices, do they? Thank you for clearly showing everyone just how out
of touch with reality you are.

> If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we would

have

> had no problem putting together a true alliance of world powers
> including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have
>elimiated many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde

East.

>Saddam knew that. You really need to understand more before

running

>off at the mouth.

Again, go back and check your facts before posting something
meaningless. Prior to 9-11 (and I mean on the day before) there

were

22 deadly conflicts around the globe, and 19 of them were because
your friends the Muslims from the so-called 'religion of peace'

were

the agressors against their either non-Muslim neighbors - or in a

few

cases, their non-secular 'brothers'. And wherever their was

terrorism

Saddam supported it.

Is there a point to this? We had the same problem with communism and
brought it down without invading the USSR. If you look back further
than 9/11 you will see many examples of conflicts based on religion.
Trying to use this as a reason to invade Iraq is an indication of
pure stupidity.

There's too much politics in the world today to
do anything but ask politely FIVE TIMES for a coalition, give the
inspectors FIFTEEN chances to inspect in Iraq, give a Dictator a
DOZEN opportunities to come clean, and wait for the useless Kofi

Anan

to stop criticizing the US. The We face no more hatred now than we
did before,

If ignorance were was worth anything you'd be a rich man. You really
think there is "no more hatred"? Can you read???

and there are tens of millions who've changed those
feelings over to support and thanks since we started building
democracy in Iraq.

But was it worth the price? It's likely Iraq 'will eventually be'
better off without Saddam. As I've said all along, there was a much
better way.
  

>The main reason for GWBs victory was the view that he was more
> MORAL than Kerry.

HAHAHA! NOW you're willing to say that, but where was all that

BEFORE

the election?

The BELIEF that GWB is more moral has nothing to do with the facts at
hand. In fact, many women voters have indicated the dislike of
Kerrys' wife was the main reason they voted for Bush. I suspect that
reasoning sounds like a policy mandate to you.

Kerry pounded away on the war, terrorism, homeland
security, and even Cheney's gay daughter. Now, you people are left
holding his tainted bags, so it's onto "the view that GWB was more
moral than Kerry". HAHAHAHEHEHEHOHOHO!!! When can I stop the
laughter???

Since you haven't caught on to this before let me make it clear that
I did not and would never vote for Kerry. So, if you think these
rants on your part will have any effect on me then you once again are
showing your stupidity.

>
> Oh, by the way, GWB did NOT get 51% of the votes of all ELIGIBLE
>voters. Some people found NEITHER candidate acceptable.

More loser's sour grapes. If Kerry won by a teeny weeny percentage,
then your song and dance would have been a whole lot different.

Nope, as I have already stated before I was not a Kerry supporter. I
would have just had other problems to worry about.

Get
over the devastating but not unexpected loss, and get back on the
road to the video poker machines that you can't stay away from.

Another low intelligence response.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#22

Here's some clues for the distraught input you just provided: GWB
won; whomever you voted for (if you even did THAT) lost; GWB's
administration carries on with or without further crying by
independents, democrats, or mutants; and the majority of American
people have spoken with common sense once again--to the chagrin and
ulcer-causing agony of people such as you. In turn, all you can do is
repeat the Kerry platform like some forlorn child lost in his own
world. All those issues you mentioned are the minority opinion, and
that minority is comprised of recently-turned American foreigners,
queers, hippies, fat filmmakers with big mouths, squeally actors like
Sean Penn, immoral bafoons like Bill Clinton, Muslims, and sick-
mouthed lawyers like Edwards. You had no logical position in video
poker and you have none here.

I couldn't find one single thing in your entire set of responses

that

has any merit whatsoever. Just like in VP when confronted with

facts

you throw out outrageous unproven suppostions like you really know
what's going on. It's obvious that you don't. You believe the

entire

rest of the western world has no clue while your hero GWB knows it
all. No WMDs were found and never will be. However, your brick wall
intellect will never accept this, because then you'd have to admit
you were wrong. So, keep believing in the fairy WMDs and that

Saddam

···

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

was some Hitler like threat. Historic evidence will continue to
support your ignorance.

#23

If you paid any attention, most of those statements were made

BEFORE we thought we had won the war and GWB made his idiotic flight
deck appearance to claim victory. He clearly wasn't prepared for what
has happened since then.

Now you're whining about 'when most staments were made'. That's
typical of someone not allowing themself to see common sense. And
your stupid comment about the flight deck is just another reason why
people didn't vote for Kerry. He might as well have slapped every
sailor's face in the process. No one criticizes our Military in time
of war and gets away with it. Go ahead, ask him how he feels about
that big-mouth position now! Better yet, ask his downtrodden wife!!
All I'll say here is HAHAHA AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

? And
> who in this country cares about gasoline prices anyway? (Oh, yes,
> it's those 'advantage players' who drive all over town getting
roped into casino promotions, and too high a price at the pump

would 'cut into' their EV!" HA!

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. No one cares about energy
prices, do they? Thank you for clearly showing everyone just how

out of touch with reality you are.

I don't care about them, and no one in my neighborhood or any of my
former co-workers care about them. So you were saying??? You care
about them because you pour whatever money you have into the Indians'
bank accounts.

> Again, go back and check your facts before posting something
> meaningless. Prior to 9-11 (and I mean on the day before) there
were 22 deadly conflicts around the globe, and 19 of them were

because your friends the Muslims from the so-called 'religion of
peace' were the agressors against their either non-Muslim neighbors -
or in a few cases, their non-secular 'brothers'. And wherever their
was terrorism Saddam supported it.

Is there a point to this? We had the same problem with communism

and brought it down without invading the USSR. If you look back
further than 9/11 you will see many examples of conflicts based on
religion. Trying to use this as a reason to invade Iraq is an
indication of pure stupidity.

You're so uninformed that I'm glad you're here to be straightened
out. Communism and Terrorism the same? Tell that to the
schoolchildren's parents in Russia's incident recently. And most of
the past conflicts WERE started by idiotic Muslims.

If ignorance were was worth anything you'd be a rich man. You

really think there is "no more hatred"? Can you read???

Huh? You're not being clear again. No more hatred where?

But was it worth the price? It's likely Iraq 'will eventually be'
better off without Saddam. As I've said all along, there was a much
better way.

Yup, just like Kerry. There is a "much better way" but beyond the
stupid criticizm there never was a defined plan. Just as in video
poker, all you can do is wonder while I move forward.

  
The BELIEF that GWB is more moral has nothing to do with the facts

at hand. In fact, many women voters have indicated the dislike of

Kerrys' wife was the main reason they voted for Bush. I suspect

that reasoning sounds like a policy mandate to you.

Kerry looked immoral and stupid because of his embrace of Clinton.
Anything else you say is more of the same whining.

> Kerry pounded away on the war, terrorism, homeland
> security, and even Cheney's gay daughter. Now, you people are

left

> holding his tainted bags, so it's onto "the view that GWB was

more

> moral than Kerry". HAHAHAHEHEHEHOHOHO!!! When can I stop the
> laughter???

Since you haven't caught on to this before let me make it clear

that I did not and would never vote for Kerry. So, if you think these

rants on your part will have any effect on me then you once again

are showing your stupidity.

I don't care if the truth has an effect on you or not. I'm laughing
day and night over this, and I only care about the comforting effect
that has on me!

Nope, as I have already stated before I was not a Kerry supporter.

I would have just had other problems to worry about.

Not voting is worse than voting against your beliefs. Period. Or did
you write in Michael Moore or Madonna's name???
Get over the devastating but not unexpected loss, and get back on the
road to the video poker machines that you can't stay away from.

···

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

#24

> > I don't know that. I believe GWB cares mainly about personal
power
> > and corporate profits and started the war to create instability
> that
> > would raise oil prices. He succeeded! The fact that he thought
the
> > war could be won without significant loss of American life is
just
> > one more reason not to trust the man.
>
> Right. GWB created instability to raise prices. By doing this he
> could have gas over $2 a gallon, slow down the economy, and have
> everyone mad at him come election time.(/sarcasm off)
> That is the most ignorant statement i've heard in a long time.

I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the next
election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you can't or
won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was

someone

to idolize can't be too bright to begin wi

Typical Lib trying to win a debate by ridiculing. Won't work.
Your sure of what the plan was? You put on your tinfoil hat and come
up with all the answers.
If you would have listened to some of the breifings instead of
getting your facts from the likes of the New York times, you would
have known that they expected the transition to last for awhile. Only
the "Can't we all just get along" crowd thought we'd be out in two
weeks.
It took us almost 5 years to get out of Germany and we lost soldiers
there because the Nazi hold outs wouldn't give up. Anyone with any
grasp of history should understand this. History has this way of
repeating itself. You should be ashamed of yourself for not
understanding this. History repeats itself like your math formulas
for VP.
Enlightened as you are I'm surprised you haven't put the stats into
Frugal Video War Games or Winwarker and come up with a mathmatical
strategy giving Risk of ruin. A little behind the Bell Curve on this
one. Get together with Dancer and then give the Pentagon a heads up.

> >
> > > Saddam never did. And left unchecked, he would have
> > > been another Hitler. We did learn from WWII.
> >
> > Are you somehow indicating that Saddam had the resources to

take

on
> > the world as Hitler did? Pllllleeeeaassssse!!!!!!
>
> If left alone he had the ability to blackmail the Middle East and
> control 2/3 of the worlds oil. This was more power than Hitler

ever

> dreamed of. He could have brought the worlds economy to a halt.

If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we would have
had no problem putting together a true alliance of world powers
including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have

elimiated

many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde East. Saddam

knew

that. You really need to understand more before running off at the
mouth.

> What
> would you do then blame Halliburton?
> Now I'm sure you being the good liberal

Who ever said I was a Liberal??? Never have been, never will

be.

However, I don't just accept party rhetoric and everything Rush

says

like a lot of rather stupid conservatives.

> that you are power your Subaru
> with a windmill on the roof and solar panel backups on the trunk.
> The rest of us depend on oil for little things like tranportation
and
> making sure all the goods we consume and produce make it to the
> market.
> You should concentrate on crunching numbers for EV on VP machines.
> Leave the important things to the 51 percent of this country that
had
> the vision of the problems we face.

Once again you chose to show your utter stupidity. Have to bothered
to spend anytime reading over the analysis of the election???

Clearly

not. The main reason for GWBs victory was the view that he was more
MORAL than Kerry.

Yes I have and I can see and your still spitting out the pablum the
main stream press is spoon feeding you.
The demented left still can't believe it. Now they are blaming the
Christians and "Moral" values as the problem. Morals doesn't just
apply to Gays and abortion. You shouldn't be so narrow minded. GWB
did win because on moral values but it's alot more complex then what
you seem to imply.
To most, having moral values refers to a President who shows
strength, core values to which he adheres through thick and thin,
discipline, honesty, sincerity, and as President Bush, himself, told
the press conference, "I believe that when the American President
speaks, he better mean what he says in order to keep the world
peaceful."
Kerry failed in all these as proven by the polls that you say I
didn't study. Better check your facts before you call someone stupid.
The left thought they could win this simply on hate for Bush. Didn't
work. They put up a candidate that had a plan to fix everything from
the war to wages. The problem was he never told anyone what the plans
were. When people started checking his record for the last twenty
years it was a no- brainer. He was in the Senate for all this time
and his biggest piece of legislation that had his name attached to it
was a bill for a Population awareness week. Don't believe me look it
up. It can all be found online. 59 million people were not fooled
like you were by his scam.
Being as enlightened as you are you should have known this. What
amazes me is how you and your ilk can claim to be so on top of
everything and as dumb and ignorant as a bag of rocks.
Being the good conservative that I am I'm willing to help you. Send
me your mailing address and i'll send you enough money to buy a
ticket on the Clue Bus.
Just for the record I don't listen to Rush. I do frequent www.
freerepublic.com. I'm sure you've heard of them. They are the ones
that proved Rather a fraud. It's a website full of conservative
Doctors, Lawyers, teachers, PHD,s scientists, and people ftom all
walks of life. Basically the Idiots that voted for Bush. The ones the
Coastal Liberals look down on. The unwashed from flyover country.
A word to the wise if you should go in. Don't post. From what I've
seen from you on here they'll eat you for lunch. Lurk and learn.
Believe me you need it.

> To the other 49 percent of idiots that see things as you do

should

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> shut up
> and count. You're stupidity is really beginning to get annoying.

I'm sure the facts are annoying to those who like to sit around
comfortably in their own delusions. Oh, by the way, GWB did NOT get
51% of the votes of all ELIGIBLE voters. Some people found NEITHER
candidate acceptable.

#25

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

wrote:

Here's some clues for the distraught input you just provided: GWB
won; whomever you voted for (if you even did THAT) lost; GWB's
administration carries on with or without further crying by
independents, democrats, or mutants; and the majority of American
people have spoken with common sense once again--to the chagrin and
ulcer-causing agony of people such as you. In turn, all you can do

is

repeat the Kerry platform like some forlorn child lost in his own
world. All those issues you mentioned are the minority opinion, and
that minority is comprised of recently-turned American foreigners,
queers, hippies, fat filmmakers with big mouths, squeally actors

like

Sean Penn, immoral bafoons like Bill Clinton, Muslims, and sick-
mouthed lawyers like Edwards. You had no logical position in video
poker and you have none here.

I see Rob is reverting to his normal brain dead responses. It takes
no effort on my part for you to come apart at the seams. I love it.
Next time try to insert a fact or two into your idiotic tirades.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#26

> > I don't know that. I believe GWB cares mainly about personal
power
> > and corporate profits and started the war to create instability
> that
> > would raise oil prices. He succeeded! The fact that he thought
the
> > war could be won without significant loss of American life is
just
> > one more reason not to trust the man.
>
> Right. GWB created instability to raise prices. By doing this he
> could have gas over $2 a gallon, slow down the economy, and have
> everyone mad at him come election time.(/sarcasm off)
> That is the most ignorant statement i've heard in a long time.

I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the next
election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you can't or
won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was

someone

to idolize can't be too bright to begin with ...

> >
> > > Saddam never did. And left unchecked, he would have
> > > been another Hitler. We did learn from WWII.
> >
> > Are you somehow indicating that Saddam had the resources to

take

on
> > the world as Hitler did? Pllllleeeeaassssse!!!!!!
>
> If left alone he had the ability to blackmail the Middle East and
> control 2/3 of the worlds oil. This was more power than Hitler

ever

> dreamed of. He could have brought the worlds economy to a halt.

If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we would have
had no problem putting together a true alliance of world powers
including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have

elimiated

many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde East. Saddam

knew

that. You really need to understand more before running off at the
mouth.

Sorry I missed this one.
Try real hard to understand this if you can.
In 91 we went in to liberate a country who asked for our help. In 03
we went in against a group that killed 3000 of our citizens.
This is where the morals of a President come into play. GWB told the
world we would destroy them and any nation that supports them.
Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers $25k He ignored
sanctions He tried to have a US President assinated. He fired at our
fighter pilots. He threw the inspectors out. He trained terrorists
We don't need the permission of the world to protect our freedoms and
security.
Rooseveldt didn't ask for permission to declare war on Japan nor did
he try to find an alliance before making his decision.
More people died in NY than did in Pearl Harbor.
If you say that Saddam had nothing to do with that you're more
ignorant than your posts reveal.
We also know that the these countries that I'm sure you wanted as an
alliance were skimming money from Iraqs' oil. Are these the people
you want approval from? Are you that lame?
The UN is where I have a problem with this President. He should go
before the general assembly at the UN and tell them they have 60 days
to get their sorry asses off or soil.They are a uselees body that
sucks our taxes and acomplished nothing.
Any of you chickenshit doves that have a problem with that should go
with them.
We don't need approval from anyone to seek revenge for our dead.
Libya got the message. Syria is trying to deal with us in secret
talks. Iran might have to learn the hard way. It's working even
though you handwringers don't see past your pointy little heads.
And if you plan on persuing this come up with something original.
Your quoting the left wing media. These arguments are old and tired.

> What
> would you do then blame Halliburton?
> Now I'm sure you being the good liberal

Who ever said I was a Liberal??? Never have been, never will

be.

However, I don't just accept party rhetoric and everything Rush

says

like a lot of rather stupid conservatives.

> that you are power your Subaru
> with a windmill on the roof and solar panel backups on the trunk.
> The rest of us depend on oil for little things like tranportation
and
> making sure all the goods we consume and produce make it to the
> market.
> You should concentrate on crunching numbers for EV on VP machines.
> Leave the important things to the 51 percent of this country that
had
> the vision of the problems we face.

Once again you chose to show your utter stupidity. Have to bothered
to spend anytime reading over the analysis of the election???

Clearly

not. The main reason for GWBs victory was the view that he was more
MORAL than Kerry.

> To the other 49 percent of idiots that see things as you do

should

···

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

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> shut up
> and count. You're stupidity is really beginning to get annoying.

I'm sure the facts are annoying to those who like to sit around
comfortably in their own delusions. Oh, by the way, GWB did NOT get
51% of the votes of all ELIGIBLE voters. Some people found NEITHER
candidate acceptable.

#27

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

wrote:

> If you paid any attention, most of those statements were made
BEFORE we thought we had won the war and GWB made his idiotic

flight

deck appearance to claim victory. He clearly wasn't prepared for

what

has happened since then.

Now you're whining about 'when most staments were made'.

No. I was simply answering your erroneous assertion, which you
removed from this post. This is typical Rob Singer. When you're shown
to be be wrong you try to hide your original stupid remark.

That's
typical of someone not allowing themself to see common sense. And
your stupid comment about the flight deck is just another reason

why

people didn't vote for Kerry.

Kerrys' missteps go way beyond your simple assertion. He couldn't
decide if he supported the war or didn't (among many other things).
This constant flip-flop demonstated a campaign without a vision or
strategy (and as a result a man who would say anything to get
elected). The Bush campaign completely outclassed the Kerry campaign.

He might as well have slapped every
sailor's face in the process. No one criticizes our Military in

time

of war and gets away with it. Go ahead, ask him how he feels about
that big-mouth position now! Better yet, ask his downtrodden wife!!
All I'll say here is HAHAHA AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I not suprised that's all your intellect can come up with.

>
> ? And
> > who in this country cares about gasoline prices anyway? (Oh,

yes,

> > it's those 'advantage players' who drive all over town getting
> roped into casino promotions, and too high a price at the pump
would 'cut into' their EV!" HA!
>
> What an absolutely ridiculous statement. No one cares about

energy

> prices, do they? Thank you for clearly showing everyone just how
out of touch with reality you are.

I don't care about them, and no one in my neighborhood or any of my
former co-workers care about them. So you were saying??? You care
about them because you pour whatever money you have into the

Indians'

bank accounts.

Please keep up these intelligent comebacks, I can hear you squirm.

Actually, you should have stayed with "Duh". It had just as much
value as your current rants.

>
> > Again, go back and check your facts before posting something
> > meaningless. Prior to 9-11 (and I mean on the day before) there
> were 22 deadly conflicts around the globe, and 19 of them were
because your friends the Muslims from the so-called 'religion of
peace' were the agressors against their either non-Muslim

neighbors -

or in a few cases, their non-secular 'brothers'. And wherever their
was terrorism Saddam supported it.
>
> Is there a point to this? We had the same problem with communism
and brought it down without invading the USSR. If you look back
further than 9/11 you will see many examples of conflicts based on
religion. Trying to use this as a reason to invade Iraq is an
indication of pure stupidity.

You're so uninformed that I'm glad you're here to be straightened
out. Communism and Terrorism the same?

My statement had to do with the invasion of a Iraq, an accepted
member of the UN. Please try to keep up.

Tell that to the
schoolchildren's parents in Russia's incident recently. And most of
the past conflicts WERE started by idiotic Muslims.
>
> If ignorance were was worth anything you'd be a rich man. You
really think there is "no more hatred"? Can you read???

Huh? You're not being clear again. No more hatred where?

Boy are you slow. You can't even remember your own remarks posted
earlier in the day. This time I'm not going to help you out. Go back
and read your own stupid posts.

>
> But was it worth the price? It's likely Iraq 'will eventually be'
> better off without Saddam. As I've said all along, there was a

much

> better way.

Yup, just like Kerry. There is a "much better way" but beyond the
stupid criticizm there never was a defined plan. Just as in video
poker, all you can do is wonder while I move forward.

I love it when you bring up Kerry and VP when you have no reasonable
response to my statements. It clearly demonstates you are lost.

>
> The BELIEF that GWB is more moral has nothing to do with the

facts

at hand. In fact, many women voters have indicated the dislike of
> Kerrys' wife was the main reason they voted for Bush. I suspect
that reasoning sounds like a policy mandate to you.

Kerry looked immoral and stupid because of his embrace of Clinton.
Anything else you say is more of the same whining.

Kerry should have avoided Clinton since those who liked Clinton were
already in Kerrys' camp. Just another example of a mismanaged
campaign.

>
> > Kerry pounded away on the war, terrorism, homeland
> > security, and even Cheney's gay daughter. Now, you people are
left
> > holding his tainted bags, so it's onto "the view that GWB was
more
> > moral than Kerry". HAHAHAHEHEHEHOHOHO!!!!!!!! When can I stop

the

> > laughter???
>
> Since you haven't caught on to this before let me make it clear
that I did not and would never vote for Kerry. So, if you think

these

> rants on your part will have any effect on me then you once again
are showing your stupidity.

I don't care if the truth has an effect on you or not. I'm laughing
day and night over this, and I only care about the comforting

effect

that has on me!

Oh, you care or you wouldn't keep posting all the time. I'm comforted
that the readers of this forum can see your responses and say "what
an idiot".

>
> Nope, as I have already stated before I was not a Kerry

supporter.

I would have just had other problems to worry about.

Not voting is worse than voting against your beliefs. Period.

Is it now? This is clearly the view of someone who has neither the
intelligence nor the will to stand up for what THEY believe.

Or did
you write in Michael Moore or Madonna's name???
Get over the devastating but not unexpected loss, and get back on

the

road to the video poker machines that you can't stay away from.

I can see why you want to end this discussion now. But, your ego
won't let you run and hide like you should.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#28

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

wrote:

>
>
> > > I don't know that. I believe GWB cares mainly about personal
> power
> > > and corporate profits and started the war to create

instability

> > that
> > > would raise oil prices. He succeeded! The fact that he

thought

> the
> > > war could be won without significant loss of American life is
> just
> > > one more reason not to trust the man.
> >
> > Right. GWB created instability to raise prices. By doing this

he

> > could have gas over $2 a gallon, slow down the economy, and

have

> > everyone mad at him come election time.(/sarcasm off)
> > That is the most ignorant statement i've heard in a long time.
>
> I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the next
> election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you can't or
> won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was
someone
> to idolize can't be too bright to begin with ...
>
> > >
> > > > Saddam never did. And left unchecked, he would have
> > > > been another Hitler. We did learn from WWII.
> > >
> > > Are you somehow indicating that Saddam had the resources to
take
> on
> > > the world as Hitler did? Pllllleeeeaassssse!!!!!!
> >
> > If left alone he had the ability to blackmail the Middle East

and

> > control 2/3 of the worlds oil. This was more power than Hitler
ever
> > dreamed of. He could have brought the worlds economy to a halt.
>
> If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we would

have

> had no problem putting together a true alliance of world powers
> including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have
elimiated
> many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde East. Saddam
knew
> that. You really need to understand more before running off at

the

> mouth.
Sorry I missed this one.
Try real hard to understand this if you can.
In 91 we went in to liberate a country who asked for our help. In

03

we went in against a group that killed 3000 of our citizens.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the Osama and his terrorists.
If you have evidence to the contray please supply it or quit making
idiotic statements. By the way, you would most likely receive the
P.P. in journalism for this information.

This is where the morals of a President come into play. GWB told

the

world we would destroy them and any nation that supports them.

You mean nations like Saudi Arabia???

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers $25k He ignored
sanctions He tried to have a US President assinated. He fired at

our

fighter pilots. He threw the inspectors out. He trained terrorists
We don't need the permission of the world to protect our freedoms

and

security.

Boy, have you ever been brainwashed.

Rooseveldt didn't ask for permission to declare war on Japan nor

did

he try to find an alliance before making his decision.
More people died in NY than did in Pearl Harbor.

Hello! Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. NY was not attacked by
Iraq. Are you really this ignorant? It's hard for me to imagine
anyone could be this stupid.

If you say that Saddam had nothing to do with that you're more
ignorant than your posts reveal.

Please supply your evidence. You can't and you can bet our
intelligence agents in Iraq have been looking extremely hard for just
such a connection. They haven't found one because there wasn't one.
The facts reveal the Saddam hated Osama. Probably an ego thing since
Saddam wanted to be revered in the Muslim world.

We also know that the these countries that I'm sure you wanted as

an

alliance were skimming money from Iraqs' oil. Are these the people
you want approval from? Are you that lame?

You clearly have no understanding of the politics involved. We need
these countries support to avoid creating a whole new generation of
terrorists. We didn't get their support and now we are seeing new
terrorists every day. You don't have a clue, do you?

The UN is where I have a problem with this President. He should go
before the general assembly at the UN and tell them they have 60

days

to get their sorry asses off or soil.They are a uselees body that
sucks our taxes and acomplished nothing.
Any of you chickenshit doves that have a problem with that should

go

with them.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have to live with the consequences of
such an action. We've used the UN to our benefit much more often than
the other way around. The one time we don't get the support we want
and you want to kick them out. Sounds like grade school logic to me.

Of course, it turns out the UN was right all along.

We don't need approval from anyone to seek revenge for our dead.

Then why did we quit an all out search for Osama? Once you understand
the answer to this question you will begin to understand the bigger
picture.

Libya got the message. Syria is trying to deal with us in secret
talks. Iran might have to learn the hard way. It's working even
though you handwringers don't see past your pointy little heads.

I see your logic ranks right up there with Robs'. Of course these
countries now see us as an aggressor and are willing to "back off"
for the time being. Do you think that means they are now our friends?
Where do you think this will lead in the future? Or, have you even
tried to think ahead? Of course, you haven't. Otherwise you could see
the historic analogies and be much more wary of our actions.

And if you plan on persuing this come up with something original.
Your quoting the left wing media. These arguments are old and tired.

Facts can get old when you don't want to hear them. In this instance
the left wing media is right. However, they are simply relating what
the REST of the civilized world has already come to accept. The
evidence is there for any reasonably intelligent person to review.

You really should try to think for yourself.

···

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

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

#29

No. I was simply answering your erroneous assertion, which you
removed from this post. This is typical Rob Singer. When you're

shown to be be wrong you try to hide your original stupid remark.

That's a little weak--esp. for a slide-rule 'totin geek like you. The
original dumb input by you can easily be re-read by anyone at any
time.

Kerrys' missteps go way beyond your simple assertion. He couldn't
decide if he supported the war or didn't (among many other things).
This constant flip-flop demonstated a campaign without a vision or
strategy (and as a result a man who would say anything to get
elected). The Bush campaign completely outclassed the Kerry

campaign.

I get it now. You consider yourself above all voters because you like
to criticize and you CAN criticize anyone's position on
anything....including mine. Life in the grey area. What a joy.

> He might as well have slapped every
> sailor's face in the process. No one criticizes our Military in
time of war and gets away with it. Go ahead, ask him how he feels

about that big-mouth position now! Better yet, ask his downtrodden
wife!! All I'll say here is HAHAHA AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I not suprised that's all your intellect can come up with.

Your typical answer or response when left with your chin dropped.

> I don't care about them, and no one in my neighborhood or any of

my former co-workers care about them. So you were saying??? You care

> about them because you pour whatever money you have into the
Indians' bank accounts.

Please keep up these intelligent comebacks, I can hear you squirm.

And you can hear the Injuns counting your money! Another reason why
you're so bitter a person and lead a sour life.

My statement had to do with the invasion of a Iraq, an accepted
member of the UN. Please try to keep up.

Huh? Now you support what the UN stands for? And I thought Kerry was
the flip-flop artist.

> Yup, just like Kerry. There is a "much better way" but beyond the
> stupid criticizm there never was a defined plan. Just as in video
> poker, all you can do is wonder while I move forward.

I love it when you bring up Kerry and VP when you have no

reasonable response to my statements. It clearly demonstates you are
lost.

You are the same person whether it comes to Kerry or video poker.
You've analyzed the heck out of vp out of a compulsive habit to play
the game, and you can't understand the addiction. With Bush & Kerry,
you're using them and the election as an alternative methof of steam-
release in order to achieve what you cannot in vp....a feel-good
position that doesn't personally affect you.

> I don't care if the truth has an effect on you or not. I'm

laughing day and night over this, and I only care about the
comforting effect that has on me!

Oh, you care or you wouldn't keep posting all the time. I'm

comforted that the readers of this forum can see your responses and
say "what an idiot".

Well, the more I write about your inconsistencies the more I enjoy
it. I care about what I feel and not you. Knocking down a self-
proclaimed/never-proven video poker expert wannabee on a more
important subject is once again satisfying. The gift that keeps on
giving.....

> >
> > Nope, as I have already stated before I was not a Kerry
supporter.
> I would have just had other problems to worry about.

> Not voting is worse than voting against your beliefs. Period.

Is it now? This is clearly the view of someone who has neither the
intelligence nor the will to stand up for what THEY believe.

Um, I think 120 million people stood up for what they believed in,
desired, or did not desire last week. Only the cowards and critics
sat down.

···

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

#30

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

wrote:

> No. I was simply answering your erroneous assertion, which you
> removed from this post. This is typical Rob Singer. When you're
shown to be be wrong you try to hide your original stupid remark.

That's a little weak--esp. for a slide-rule 'totin geek like you.

The

original dumb input by you can easily be re-read by anyone at any
time.

Translation. You are completely lost and have nothing intelligent to
add so you revert to your normal name calling tactics. You are so
predictable.

>
> Kerrys' missteps go way beyond your simple assertion. He couldn't
> decide if he supported the war or didn't (among many other

things).

> This constant flip-flop demonstated a campaign without a vision

or

> strategy (and as a result a man who would say anything to get
> elected). The Bush campaign completely outclassed the Kerry
campaign.

I get it now. You consider yourself above all voters because you

like

to criticize and you CAN criticize anyone's position on
anything....including mine. Life in the grey area. What a joy.

I have no problem when people make informed choices and vote on those
beliefs. On the other hand, when people choose not to become informed
then I will critize. Your position is easy to critize when you choose
to post rhetoric as fact.

>
> > He might as well have slapped every
> > sailor's face in the process. No one criticizes our Military in
> time of war and gets away with it. Go ahead, ask him how he feels
about that big-mouth position now! Better yet, ask his downtrodden
wife!! All I'll say here is HAHAHA AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I not suprised that's all your intellect can come up with.

Your typical answer or response when left with your chin dropped.

Another of your no content responses ... Not laughing anymore?

>
> > I don't care about them, and no one in my neighborhood or any

of

my former co-workers care about them. So you were saying??? You

care

> > about them because you pour whatever money you have into the
> Indians' bank accounts.
>
> Please keep up these intelligent comebacks, I can hear you squirm.

And you can hear the Injuns counting your money! Another reason why
you're so bitter a person and lead a sour life.

I see, now you're completely informed about my current gambling.
You're wrong here (I haven't been in any Indian casino in almost 2
months) just like you are in almost all of the other garbage you post
as fact. Keep it up, please, I'm getting a big chuckle out of your
posts now.

>
> My statement had to do with the invasion of a Iraq, an accepted
> member of the UN. Please try to keep up.

Huh? Now you support what the UN stands for? And I thought Kerry

was

the flip-flop artist.

Please indicate where I flip-flopped and where in my post it states I
support what the UN stands for??? Your posts are getting more
idiotic all the time. Clearly, this is another attempt on your part
to avoid the original point and the fact you missed it.

>
> > Yup, just like Kerry. There is a "much better way" but beyond

the

> > stupid criticizm there never was a defined plan. Just as in

video

> > poker, all you can do is wonder while I move forward.
>
> I love it when you bring up Kerry and VP when you have no
reasonable response to my statements. It clearly demonstates you

are

lost.

You are the same person whether it comes to Kerry or video poker.
You've analyzed the heck out of vp out of a compulsive habit to

play

the game, and you can't understand the addiction. With Bush &

Kerry,

you're using them and the election as an alternative methof of

steam-

release in order to achieve what you cannot in vp....a feel-good
position that doesn't personally affect you.

We've been around this before, Rob. When you start your idiotic name
calling everyone knows you've lost the arguement and are simply too
stupid to shut up. It does bring a smile to my face ...

>
> > I don't care if the truth has an effect on you or not. I'm
laughing day and night over this, and I only care about the
comforting effect that has on me!
>
> Oh, you care or you wouldn't keep posting all the time. I'm
comforted that the readers of this forum can see your responses and
say "what an idiot".

Well, the more I write about your inconsistencies the more I enjoy
it. I care about what I feel and not you. Knocking down a self-
proclaimed/never-proven video poker expert wannabee on a more
important subject is once again satisfying. The gift that keeps on
giving.....

Please specify one single inconsistency ... One that wasn't made up
in your fuzzy mind.

>
> > >
> > > Nope, as I have already stated before I was not a Kerry
> supporter.
> > I would have just had other problems to worry about.

> > Not voting is worse than voting against your beliefs. Period.
>
> Is it now? This is clearly the view of someone who has neither

the

> intelligence nor the will to stand up for what THEY believe.

Um, I think 120 million people stood up for what they believed in,
desired, or did not desire last week. Only the cowards and critics
sat down.

More name calling??? You have nothing to stand on. On the other hand,
I'm all for the people who "stood up for what they believe in".
That's exactly what I did.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#31

Translation. You are completely lost and have nothing intelligent
to add so you revert to your normal name calling tactics. You are so
predictable.

Another slip up, Mr. always clear, prove-it-to-me, balls-on Geek?If
I'm 'so predictable, then why didn't you PREDICT it?!!

> I get it now. You consider yourself above all voters because you
like
> to criticize and you CAN criticize anyone's position on
> anything....including mine. Life in the grey area. What a joy.

I have no problem when people make informed choices and vote on

those beliefs. On the other hand, when people choose not to become
informed then I will critize. Your position is easy to critize when
you choose to post rhetoric as fact.

Not so easy to support when you would have criticized either side, is
it.

> >
> And you can hear the Injuns counting your money! Another reason

why you're so bitter a person and lead a sour life.

I see, now you're completely informed about my current gambling.
You're wrong here (I haven't been in any Indian casino in almost 2
months)

Hit a sensitive spot, did I???

> Huh? Now you support what the UN stands for? And I thought Kerry
was the flip-flop artist.

Please indicate where I flip-flopped and where in my post it states

I support what the UN stands for??? Your posts are getting more

idiotic all the time. Clearly, this is another attempt on your part
to avoid the original point and the fact you missed it.

You support neither Bush not Kerry--exactly as the UN's position. Yet
you trust the UN to do the right thing when they never will. You
mealy mouth it in your responses so as not to let anyone copy/paste--
which I'll never do anyway. It's the good thing you are a very
minority opinion in this country.

> You are the same person whether it comes to Kerry or video poker.
> You've analyzed the heck out of vp out of a compulsive habit to
play the game, and you can't understand the addiction. With Bush &
Kerry, you're using them and the election as an alternative methof

of steam-release in order to achieve what you cannot in vp....a feel-
good position that doesn't personally affect you.

We've been around this before, Rob. When you start your idiotic

name calling everyone knows you've lost the arguement and are simply
too stupid to shut up. It does bring a smile to my face ...

....and a touch to that overly-sensitive nerve...........

> Um, I think 120 million people stood up for what they believed

in, desired, or did not desire last week. Only the cowards and
critics sat down.

More name calling??? You have nothing to stand on. On the other

hand, I'm all for the people who "stood up for what they believe in".

That's exactly what I did.

