|
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote: >"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message >news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegr oups.com... >> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see >>> it >>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for >>> the >>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies >>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed >>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party >>> Secretary? >> >> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: > >You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? > I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is bashing Bush. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote: >"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message >news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegr oups.com... >> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see >>> it >>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for >>> the >>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies >>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed >>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party >>> Secretary? >> >> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: > >You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? > I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is bashing Bush. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:t1gji39ips9ibil678bf4rhu88a7onu53e@4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message >>news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googleg roups.com... >>> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You >>>> see >>>> it >>>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for >>>> the >>>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies >>>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically >>>> anointed >>>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party >>>> Secretary? >>> >>> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: >> >>You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? >> > I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney > liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is > bashing Bush. Ah...OK. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:t1gji39ips9ibil678bf4rhu88a7onu53e@4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message >>news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googleg roups.com... >>> On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You >>>> see >>>> it >>>> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for >>>> the >>>> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies >>>> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically >>>> anointed >>>> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party >>>> Secretary? >>> >>> Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: >> >>You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? >> > I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney > liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is > bashing Bush. Ah...OK. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Oct 31, 2:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message > > news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com... > > > On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see > >> it > >> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for > >> the > >> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies > >> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed > >> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party > >> Secretary? > > > Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: > > You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? (being sarcastic). |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Oct 31, 2:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message > > news:1193853672.931288.116140@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com... > > > On Oct 27, 7:50 am, "n5hsr" <n5...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> Yes, the "liberal left" owns most of the media in this country. You see > >> it > >> in the blame game already starting up about how Bush is responsible for > >> the > >> California wildfires. I've been fighting the loony liberal left's lies > >> since 1970, WTF have you been doing? And they have practically anointed > >> Hillary the next Prasident and Reich Chancellor, or is that Party > >> Secretary? > > > Here's your loony liberal left and their Bush bashing: > > You think Colonel Hunt is a loony? Why do you think so? (being sarcastic). |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney > liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is > bashing Bush.- Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban By Robert Scheer Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention. Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti- American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women? At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter. The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House. The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms." Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison. In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming. For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy. As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power. The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession. - - - Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist. Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney > liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is > bashing Bush.- Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban By Robert Scheer Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention. Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti- American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women? At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter. The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House. The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms." Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison. In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming. For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy. As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power. The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession. - - - Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist. Copyright © 2001 Robert Scheer |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >> bashing Bush.- > > Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. > > Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban > By Robert Scheer > Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times > > > Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy > every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush > administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up > as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this > nation still takes seriously. > > > That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the > Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American > violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced > last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other > recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and > rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is > against the will of God. The righty's have very selective memories, don't they? Scheer war fired from the *liberal* LA Times for his columns protesting the planned invasion of Iraq. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >> bashing Bush.- > > Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. > > Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban > By Robert Scheer > Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times > > > Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy > every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush > administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up > as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this > nation still takes seriously. > > > That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the > Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American > violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced > last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other > recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and > rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is > against the will of God. The righty's have very selective memories, don't they? Scheer war fired from the *liberal* LA Times for his columns protesting the planned invasion of Iraq. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:52:26 -0700, gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote:
>On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >> bashing Bush.- > >Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. > >Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban >By Robert Scheer >Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times > > >Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy >every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush >administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up >as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this >nation still takes seriously. > > There was also that small part involving the Taliban allowing Occidental Petroleum, among others, to allow a pipeline or two. I believe an executive of OP is now the President of Afghanistan. Or at least, President of parts of Kabul. I would think that was far more important to the Bushies than drug considerations. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:52:26 -0700, gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote:
>On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: > >> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >> bashing Bush.- > >Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. > >Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban >By Robert Scheer >Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times > > >Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy >every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush >administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up >as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this >nation still takes seriously. > > There was also that small part involving the Taliban allowing Occidental Petroleum, among others, to allow a pipeline or two. I believe an executive of OP is now the President of Afghanistan. Or at least, President of parts of Kabul. I would think that was far more important to the Bushies than drug considerations. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:tg3ki3hshu8gs8kus6ljbrbc9jncbfqr1i@4ax.com... > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:52:26 -0700, gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote: > >>On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: >> >>> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >>> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >>> bashing Bush.- >> >>Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. >> >>Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban >>By Robert Scheer >>Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times >> >> >>Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy >>every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush >>administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up >>as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this >>nation still takes seriously. >> >> > > There was also that small part involving the Taliban allowing > Occidental Petroleum, among others, to allow a pipeline or two. I > believe an executive of OP is now the President of Afghanistan. Or at > least, President of parts of Kabul. > > I would think that was far more important to the Bushies than drug > considerations. Except that Gore's family was with Occidential Petroleum.....just like Lady Bird was a charter member of Halaburton.You really need to get your oil companies straight. Bush was Standard and Exxon same as Hilary....You should have seen the portfolio she was shedding when she started her summer season on the president thing of hers.Or some of the DNC members she muscled to allow her to run ,in the first placed.It seems amazing how many Deomcrats are in the very thing ....they bad mouth. It is almost like you accuse the opposition of whatever you are doing.The public looks at the opposition ,shielding you to run right behind the view with even more of the very dirty deed that you accused the opposition of doing. I wonder why congress has a 13% aprroval rating.....Another 7% and they might get more trust than a used car sellman. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:tg3ki3hshu8gs8kus6ljbrbc9jncbfqr1i@4ax.com... > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:52:26 -0700, gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote: > >>On Nov 1, 8:03 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: >> >>> I think the poster was pointing out that it isn't just the looney >>> liberal left that is bashing Bush. Everyone who isn't a moron is >>> bashing Bush.- >> >>Since we're on the topic, here's a blast from the past; note the date. >> >>Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban >>By Robert Scheer >>Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times >> >> >>Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy >>every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush >>administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up >>as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this >>nation still takes seriously. >> >> > > There was also that small part involving the Taliban allowing > Occidental Petroleum, among others, to allow a pipeline or two. I > believe an executive of OP is now the President of Afghanistan. Or at > least, President of parts of Kabul. > > I would think that was far more important to the Bushies than drug > considerations. Except that Gore's family was with Occidential Petroleum.....just like Lady Bird was a charter member of Halaburton.You really need to get your oil companies straight. Bush was Standard and Exxon same as Hilary....You should have seen the portfolio she was shedding when she started her summer season on the president thing of hers.Or some of the DNC members she muscled to allow her to run ,in the first placed.It seems amazing how many Deomcrats are in the very thing ....they bad mouth. It is almost like you accuse the opposition of whatever you are doing.The public looks at the opposition ,shielding you to run right behind the view with even more of the very dirty deed that you accused the opposition of doing. I wonder why congress has a 13% aprroval rating.....Another 7% and they might get more trust than a used car sellman. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1193948843_31@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > It is almost like you accuse the opposition of whatever you are doing.The > public looks at the opposition ,shielding you to run right behind the view > with even more of the very dirty deed that you accused the opposition of > doing. > I wonder why congress has a 13% aprroval rating.....Another 7% and they > might get more trust than a used car sellman. It's contagious: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...eum/index.html |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands