vpFREE2 Forums

Veteran Status

#61

Not my opinion, not even close. But it's pretty obvious that you

and Rob are one in the same. Your responses to your own posts is just

another example of how sick you've become.

Again, denial to the point of stupidity.

OK. Explain to me how 9/11 would have happened if the CIA had not

cut off our covert funding of OBL, or, never funded him in the first

place. You don't have clue about anything the US has done around

the world.

Did you get that from the NY Times or Dan Rather? See how foolish you
look?

Ok. Let's have your INFORMED opinion of what created the

terrorists. Oh wait, it's part of the Koran. Yeah, right. You live
such a sheltered life, it's almost embarrassing to hear you spout off

rhetoric as fact when no clue whatsoever. Of course, that's the

easy way and it's pretty obvious that's the only way you know.

Terrorists were created--and this is straight out of the CIA
bulletins from 1979 to the present--from a hatred of Israel,
America's support for Israel, America having troops in Saudi Arabia
AND OTHER aRAB TERRITORIES, Muslim Extremist's jealousy over Western
way of life (which you'll twist into saying is an excessive, immoral
way of life in support of these terrorists), a feeling of desparation
in many Muslim countries where the general population lives as
wretched slobs--so they join anything that will give them reason to
live and hate, AND IT'S ALL PURPOTED TO BE VALID BECAUSE THE KORAN
TELLS THEM TO KILL. Now lets see....you'll say WE created them and
it's all our fault. Well if that's the case then it's our duty to
exterminate them in any way possible. They are nothing short of
religious freaks--much in the same way that you are an anti-American
freak. A pair that'll be any full-house anywhere!

···

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

#62

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical" <jimb777@w...>
wrote:

With over 200,000 Americans having been killed in car accidents
during the five years it took Osama to plan out the 9-11 attacks
along with around 130,000 Americans having been killed in their

cars

since then......I'm betting it's much more likely to happen in

their

cars rather than in the hands of a terrorist.

And you left out cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Why bother with
any of the terrorists? We're all going to die anyways.
God help us.
I think the gene pool in this country needs a little bit more chlorine

> Not much of a surprise to see the media reactions to news today.

I

> was just watching the Today Show, and the crew is in such a

somber

> mood over Arafat's departure that I thought Katie "Communist"
Couric
> was about to break out in tears over it. Ann Coury acted as if

her

> dad had just died, and it's even wiped the smile off of Al

Roker's

> face. And as if that were not amazing enough, the fact that it's
> Veteran's Day only encouraged Matt Lauer to criticize the

operation

> in Fallujah as "ineffective in stopping the 'so-called'

insurgents".

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
>
> These liberals will be singing a different tune towards our
military
> though (like they were doing for a time after 9-11) when and if
> another attack happens in NYC and wipes out members of their
> families. Guess who'll they'll come crying to then....

#63

When a perfectly healthy person (within a fraction of a second) gets
his bones completely crushed by a head-on collision with an 18-
wheeler, bleeds to death from shattered windshields, or gets
decapitated it's a much more violent, gory, and unexpected death than
someone lying in the hospital bed for months or years on end with
cancer, heart trouble, or diabetes.
The term "killed" seems more appropriate for murder and car wrecks
while the kinder, gentler term "died" seems better with cancer,
diabetes, and heart disease.
Besides, vehicular (ground and airborne) accidents also account for
about 200 of our servicemens' casualties in Iraq.

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical" <jimb777@w...>
wrote:
>
> With over 200,000 Americans having been killed in car accidents
> during the five years it took Osama to plan out the 9-11 attacks
> along with around 130,000 Americans having been killed in their
cars
> since then......I'm betting it's much more likely to happen in
their
> cars rather than in the hands of a terrorist.

And you left out cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Why bother

with

any of the terrorists? We're all going to die anyways.
God help us.
I think the gene pool in this country needs a little bit more

chlorine

>
>
>
>
> > Not much of a surprise to see the media reactions to news

today.

I
> > was just watching the Today Show, and the crew is in such a
somber
> > mood over Arafat's departure that I thought Katie "Communist"
> Couric
> > was about to break out in tears over it. Ann Coury acted as if
her
> > dad had just died, and it's even wiped the smile off of Al
Roker's
> > face. And as if that were not amazing enough, the fact that

it's

···

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

> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
> > Veteran's Day only encouraged Matt Lauer to criticize the
operation
> > in Fallujah as "ineffective in stopping the 'so-called'
insurgents".
> >
> > These liberals will be singing a different tune towards our
> military
> > though (like they were doing for a time after 9-11) when and if
> > another attack happens in NYC and wipes out members of their
> > families. Guess who'll they'll come crying to then....

#64

Putting fatal accident tallies aside, though, I DO hope we catch
Osama and fry the sucker. I love the USA just as much as the next
guy. My big concern is why didn't we catch bin Laden at Tora Bora
when we had the chance? What was going on with that?

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical" <jimb777@w...>
wrote:

When a perfectly healthy person (within a fraction of a second)

gets

his bones completely crushed by a head-on collision with an 18-
wheeler, bleeds to death from shattered windshields, or gets
decapitated it's a much more violent, gory, and unexpected death

than

someone lying in the hospital bed for months or years on end with
cancer, heart trouble, or diabetes.
The term "killed" seems more appropriate for murder and car wrecks
while the kinder, gentler term "died" seems better with cancer,
diabetes, and heart disease.
Besides, vehicular (ground and airborne) accidents also account for
about 200 of our servicemens' casualties in Iraq.
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Psychophysical"

<jimb777@w...>

> wrote:
> >
> > With over 200,000 Americans having been killed in car accidents
> > during the five years it took Osama to plan out the 9-11

attacks

> > along with around 130,000 Americans having been killed in their
> cars
> > since then......I'm betting it's much more likely to happen in
> their
> > cars rather than in the hands of a terrorist.
>
> And you left out cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Why bother
with
> any of the terrorists? We're all going to die anyways.
> God help us.
> I think the gene pool in this country needs a little bit more
chlorine
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...>

wrote:

> >
> > > Not much of a surprise to see the media reactions to news
today.
> I
> > > was just watching the Today Show, and the crew is in such a
> somber
> > > mood over Arafat's departure that I thought Katie "Communist"
> > Couric
> > > was about to break out in tears over it. Ann Coury acted as

if

> her
> > > dad had just died, and it's even wiped the smile off of Al
> Roker's
> > > face. And as if that were not amazing enough, the fact that
it's
> > > Veteran's Day only encouraged Matt Lauer to criticize the
> operation
> > > in Fallujah as "ineffective in stopping the 'so-called'
> insurgents".
> > >
> > > These liberals will be singing a different tune towards our
> > military
> > > though (like they were doing for a time after 9-11) when and

if

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> > > another attack happens in NYC and wipes out members of their
> > > families. Guess who'll they'll come crying to then....

#65

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

wrote:

> OK. Explain to me how 9/11 would have happened if the CIA had not
cut off our covert funding of OBL, or, never funded him in the

first

> place. You don't have clue about anything the US has done around
the world.

Did you get that from the NY Times or Dan Rather? See how foolish

you

look?

Translation. You have no comeback to this fact other than complete
denial. You won't accept any fact that goes against your preconceived
ideas. Exactly the same fault you exhibit with VP.

>
> Ok. Let's have your INFORMED opinion of what created the
terrorists. Oh wait, it's part of the Koran. Yeah, right. You live
such a sheltered life, it's almost embarrassing to hear you spout

off

> rhetoric as fact when no clue whatsoever. Of course, that's the
easy way and it's pretty obvious that's the only way you know.

Terrorists were created--and this is straight out of the CIA
bulletins from 1979 to the present--from a hatred of Israel,
America's support for Israel, America having troops in Saudi Arabia
AND OTHER aRAB TERRITORIES, Muslim Extremist's jealousy over

Western

way of life (which you'll twist into saying is an excessive,

immoral

way of life in support of these terrorists), a feeling of

desparation

in many Muslim countries where the general population lives as
wretched slobs

It looks like you finally decided to do some actual reading to learn
something. This is a first. This is pretty much what I've been trying
to tell you. This list is very good but not complete. In addition, it
changes with time. Now, with the invasion of Iraq, you need to add
the concept of American imperialism to the list. The key word here
is "concept". It doesn't really matter to them if our goals are to
steal oil or to set up a democracy. When many thousands of civilians
are killed, hatred will be bred. That hatred will be focused on the
US.

--so they join anything that will give them reason to
live and hate, AND IT'S ALL PURPOTED TO BE VALID BECAUSE THE KORAN
TELLS THEM TO KILL.

The key is the hatred is already there. The Bible also can be used to
validate terrorism (and it has been in the past). The use of religion
to recruit new terrorists is even older than the Bible. There is
nothing new going on in the Middle East. This is all part of human
nature. Blaming the Muslim religion is faulty thinking. As in all
historic conflicts, the only way FIX the problem is to FIX the root
causes.

Now lets see....you'll say WE created them and it's all our fault.

I would never resort to such a simple explanation. Many of the
problems you mentioned above are a direct result of the creation of
Israel. Others are the result of our support of evil governments
(such as Iraq, and yes we did support Iraq in their war with Iran).
We have been looking out for our own interests for many years now
with little concern for the fallout. This is the undeniable truth.
Now, I also believe the US is also a bit of a scapegoat as well. The
leaders of many Arab countries have found it easy to transfer the
blame for their own misguided policies to the US. Unfortunately we
have let them get away with this in order to keep the oil flowing. As
you can see there isn't a single problem, nor will there be a simple
solution to this problem.

Well if that's the case then it's our duty to
exterminate them in any way possible. They are nothing short of
religious freaks--much in the same way that you are an anti-

American

freak. A pair that'll be any full-house anywhere!

It's fairly amusing to see your rants. You have exactly the same
personality traits that many of the terrorists have. Specifically,
letting hate run your life. You really need to see that shrink.

···

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

#66

> Did you get that from the NY Times or Dan Rather? See how foolish
you look?

Translation. You have no comeback to this fact other than complete
denial. You won't accept any fact that goes against your

preconceived ideas. Exactly the same fault you exhibit with VP.

Translation to English: You make believe everything you write,
because you are not an educated person who can effectively
communicate with people under 70.

> Terrorists were created--and this is straight out of the CIA
> bulletins from 1979 to the present--from a hatred of Israel,
> America's support for Israel, America having troops in Saudi

Arabia AND OTHER ARAB TERRITORIES, Muslim Extremist's jealousy over

Western way of life (which you'll twist into saying is an

excessive, immoral way of life in support of these terrorists), a
feeling of desparation in many Muslim countries where the general
population lives as wretched slobs

It looks like you finally decided to do some actual reading to

learn something. This is a first.

What you don't realize is that I helped write some of it. That's how
far off base you are in virtually everything you say.

This is pretty much what I've been trying to tell you. This list is
very good but not complete. In addition, it changes with time. Now,
with the invasion of Iraq, you need to add the concept of American
imperialism to the list. The key word here is "concept". It doesn't
really matter to them if our goals are to steal oil or to set up a
democracy. When many thousands of civilians are killed, hatred will
be bred. That hatred will be focused on the US.

Incorrect as usual. Time has nothing to do with it nor do the changes
you so loosely insert. That concept was rejected because of the first
invasion of Iraq. Those who hated us then hate us now. And you
underestimate human beings in war just as you over-estimate their
abilities in video poker. People know, realize and accept death will
come with war and the removal of a dictator (and like you say, the
reason does not matter here either). Most Iraquis are comforted with
what we did and are doing, because it will mean less sufferring at
the hands of Hussein, and far less death of its citizens. The hatred
is already there. You feel it's pyramiding because of what you hear
and see on the alphabet channels--who categorically oppose what's
going on. But that is not the case at all.

The key is the hatred is already there. The Bible also can be used

to validate terrorism (and it has been in the past). The use of
religion

to recruit new terrorists is even older than the Bible. There is
nothing new going on in the Middle East. This is all part of human
nature. Blaming the Muslim religion is faulty thinking. As in all
historic conflicts, the only way FIX the problem is to FIX the root
causes.