You criticized both candidates as useless here, and they were the
only ones running. A critic like that IS a coward because he either
didn't listen to the candidates in the campaign (VERY likely with
you) or, even more likely, he loves to take the position of an
overall critic (likely due to personal problems--in your case, with
video poker demons).

···

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

#32

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

wrote:

> Translation. You are completely lost and have nothing intelligent
>to add so you revert to your normal name calling tactics. You are

so

>predictable.

Another slip up, Mr. always clear, prove-it-to-me, balls-on Geek?If
I'm 'so predictable, then why didn't you PREDICT it?!!

Because I had to wait for you to do it, moron. Are you really this
stupid? If I had predicted it prior to your rants then you may have
tried something else. Of course, it was easy to predict. It's the
only way you know how to think (and I use that term loosely).

>
> > I get it now. You consider yourself above all voters because

you

> like
> > to criticize and you CAN criticize anyone's position on
> > anything....including mine. Life in the grey area. What a joy.
>
> I have no problem when people make informed choices and vote on
those beliefs. On the other hand, when people choose not to become
informed then I will critize. Your position is easy to critize when
you choose to post rhetoric as fact.

Not so easy to support when you would have criticized either side,

is

it.

Another example of your intellect? You make no sense whatsoever.

> > >
> > And you can hear the Injuns counting your money! Another reason
why you're so bitter a person and lead a sour life.
>
> I see, now you're completely informed about my current gambling.
> You're wrong here (I haven't been in any Indian casino in almost

2

> months)

Hit a sensitive spot, did I???

Not at all. I rarely drive 1000's miles to visit a casino when there
are ones a few miles away. Looks like another of your assumptions
just bit the big one. Are you ever right about anything?

> > Huh? Now you support what the UN stands for? And I thought

Kerry

> was the flip-flop artist.
>
> Please indicate where I flip-flopped and where in my post it

states

I support what the UN stands for??? Your posts are getting more
> idiotic all the time. Clearly, this is another attempt on your

part

> to avoid the original point and the fact you missed it.

You support neither Bush not Kerry--exactly as the UN's position.

Please specify something concrete rather than using terms like "the
UN's position" which is a meaningless statement. The UN is composed
of many countries that all have differing positions on various
topics. Trying to generalize something like this is completely lunacy.

Yet
you trust the UN to do the right thing when they never will.

I never said that. Please use a quote if your going to discuss what I
trust or don't trust. You have no idea and you never will because you
don't have the intelligence to do anything other than parrot the
party line.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

You
mealy mouth it in your responses so as not to let anyone copy/paste-

-

which I'll never do anyway. It's the good thing you are a very
minority opinion in this country.

Translation. You don't have a clue. And, you never will.

>
> > You are the same person whether it comes to Kerry or video

poker.

> > You've analyzed the heck out of vp out of a compulsive habit to
> play the game, and you can't understand the addiction. With Bush

&

> Kerry, you're using them and the election as an alternative

methof

of steam-release in order to achieve what you cannot in vp....a

feel-

good position that doesn't personally affect you.
>
> We've been around this before, Rob. When you start your idiotic
name calling everyone knows you've lost the arguement and are

simply

too stupid to shut up. It does bring a smile to my face ...

....and a touch to that overly-sensitive nerve...........

Nope. Just stating the facts. I know you'd love to think that I've
been losing at VP, but it just ain't so. 5 RFs last month alone. More
proof that advantage play DOES work.

>
> > Um, I think 120 million people stood up for what they believed
in, desired, or did not desire last week. Only the cowards and
critics sat down.
>
> More name calling??? You have nothing to stand on. On the other
hand, I'm all for the people who "stood up for what they believe

in".

> That's exactly what I did.

You criticized both candidates as useless here, and they were the
only ones running.

No I didn't say they were "useless". Please read closely so you can
get something right in the the future. I have fundemental
philosophical differences with the current Democratic party. I could
NEVER vote for their candidate until the party itself makes some
basic changes. As a moderate conservative I would prefer to vote for
the republican candidate but GWBs actions as President made that
impossible. I could no more vote for GWB than I could for Hitler if
he were running. Now reread what I just wrote a couple more times so
you won't misquote me in the future.

A critic like that IS a coward because he either
didn't listen to the candidates in the campaign (VERY likely with
you) or, even more likely, he loves to take the position of an
overall critic (likely due to personal problems--in your case, with
video poker demons).

Yes, those RF demons dancing in my head. Good grief! You know, you
have become even more adept at making a fool out of yourself than I
remembered.

#33

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

wrote:

> >
> > > > I don't know that. I believe GWB cares mainly about

personal

> > power
> > > > and corporate profits and started the war to create
instability
> > > that
> > > > would raise oil prices. He succeeded! The fact that he
thought
> > the
> > > > war could be won without significant loss of American life

is

> > just
> > > > one more reason not to trust the man.
> > >
> > > Right. GWB created instability to raise prices. By doing this
he
> > > could have gas over $2 a gallon, slow down the economy, and
have
> > > everyone mad at him come election time.(/sarcasm off)
> > > That is the most ignorant statement i've heard in a long

time.

> >
> > I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the

next

> > election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you can't

or

> > won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was
> someone
> > to idolize can't be too bright to begin with ...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Saddam never did. And left unchecked, he would have
> > > > > been another Hitler. We did learn from WWII.
> > > >
> > > > Are you somehow indicating that Saddam had the resources to
> take
> > on
> > > > the world as Hitler did? Pllllleeeeaassssse!!!!!!
> > >
> > > If left alone he had the ability to blackmail the Middle East
and
> > > control 2/3 of the worlds oil. This was more power than

Hitler

> ever
> > > dreamed of. He could have brought the worlds economy to a

halt.

> >
> > If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we would
have
> > had no problem putting together a true alliance of world powers
> > including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have
> elimiated
> > many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde East.

Saddam

> knew
> > that. You really need to understand more before running off at
the
> > mouth.
> Sorry I missed this one.
> Try real hard to understand this if you can.
> In 91 we went in to liberate a country who asked for our help. In
03
> we went in against a group that killed 3000 of our citizens.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the Osama and his

terrorists.

If you have evidence to the contray please supply it or quit making
idiotic statements. By the way, you would most likely receive the
P.P. in journalism for this information.

Einstein it isn't just Osama. It's an ideology a religious belief.
There are hundreds of terrorist groups around the world attacking us.
You think that if we catch Osama it's all over? And you have the
nerve to call others stupid?

> This is where the morals of a President come into play. GWB told
the
> world we would destroy them and any nation that supports them.

You mean nations like Saudi Arabia???

You can bet that the Saudis come to the table or they will be dealt
with. Try to separate reality from your Micheal Moore movies.

> Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers $25k He ignored
> sanctions He tried to have a US President assinated. He fired at
our
> fighter pilots. He threw the inspectors out. He trained terrorists
> We don't need the permission of the world to protect our freedoms
and
> security.

Boy, have you ever been brainwashed.

These are proven facts. Your childish response shows your ignorance.
Even your buddy Clinton told us of the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.
The rest of my facts are easily verifiable by anyone willing to
remove his head from his large intestine.

> Rooseveldt didn't ask for permission to declare war on Japan nor
did
> he try to find an alliance before making his decision.
> More people died in NY than did in Pearl Harbor.

Hello! Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. NY was not attacked by
Iraq. Are you really this ignorant? It's hard for me to imagine
anyone could be this stupid.

Now isn't that brilliant. Care to tell the people here what country
flew into the Towers? While your at it if we only declare war on
those that attack us first please explain Germany in WW2. As
explained above we are at war with an ideology not a country. They
don't all have the same sand pit of origin.
Using your logic we wouldn't have been able to respond at all.

> If you say that Saddam had nothing to do with that you're more
> ignorant than your posts reveal.

Please supply your evidence. You can't and you can bet our
intelligence agents in Iraq have been looking extremely hard for

just

such a connection. They haven't found one because there wasn't one.
The facts reveal the Saddam hated Osama. Probably an ego thing

since

Saddam wanted to be revered in the Muslim world.

> We also know that the these countries that I'm sure you wanted

as

an
> alliance were skimming money from Iraqs' oil. Are these the

people

> you want approval from? Are you that lame?

You clearly have no understanding of the politics involved. We need
these countries support to avoid creating a whole new generation of
terrorists. We didn't get their support and now we are seeing new
terrorists every day. You don't have a clue, do you?

You can't have it both ways. You claimed we had a coalition in 91 and
there were muslim countries involved. Didn't stop them did it?
Here's your clue; it's not politics, never was. It's a reigious
belief. The Koran claims they must kill the infidel where they find
them. The extremists translate this literal. There mission is to kill
all that won't conform to this belief. They are killing their own.
How do you explain this? You can't. To believe that it's politics
shows your total ignorance of the circumstances. Anyone who beleives
we are going to negotiate to a peacefull solution is a moron. For
them to do this they would have to go against their belief in the
Koran. Understand now pinhead?

> The UN is where I have a problem with this President. He should

go

> before the general assembly at the UN and tell them they have 60
days
> to get their sorry asses off or soil.They are a uselees body that
> sucks our taxes and acomplished nothing.
> Any of you chickenshit doves that have a problem with that should
go
> with them.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have to live with the consequences

of

such an action. We've used the UN to our benefit much more often

than

the other way around. The one time we don't get the support we want
and you want to kick them out. Sounds like grade school logic to me.

