Fallback Options

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:49:36 -0700, "pigo"

wrote:

I saw a story yesterday about al frankin. Seems he has 112
employees,
including ONE black person. As a raving liberal don't you think he
should have at least as many as there are represented in NY
population. The US % is 13 but I would think that NY is 2-3 times
that.

On a similar note:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=47174

-Astro

I think that the frankin story is part of that book.

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 04:13:22 GMT, bdubya
wrote:

"Respond to what I meant, not what I said." As weasels go, that's
a
classic.

Weasels, all of them:

I wonder what Senator Ted Kennedy (D - MA) *meant* when, in 2002 he
said: " Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am
convinced
that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon
us."

I wonder what Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - WV), the ranking
Democrat
on the intelligence committee *meant* when, in October 2002 he
said:
"But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological
and
chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America,
now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's
enemies
and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery
systems
like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these
deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the
Middle
East."

I wonder what Representative Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) *meant* when, in
February 2003 she said: "Any decision about going to war against
Iraq
must reflect the fact that the clear and present danger to our
national security is terrorism. The presence of al Qaeda operatives
in
Iraq and in so many countries in the Middle East and the rest of
the
world is troubling."

I wonder what former Vice President Al Gore *meant* when, in
September
2002 he said: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

I wonder what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - NY) *meant* when,
in
October 2002 she said: "In the four years since the inspectors
left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild
his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
comfort,
and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

It would probably be helpful to add to these examples mention of
identical comments made by many of the same people prior to the Bush
administration. Hopefully it would eliminate the tired "but they were
lied to" lie.

AstroPax wrote:

If people had been fully informed of what the administration knew, we
would not be in Iraq.

Bull****! That's the spin being put on it by the administration
opponents. In reality, IMO, the truth is probably somewhere between
the two.

Somewhere in between getting all the information and not getting all
the information? I'm having trouble grepping that. Either they got all
the info or they didn't.

Regardless, the Clinton administration was saying the same thing
pre-9/11, however, they failed to act on it back then, and chose to
stick with the failed UN route instead.

But from the sounds of things from the truth of the intelligence,
Saddam was not an imminent threat, had no WMDs, was not tied to Al
Quaeda and therefore continuing with economic and U.N avenues would
have been the proper way to proceed. How was the U.N. mission failed?
He was a nonthreat. Or was that not the goal? Most non-extremists see
that now. So maybe that was the right thing to do? Or do you think
that with what we know now, that we should still sho have gone
in. That's kind of a key point and indicator.

-klaus

I've always had it as 'la froyg' -- sounds French, but there you go. A
good one in my book. I believe I still have a drop somewhere around
here.

-- Tom McK

Blaming Congress is avoiding the issue. The Republicans have been
using their majority position to throw cash out the door in an attempt
to build a entrenched patronage system to replace the old Democratic
one. Bush has had his way with the Congress because his people run the
party. That will be ending as they have the opportunity to spend more
time with their lawyers over the remaining days of his presidency.

Bob Lee wrote:
I believe we got some sort of free-range, well-coddled,
musically-soothed bird. It led such a pleasant life that it died
willingly and peacefully of its own accord, to show its gratitude. The
service was very moving.

I'm doing the totally unamerican thing. I always felt weird giving
thanks by gorging myself. So I'm fasting for the day. And damn do I
have the munchies.

-klaus

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:21:59 -0700, AstroPax
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:01:38 GMT, uglymoney
wrote:

Funny to me how
religous zealots always seem to morph and adapt their ethics to
whatever their current needs are.

Wow! Sounds exactly like something left-wing liberals do too!


Some of the radical lefties. Thing is, I'm picking on a specific
group of people that I have a problem with because I consider them
radicals. I'm not saying, "Right wing republicans always seem to
morph and adapt their ethics to whatever their current needs are."

Not that I couldn't say that, but I wouldn't because without being a
little more specific I consider that sort of language pointless, or
worse polarizing. I suppose if you listen to enough Rush it becomes
second nature. Years ago I knew a guy who screwed a girl, and then
later got on her mom. I always used to utter under my breath, "Mark
moma****er Morgan". One day when I was drunk it came out in front of
him and some other folks. It was funny, but it did nothing to forward
our friendship.

I know plenty of religious people on the right who I find very
grounded. I don't consider them radical at all, I just don't share in
their faith and I don't bash them or their people for no reason.

Should we pick on PETA? I'd love to. Its an organization that is
completely out of control. Plenty of extremist lefties that I could
hammer on if they were the topic of conversation.

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:24:26 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

The way I read it was they went in to defend the first amendment, a
basic civil right, and they prevailed. They were successful in
defending a basic civil liberty. Am I missing something? I would call
that defense of liberty. What is it in your "and/or" language?

Personally, I don't believe that encouraging and instructing child
molesters and kiddie-porn dealers is a "basic civil right". Do you?

That's not what they did. If the court doesn't find on their behalf,
they didn't have a case. They obviously had a freedom of speech
case. They won. Freedom of Speech means freedom to speak even about
reprehensible things. Sorry. That's the Constituion. Or are you not in
favor of that, That Constituion thing?

Come on, you have a plethora of cases that prove your point about the
ACLU better than this one. Maybe you should pick one they lost? Just a
guess. I don't agree with everything they do, but this case is a bad
example. They won. So if they are supporting it, so is your court
system.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:56:16 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

But from the sounds of things from the truth of the intelligence,
Saddam was not an imminent threat, had no WMDs, was not tied to Al
Quaeda and therefore continuing with economic and U.N avenues would
have been the proper way to proceed. How was the U.N. mission failed?
He was a nonthreat. Or was that not the goal? Most non-extremists see
that now. So maybe that was the right thing to do? Or do you think
that with what we know now, that we should still sho have gone
in. That's kind of a key point and indicator.

I'm not sure *what* your point is. Sounds like 20/20 hindsight to me.
To many uses of the word "now".

Disregarding learning from the past and reevaluation is a reciprpe for
disaster.

You really think the UN was successful, that they didn't fail? At
what, getting kicked-out?

Well, before we can discuss that, we should decide whathe mission is,
kinda like Iraq. I saw the mission as makimng sure Saddam was not a
threat, whihc really, under international law is about all we can
do. Seems the U.N missin accomplished that. Correct me if your vsion
of the intent was different.

The fact of the matter is that we voted to go into Iraq based upon the
intelligence available at the time, and we need to finish the job.
Period!

So that's what you meant by "somewhere in between". Second. Define
what the job was again? When is it "finished"?

You can call Bush a liar all you want, however, I personally don't
believe the administration intentionally misled anyone by providing
"customized" intel. Even the ex-Iraqi generals that have been
interviewed believed that they (Iraq) possessed WMD's prior to our
invasion.

30 minutes ago it was somewhere in between, now it's no way. Well,
there's the difference, The information that the informant on the
attempt to obtain nuclear fuel was unreliable was withheld. Or do you
disagree.

Personally, I think the coalition should have taken care of business
during the first gulf war.

That's a whole different thread.

-klaus

AstroPax wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:08:53 +0000 (UTC), klaus
wrote:

I'm doing the totally unamerican thing.

So, like what's new?

Define American? So what am I? Nazi? You kill me man. That's really
lame. I'm every bit the American you are. And I actually decided I
wanted to be American. What about me is unamerican? Speaking my mind?
Disagreeing with the president? Not buying in to the consumer driven
holiday? If you ask me, falling in line lock step with the leaders is
unamerican.

-klaus