And the root cause is barbaric actions over and over again by the
Muslims.

I would never resort to such a simple explanation. Many of the
problems you mentioned above are a direct result of the creation of
Israel.

So we should allow Israel to be wiped out because of Jew-hatred in
the ME?

Others are the result of our support of evil governments

(such as Iraq, and yes we did support Iraq in their war with Iran).

I don't even know the whole story behind that, so I don't think you
could.

We have been looking out for our own interests for many years now
with little concern for the fallout. This is the undeniable truth.

Yeah, that's a liberal position. You people want everything, but when
it gets out of hand you criticize.

Now, I also believe the US is also a bit of a scapegoat as well.

The leaders of many Arab countries have found it easy to transfer the

blame for their own misguided policies to the US. Unfortunately we
have let them get away with this in order to keep the oil flowing.

As you can see there isn't a single problem, nor will there be a
simple solution to this problem.

Another liberal position--we did it and have been doing it for "the
oil". That's a pure cop-out when you have no other answers. And it's
also another reason Kerry lost.

> Well if that's the case then it's our duty to
> exterminate them in any way possible. They are nothing short of
> religious freaks--much in the same way that you are an anti-
American freak. A pair that'll be any full-house anywhere!

It's fairly amusing to see your rants. You have exactly the same
personality traits that many of the terrorists have. Specifically,
letting hate run your life. You really need to see that shrink.

I think you're the one depicting hatred towards GWB and your country.
They've done nothing but help you, while Muslims have done nothing
for this world except destroy and terrorize. So please insert the
best place for the word 'hate'.

···

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

#67

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

wrote:

> And you think your racist views will save the country? Just more
> evidence of what a complete idiot you are.

Their racist to you because you support any entity or race that's
anti-American, and you loathe to hear the truth about them.

No, you are a complete RACIST. Period. It has nothing to do with the
current discussion. If it wasn't Muslims you'd hate something else.
Like ... maybe ... VP gurus.

Whether
they save the country or not is not mine to say. But I expect you
realize by now that it's the majority view--as proven by the

election

that you chose to exercize your pacifist view not to vote.

I now realize that it is a compliment to be called a pacifist by a
racist warmonger like you. Anyone who promotes nuking as a solution
to terrorism can't get any lower on the humanity scale. Calling
youself a patriot while maintaining these views is an insult to all
the true patriots who have served this country for over 200 years.

>
> If you had any brains at all you'd understand that neither the
> liberals of the conservatives are always right. They are both
> constantly looking of polical advantages and both will say

whatever

> it takes to garner an advantage. That is why you need to think

for

> yourself and I realize asking you to actually think borders on

the

> impossible.

Typical negative attitude towards your country--what else should we
expect from you? You believe you transcend all reason as delivered

by

those far more intelligent and connected than you, yet you neither
vote nor have an alternative idea that you have ever CLEARLY

stated.

It's the classic "let the other guy do it" lazy man syndrome.

As usual your response is really targetted at yourself. Nuking anyone
who disagrees with you is about as "lazy" as it gets.

>
> > Your warped view again. All you feel good doing is criticizing
what is, and making believe you have a better plan like Kerry kept
> saying without telling anyone what that is. You've criticized
everything that holds the country together, because you are not a
happy person.
>
> It's so humerous to hear you pick on me for criticism. Criticism

is

> about all you ever post on this forum. It appears you can give it
but you can't take it. Get over it.

You criticize because you don't have anything upstairs, and you
apparently lead a sour life. I do it when common sense dictates the
need. BIG difference.

Refering to yourself and common sense in the same sentence is what is
known as an oxymoron. Or, in you case we can leave off the "oxy".

>
> > Ridiculous? It describes you perfectly. You haven't been clear

on

> > anything other than your hatred of this country.
>
> No, hatred is your dominion. Which you've made more than obvious.
> This is the area that you should seek professional help. Do it
before it's too late!

Denial once again. Tell us, who wins arguments with your wife?--if
you even let her speak. You can't win here because you can't

stifle,

can you.

I know it is impossible to "win" an argument with someone who refuses
to listen. That's you, Adolf. However, I don't need to "win". I'm
more than happy to expose you as the racist warmonger you have shown
yourself to be.

>
> Even when a WMD goes off here, your strategy is doomed to failure
and about as anti-American as it gets. If you were bit by a dog you
would promote the extermination of dogs worldwide.

You continue to show off your cowardice. Say it. You don't want us

to

keep on the offensive even after an attack because you are afraid

for

your pitiful life. And here's a flash. That strategy you limp away
from is on the table--only that table is occupied by real Americans
who love their freedom and country--something you hate about them.

Could you be less clear? I don't think so. What does the above tirade
above have to do with what I said? Nothing, which is pretty much all
you have to say most of the time.

>
> Nope, that's not my way of thinking. Try again. You really need

to

> spend a little time to understand terrorism and get away from

your

> constant need for generalizations.

Again, no response other than I'm wrong.

That's because you didn't say anything concrete, other than trying to
assert specific positions to me that are wrong. So, since these
statements of yours about me are wrong, then all I need to do is say
they are wrong. That is the correct RESPONSE. Too bad you're so dense
you won't even understand this simple logic.

Each time you say that you
build my credibility, because just like Kerry's rhetoric, you never
say what you are for--just against.

Build your credibility? You have none. Your "nukeem" strategy has
already taken all possible credibility away from you.

>
> > I'm actually torn between hoping it does and
> > hoping it doesn't--just so I could watch people like you,

Kerry,

> > Kennedy, Moore, Sarandon and others squirm and lose their minds.
>
> One more example of how sick you are.

It would easily cure my 'sickness' to watch you cry over your dead
friends & family after an attack that you chose to "simply talk it
over" with terrorists instead of exterminating them and their kind--
thereby saving everyone. If that's what it takes to teach sissy's
like you and Michael Moore a lesson, let it be.

One more example of how sick you are.

>
> > Once again, the UN wasted so much time with their

token 'weapons

> > inspections' by allowing Saddam to push them around, that he

had

> > plenty of time to send most of them to Syria, and he buried the
> > remainder of them in the dirt.
>
> One again you ignore all the facts. The sad thing is you really
> believe this crap. It's obvious you maintain this belief in order
to maintain your warmongering attitude. It's your VP arguments all
over again. When presented with undeniable facts, you deny them.

I kind of think I'm the one who just laid out the facts,

No, you "laid out" an unproven assertion which has pretty much been
given up by the admistration. The main problem is ALL the people who
would have worked on the WMDs have ALL stated there were none. That's
why I stated you were ignoring the facts. If you have evidence that
your assertion is really a fact please provide it. Of course, you
don't. Your view, that anything you SAY is by definition a fact, has
become so tedious.

> > But you, with your anti-American
> > sentiment, agree with the stall. And you also cry wolf that we
> > attacked Iraq after months of warnings to come clean.
>
> No. I had no problem attacking Iraq if we had sufficient cause.

At

> the time I was willing to give the President the benefit of the
doubt since I did not have access to the same intelligence data. As
it turns out he lied and I'm not willing to give him the "benefit

of

the doubt" when it leads to tens of thousands of deaths and
especially when he says mealy-mouthed things like we
had "intelligence gathering problems". You don't start a war unless
you're absolutely sure.

Hello again, McFly! The war was because Saddam and Iraq's regime
supported terrorism and they did have Al Q. contact, just as much

as

it was agains WMD's.

I'm still waiting for your evidence to support this ASSERTION. I've
ask for it before and you still haven't provided any. You won't
either because there is no evidence. Period. So, back to the drawing
board with you and don't comeback until you have something concrete.

Clue for the clueless: If Iraqi support of terrorism was really the
reason, then why did we even care about WMDs???

>
> > I simply said I wouldn't vote for either Bush or Hitler.
> >
> > Thereby drawing a close analogy between the two. You're sick
Dick. Even if you try to dance around your position here, you're a
sick man.
>
> Only a fool such as you would draw that conclusion. Since you
appear to be stuck on this as a comparison then it appears what
you're really saying is that you WOULD vote for Hitler. Actually

not

too surprising for a racist like you who's already advocated the
>extermination of Muslims worldwide.

You can't back out now Jack!

I didn't back out, Adolf. I simply pointed out that you once again
misread something and went off the deep end. If you had any sense you
would just say "never mind", but you'd rather dig yourself a deeper
hole. Well, go right ahead. You're already in so deep now you're
probably having trouble breathing.

···

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

#68

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

wrote:

> > Did you get that from the NY Times or Dan Rather? See how

foolish

> you look?
>
> Translation. You have no comeback to this fact other than

complete

> denial. You won't accept any fact that goes against your
preconceived ideas. Exactly the same fault you exhibit with VP.

Translation to English: You make believe everything you write,
because you are not an educated person who can effectively
communicate with people under 70.

No translation required. Everyone can pretty much see your responses
are devoid of any facts.

>
> > Terrorists were created--and this is straight out of the CIA
> > bulletins from 1979 to the present--from a hatred of Israel,
> > America's support for Israel, America having troops in Saudi
Arabia AND OTHER ARAB TERRITORIES, Muslim Extremist's jealousy over
> Western way of life (which you'll twist into saying is an
excessive, immoral way of life in support of these terrorists), a
feeling of desparation in many Muslim countries where the general
population lives as wretched slobs
>
> It looks like you finally decided to do some actual reading to
learn something. This is a first.

What you don't realize is that I helped write some of it. That's

how

far off base you are in virtually everything you say.

Sure you did. You are such a liar.

This is pretty much what I've been trying to tell you. This list is
very good but not complete. In addition, it changes with time. Now,
with the invasion of Iraq, you need to add the concept of American
imperialism to the list. The key word here is "concept". It doesn't
really matter to them if our goals are to steal oil or to set up a
democracy. When many thousands of civilians are killed, hatred will
be bred. That hatred will be focused on the US.

Incorrect as usual. Time has nothing to do with it

What an idiotic statement. Do you really believe nothing changes with
time? You are beyond hope.

nor do the changes
you so loosely insert. That concept was rejected because of the

first

invasion of Iraq. Those who hated us then hate us now.

No, We've added a LOT more that hate us now. When someones' brother
or wife or ... is demolished by American weapons then you have
another terrorist convert ready for initiation.

And you
underestimate human beings in war just as you over-estimate their
abilities in video poker. People know, realize and accept death

will

come with war and the removal of a dictator (and like you say, the
reason does not matter here either). Most Iraquis are comforted

with

what we did and are doing,

That's not the point nor the issue at hand. The problem isn't the
millions that don't hate us, it's the hundreds that DO hate us. They
become the next generation of terrorists. This is also why a nukeem
strategy would never work.

>
> The key is the hatred is already there. The Bible also can be

used

to validate terrorism (and it has been in the past). The use of
religion
> to recruit new terrorists is even older than the Bible. There is
> nothing new going on in the Middle East. This is all part of

human

> nature. Blaming the Muslim religion is faulty thinking. As in all
> historic conflicts, the only way FIX the problem is to FIX the

root

> causes.

And the root cause is barbaric actions over and over again by the
Muslims.

Simple thoughts for simple minds. You ignore the barbaric actions by
non-Muslims throughout history and focus only on those by Muslims in
order to support your idiotic suppositions.

>
> I would never resort to such a simple explanation. Many of the
> problems you mentioned above are a direct result of the creation

of

> Israel.

So we should allow Israel to be wiped out because of Jew-hatred in
the ME?

Nope. However, "wiping out" all Palestinians is not the answer either.

Others are the result of our support of evil governments
> (such as Iraq, and yes we did support Iraq in their war with

Iran).

I don't even know the whole story behind that, so I don't think you
could.

You don't need to understand the "whole story" since it's perception
that creates terrorists.

> We have been looking out for our own interests for many years now
> with little concern for the fallout. This is the undeniable truth.

Yeah, that's a liberal position. You people want everything, but

when

it gets out of hand you criticize.

No. It's just a fact that you want to deny. Again, it doesn't matter
what our goals were, it's the perception that counts.

> Now, I also believe the US is also a bit of a scapegoat as well.
The leaders of many Arab countries have found it easy to transfer

the

> blame for their own misguided policies to the US. Unfortunately

we

> have let them get away with this in order to keep the oil

flowing.

As you can see there isn't a single problem, nor will there be a
simple solution to this problem.

Another liberal position--we did it and have been doing it for "the
oil". That's a pure cop-out when you have no other answers.

We wouldn't be anywhere near the middle east if it wasn't for the
oil. Have you seen us focusing on the problems in Africa? If you
don't understand this simple fact then anything you say from now on
is worthless drivel.

>
> > Well if that's the case then it's our duty to
> > exterminate them in any way possible. They are nothing short of
> > religious freaks--much in the same way that you are an anti-
> American freak. A pair that'll be any full-house anywhere!
>
> It's fairly amusing to see your rants. You have exactly the same
> personality traits that many of the terrorists have.

Specifically,

> letting hate run your life. You really need to see that shrink.

I think you're the one depicting hatred towards GWB and your

country.

Not once have I depicted hatred. I have used my rights as a free
Amercian to voice my opinions relative to your outrageous remarks.
The only reason anyone would take that as hatred would be if hatred
was the dominant factor in THEIR life. That's you, Adolf. Go see a
shrink.

They've done nothing but help you, while Muslims have done nothing
for this world except destroy and terrorize. So please insert the
best place for the word 'hate'.

As if any more proof were necessary that hatred dominates your life,
you can't express as single concept without using the word.

···

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

#69

> They're racist to you because you support any entity or race

that's anti-American, and you loathe to hear the truth about them.

No, you are a complete RACIST. Period. It has nothing to do with

the current discussion. If it wasn't Muslims you'd hate something
else. Like ... maybe ... VP gurus.

Read what I said above again--this time with comprehension if that's
possible. Muslims are, to freedom-loving people, enemies to the
world. Liberals such as yourself look at them as persecuted people
who are simply doing 'the only thing they can'. And I 'hate' vp
gurus? Why? I'm the best of the bunch....and I earned it.

I now realize that it is a compliment to be called a pacifist by a
racist warmonger like you. Anyone who promotes nuking as a solution
to terrorism can't get any lower on the humanity scale. Calling
youself a patriot while maintaining these views is an insult to all
the true patriots who have served this country for over 200 years.

Another flip-flop? It's one thing to be a pacifist by nature. It's
another to become one through cowardice.

> Typical negative attitude towards your country--what else should

we expect from you? You believe you transcend all reason as delivered

by those far more intelligent and connected than you, yet you

neither vote nor have an alternative idea that you have ever CLEARLY

stated. It's the classic "let the other guy do it" lazy man

syndrome.

As usual your response is really targetted at yourself. Nuking

anyone who disagrees with you is about as "lazy" as it gets.

Typical peacenik response. You have no idea what it takes to even
discuss the future possibility of using nuclear weapons. Thank God we
have a President who isn't afraid to do that.

> but you can't take it. Get over it.
>
> You criticize because you don't have anything upstairs, and you
> apparently lead a sour life. I do it when common sense dictates

the need. BIG difference.

Refering to yourself and common sense in the same sentence is what

is known as an oxymoron. Or, in you case we can leave off the "oxy".

How old is THAT. Let's talk about the sour life you lead as a
precursor to your stupified views of this country.

> Denial once again. Tell us, who wins arguments with your wife?--

if you even let her speak. You can't win here because you can't

stifle, can you.

I know it is impossible to "win" an argument with someone who

refuses to listen. That's you, Adolf. However, I don't need to "win".
I'm more than happy to expose you as the racist warmonger you have
shown yourself to be.

You haven't yet shown the ability to 'win' anything. You're an
experienced critic of your own country and its values, but other than
that all you can do is dip yourself into a feel-good solution about
me that helps you sleep a little better....that is, until you read my
response that makes you feel rotten all over again.

Could you be less clear? I don't think so. What does the above

tirade above have to do with what I said? Nothing, which is pretty
much all you have to say most of the time.

How about more clear, which is probably what your babble was meant to
say. That strategy is and has been on the table, only you'd never sit
at it as a coward who'd sell out his country in a nano-second.

That's because you didn't say anything concrete, other than trying

to assert specific positions to me that are wrong. So, since these

statements of yours about me are wrong, then all I need to do is

say they are wrong. That is the correct RESPONSE. Too bad you're so
dense you won't even understand this simple logic.

More meaningless ramble. If I scratch my ass I'd get more out of it
than trying to decipher this.

Build your credibility? You have none. Your "nukeem" strategy has
already taken all possible credibility away from you.

That's because 'nukem' scares you, and you wimper at the thought of
it.

> It would easily cure my 'sickness' to watch you cry over your

dead friends & family after an attack that you chose to "simply talk
it over" with terrorists instead of exterminating them and their kind-
-thereby saving everyone. If that's what it takes to teach sissy's
like you and Michael Moore a lesson, let it be.

One more example of how sick you are.

And I would love to cure it by watching you in-action as you try
to 'simply talk it over' instead of unleashing the subs on them.

No, you "laid out" an unproven assertion which has pretty much been
given up by the admistration.

You're in the dark here.

The main problem is ALL the people who

would have worked on the WMDs have ALL stated there were none.

Where were you when the pictures came out with proof that Sadam used
these weapons on his own people?

That's

why I stated you were ignoring the facts. If you have evidence that
your assertion is really a fact please provide it. Of course, you
don't. Your view, that anything you SAY is by definition a fact,

has become so tedious.

So you think he used everything he had--or do you think just a teensy
weensy bit that he hid all the rest? As for ignoring the facts, again
all you repeat is what the TV tells you. That's why you're a child
playing in a man's world.

> Hello again, McFly! The war was because Saddam and Iraq's regime
> supported terrorism and they did have Al Q. contact, just as much
as it was against WMD's.

I'm still waiting for your evidence to support this ASSERTION. I've
ask for it before and you still haven't provided any. You won't
either because there is no evidence. Period. So, back to the

drawing board with you and don't comeback until you have something
concrete.

There is evidence of Al Q. contact many many times. There is proof of
WMD's. Did it all go through that huge liberal hole in your head or
something? Just because you don't WANT it to be true doesn't make it
not true. your hero Kerry tried that and look where it got him and
that weirdo Edwards.

Clue for the clueless: If Iraqi support of terrorism was really the
reason, then why did we even care about WMDs???

Are you for real? Given a Muslim-style choice, would you rather have
planes flying into buildings over here, or a nuclear or biological
weapon used on cleveland???

I didn't back out, Adolf. I simply pointed out that you once again
misread something and went off the deep end. If you had any sense

you would just say "never mind", but you'd rather dig yourself a
deeper hole. Well, go right ahead. You're already in so deep now
you're probably having trouble breathing.

Is that all you can contribute after saying Bush is no different than
Hitler, Saddam is simply a misunderstood man who meant us no harm,
and OBL really had no other way to respond to our 'aggression' than
to attack us? Get your headscarf out and the mat ready--and make sure
you take the Aleve for your lower back. The mosque in your area opens
at 5am. You'll be alerted by the sickly chant over the loudspeakers
by the dufus with a microphone in one hand and the Koran held
upsidedown in the other.

···

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

#70

> Translation to English: You make believe everything you write,
> because you are not an educated person who can effectively
> communicate with people under 70.

No translation required. Everyone can pretty much see your

responses are devoid of any facts.

And that's supposed to mean something?

> > It looks like you finally decided to do some actual reading to
> learn something. This is a first.
>
> What you don't realize is that I helped write some of it. That's
how far off base you are in virtually everything you say.

Sure you did. You are such a liar.

Typical from you. Facts shake you up, and when presented so you can't
dispute them, you claim "it's a lie mom, it's a lie!"

> Incorrect as usual. Time has nothing to do with it

What an idiotic statement. Do you really believe nothing changes

with time? You are beyond hope.

Who said that? I said it has nothing to do with THIS, even though you
want and need it to.

No, We've added a LOT more that hate us now. When someones' brother
or wife or ... is demolished by American weapons then you have
another terrorist convert ready for initiation.

That's another stupid theory that helped Kerry get rejected. Thank
goodness everyone in this country's not as dumb as you.

That's not the point nor the issue at hand. The problem isn't the
millions that don't hate us, it's the hundreds that DO hate us.

They become the next generation of terrorists. This is also why a
nukeem strategy would never work.

Terrorists need no new reasons to create a new generation of
terrorists. That's where you continue to be confused. You see some
twisted reason to blame the US for terrorism when it existed long
before any of this. And since when wouldn't a nuke wipe out several
generations?...... You're so uninformed.

> And the root cause is barbaric actions over and over again by the
> Muslims.

Simple thoughts for simple minds. You ignore the barbaric actions

by non-Muslims throughout history and focus only on those by Muslims
in order to support your idiotic suppositions.

Who cares about history, McFly? Ask the families of those who lost
loved ones in the towers. Today, here and now, it's the Muslims who
are at war with us (but not you obviously). You continue to attempt
to justify what these animals do. Don't you realize the most
important election in the world was just lost with those ideals???

> So we should allow Israel to be wiped out because of Jew-hatred

in the ME?

Nope. However, "wiping out" all Palestinians is not the answer

either.

You don't think so? Who's attacking whom here with suicide bombers
rather than working out the problems at the table? Get rid of the
Palestinians and you rid the world of one more big problem. At least
Allah was kind enough to finally rid us of the main terrorist this
week.

You don't need to understand the "whole story" since it's

perception that creates terrorists.

Say what? Lick your fingers and try again.

> Yeah, that's a liberal position. You people want everything, but
when it gets out of hand you criticize.

No. It's just a fact that you want to deny. Again, it doesn't

matter what our goals were, it's the perception that counts.

You and your 'perception'. No wonder you hide from the truth. You
don't accept reality, and that allows you to criticize--at the cost,
of course, of an election.

> Another liberal position--we did it and have been doing it

for "the oil". That's a pure cop-out when you have no other answers.

We wouldn't be anywhere near the middle east if it wasn't for the
oil. Have you seen us focusing on the problems in Africa? If you
don't understand this simple fact then anything you say from now on
is worthless drivel.

So narrow-minded and again, uninformed. Anyone in Africa attack us
lately? A few terrorists are from there, but they got their
brainwashing in the ME. Oil is important, but lives and freedom are
waaaaay moreso. Liberals have no other choice but to say something so
stupid as you just did, and look where it got them. That's justice in
a BIG way. And Africa? That CONTINENT is destroying itself, and we're
doing the right thing by letting it go. The jungle-bunnies with
spears can't keep their dicks (ho-ho) in their pants, they create
over-crowding (which is surprising considering the disease and murder
rates), and they spread aids as if there were no tomorrow. If they
show us they're willing to help themselves someday, then we should
offer more support than the token politically-correct hand of today.
Until then, let S. Africa worry about it, and then Europe if they
want to.

>
Not once have I depicted hatred. I have used my rights as a free
Amercian to voice my opinions relative to your outrageous remarks.
The only reason anyone would take that as hatred would be if hatred
was the dominant factor in THEIR life. That's you, Adolf. Go see a
shrink.

Good thing Lance Armstrong didn't backpeddal that fast. You're a free
American allright, but you mock it in a big way. You hate the
election choices, the actual outcome, and your country for what it's
doing in Iraq. Pure sedition, and you ought to be both ashamed of
yourself as well as executed in front of a Gov't. building in St.
Paul for your remarks.

> They've done nothing but help you, while Muslims have done

nothing for this world except destroy and terrorize. So please insert
the best place for the word 'hate'.

As if any more proof were necessary that hatred dominates your

life, you can't express as single concept without using the word.

Being that you hate the USA so much, and I hate Islam, guess who's
more likely to not be hated here???

···

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

#71

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

wrote:

> > They're racist to you because you support any entity or race
that's anti-American, and you loathe to hear the truth about them.
>
> No, you are a complete RACIST. Period. It has nothing to do with
the current discussion. If it wasn't Muslims you'd hate something
else. Like ... maybe ... VP gurus.

Read what I said above again--this time with comprehension if

that's

possible.

OK, I read it again and it's still the same drivel. I stand by my
response. YOU are a racist and a warmonger who's too lazy to
understand any facts that disagree with your position.

Muslims are, to freedom-loving people, enemies to the
world.

Thanks for proving once again that you are a racist.

Liberals such as yourself look at them as persecuted people
who are simply doing 'the only thing they can'. And I 'hate' vp
gurus? Why? I'm the best of the bunch....and I earned it.

Even a "bunch" of bananas is better than you and your idiotic VP
systems.

>
> I now realize that it is a compliment to be called a pacifist by

a

> racist warmonger like you. Anyone who promotes nuking as a

solution

> to terrorism can't get any lower on the humanity scale. Calling
> youself a patriot while maintaining these views is an insult to

all

> the true patriots who have served this country for over 200 years.

Another flip-flop? It's one thing to be a pacifist by nature. It's
another to become one through cowardice.

Nope, it all has to do with the source. Most folks that know me think
of me more as a hawk than a pacifist. But, compared to nukeem' Rob, I
am a pacifist.

If you haven't caught on already, the cowards are those who won't
spend the time and effort to undertand the problems and look
for "real" solution. You are just such a coward, Rob.

>
> > Typical negative attitude towards your country--what else

should

we expect from you? You believe you transcend all reason as

delivered

> by those far more intelligent and connected than you, yet you
neither vote nor have an alternative idea that you have ever

CLEARLY

> stated. It's the classic "let the other guy do it" lazy man
syndrome.
>
> As usual your response is really targetted at yourself. Nuking
anyone who disagrees with you is about as "lazy" as it gets.

Typical peacenik response. You have no idea what it takes to even
discuss the future possibility of using nuclear weapons. Thank God

we

have a President who isn't afraid to do that.

Clearly, I have a much better idea than you do, Adolf. I also think
our President has a good understanding and would find your positions
abhorrent. If you think the President and you share some kind of
bond, then you are crazy. But then, we've already established that.

>
> > but you can't take it. Get over it.
> >
> > You criticize because you don't have anything upstairs, and you
> > apparently lead a sour life. I do it when common sense dictates
the need. BIG difference.
>
> Refering to yourself and common sense in the same sentence is

what

is known as an oxymoron. Or, in you case we can leave off the "oxy".

How old is THAT.

It still applies, that's the point.

>
> > Denial once again. Tell us, who wins arguments with your wife?--
if you even let her speak. You can't win here because you can't
> stifle, can you.
>
> I know it is impossible to "win" an argument with someone who
refuses to listen. That's you, Adolf. However, I don't need

to "win".

I'm more than happy to expose you as the racist warmonger you have
shown yourself to be.

You haven't yet shown the ability to 'win' anything. You're an
experienced critic of your own country and its values,

No, I'm a critic of you, Adolf. The vast majority of people in this
country don't support your views. You and a handful of other
warmongers hang your hopes on the President because he has used the
military. However, he has completely differnent goals than you do. As
the leader of the Republican party he also has to do whatever is
needed to keep the Republicans in power. He has no plans to wipe out
the Muslims and never will. Don't be surprised if you're disappointed
in the next 4 years.

>
> That's because you didn't say anything concrete, other than

trying

to assert specific positions to me that are wrong. So, since these
> statements of yours about me are wrong, then all I need to do is
say they are wrong. That is the correct RESPONSE. Too bad you're so
dense you won't even understand this simple logic.

More meaningless ramble. If I scratch my ass I'd get more out of it
than trying to decipher this.

Which is EXACTLY what I predicted.

>
> Build your credibility? You have none. Your "nukeem" strategy has
> already taken all possible credibility away from you.

That's because 'nukem' scares you, and you wimper at the thought of
it.

It would scare me if the president were saying it. However, coming
from a racist warmonger like you doesn't effect me one bit. It just
shows what a fool you are.

>
> No, you "laid out" an unproven assertion which has pretty much

been

> given up by the admistration.

You're in the dark here.

As you have proven by "asserting" once again? Do you even know what
a "fact" is?

The main problem is ALL the people who
> would have worked on the WMDs have ALL stated there were none.

Where were you when the pictures came out with proof that Sadam

used

these weapons on his own people?

OK, let's go back to the 80s and early 90s for our facts. These
weapons were dismantled after the gulf war as part of the agreement
that ended the war and started inspections. Now, try again, Adolf.

That's
> why I stated you were ignoring the facts. If you have evidence

that

> your assertion is really a fact please provide it. Of course, you
> don't. Your view, that anything you SAY is by definition a fact,
has become so tedious.

So you think he used everything he had--or do you think just a

teensy

weensy bit that he hid all the rest?

His life was on the line and his control of Iraq, so Saddam held back
being the humanitarian we all know him to be. Sure, Adolf, are you
completely ignorant?

As for ignoring the facts, again
all you repeat is what the TV tells you. That's why you're a child
playing in a man's world.

One of the wonders of having a free press is that both sides get to
use it to make poliitical hay. If one side comes out with something
in the press and it is not refuted by the other side then you can
feel somewhat comfortable that it is accurate. Naturally, you deny
this since it goes against everything you WANT to be the truth.
  

>
> > Hello again, McFly! The war was because Saddam and Iraq's

regime

> > supported terrorism and they did have Al Q. contact, just as

much

> as it was against WMD's.

It's already been proven this is not true. Get over it.

>
> I'm still waiting for your evidence to support this ASSERTION.

I've

> ask for it before and you still haven't provided any. You won't
> either because there is no evidence. Period. So, back to the
drawing board with you and don't comeback until you have something
concrete.

There is evidence of Al Q. contact many many times.

Yes, and there were terrorists contacts in the US and most European
countries as well. I guess that must mean we should invade ourselves.
You will hang onto any straw, won't you?

There is proof of WMD's.

No there isn't. THIS has been proven to anyone with a brain.

>
> I didn't back out, Adolf. I simply pointed out that you once

again

> misread something and went off the deep end. If you had any sense
you would just say "never mind", but you'd rather dig yourself a
deeper hole. Well, go right ahead. You're already in so deep now
you're probably having trouble breathing.

Is that all you can contribute after saying Bush is no different

than

Hitler,

That's not what I said and you know it. However, those words have now
come out of YOUR mouth several times. I suspect that's because Adolf
is such a hero to you that you wish President Bush was more like him.
He's not which I'm sure will disappoint you to no end in the coming 4
years.

···

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

#72

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

wrote:

> > Translation to English: You make believe everything you write,
> > because you are not an educated person who can effectively
> > communicate with people under 70.
>
> No translation required. Everyone can pretty much see your
responses are devoid of any facts.

And that's supposed to mean something?

Yep. Exactly what I wrote.

>
> > > It looks like you finally decided to do some actual reading

to

> > learn something. This is a first.
> >
> > What you don't realize is that I helped write some of it.

That's

> how far off base you are in virtually everything you say.
>
> Sure you did. You are such a liar.

Typical from you. Facts shake you up, and when presented so you

can't

dispute them, you claim "it's a lie mom, it's a lie!"

What fact? When you write something without proof, it's called an
assertion and that is all you've EVER provided. The only conclusion
one can reach when this occurs is that it's all a lie. In addition,
I've caught you in several lies in our previous dicussion, so you
have a history of lying. Give it up.

>
> > Incorrect as usual. Time has nothing to do with it
>
> What an idiotic statement. Do you really believe nothing changes
with time? You are beyond hope.

Who said that? I said it has nothing to do with THIS, even though

you

want and need it to.

Look they change with time or they don't. Pick one and quit your flip-
flops.

>
> No, We've added a LOT more that hate us now. When someones'

brother

> or wife or ... is demolished by American weapons then you have
> another terrorist convert ready for initiation.

That's another stupid theory that helped Kerry get rejected. Thank
goodness everyone in this country's not as dumb as you.

I guess those folks over there exploding the car bombs are just
another theory. That means nobody is really dying, just another
theory. You are so transparent ...

>
> That's not the point nor the issue at hand. The problem isn't the
> millions that don't hate us, it's the hundreds that DO hate us.
They become the next generation of terrorists. This is also why a
nukeem strategy would never work.

Terrorists need no new reasons to create a new generation of
terrorists.

Of course not, they just love to kill themselves.

That's where you continue to be confused. You see some
twisted reason to blame the US for terrorism when it existed long
before any of this. And since when wouldn't a nuke wipe out several
generations?...... You're so uninformed.

I gave you the reasons. The facts. Now, all you do is hem and haw in
your response. And, just so everyone can see just how UNINFORMED you
really are. A single nukes kill radius is not all that large when
compared to the size of the populated Muslim countries. The only way
to kill everyone you want to kill would be to create a worldwide
nuclear winter and pretty much end life on this planet, but then I
suspect you think that's all a liberal hoax too.

>
> > And the root cause is barbaric actions over and over again by

the

> > Muslims.
>
> Simple thoughts for simple minds. You ignore the barbaric actions
by non-Muslims throughout history and focus only on those by

Muslims

in order to support your idiotic suppositions.

Who cares about history, McFly?

Clearly, it is beyond your simple mind to understand that repeating
history is foolish. You just proved how ignorant you are.

Ask the families of those who lost
loved ones in the towers. Today, here and now, it's the Muslims who
are at war with us (but not you obviously). You continue to attempt
to justify what these animals do.

I have never JUSTIFIED terrorists actions. I never will. I do try to
understand the forces that made them terrorists. I know you don't
care, you're too lazy.

Don't you realize the most
important election in the world was just lost with those ideals???

Nope. You can't attribute GWB's wins as support of your warmongering
attitude as has already been shown in the post-election synopsis.
However, your attempts to do this are a clear picture into your
simplistic thinking.

>
> > So we should allow Israel to be wiped out because of Jew-hatred
in the ME?
>
> Nope. However, "wiping out" all Palestinians is not the answer
either.

You don't think so? Who's attacking whom here with suicide bombers
rather than working out the problems at the table? Get rid of the
Palestinians and you rid the world of one more big problem. At

least

Allah was kind enough to finally rid us of the main terrorist this
week.

I'm sure the Jews would love you if you dropped Nukes within a few
miles of their country. Your lazy solution just doesn't work, never
will. It's too bad you can't focus your energy on coming up with a
viable solution instead of hatred.

>
> You don't need to understand the "whole story" since it's
perception that creates terrorists.

Say what? Lick your fingers and try again.

I think everyone with a brain understands perfectly.

>
> > Yeah, that's a liberal position. You people want everything,

but

> when it gets out of hand you criticize.
>
> No. It's just a fact that you want to deny. Again, it doesn't
matter what our goals were, it's the perception that counts.

You and your 'perception'. No wonder you hide from the truth. You
don't accept reality, and that allows you to criticize--at the

cost,

of course, of an election.

Like I said before, I didn't lose the election. It really takes the
wind out of your sails to know I'm not a Kerry supporter, but your
lack of intellect and absolute NEED to generalize can't come up with
a category for me. That's why you keep trying to put me in the Kerry
camp. Everytime you do this you are simply demonstating your
ignorance.

>
> > Another liberal position--we did it and have been doing it
for "the oil". That's a pure cop-out when you have no other

answers.

>
> We wouldn't be anywhere near the middle east if it wasn't for the
> oil. Have you seen us focusing on the problems in Africa? If you
> don't understand this simple fact then anything you say from now

on

> is worthless drivel.

So narrow-minded and again, uninformed. Anyone in Africa attack us
lately? A few terrorists are from there, but they got their
brainwashing in the ME. Oil is important,

No, oil is the REASON we have interests in the middle east. Otherwise
there probably would never have a gulf war in the first place.

but lives and freedom are
waaaaay moreso. Liberals have no other choice but to say something

so

stupid as you just did, and look where it got them. That's justice

in

a BIG way. And Africa? That CONTINENT is destroying itself, and

we're

doing the right thing by letting it go. The jungle-bunnies with
spears can't keep their dicks (ho-ho) in their pants, they create
over-crowding (which is surprising considering the disease and

murder

rates), and they spread aids as if there were no tomorrow. If they
show us they're willing to help themselves someday, then we should
offer more support than the token politically-correct hand of

today.