Of course, it turns out the UN was right all along.

We use the UN to appease chickenshits like you. If they don't go
along we go alone. Even you should be able to grasp that. They
wouldn't go along with us in Iraq, and now we know why, their slush
fund was about to dry up, so went in alone didn't we? So much for the
relevance of the UN.

> We don't need approval from anyone to seek revenge for our dead.

Then why did we quit an all out search for Osama? Once you

understand

the answer to this question you will begin to understand the bigger
picture.

If you would have been paying attention you would have heard Gen
Tommy Franks rebuttal on this. His speech about a month ago called
this a blatant lie. We are still aggressivley hunting OBL. Now I'm
sure you think that the General is in the tank for Bush and you'd
take the word of Rather over him. Hell I'm sure Rather could come up
with some documents to prove Franks wrong.
Do you think OBL would choose to live in a cave if we weren't hunting
his sorry butt? Are you that dense?

> Libya got the message. Syria is trying to deal with us in secret
> talks. Iran might have to learn the hard way. It's working even
> though you handwringers don't see past your pointy little heads.

I see your logic ranks right up there with Robs'. Of course these
countries now see us as an aggressor and are willing to "back off"
for the time being. Do you think that means they are now our

friends?

Where do you think this will lead in the future? Or, have you even
tried to think ahead? Of course, you haven't. Otherwise you could

see

the historic analogies and be much more wary of our actions.

Rob tried to explain this to you. He told you of all the wars
involving the muslims. His only fault was not to spell it out so you
could grasp it.
Spain pulled out of Iraq for fear of the terrorists. They paid them
back by attacking Spain. Here again your narrow little view falls
apart. As I explained above it has nothing to do with a country being
the aggressor. Their religion commands that they be the aggressor and
kill anyone the doesn't agree. Is this clear yet? Shal I repeat it
once more for you? I,m beginning to wonder if you study numbers or
smoke number before you post this crap. Stash the hash your starting
to crash!

> And if you plan on persuing this come up with something original.
> Your quoting the left wing media. These arguments are old and

tired.

Facts can get old when you don't want to hear them. In this

instance

the left wing media is right. However, they are simply relating

what

the REST of the civilized world has already come to accept. The
evidence is there for any reasonably intelligent person to review.

You really should try to think for yourself.

What a typical statment from a clueless condescending snob.
Most people I debate have at least a sense of the facts to argue
their case.
You come in here offer nothing in the way of facts and just try to
name call your way out. Your pathetic. You bring nothing to the table
in the way of ideas. Your only responses are to blame America for all
the problems. Typical leftwing rhetoric. We're the aggressor, we fuel
the hatred, we have made the world mad, it's all our fault that the
terrorists attack us, we didn't kiss the Un's butt. STFU!
I will not respond to anymore of your posts. Your ad hominem attacks
are getting boring.
I have a sign here in my office that sometimes I forget about and get
into debates with people like you.
The sign reads: You can't teach a pig to sing, it's a waste of time
and only annoys the pig.
Quite profound for this situation.
Excuse any spelling errors I'm to tired to proof read.

···

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

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

#34

> Another slip up, Mr. always clear, prove-it-to-me, balls-on Geek?

If I'm 'so predictable, then why didn't you PREDICT it?!!

Because I had to wait for you to do it, moron. Are you really this
stupid? If I had predicted it prior to your rants then you may have
tried something else. Of course, it was easy to predict. It's the
only way you know how to think (and I use that term loosely).

And every person in this world and every other would have said the
same as you did now, desperately trying to save face. When confronted
with the facts, once again you 'make believe' while trying to give it
all a cute twist. Multiple times you accuse me of being
so 'predictable' yet you always fail to do the actual prediction. Not
surprising though, from a professional critic.

Not at all. I rarely drive 1000's miles to visit a casino when

there are ones a few miles away. Looks like another of your
assumptions just bit the big one. Are you ever right about anything?

Yes, usually about everything, and about a personality like you--
always.

Please specify something concrete rather than using terms like "the
UN's position" which is a meaningless statement.

I'm mealy-mouthing it because that's how you present your flip-
flopping on the issues. Even you realize 'the UN's position'--which
is anti-USA. In my opinion from what I've seen of your statements,
YOU are anti-USA, and ought to be living a few hundred miles North.
You like neither presidential candidate, you choose to allow sour
grapes from the election take over your life rather than try to work
with the program your country has given you, and you continue to
criticize when it does no good whatsoever except expose the true you
here - and likely in other venues. The most telling tale of
discontent? You'd have acted the same regardless of who won. A life
of criticizm. What a joy.

Nope. Just stating the facts. I know you'd love to think that I've
been losing at VP, but it just ain't so. 5 RFs last month alone.

More proof that advantage play DOES work.

I talked to someone (a dollar player--not a 25c or 50c player like
you claom to be) in LV last month who hit 13 RF's in the past 6
weeks. They were behind $3000.

I could no more vote for GWB than I could for Hitler if he were

running.

That qualifies you for treason and lunacy. Whether you voted for him
or not, he is your president. We had to live thru the Clinton years
of trikle-down immorality, and we said nothing of the sort. And you
do realize you are the "extreme minority". What does that tell you?
So with a president in office that you have to answer to, tell us, if
that president were Hitler or even like Hitler, then you're saying
you'd have no problem killing indiscriminately or rounding up Jews
for him, correct?

···

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

#35

This is the one statement that sums up Dick's reasoning: He's afraid
of the terrorists, and rather than face them he would choose to
proclaim everything was America's fault and apologize to any whom he
feels we've wronged along the way. Not really the kind of guy you'd
want in your foxhole, is he.

I saw a fool on TV tonight wail because he said we were wrong
to 'take Fallujah'--that it'll just fuel more of that famous anger of
Muslims towards us (and 'us' does not include Dick). A true coward's
statement. And guess who agree with him? Yup, Kofi Anan.

As we do all this militarily AND FIGHT THIS RELIGIOUS WAR, DICK, it
doesn't take a genius to realize that it IS WWIII, and sooner or
later the nukes will be unleashed. Do you think the Palestinians will
EVER get along with the Israelis--when every one of those barbarian
slobs are taught and will ALWAYS be taught to hate and exterminate
Jews from the day they can hear? What's sad but true is that because
of all the outcry for political correctness, the love of diversity,
people like Dick's cowardice, criticizm, and 'can't we just talk it
over' denial-like attitude, and the liberal's and ACLU's whining over
issues like the Patriot Act, there WILL be another huge attack on our
soil at some point in time. We can only hope Michael moore will be
there at that time. Yet at the same time, that's what it will take
for those idiots in this country to FINALLY wake up, and for us to
ALL see that the only way to stop it all is to destroy one large
Muslim city after another starting with several in Saudi Arabia. At
one point we'll stop--but not until wiping out half of the Islamic
world. We'll give them one more chance, and if one more attack occirs
anywhere against a US or ally's interest then they'll all be gone.
It's the only way to handle religious fanatics, and they will be the
cause of the near-entire loss of many decent Muslims who are in those
same countries that harbor terrorists. It will come to be.

···

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

I see your logic ranks right up there with Robs'. Of course these
countries now see us as an aggressor and are willing to "back off"
for the time being. Do you think that means they are now our
friends? Where do you think this will lead in the future? Or, have
you even tried to think ahead? Of course, you haven't. Otherwise you
could seethe historic analogies and be much more wary of our actions.

#36

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

wrote:

>
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I don't know that. I believe GWB cares mainly about
personal
> > > power
> > > > > and corporate profits and started the war to create
> instability
> > > > that
> > > > > would raise oil prices. He succeeded! The fact that he
> thought
> > > the
> > > > > war could be won without significant loss of American

life

is
> > > just
> > > > > one more reason not to trust the man.
> > > >
> > > > Right. GWB created instability to raise prices. By doing

this

> he
> > > > could have gas over $2 a gallon, slow down the economy, and
> have
> > > > everyone mad at him come election time.(/sarcasm off)
> > > > That is the most ignorant statement i've heard in a long
time.
> > >
> > > I'm sure the plan was the war would be over long before the
next
> > > election and gas prices would stablise. It's too bad you

can't

or
> > > won't think for yourself. But then anyone who'd think Rob was
> > someone
> > > to idolize can't be too bright to begin with ...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Saddam never did. And left unchecked, he would have
> > > > > > been another Hitler. We did learn from WWII.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you somehow indicating that Saddam had the resources

to

> > take
> > > on
> > > > > the world as Hitler did? Pllllleeeeaassssse!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > If left alone he had the ability to blackmail the Middle

East

> and
> > > > control 2/3 of the worlds oil. This was more power than
Hitler
> > ever
> > > > dreamed of. He could have brought the worlds economy to a
halt.
> > >
> > > If he made aggressive moves, as in the Gulf war, then we

would

> have
> > > had no problem putting together a true alliance of world

powers

> > > including other Muslim nations to stop him. That would have
> > elimiated
> > > many of the hatred the US faces today in the Millde East.
Saddam
> > knew
> > > that. You really need to understand more before running off

at

> the
> > > mouth.
> > Sorry I missed this one.
> > Try real hard to understand this if you can.
> > In 91 we went in to liberate a country who asked for our help.