Until then, let S. Africa worry about it, and then Europe if they
want to.

In other words, we have no interests there.

> >
> Not once have I depicted hatred. I have used my rights as a free
> Amercian to voice my opinions relative to your outrageous

remarks.

> The only reason anyone would take that as hatred would be if

hatred

> was the dominant factor in THEIR life. That's you, Adolf. Go see

a

> shrink.

Good thing Lance Armstrong didn't backpeddal that fast. You're a

free

American allright, but you mock it in a big way.

Nope. Not once. All I have done is disagree with your warmongering.
The rest is a figment of your imagination.

You hate the
election choices, the actual outcome, and your country for what

it's

doing in Iraq.

Like I said, hatred has nothing to do with. I don't hate Bush, Kerry
or any of their supporters. I DISAGREE with them. Go see that shrink,
Adolf.

Pure sedition, and you ought to be both ashamed of
yourself as well as executed in front of a Gov't. building in St.
Paul for your remarks.

So, disagreeing with you is now a capital offense. Your mental
problems are SO obvious, please, go see the shrink and do something
about the hatred that rules your life.

···

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

#73

OK, I read it again and it's still the same drivel. I stand by my
response. YOU are a racist and a warmonger who's too lazy to
understand any facts that disagree with your position.

You'll stand by any response that you don't have to explain. When
will these 'facts' ever materialize--that's funny. GWB said the same
thing about the blabber from Kerry!

> Muslims are, to freedom-loving people, enemies to the
> world.

Thanks for proving once again that you are a racist.

I'm their enemy and they're your's too if you didn't figure that out
yet. You're like the idiot who buddy's up to them as they capture
several of the 'infidel' along with you, and they then turn around
and shoot you in the head while calling you an insignificant coward
for turning coat on your own kind by proclaiming your allegiance to
their cause.

Even a "bunch" of bananas is better than you and your idiotic VP
systems.

You didn't like that, did you.....

> Another flip-flop? It's one thing to be a pacifist by nature.

It's another to become one through cowardice.

Nope, it all has to do with the source. Most folks that know me

think of me more as a hawk than a pacifist. But, compared to nukeem'
Rob, I am a pacifist.

You'll say any amount of baloney to make yourself feel good after
getting slapped around by me. Give me more!

> Typical peacenik response. You have no idea what it takes to even
> discuss the future possibility of using nuclear weapons. Thank

God we have a President who isn't afraid to do that.

Clearly, I have a much better idea than you do, Adolf. I also think
our President has a good understanding and would find your

positions abhorrent. If you think the President and you share some
kind of bond, then you are crazy. But then, we've already established
that.

Keep on thinking, and keep that geezer mind operating before it goes
into default. The difference? I KNOW things.

> You haven't yet shown the ability to 'win' anything. You're an

> experienced critic of your own country and its values,

No, I'm a critic of you, Adolf. The vast majority of people in this
country don't support your views. You and a handful of other
warmongers hang your hopes on the President because he has used the
military. However, he has completely differnent goals than you do.

As the leader of the Republican party he also has to do whatever is

needed to keep the Republicans in power. He has no plans to wipe

out the Muslims and never will. Don't be surprised if you're
disappointed in the next 4 years.

HAHAHA! Did you not count the votes yet, or haven't you been able to
get over it? And blah blah blah--you have no idea like I do what the
plans on the table are. A critic who criticizes everything around
him. I'd still like to be close by when you pick on your poor wife
again for doing the right thing.

It would scare me if the president were saying it. However, coming
from a racist warmonger like you doesn't effect me one bit. It just
shows what a fool you are.

You're afraid of an ANT's reaction if you stepped on 3 of his friends
closeby. You'd choose surrender over fighting for your country, and
that qualifies you for virtually nothing but hiding up in Minnesota.

> Where were you when the pictures came out with proof that Sadam
used these weapons on his own people?

OK, let's go back to the 80s and early 90s for our facts. These
weapons were dismantled after the gulf war as part of the agreement
that ended the war and started inspections. Now, try again, Adolf.

You nerd. You are lost in the shuffle between leaky brains and your
computer keyboard. You really believe Saddam did what he said he
would do, don't you--even after he never provided one sliver of
evidence that he dismantled anything to your fabulous UN team. But
because you WANT it to be true, you type it and think it is. What a
pea-brain. Saddam got what he asked for--the loss of his maniac sons
and his fortune. In turn, we get turncoats like you.

His life was on the line and his control of Iraq, so Saddam held

back being the humanitarian we all know him to be. Sure, Adolf, are
you completely ignorant?

Read what i said above, and tell me why there he refused to provide
evidence. Give me facts without the usual accompanying doubletalk.

One of the wonders of having a free press is that both sides get to
use it to make poliitical hay. If one side comes out with something
in the press and it is not refuted by the other side then you can
feel somewhat comfortable that it is accurate. Naturally, you deny
this since it goes against everything you WANT to be the truth.

And one of the wonders of a free society is why a traitor like you is
allowed free press. (other than showing us what an imbescile you
truly are). Now I know why we always made fun of the geeks in school--
because we had a special talent to sense what a bunch of freaks
they'd all turn out to be.

  

> Hello again, McFly! The war was because Saddam and Iraq's

regime supported terrorism and they did have Al Q. contact, just as
much as it was against WMD's.

It's already been proven this is not true. Get over it.

So show me the facts. You won't because there are none. And you don't
have access to files that show I'm right. I just can't imagine you
EVER reading what I've read. You'd puke in terror!

Yes, and there were terrorists contacts in the US and most European
countries as well. I guess that must mean we should invade

ourselves. You will hang onto any straw, won't you?

Every time you write such absurdity, I can see the agony you are
sufferring with GWB winning the election. That alone is far more than
enough to satisfy me and 59 million others, but I keep the drilling
up forever. Just like in the video poker discussion where you kept
saying you'd NEVER give in, you eventually succumbed as I often
predicted. Your credibility is just a tad less than perfect.

That's not what I said and you know it. However, those words have

now come out of YOUR mouth several times. I suspect that's because
Adolf is such a hero to you that you wish President Bush was more
like him. He's not which I'm sure will disappoint you to no end in
the coming 4 years.

That's right. You show your true colors here. The only piece of
enjoyment you might be able to get out of the election is if somehow
GWB fails--and it ain't gonna happen. Why? Because most Americans are
now in support of the outcome of the election process and are moving
forward. A few--like you and Michael Moore--were so hurt by it all
that you'll let it keep on eating away at you until there's little
left. Go ahead. I don't have to suffer being around you. I don't have
to absorb the abuse that your wife does. In denial? Count the
meaningless arguments you now have. And all I can do is sit back and
enjoy................

···

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

#74

> Typical from you. Facts shake you up, and when presented so you
can't dispute them, you claim "it's a lie mom, it's a lie!"

What fact? When you write something without proof, it's called an
assertion and that is all you've EVER provided. The only conclusion
one can reach when this occurs is that it's all a lie. In addition,
I've caught you in several lies in our previous dicussion, so you
have a history of lying. Give it up.

You moron. Now you want previously classified papers published.
HAHAHA! You just don't like it one bit, so you're only way out is to
claim LIAR LIAR!

Look they change with time or they don't. Pick one and quit your

flip-flops.

I said it doesn't because it doesn't. You only know flip-flopping, so
you think everyone acts as odd as you (and Kerry).

> That's another stupid theory that helped Kerry get rejected.

Thank goodness everyone in this country's not as dumb as you.

I guess those folks over there exploding the car bombs are just
another theory. That means nobody is really dying, just another
theory. You are so transparent ...

Stick with the subject, and then I'll make you look stupid for more
dumb remarks. Kerry and you lost because of your theories. Exploding
cars and killings in Iraq are a simple fact of the war. But it eats
away at a peacenik like you, doesn't it? Work it out, and then have
another cheeseball.

> That's where you continue to be confused. You see some
> twisted reason to blame the US for terrorism when it existed long
> before any of this. And since when wouldn't a nuke wipe out

several generations?...... You're so uninformed.

I gave you the reasons. The facts. Now, all you do is hem and haw

in your response. And, just so everyone can see just how UNINFORMED
you really are. A single nukes kill radius is not all that large when

compared to the size of the populated Muslim countries. The only

way to kill everyone you want to kill would be to create a worldwide

nuclear winter and pretty much end life on this planet, but then I
suspect you think that's all a liberal hoax too.

You keep copying what I say as if you said it. Where'd that come
from. And you have no clue from what you said, about the so-called
(and this is dumb--KILL RADIUS) of a nuclear warhead. What a boob...a
complete boob. Stick to the sliderule. At least then you'll have
something to hang onto when you look stupid.

> Ask the families of those who lost
> loved ones in the towers. Today, here and now, it's the Muslims

who are at war with us (but not you obviously). You continue to
attempt to justify what these animals do.

I have never JUSTIFIED terrorists actions.

Mealy-mouthing at its finest. You both accept (which is what cowards
do) AND acknowledged they have 'no choice in the matter'. Pure
sedition.

> Don't you realize the most
> important election in the world was just lost with those ideals???

Nope. You can't attribute GWB's wins as support of your

warmongering attitude as has already been shown in the post-election
synopsis. However, your attempts to do this are a clear picture into
your simplistic thinking.

You're watching your TV again. Your ideals lost and you're sore about
it. Face it already. The war is good to the majority of us, and you
can't handle that truth. What a sissy.

I'm sure the Jews would love you if you dropped Nukes within a few
miles of their country. Your lazy solution just doesn't work, never
will. It's too bad you can't focus your energy on coming up with a
viable solution instead of hatred.

What an idiot again. You're stuck on the nukes I see, and we have
much more sophisticated weaponry that'll do the job in Palestine if
we had to. But we don't. Israel has the same technology. You act,
although very nebulously, that you know how to solve the Israel-
Palestine problem without violence. Then let's have it, Einstein! And
after that, let's see how you un-brainwash all those young boys and
men and women who have been brought up to know only one thing will
get them to see Allah--by killing Jews. You know it'll never change
or end until strength ends it for them. But that's not for Mr.
Peacenik.....

> > > Yeah, that's a liberal position. You people want everything,
but when it gets out of hand you criticize.
> >
> > No. It's just a fact that you want to deny. Again, it doesn't
> matter what our goals were, it's the perception that counts.

Take a look back at the election that cut your heart out because of
empty criticizm. Then tell me again.

>
Like I said before, I didn't lose the election. It really takes the
wind out of your sails to know I'm not a Kerry supporter, but your
lack of intellect and absolute NEED to generalize can't come up

with a category for me. That's why you keep trying to put me in the
Kerry camp. Everytime you do this you are simply demonstating your

ignorance.

It's written on every page here: You say you didn't vote for either,
but you come across as such a weak individual that you just can't
hold back your disdain for the true President. And because of your
childish tiptoeing, do you really think anyone anywhere will believe
you when you say you supported Kerry even though you may not have
voted for him? You supply a joke-of-the-day.

> So narrow-minded and again, uninformed. Anyone in Africa attack

us lately? A few terrorists are from there, but they got their

> brainwashing in the ME. Oil is important,

No, oil is the REASON we have interests in the middle east.

Otherwise there probably would never have a gulf war in the first
place.

That's your liberal baloney spewing out again, and it's a HELLO
AGAIN McFLY reason your boy lost! No do you understand??

And Africa? That CONTINENT is destroying itself, and

we're
> doing the right thing by letting it go. The jungle-bunnies with
> spears can't keep their dicks (ho-ho) in their pants, they create
> over-crowding (which is surprising considering the disease and
murder
> rates), and they spread aids as if there were no tomorrow. If

they

> show us they're willing to help themselves someday, then we

should

> offer more support than the token politically-correct hand of
today.
> Until then, let S. Africa worry about it, and then Europe if they
> want to.

In other words, we have no interests there.

You didn't get it. We have interests in the PEOPLE's well-being as we
do everywhere. You are stuck on material things--big surprise,
because you lose so much you can't have much of the pie.

> Good thing Lance Armstrong didn't backpeddal that fast. You're a
free American allright, but you mock it in a big way.

Nope. Not once. All I have done is disagree with your warmongering.
The rest is a figment of your imagination.

Stop the crying and act like a man.

Like I said, hatred has nothing to do with. I don't hate Bush,

Kerry or any of their supporters. I DISAGREE with them. Go see that
shrink, Adolf.

You hate America, and you're backpeddaling again. What's the matter,
does it hurt to get the undeniable truth flung your way once again???

> Pure sedition, and you ought to be both ashamed of
> yourself as well as executed in front of a Gov't. building in St.
> Paul for your remarks.

So, disagreeing with you is now a capital offense. Your mental
problems are SO obvious, please, go see the shrink and do something
about the hatred that rules your life.

I'd much rather see you hung for your treason. Or maybe you could go
over to Iraq and offer your services to Al Zarquawi....and we might
see another beheading. Lessons learned.....

···

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

#75

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

wrote:

> OK, I read it again and it's still the same drivel. I stand by my
> response. YOU are a racist and a warmonger who's too lazy to
> understand any facts that disagree with your position.

You'll stand by any response that you don't have to explain. When
will these 'facts' ever materialize--that's funny. GWB said the

same

thing about the blabber from Kerry!

I already have explained it to anyone who has a brain. I realize that
leaves you out, Adoplf.

>
> > Muslims are, to freedom-loving people, enemies to the
> > world.
>
> Thanks for proving once again that you are a racist.

I'm their enemy and they're your's too if you didn't figure that

out

yet.

I know they are our enemy, Adolf. That topic is not in debate.
However, it's you who insist on making more terrorists, not me.

>
> Even a "bunch" of bananas is better than you and your idiotic VP
> systems.

You didn't like that, did you.....

Translation. Rob, does like the implicatation he's "bananas".

>
> > Another flip-flop? It's one thing to be a pacifist by nature.
It's another to become one through cowardice.
>
> Nope, it all has to do with the source. Most folks that know me
think of me more as a hawk than a pacifist. But, compared to

nukeem'

Rob, I am a pacifist.

You'll say any amount of baloney to make yourself feel good after
getting slapped around by me. Give me more!

OK.

I hadn't planned on going into this level of detail (and I probably
shouldn't since it still requires an oversimplification through this
medium). First of all, ... The reason I'm considered a hawk by some
is that I think we should hunt down and kill or harshly imprison all
the terrorists. These individuals are driven by hate (sound familar)
and no amount of logic will ever sway them (sound familar). Their
what's known as a "done deal" and no amount of talking will ever
change them (sound familar). As a result I also have no problem with
our treatment of terrorist prisoners in Cuba. The ALCU may think they
are protecting our rights but they are all wrong on this one. (I've
found it somewhat humorous that Rob has EXACTLY the same personality
traits as most of these terrorists. In many respects his hatred
toward them is a hatred of himself.)

On the other hand, I'd also like us to quit creating terrorists. This
is much more difficult and this is where I have a problem with the
Bush administrations' policies. I had no problem with the US going
into Afghanistan and changing gov'ts there (Even Muslim countries
like Pakistan could support these actions). Those folks were directly
responsible for the 9/11 atttacks and had to pay for their actions.
Not the case in Iraq. While everyone can certainly agree that
removing Saddam from power was a worthwhile objective, the approach
was all wrong. In the world where most of us live (Rob excluded) you
need real proof to invade a country or you will seed more hatred and
distrust of your motives. Even today the majority of Iraqis think we
invaded for the oil (recent poll .. check into the facts if you doubt
this). This (and all the death) in turn creates more terrorists. So,
if the objective was to get rid of terrorists as Rob has stated, then
the approach completely backfired and was destined to backfire from
the start. That's where understanding history comes into play. I have
to believe that the President is smart enough to understand this as
well. That's the primary reason why I think his motives were not as
pristine as one would hope.

Now, let me know if you want even more.

>
>
> > Where were you when the pictures came out with proof that Sadam
> used these weapons on his own people?
>
> OK, let's go back to the 80s and early 90s for our facts. These
> weapons were dismantled after the gulf war as part of the

agreement

> that ended the war and started inspections. Now, try again, Adolf.
>
You nerd. You are lost in the shuffle between leaky brains and your
computer keyboard. You really believe Saddam did what he said he
would do, don't you--even after he never provided one sliver of
evidence that he dismantled anything to your fabulous UN team. But
because you WANT it to be true, you type it and think it is. What a
pea-brain. Saddam got what he asked for--the loss of his maniac

sons

and his fortune. In turn, we get turncoats like you.

Well, since we have turned up NOTHING yet, I do believe he dismantled
them. Immediately after the gulf war he was in no position to do
anything else. In addition, most of our WMD "evidence" was NOT based
on these old weapons. Of course, these FACTs ruin all of your motives
for the invasion, and I know you'll never accept it. It's just like
you've never accepted the mathmatical FACTs that prove your VP
systems are worthless. Personality flaw or just plain stupid? I'll
let the reader decide.

> His life was on the line and his control of Iraq, so Saddam held
back being the humanitarian we all know him to be. Sure, Adolf, are
you completely ignorant?

Read what i said above, and tell me why there he refused to provide
evidence. Give me facts without the usual accompanying doubletalk.

Saddam had an ego right up there with yours, Adolf. AND ... He never
thought we'd invade unilaterally, he actually thought his "improved"
military could fight against us and he needed to maintain a position
of strength in his own country or take a chance on losing power
anyway. If you'd use whatever part of your brain still functions
you'd spend some time understanding reality instead of just ASSUMING
whatever fits your preconceived agenda.

>
> One of the wonders of having a free press is that both sides get

to

> use it to make poliitical hay. If one side comes out with

something

> in the press and it is not refuted by the other side then you can
> feel somewhat comfortable that it is accurate. Naturally, you

deny

> this since it goes against everything you WANT to be the truth.

And one of the wonders of a free society is why a traitor like you

is

allowed free press.

What a TRULY anti-American statement if I ever heard one.

>
> Hello again, McFly! The war was because Saddam and Iraq's
> regime supported terrorism and they did have Al Q. contact, just

as

> much as it was against WMD's.
>
> It's already been proven this is not true. Get over it.

So show me the facts.

I have stated more than once that it is "those who asserted there
were WMDs" that are required to show the existence of WMDs, otherwise
the only assumption an informed individual can come to is that there
were none. Those ARE the facts. Get over it.

···

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

#76

> You'll stand by any response that you don't have to explain. When
> will these 'facts' ever materialize--that's funny. GWB said the
same thing about the blabber from Kerry!

I already have explained it to anyone who has a brain. I realize

that leaves you out, Adoplf.

Moe crybabying instead of clear explanations. Go back and support the
Minnesota Injuns.

I know they are our enemy, Adolf. That topic is not in debate.
However, it's you who insist on making more terrorists, not me.

OK, so you now SUPPORT the use of nuclear weapons on these animals?

> You'll say any amount of baloney to make yourself feel good after
> getting slapped around by me. Give me more!

OK. OK here too. So let's leave that in for one more go-around.

The reason I'm considered a hawk by some is that I think we should

hunt down and kill or harshly imprison all the terrorists.

Stop right there. Imprisoning does no good. We have liberals in the
ACLU who want to release them as soon as we get 'em because of
supposed civil rights violations. Most of those embedded with the
ACLU are homos, and these fairies could use a taste of that good 'ol
terroristic decapitating of their queer lovers before they'd ever
come to realize how stupid they truly are.

These individuals are driven by hate (sound familar) and no amount

of logic will ever sway them (sound familar).

Sounds familiar. You're not an American if you don't hate these
barbarians. The last part is also familiar. They have no
understanding of logic.

Their what's known as a "done deal" and no amount of talking will

ever change them (sound familar).

Finally, you agree that negotiations are out of the question!!!

As a result I also have no problem with our treatment of terrorist

prisoners in Cuba. The ALCU may think they are protecting our rights
but they are all wrong on this one. (I've found it somewhat humorous
that Rob has EXACTLY the same personality traits as most of these
terrorists. In many respects his hatred toward them is a hatred of
himself.)

I guess all the common sense finally got through to you. But your
argument about me isn't very precise. I hate them, yes, but I would
never kill or want to kill them unless they were trying to kill me
first--which the extremists are sworn to do (and I have killed
several with a blade, where you can smell the body odor, their bad-
breath up close, and the organ-odor as you cut through them and give
it a violent twist).

On the other hand, I'd also like us to quit creating terrorists.

Terrorists create themselves through a mutated belief in the Koran,
which was written by a wacko. Similar to your beliefs in video poker,
they simply look for a loophole in order to keep up the violence--
while you look for ANY reason you can conjure up in order to justify
playing the game much more than you should.

This

is much more difficult and this is where I have a problem with the
Bush administrations' policies. I had no problem with the US going
into Afghanistan and changing gov'ts there (Even Muslim countries
like Pakistan could support these actions). Those folks were

directly

responsible for the 9/11 atttacks and had to pay for their actions.

My efforts here have not been in vain. Thank you.

Not the case in Iraq. While everyone can certainly agree that
removing Saddam from power was a worthwhile objective, the approach
was all wrong. In the world where most of us live (Rob excluded)

you need real proof to invade a country or you will seed more hatred
and distrust of your motives. Even today the majority of Iraqis think
we invaded for the oil (recent poll .. check into the facts if you
doubt this).

A liberal point of view, and yet another that got Kerry rejected.
That is a fact unable to be dismissed by warped thinking. If you'd
have gone to Iraq during this conflict, you'd have seen an enormous
outpour of relief and thanks from the majority of the normal, regular
people like you and I. Terrorists and so-called 'insurgents'
(enemies) have a few well-to-doers at the top of the chain, but
almost every one of them are paupers and slobs who simply went out
and looked for a cause along with a purpose to follow, because their
miserable lives were of no value to them or their families that they
had no way to support.

This (and all the death) in turn creates more terrorists. So, if the

objective was to get rid of terrorists as Rob has stated, then the
approach completely backfired and was destined to backfire from the
start.

Again, something the smarter of the bunch of US voters thoroughly
rejected, and the reason is because it's not the case. Your TV tube
would have you believe that because they are extremely liberal on the
alphabet channels, and you ate it up in a second rather than putting
some thought into what makes sense.

That's where understanding history comes into play. I have to

believe that the President is smart enough to understand this as
well. That's the primary reason why I think his motives were not as
pristine as one would hope.

GWB is far smarter than those who voted against them give him credit
for, and thank God more Americans knew better. I don't know why you
believe his agenda was other than he states. Maybe if you listened to
him once in a while instead of the lies Dan Rather tells (the same
traitor who coddled to Saddam in a pre-war interview) you'd he's
doing his best for every American, always.

Well, since we have turned up NOTHING yet, I do believe he

dismantled them.

So you take the dove position and would take the chance that maybe he
didn't 'dismantle them' and shipped them elsewhere or buried them.
Don't you think that just a wee bit dangerous--just a wee bit? Then
tell me why he didn't want inspectors to verify evidence that he did
in fact dismantle them ALL. that's why your position is so leaky and
100% dangerous. And that's why we attacked him.

Immediately after the gulf war he was in no position to do anything

else. In addition, most of our WMD "evidence" was NOT based on these
old weapons. Of course, these FACTs ruin all of your motives for the
invasion, and I know you'll never accept it. It's just like you've
never accepted the mathmatical FACTs that prove your VP systems are
worthless. Personality flaw or just plain stupid? I'll let the reader
decide.

Good thing it's the reader and not the voter.

Saddam had an ego right up there with yours, Adolf.