In

> 03
> > we went in against a group that killed 3000 of our citizens.
>
> Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the Osama and his
terrorists.
> If you have evidence to the contray please supply it or quit

making

> idiotic statements. By the way, you would most likely receive the
> P.P. in journalism for this information.

Einstein it isn't just Osama. It's an ideology a religious belief.
There are hundreds of terrorist groups around the world attacking

us.

You think that if we catch Osama it's all over? And you have the
nerve to call others stupid?
>
> > This is where the morals of a President come into play. GWB

told

> the
> > world we would destroy them and any nation that supports them.
>
> You mean nations like Saudi Arabia???

You can bet that the Saudis come to the table or they will be dealt
with. Try to separate reality from your Micheal Moore movies.
>
> > Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers $25k He

ignored

> > sanctions He tried to have a US President assinated. He fired

at

> our
> > fighter pilots. He threw the inspectors out. He trained

terrorists

> > We don't need the permission of the world to protect our

freedoms

> and
> > security.
>
> Boy, have you ever been brainwashed.

These are proven facts. Your childish response shows your ignorance.
Even your buddy Clinton told us of the attempt to assassinate Bush

Sr.

The rest of my facts are easily verifiable by anyone willing to
remove his head from his large intestine.
>
> > Rooseveldt didn't ask for permission to declare war on Japan

nor

> did
> > he try to find an alliance before making his decision.
> > More people died in NY than did in Pearl Harbor.
>
> Hello! Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. NY was not attacked by
> Iraq. Are you really this ignorant? It's hard for me to imagine
> anyone could be this stupid.

Now isn't that brilliant. Care to tell the people here what country
flew into the Towers? While your at it if we only declare war on
those that attack us first please explain Germany in WW2. As
explained above we are at war with an ideology not a country. They
don't all have the same sand pit of origin.
Using your logic we wouldn't have been able to respond at all.
>
> > If you say that Saddam had nothing to do with that you're more
> > ignorant than your posts reveal.
>
> Please supply your evidence. You can't and you can bet our
> intelligence agents in Iraq have been looking extremely hard for
just
> such a connection. They haven't found one because there wasn't

one.

> The facts reveal the Saddam hated Osama. Probably an ego thing
since
> Saddam wanted to be revered in the Muslim world.
>
> > We also know that the these countries that I'm sure you wanted
as
> an
> > alliance were skimming money from Iraqs' oil. Are these the
people
> > you want approval from? Are you that lame?
>
> You clearly have no understanding of the politics involved. We

need

> these countries support to avoid creating a whole new generation

of

> terrorists. We didn't get their support and now we are seeing new
> terrorists every day. You don't have a clue, do you?

You can't have it both ways. You claimed we had a coalition in 91

and

there were muslim countries involved. Didn't stop them did it?

Them? could you be LESS specific? Do you even have any idea what
prompted Osamas' hatred of the US? Clearly not. It's called revenge.

Here's your clue; it's not politics, never was. It's a reigious
belief. The Koran claims they must kill the infidel where they find
them. The extremists translate this literal.

Like the Crusades? Now what religion was that? There are always those
who will use whatever means available to further their agendas. Just
because both the Bible and the Koran have many interpretations is not
the reason these folks hate the US.

There mission is to kill
all that won't conform to this belief. They are killing their own.
How do you explain this? You can't.

I just did.

To believe that it's politics
shows your total ignorance of the circumstances. Anyone who

beleives

we are going to negotiate to a peacefull solution is a moron. For
them to do this they would have to go against their belief in the
Koran. Understand now pinhead?

Yes, I understand perfectly that you are a complete idiot and that
you will ignore the facts (Hmmm, this is just like your belief in
Rob's gambling system). I now realize that presenting you with facts
is a waste of my time. It's warmonger attitudes like yours that may
make a peaceful solution impossible.

>
> > The UN is where I have a problem with this President. He should
go
> > before the general assembly at the UN and tell them they have

60

> days
> > to get their sorry asses off or soil.They are a uselees body

that

> > sucks our taxes and acomplished nothing.
> > Any of you chickenshit doves that have a problem with that

should

> go
> > with them.
>
> Spoken like someone who doesn't have to live with the

consequences

of
> such an action. We've used the UN to our benefit much more often
than
> the other way around. The one time we don't get the support we

want

> and you want to kick them out. Sounds like grade school logic to

me.

>
> Of course, it turns out the UN was right all along.

We use the UN to appease chickenshits like you.

Just like Rob you result to name calling when proven wrong. It's must
be that common lack to ability to think for yourself.

If they don't go
along we go alone. Even you should be able to grasp that. They
wouldn't go along with us in Iraq, and now we know why, their slush
fund was about to dry up, so went in alone didn't we? So much for

the

relevance of the UN.

Now your starting to understand the politics involved. If only you
had the intellect to dig a little deeper.

>
> > We don't need approval from anyone to seek revenge for our dead.
>
> Then why did we quit an all out search for Osama? Once you
understand
> the answer to this question you will begin to understand the

bigger

> picture.

If you would have been paying attention you would have heard Gen
Tommy Franks rebuttal on this. His speech about a month ago called
this a blatant lie.

Of course. And you believed it all didn't you. That must be why we
haven't caught Osama were trying too hard.

I could understand a motive to let the local regime take over the
hunt for Osama IF he hadn't killed 3000 innocent folks. Do you doubt
a few hundred thousand American troops could have improved our
chances of finding him?

We are still aggressivley hunting OBL. Now I'm
sure you think that the General is in the tank for Bush and you'd
take the word of Rather over him. Hell I'm sure Rather could come

up

with some documents to prove Franks wrong.
Do you think OBL would choose to live in a cave if we weren't

hunting

his sorry butt? Are you that dense?

I didn't say he wasn't being hunted. However, I did say we quit
our "all out" search. We've been distracted by this massive war
effort in Iraq. Are you "that dense"? Don't you understand that the
war takes significant resources that could have been used to hunt
Osama? Naturally, you'd want to poo-poo this because it goes against
your whole belief system. How could GWB possibly being doing
something wrong?

>
> > Libya got the message. Syria is trying to deal with us in

secret

> > talks. Iran might have to learn the hard way. It's working even
> > though you handwringers don't see past your pointy little heads.
>
> I see your logic ranks right up there with Robs'. Of course these
> countries now see us as an aggressor and are willing to "back

off"

> for the time being. Do you think that means they are now our
friends?
> Where do you think this will lead in the future? Or, have you

even

> tried to think ahead? Of course, you haven't. Otherwise you could
see
> the historic analogies and be much more wary of our actions.

Rob tried to explain this to you. He told you of all the wars
involving the muslims. His only fault was not to spell it out so

you

could grasp it.
Spain pulled out of Iraq for fear of the terrorists. They paid them
back by attacking Spain. Here again your narrow little view falls
apart. As I explained above it has nothing to do with a country

being

the aggressor. Their religion commands that they be the aggressor

and

kill anyone the doesn't agree. Is this clear yet? Shal I repeat it
once more for you? I,m beginning to wonder if you study numbers or
smoke number before you post this crap. Stash the hash your

starting

to crash!

I already answered this crap. Like I said before you are so
brainwashed you will never accept the fact that it is not the
religion but the circumstances that make terrorists. Otherwise ALL
Muslims would be terrorists. I know will never accept this.

>
> > And if you plan on persuing this come up with something

original.

> > Your quoting the left wing media. These arguments are old and
tired.
>
> Facts can get old when you don't want to hear them. In this
instance
> the left wing media is right. However, they are simply relating
what
> the REST of the civilized world has already come to accept. The
> evidence is there for any reasonably intelligent person to review.
>
> You really should try to think for yourself.

What a typical statment from a clueless condescending snob.

I suspect this is your "typical" comeback.

Most people I debate have at least a sense of the facts to argue
their case.

Much of what you call "my case" is simple a refutation of your case.
You really have no idea what "my case" is which makes most of your
comments pure drivel. You make assumptions about my beliefs when I
present evidence that your opinions are wrong.

You come in here offer nothing in the way of facts and just try to
name call your way out. Your pathetic. You bring nothing to the

table

in the way of ideas.

I've presented many facts which you ignore because they don't support
your belief system. Too bad. And your idea appers to be ... blow up
anyone with a different belief system.

Your only responses are to blame America for all
the problems.

I never said that. However, there is some truth there. Let's get back
to Osama. Do you know why he hates us so much. Hint: it is not
because he is a Muslim.

Typical leftwing rhetoric. We're the aggressor, we fuel
the hatred, we have made the world mad, it's all our fault that the
terrorists attack us, we didn't kiss the Un's butt. STFU!
I will not respond to anymore of your posts. Your ad hominem

attacks

are getting boring.

In other words you have no clue.