If true--and you wouldn't know that--then he didn't use it correctly.

AND ... He never thought we'd invade unilaterally, he actually

thought his "improved" military could fight against us and he needed
to maintain a position of strength in his own country or take a
chance on losing power anyway.

Duh! All the more reason to attack when we did. You'd have preferred
more time to prepare?

> And one of the wonders of a free society is why a traitor like

you is allowed free press.

What a TRULY anti-American statement if I ever heard one.

Take us back to the good 'ol days when we HUNG traitors. Even when
it's a waste of good rope.

I have stated more than once that it is "those who asserted there
were WMDs" that are required to show the existence of WMDs,

otherwise the only assumption an informed individual can come to is
that there were none. Those ARE the facts. Get over it.

Hello once again, McFly!! He used them against his people, therefore
any intelligent person would conclude he still has them!! HELLO?!!
Anybody home in there? Just because YOU would take the chance of his
NOT having them any longer for whatever strange reason, that doesn't
mean educated, intelligent, caring people have to take that same,
illogical chance. You ought to go outside tonight and than your lucky
stars we attacked when we did (of course, in the rare chance there's
no clouds), because if we gave Kofi "I am useless & I am jealous of
and hate the USA" Anan and his gutless inspectors more time (like 5
more years and then some) to get results either way, you'd be drafted
to fight even at YOUR age!

···

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

#77

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

wrote:

> > You'll stand by any response that you don't have to explain.

When

> > will these 'facts' ever materialize--that's funny. GWB said the
> same thing about the blabber from Kerry!
>
> I already have explained it to anyone who has a brain. I realize
that leaves you out, Adoplf.

Moe crybabying instead of clear explanations. Go back and support

the

Minnesota Injuns.

Another response typical of your intellect and racist views. You look
absolutely STUPID.

>
> I know they are our enemy, Adolf. That topic is not in debate.
> However, it's you who insist on making more terrorists, not me.

OK, so you now SUPPORT the use of nuclear weapons on these animals?

Of course not, Adolf. That would just make the problem worse as
anyone with half a brain already knows.

>
> > You'll say any amount of baloney to make yourself feel good

after

> > getting slapped around by me. Give me more!
>
> OK. OK here too. So let's leave that in for one more go-around.

>The reason I'm considered a hawk by some is that I think we should
hunt down and kill or harshly imprison all the terrorists.

Stop right there. Imprisoning does no good. We have liberals in the
ACLU who want to release them as soon as we get 'em because of
supposed civil rights violations. Most of those embedded with the
ACLU are homos, and these fairies could use a taste of that

good 'ol

terroristic decapitating of their queer lovers before they'd ever
come to realize how stupid they truly are.

One more methodology to create more terrorists. Outright slaughter.
You have no concept of how to play the political ballgame. You
wouldn't stop until the entire world hates America.

>These individuals are driven by hate (sound familar) and no amount
of logic will ever sway them (sound familar).

Sounds familiar. You're not an American if you don't hate these
barbarians. The last part is also familiar. They have no
understanding of logic.

No. That statement is as un-American and stupid as it gets.

>Their what's known as a "done deal" and no amount of talking will
ever change them (sound familar).

Finally, you agree that negotiations are out of the question!!!

I never said otherwise, Adolf. Your constant inability to comprehend
simple sentences is a big problem for you.

>As a result I also have no problem with our treatment of terrorist
prisoners in Cuba. The ALCU may think they are protecting our

rights

but they are all wrong on this one. (I've found it somewhat

humorous

that Rob has EXACTLY the same personality traits as most of these
terrorists. In many respects his hatred toward them is a hatred of
himself.)

I guess all the common sense finally got through to you. But your
argument about me isn't very precise. I hate them, yes, but I would
never kill or want to kill them unless they were trying to kill me
first--which the extremists are sworn to do (and I have killed
several with a blade, where you can smell the body odor, their bad-
breath up close, and the organ-odor as you cut through them and

give

it a violent twist).

> On the other hand, I'd also like us to quit creating terrorists.

Terrorists create themselves through a mutated belief in the Koran,
which was written by a wacko.

This is where you are 100% wrong. The Koran and the Bible provide
equivalent passages that can be quoted by those who want to recruit
terrorists. You use this as an "easy way out" so you are not required
to think anymore and you can just hate, hate, hate.

Similar to your beliefs in video poker,

Now your comparing the Koran to VP. What a mind ...

This
> is much more difficult and this is where I have a problem with

the

> Bush administrations' policies. I had no problem with the US

going

> into Afghanistan and changing gov'ts there (Even Muslim countries
> like Pakistan could support these actions). Those folks were
directly
> responsible for the 9/11 atttacks and had to pay for their

actions.

My efforts here have not been in vain. Thank you.

> Not the case in Iraq. While everyone can certainly agree that
> removing Saddam from power was a worthwhile objective, the

approach

> was all wrong. In the world where most of us live (Rob excluded)
you need real proof to invade a country or you will seed more

hatred

and distrust of your motives. Even today the majority of Iraqis

think

we invaded for the oil (recent poll .. check into the facts if you
doubt this).

A liberal point of view, and yet another that got Kerry rejected.

No. A real poll of Iraqis. Ignoring the facts won't change them

That is a fact unable to be dismissed by warped thinking. If you'd
have gone to Iraq during this conflict, you'd have seen an enormous
outpour of relief and thanks from the majority of the normal,

regular

people like you and I.

That's what happened INITIALLY. That is all changing now that we
haven't been able to enforce a peace and move on. You need to keep up
with what's going on.

Terrorists and so-called 'insurgents'
(enemies) have a few well-to-doers at the top of the chain, but
almost every one of them are paupers and slobs who simply went out
and looked for a cause along with a purpose to follow, because

their

miserable lives were of no value to them or their families that

they

had no way to support.

I agree that the vast majority of the insurgents are pretty much as
you've described. Doesn't change a thing.

>This (and all the death) in turn creates more terrorists. So, if

the

objective was to get rid of terrorists as Rob has stated, then the
approach completely backfired and was destined to backfire from the
start.

Again, something the smarter of the bunch of US voters thoroughly
rejected, and the reason is because it's not the case.

Facts can't be rejected by voters.

Your TV tube
would have you believe that because they are extremely liberal on

the

alphabet channels, and you ate it up in a second rather than

putting

some thought into what makes sense.

Oh, your stating that is going well in Iraq and that that the news
media is making up all the problems. Need I say more ...

>That's where understanding history comes into play. I have to
believe that the President is smart enough to understand this as
well. That's the primary reason why I think his motives were not as
pristine as one would hope.

GWB is far smarter than those who voted against them give him

credit

for, and thank God more Americans knew better. I don't know why you
believe his agenda was other than he states. Maybe if you listened

to

him once in a while instead of the lies Dan Rather tells (the same
traitor who coddled to Saddam in a pre-war interview) you'd he's
doing his best for every American, always.

Time will tell ...

> Well, since we have turned up NOTHING yet, I do believe he
dismantled them.

So you take the dove position and would take the chance that maybe

he

didn't 'dismantle them' and shipped them elsewhere or buried them.

You can call "the inspection system that went on for years and no
real evidence to the contrary" a "dove" position if you want. The
majority of people in this world call it common sense.

Don't you think that just a wee bit dangerous--just a wee bit?

Actually, creating thousands of more terrorists is orders of
magnitude MORE dangerous.

Then
tell me why he didn't want inspectors to verify evidence that he

did

in fact dismantle them ALL. that's why your position is so leaky

and

100% dangerous. And that's why we attacked him.

I explained that later in the my post. You clearly have no
understanding of culture.

>Immediately after the gulf war he was in no position to do

anything

else. In addition, most of our WMD "evidence" was NOT based on

these

old weapons. Of course, these FACTs ruin all of your motives for

the

invasion, and I know you'll never accept it. It's just like you've
never accepted the mathmatical FACTs that prove your VP systems are
worthless. Personality flaw or just plain stupid? I'll let the

reader

decide.

Good thing it's the reader and not the voter.

> Saddam had an ego right up there with yours, Adolf.

If true--and you wouldn't know that--then he didn't use it

correctly.

I think it's pretty safe to say a person who build statues of himself
and puts posters of his face all over the place has a bit of an EGO
problem.

>AND ... He never thought we'd invade unilaterally, he actually
thought his "improved" military could fight against us and he

needed

to maintain a position of strength in his own country or take a
chance on losing power anyway.

Duh! All the more reason to attack when we did. You'd have

preferred

more time to prepare?

No, I would have preferred that we could "catch" him with real WMDs
or 9/11 terrorists in his midst. Then, we could have formed a multi-
national coalition as in the gulf war and significantly reduced the
problems that have plaqued our invasion.

> > And one of the wonders of a free society is why a traitor like
you is allowed free press.
>
> What a TRULY anti-American statement if I ever heard one.

Take us back to the good 'ol days when we HUNG traitors. Even when
it's a waste of good rope.

You may soon be saying that with a different tone ...

···

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

#78

> OK, so you now SUPPORT the use of nuclear weapons on these

animals?

Of course not, Adolf. That would just make the problem worse as
anyone with half a brain already knows.

No, that would make the problem worse for YOU, because YOU are afraid
and you get confused when it comes to doing the right thing. Hawk my
butt.

> Stop right there. Imprisoning does no good. We have liberals in

the ACLU who want to release them as soon as we get 'em because of

> supposed civil rights violations. Most of those embedded with the
> ACLU are homos, and these fairies could use a taste of that
good 'ol terroristic decapitating of their queer lovers before

they'd ever come to realize how stupid they truly are.

One more methodology to create more terrorists. Outright slaughter.
You have no concept of how to play the political ballgame. You
wouldn't stop until the entire world hates America.

It doesn't matter to me who hates us and who likes us, as long as we
do the right things, protect out freedom, and support democracy.
Anyone who wants to militarily or terroristically challenge any of
that should and will pay the price. You only worry about it all
because it makes you afraid. that's what it did to Kerry too. And
where is he today??

> Sounds familiar. You're not an American if you don't hate these
> barbarians. The last part is also familiar. They have no
> understanding of logic.

No. That statement is as un-American and stupid as it gets.

Of course, as usual, you never say why. Just criticizm. Typical
liberal.

> Finally, you agree that negotiations are out of the question!!!

I never said otherwise, Adolf. Your constant inability to

comprehend simple sentences is a big problem for you.

You never say anything clearly. Typical liberal game plan. Good thing
GWB supporters saw thru all that with Kerry, hey?

> > On the other hand, I'd also like us to quit creating terrorists.
>
> Terrorists create themselves through a mutated belief in the

Koran, which was written by a wacko.

This is where you are 100% wrong. The Koran and the Bible provide
equivalent passages that can be quoted by those who want to recruit
terrorists. You use this as an "easy way out" so you are not

required to think anymore and you can just hate, hate, hate.

That's a less-than pea-brain mentality in action. I grew up a
Catholic, and the bible was a big part of my studies. In no instance
were we ever taught to use violence, and in no case was it ever
quoted as the righteous thing to do. Those who follow the wacko
Koran, however, are often taught violence and death as the only way.
It's why you're seeing what you do today by these nuts.

> A liberal point of view, and yet another that got Kerry rejected.

No. A real poll of Iraqis. Ignoring the facts won't change them

A poll of Iraqis?? Huh?? Go on over there and meet them and THEN
you'll find out how overwhelmingly thankful they are to us for what
we did and are now doing. You hear and read what TV wants you to, and
you just aren't open or smart enough to know anything beyond all that
nonsense. Those of us who've been there know. Ask any soldier also.
they see it every day. You see only when "1 American soldier was
killed today" or "A car bomb went off killing 14 Iraqi National Guard
trainees". It's a big country with a lot going on. If all our news
told us over here were when there were murders in the big cities,
what do you think THAT would sound like?

That's what happened INITIALLY. That is all changing now that we
haven't been able to enforce a peace and move on. You need to keep

up with what's going on.

Where've you been? Nothing's changed at all. GWB has said a million
times since the start that it would be a looong, difficult path, and
bringing democracy to a former dictatorship-run country in the ME
would be this country's biggest challenge ever. For some reason, you
and others like you block that from your mind--just so you can be
critical. Well, once again, enough American voters DIDN'T forget.

> Again, something the smarter of the bunch of US voters thoroughly
> rejected, and the reason is because it's not the case.

Facts can't be rejected by voters.

And that's exactly why Bush won and Kerry did not.

Oh, your stating that is going well in Iraq and that that the news
media is making up all the problems. Need I say more ...

No, idiot. Read what I said earlier. There's a lot more good going on
over there than the news would have you believe. Here's some help for
your sorry butt. The next time you hear about a suicide bomber
blowing up an Israeli busload of women and children, watch the news
closely. You'll see a short bleep about the incident, but then
whenever Israel launches an attack in response and 3 Palestinians are
killed, there's non-stop coverage of children picking through the
rocks for body parts to bury.

You can call "the inspection system that went on for years and no
real evidence to the contrary" a "dove" position if you want. The
majority of people in this world call it common sense.

So why do you never have an answer as to why Saddam would never allow
inspectors to verify evidence that he dismantled them? Doesn't that
strike you as just a little strange, and contrary to what common
sense dictates?

> Don't you think that just a wee bit dangerous--just a wee bit?

Actually, creating thousands of more terrorists is orders of
magnitude MORE dangerous.

I explained that later in the my post. You clearly have no
understanding of culture.

You haven't explained anything clearly, and on this subject--at all.

> Duh! All the more reason to attack when we did. You'd have
preferred more time to prepare?

No, I would have preferred that we could "catch" him with real WMDs
or 9/11 terrorists in his midst. Then, we could have formed a multi-
national coalition as in the gulf war and significantly reduced the
problems that have plaqued our invasion.

The 9-11 terrorist issue is one in which you will never clearly
understand. Perhaps if I could be as nebulous on an explanation as
you are, you might get it. The WMD's is clear-cut. He had them, he
used them, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe he had
more and would use them again. Once again, exactly the reason why he
danced all the time with the so-called inspectors, and why they never
got anywhere on the matter.

···

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

#79

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

wrote:

> > OK, so you now SUPPORT the use of nuclear weapons on these
animals?
>
> Of course not, Adolf. That would just make the problem worse as
> anyone with half a brain already knows.

No, that would make the problem worse for YOU, because YOU are

afraid

and you get confused when it comes to doing the right thing. Hawk

my

butt.

No reasonable response once more from the nukeem camp.

>
> > Stop right there. Imprisoning does no good. We have liberals in
the ACLU who want to release them as soon as we get 'em because of
> > supposed civil rights violations. Most of those embedded with

the

> > ACLU are homos, and these fairies could use a taste of that
> good 'ol terroristic decapitating of their queer lovers before
they'd ever come to realize how stupid they truly are.
>
> One more methodology to create more terrorists. Outright

slaughter.

> You have no concept of how to play the political ballgame. You
> wouldn't stop until the entire world hates America.

It doesn't matter to me who hates us and who likes us, as long as

we

do the right things, protect out freedom, and support democracy.

What a limited mind you possess. Even though I've explained why
worldwide opinion impacts us you continue to live in your own little
world.

Anyone who wants to militarily or terroristically challenge any of
that should and will pay the price. You only worry about it all
because it makes you afraid. that's what it did to Kerry too. And
where is he today??

The election is over, Kerry is a has been, move on ...

>
> > Sounds familiar. You're not an American if you don't hate these
> > barbarians. The last part is also familiar. They have no
> > understanding of logic.
>
> No. That statement is as un-American and stupid as it gets.

Of course, as usual, you never say why. Just criticizm. Typical
liberal.

I already have and you ignored it. Why should I repeat myself when
you have shown over and over again you will ignore any facts that
don't support your preconceived opinion.

>
> > Finally, you agree that negotiations are out of the question!!!
>
> I never said otherwise, Adolf. Your constant inability to
comprehend simple sentences is a big problem for you.

You never say anything clearly. Typical liberal game plan. Good

thing

GWB supporters saw thru all that with Kerry, hey?

Move on ...

>
> > > On the other hand, I'd also like us to quit creating

terrorists.

> >
> > Terrorists create themselves through a mutated belief in the
Koran, which was written by a wacko.
>
> This is where you are 100% wrong. The Koran and the Bible provide
> equivalent passages that can be quoted by those who want to

recruit

> terrorists. You use this as an "easy way out" so you are not
required to think anymore and you can just hate, hate, hate.

That's a less-than pea-brain mentality in action. I grew up a
Catholic, and the bible was a big part of my studies. In no

instance

were we ever taught to use violence, and in no case was it ever
quoted as the righteous thing to do. Those who follow the wacko
Koran, however, are often taught violence and death as the only

way.

It's why you're seeing what you do today by these nuts.

Have you read the Koran ??? Have you read the Bible ???

>
> > A liberal point of view, and yet another that got Kerry

rejected.

>
> No. A real poll of Iraqis. Ignoring the facts won't change them

A poll of Iraqis?? Huh?? Go on over there and meet them and THEN
you'll find out how overwhelmingly thankful they are to us for what
we did and are now doing.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

>
> That's what happened INITIALLY. That is all changing now that we
> haven't been able to enforce a peace and move on. You need to

keep

up with what's going on.

Where've you been? Nothing's changed at all. GWB has said a million
times since the start that it would be a looong, difficult path,

No, he said that about the war and then he said we won. Didn't I just
mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived
opinion?

>
> > Again, something the smarter of the bunch of US voters

thoroughly

> > rejected, and the reason is because it's not the case.
>
> Facts can't be rejected by voters.

And that's exactly why Bush won and Kerry did not.

Move on ...

>
> Oh, your stating that is going well in Iraq and that that the

news

> media is making up all the problems. Need I say more ...

No, idiot. Read what I said earlier. There's a lot more good going

on

over there than the news would have you believe.

NO! You just stated that the media was to blame for ALL the bad news
coming out of Iraq. Is there really fighting going on in Fallujah?
Did 31 Americans and 100s of Iraqi insurgents die? Did the insurgents
just take back control of Mosul? Was this all made up by the media as
you've asserted? If not, then your assertion was wrong and it is more
evidence you will ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived
opinion.

Here's some help for
your sorry butt. The next time you hear about a suicide bomber
blowing up an Israeli busload of women and children, watch the news
closely. You'll see a short bleep about the incident, but then
whenever Israel launches an attack in response and 3 Palestinians

are

killed, there's non-stop coverage of children picking through the
rocks for body parts to bury.

We were talking about the news out of Iraq and now you switch gears
to Israel. The old switcheroo game when you have no reasonable
comeback.

>
> You can call "the inspection system that went on for years and no
> real evidence to the contrary" a "dove" position if you want. The
> majority of people in this world call it common sense.

So why do you never have an answer as to why Saddam would never

allow

inspectors to verify evidence that he dismantled them? Doesn't that
strike you as just a little strange, and contrary to what common
sense dictates?

I already explained it once and I have no plans on repeating myself
to a blithering idiot like you. Go back and read my posts from the
last couple of days. Of course, this is move evidence you will ignore
any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion.

>
> > Don't you think that just a wee bit dangerous--just a wee bit?
>
> Actually, creating thousands of more terrorists is orders of
> magnitude MORE dangerous.
>
> I explained that later in the my post. You clearly have no
> understanding of culture.

You haven't explained anything clearly, and on this subject--at

all.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

>
> > Duh! All the more reason to attack when we did. You'd have
> preferred more time to prepare?
>
> No, I would have preferred that we could "catch" him with real

WMDs

> or 9/11 terrorists in his midst. Then, we could have formed a

multi-

> national coalition as in the gulf war and significantly reduced

the

> problems that have plaqued our invasion.

The 9-11 terrorist issue is one in which you will never clearly
understand.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

Perhaps if I could be as nebulous on an explanation as
you are, you might get it. The WMD's is clear-cut. He had them, he
used them, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe he had
more and would use them again.

I already answered this assertion. Didn't I just mention you will
ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion?

Once again, exactly the reason why he
danced all the time with the so-called inspectors, and why they

never

got anywhere on the matter.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

···

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

#80

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

What a limited mind you possess. Even though I've explained why
worldwide opinion impacts us you continue to live in your own

little world.

Your so-called explanations are weak, ill-conceived, not mainstream,
and have the characteristics of someone afraid of his own shadow.

The election is over, Kerry is a has been, move on ...

You mean move-on.org don't you?? Kerry IS a has been who never
should have been in the first place, but you continue to jold his
misrepresentations of GWB close to your heart.

Have you read the Koran ??? Have you read the Bible ???

Yes, the Bible was required reading in my youth, and yes, reading
PARTS of the Koran was required reading in one of my jobs. That's
why I have formed the mainstream and proper opinions here, while you
simply report what you want to be.

> A poll of Iraqis?? Huh?? Go on over there and meet them and THEN
> you'll find out how overwhelmingly thankful they are to us for

what we did and are now doing.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit

your preconceived opinion?

Yeah, but you can't seem to grasp onto the fact that I speak with
authority because, unlike you, I was there. As I said, you ramble on
with wannabee wishes and make-believe facts, which is also why
you're not making any sense to me.

> Where've you been? Nothing's changed at all. GWB has said a

million times since the start that it would be a looong, difficult
path,

No, he said that about the war and then he said we won. Didn't I

just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

Hello dufus??!! In case you've been away, we DID win!! What he then
said was that turning the country into a DEMOCRACY would be a long
and dangerous affair. And that's just another reason why he won the
election. Kerry took your stupid position trying to change voter's
minds, and we proved you can't mess with historical truths once
again.

> And that's exactly why Bush won and Kerry did not.

Move on ...

I like it. Each time you show your sour grapes, and each time it
gets more satisfying for me.

  
NO! You just stated that the media was to blame for ALL the bad

news coming out of Iraq. Is there really fighting going on in
Fallujah?

You moron. That's good news....if you're a true American or
civilized human being from anywhere.

Did 31 Americans and 100s of Iraqi insurgents die? Did the

insurgents just take back control of Mosul? Was this all made up by
the media as you've asserted? If not, then your assertion was wrong
and it is more evidence you will ignore any facts that don't fit
your preconceived opinion.

Typical scardy-cat liberal. Don't forget to mention the number of US
deaths all the time! Guess what yo-yo? Those of us who have put our
lives on the line understand death happens in war, and while we feel
sorrow for each and every life lost on the battlefield, no one
really cares about the numbers -- right or wrong -- that you and the
media conjure up for alternative motives. You and they try to make
it seem like each death is a mark against GWB. Imagine if we had
nerds and media running around with stats every day in WWI & WWII!
Even hiding up there in Minnesota wouldn't be safe.

We were talking about the news out of Iraq and now you switch

gears to Israel. The old switcheroo game when you have no reasonable

comeback.

Same concept, different conflict. You should be all over this one if
you had any idea what you were talking about.

> So why do you never have an answer as to why Saddam would never
allow inspectors to verify evidence that he dismantled them?

Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange, and contrary to
what common sense dictates?

I already explained it once and I have no plans on repeating

myself to a blithering idiot like you. Go back and read my posts
from the last couple of days. Of course, this is move evidence you
will ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion.

You explained nothing at all, and you can't cover your tracks. The
fact is, you have no answers--only criticizms. As usual.

> The 9-11 terrorist issue is one in which you will never clearly
> understand.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit

your preconceived opinion?

That's what you say when it's about your lack of understanding, and
you show you have slow if any comprehension ability.

> Perhaps if I could be as nebulous on an explanation as
> you are, you might get it. The WMD's is clear-cut. He had them,

he used them, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe he
had more and would use them again.

I already answered this assertion. Didn't I just mention you will
ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion?

Same denial-laced nonsense.

> Once again, exactly the reason why he
> danced all the time with the so-called inspectors, and why they
never got anywhere on the matter.

Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit

your preconceived opinion?

Getting ready to cut and run again??