I have a sign here in my office that sometimes I forget about and

get

into debates with people like you.
The sign reads: You can't teach a pig to sing, it's a waste of time
and only annoys the pig.
Quite profound for this situation.
Excuse any spelling errors I'm to tired to proof read.

I can see why the sign is in your office. Was it one of your co-
workers that placed it there?

···

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

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

#37

Like I said Dick, you're a coward through & through. The type that
runs and hides on the battlefield and lets 'the other guys' do all
the work. You are so excited about OBL that you make it look as
though he's your hero, and you practically worship Hitler. All your
responses to this poster have been in defense, and that is one thing
you certainly do not know how to do. Imagine someone like you
defending our country..... You blame the US for mutant Islam, you
blame the administration for mutant Islam, and you sit there and do
nothing but make corny criticizms without any alternatives. And you
wonder why I say that video poker players--especially those who are
compelled to play as much as you are--are some of the lowest forms of
life?

#38

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

wrote:

> > Another slip up, Mr. always clear, prove-it-to-me, balls-on

Geek?

If I'm 'so predictable, then why didn't you PREDICT it?!!
>
> Because I had to wait for you to do it, moron. Are you really

this

> stupid? If I had predicted it prior to your rants then you may

have

> tried something else. Of course, it was easy to predict. It's the
> only way you know how to think (and I use that term loosely).

And every person in this world and every other would have said the
same as you did now, desperately trying to save face. When

confronted

with the facts, once again you 'make believe' while trying to give

it

all a cute twist. Multiple times you accuse me of being
so 'predictable' yet you always fail to do the actual prediction.

Not

surprising though, from a professional critic.

Content free response. TYPICAL Rob Singer. And predictable.

>
> Not at all. I rarely drive 1000's miles to visit a casino when
there are ones a few miles away. Looks like another of your
assumptions just bit the big one. Are you ever right about anything?

Yes, usually about everything, and about a personality like you--
always.

It's funny to see Rob, when presented with a fact that proves his
assertion wrong, to come back and say he's always right. I very good
insight into what makes him tick.

>
> Please specify something concrete rather than using terms

like "the

> UN's position" which is a meaningless statement.

I'm mealy-mouthing it because that's how you present your flip-
flopping on the issues.

And you probably consider THIS response concrete.

Even you realize 'the UN's position'--which
is anti-USA. In my opinion from what I've seen of your statements,
YOU are anti-USA, and ought to be living a few hundred miles North.

Nothing anti-USA in my comments. Most of my comments are simple
refutations of the BS you try to pass on as fact. Just like your
gambling systems. The problem is you don't like it when someone
disagrees with you. Get over it.

You like neither presidential candidate, you choose to allow sour
grapes from the election take over your life

Not in the least. My life is the same now as it was before the
election.

rather than try to work
with the program your country has given you,

I've never said I wouldn't live with the results of the election. If
that's what you meant in your ambiguous response.

and you continue to
criticize when it does no good whatsoever except expose the true

you

here - and likely in other venues. The most telling tale of
discontent? You'd have acted the same regardless of who won.

Yes, if you posted the same BS, I would have reacted the same. I
guess that must be what you call a "flip-flop".

A life
of criticizm. What a joy.

I think you must have been looking in a mirror when you made this
statement. All you have done on this forum is criticize other
successful gamblers. Another insight into your personality.

> Nope. Just stating the facts. I know you'd love to think that

I've

> been losing at VP, but it just ain't so. 5 RFs last month alone.
More proof that advantage play DOES work.

I talked to someone (a dollar player--not a 25c or 50c player like
you claom to be) in LV last month who hit 13 RF's in the past 6
weeks. They were behind $3000.

Were they using a progressive system? Playing positive machines? In
my case I'm several thousand ahead. So, it shows once again you were
wrong, wrong, wrong when trying to allude I was losing.

>I could no more vote for GWB than I could for Hitler if he were
running.

That qualifies you for treason and lunacy. Whether you voted for

him

or not, he is your president.

You must not have like the analogy. However, not voting for the
recently elected president does NOT "qualify .. for treason and
lunacy". Statements like yours' are so stupid it defies logic, just
like your gambling systems.

We had to live thru the Clinton years
of trikle-down immorality, and we said nothing of the sort.

I didn't like Clinton and I said "nothing of the sort" either. Of
course, Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

And you
do realize you are the "extreme minority". What does that tell you?

That you have no idea what you're talking about.

So with a president in office that you have to answer to,

You have this backwards. The president "answer"s to the American
people, not the other way around. Another example of your twisted
thinking.

tell us, if
that president were Hitler or even like Hitler, then you're saying
you'd have no problem killing indiscriminately or rounding up Jews
for him, correct?

No, I think that's pretty much what you've been saying.

In any event, I did NOT say the president was like Hitler. You really
do have an EXTREME reading comprehension problem. I used Hitler in my
statement so you could get it through your ever so thick skull that
NOT voting for someone is a legimate position. You do recall that was
the subject of my response, don't you??? No, of course you don't.
That reading comprehension problem again.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#39

> I see your logic ranks right up there with Robs'. Of course these
> countries now see us as an aggressor and are willing to "back off"
> for the time being. Do you think that means they are now our
>friends? Where do you think this will lead in the future? Or, have
>you even tried to think ahead? Of course, you haven't. Otherwise

you

>could seethe historic analogies and be much more wary of our

actions.

This is the one statement that sums up Dick's reasoning: He's

afraid

of the terrorists, and rather than face them he would choose to
proclaim everything was America's fault and apologize to any whom

he

feels we've wronged along the way. Not really the kind of guy you'd
want in your foxhole, is he.

Once again your assumptions about me are 180 degress off the target.
Pretty much a constant with you. If you were actually reading what
I've been saying then you'd know my position is to actually go after
the terrorists that attacked us.

I saw a fool on TV tonight wail because he said we were wrong
to 'take Fallujah'--that it'll just fuel more of that famous anger

of

Muslims towards us (and 'us' does not include Dick). A true

coward's

statement. And guess who agree with him? Yup, Kofi Anan.

Right or wrong we have now created a new regime in Iraq and I realize
that the US cannot walk out now. It's about time we did something
other than stand around and collect intelligence as you'd have us
believe.

As we do all this militarily AND FIGHT THIS RELIGIOUS WAR, DICK, it
doesn't take a genius to realize that it IS WWIII, and sooner or
later the nukes will be unleashed.

Hmmm. So now your stating that GWB has started WWIII.

Do you think the Palestinians will
EVER get along with the Israelis--when every one of those barbarian
slobs are taught and will ALWAYS be taught to hate and exterminate
Jews from the day they can hear?

I wonder how Rob would feel if he were put in the same position as
the Palestinians? I'm sure he'd welcome the Jews with open arms since
he's not a Muslim.

What's sad but true is that because
of all the outcry for political correctness, the love of diversity,
people like Dick's cowardice, criticizm, and 'can't we just talk it
over' denial-like attitude, and the liberal's and ACLU's whining

over

issues like the Patriot Act, there WILL be another huge attack on

our

soil at some point in time.

So now your stating all we've really done is fuel the terrorism.

We can only hope Michael moore will be
there at that time. Yet at the same time, that's what it will take
for those idiots in this country to FINALLY wake up, and for us to
ALL see that the only way to stop it all is to destroy one large
Muslim city after another starting with several in Saudi Arabia. At
one point we'll stop--but not until wiping out half of the Islamic
world. We'll give them one more chance, and if one more attack

occirs

anywhere against a US or ally's interest then they'll all be gone.
It's the only way to handle religious fanatics, and they will be

the

cause of the near-entire loss of many decent Muslims who are in

those

same countries that harbor terrorists. It will come to be.

Now why would I ever want to disagree with someone who thinks like
this?

We can't even find one single man, Osama, so let's try to kill all
the Muslims in the world. I think I've finally found someone MORE
evil than Saddam. This is some of the same logic Saddam possessed
only at a less grande level.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

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

#40

Like I said Dick, you're a coward through & through.

And that's supposed to worry me? Having a warmonger think I'm a
coward ... That's actually a compliment.

The type that
runs and hides on the battlefield and lets 'the other guys' do all
the work.

Like you??? Just what have you done "on the battlefield"?

You are so excited about OBL that you make it look as
though he's your hero, and you practically worship Hitler.

I think just about everyone here can now see the similarities between
your views and Hitlers'. You've done a great job of that. Thank you.

All your
responses to this poster have been in defense, and that is one

thing

you certainly do not know how to do. Imagine someone like you
defending our country..... You blame the US for mutant Islam, you
blame the administration for mutant Islam,

You should at least try to understand there are extremists in every
culture (look in the mirror). What the US, in previous and current
administrations, has done is focus the extremists hatred on the US.
In many cases we did create them (Osama?), in other cases they
already existed just looking for someone to hate.

and you sit there and do
nothing but make corny criticizms without any alternatives. And you
wonder why I say that video poker players--especially those who are
compelled to play as much as you are--are some of the lowest forms

of

life?

This is one big difference between you and me. I don't go on video
poker forums (of all places) and rant on about MY politics. That's
one reason you don't really don't know what I believe. However, I
have no problem pointing out errors in your views. And, if you
continue to post your political views here I will continue to point
out these errors.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: