Re: Conservatives and Terrorism

From: Fred J. McCall (fmccall_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:12:12 GMT

echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall (fmccall@earthlink.net) wrote:
:: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall (fmccall@earthlink.net) wrote:
:: :: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall (fmccall@earthlink.net) wrote:
:: :: :: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall (fmccall@earthlink.net) wrote:
:: :: :: :: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Rand Simberg (simberg.interglobal@org.trash) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:36:19 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
:: :: :: :: :: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
:: :: :: :: :: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: >: Canceling 9/11 would have been a popular decision in the US, but it wasn't a
:: :: :: :: :: >: decision Bush could make.
:: :: :: :: :: >
:: :: :: :: :: >One could argue that had he paid more attention to Clarke, he may have
:: :: :: :: :: >been able to prevent 9/11.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: Not very convincingly. Of course, you can't argue even reasonable
:: :: :: :: :: propositions convincingly...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Who was president when 9/11 occurred?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: Gee, that makes a lot of sense. NOT.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Also, 9/11 was pallned why the GOPHouse was hungup on Clinton's BJs.
:: :: :
:: :: :: And while Clinton was spending his time getting them rather than doing
:: :: :: something effective.
:: :: :
:: :: :The House adulterers were investigating Clinton's adultry.
:: :
:: :: His perjury about it.
:: :
:: :Yes, about adultry of which they had no right to ask.
:
:: Sorry, but given the issues they had every right to ask it or it
:: wouldn't have been allowed in the deposition. The suit was, after
:: all, about sexual harassment and the question went to pattern, so it
:: was perfectly admissible.
:
:Who paid for Paula Jones nosejob?

Who gives a ***? Another Eric non sequitur.

:: :Clinton's mistake was not lying,
::
:: No, lying wasn't a mistake. He perjured himself on purpose. That's
:: the PROBLEM, Eric.
:
:No, he should have told the GOP House to go to hell.

Uh, you're a bit confused about events, aren't you? The deposition
wherein he committed perjury was from a court, not from the GOP House.

:: :it was not telling them to go to hell for asking.
::
:: Sorry, but "You go to hell" is not considered responsive to a question
:: and pretending to be offended doesn't excuse one from answering.
:
:Sure it does. What could they have done?

The judge could have found him in contempt of court, automatically
found against him, disbarred him (which happened due to his perjury
anyway), fined him, or ordered him jailed.

:: :: :: [Move away from the bong, Eric....]
:: :: :
:: :: :Yes, you want it of course.
:: :
:: :: Well, if I'm going to follow your rambling logic, it's going to take
:: :: drugs!
:: :
:: :Yeah, you're straight.
::
:: Avoiding the issue of your rambling logic, are you?
:
:You're devoid, yet again, Fret McClod. Have you always been a jackass that
:votes for the elephant?

I've told you before, El Chimpo, that I voted for Clinton in 1992.
Pull your *** cheeks up a bit so you can see out.

:: :: :: :: :: >Funny how JFK took responsibility for the BOP yet Bush is blameless for
:: :: :: :: :: >9/11.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: Because Bush didn't order 9/11...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Correct, but he ignored terrorist warnings from a Clinton holdover, mostly
:: :: :: :: :because he, Bush, didn't appoint the guy. That attitude makes Bush
:: :: :: :: :accountable, Rice as well.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Interesting that the big furor didn't start until someone had a book
:: :: :: :: to hawk, don't you think?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Didn't change that fact that Clarke's warnings were ignored by this
:: :: :: :administration.
:: :: :
:: :: :: And the one that preceded it.
:: :: :
:: :: :No, Clinton DID try to get bin Laden and came closer than Bush, who
:: :: :appears to have lost interest (his words!) in bin Laden, who continues to
:: :: :threaten the US to this very day.
:: ::
:: :: Came closer by firing millions of dollars of missiles at empty camps?
:: :: Yeah, that's the kind of 'effective' action that encouraged bin Laden
:: :: to go for bigger and better things.
:: :
:: :Bin Laden is still alive thanks to Bush.
::
:: Really? More of your warped thought processes, no doubt. Can I say
:: that thousands of people are killed in car accidents because of you,
:: Eric? I mean, after all, you didn't STOP THEM, did you?
:
:We have a $25million price on his head, you have no equilvalent with your
:auo accident scenrio. Again, you show no signs of intelligent life.

Non sequitur. AGAIN.

:: :: Now those camps are gone and bin Laden is making cassette tapes in
:: :: hiding. Yeah, the Clinton policy of "look but don't touch" was EVER
:: :: so much more effective.
:: ::
:: :: <snicker>
:: :
:: :Snicker all you want as Bush is an empty suit in a 10 gallon hat..
::
:: And he beat your candidate ... TWICE.
:
:Big deal. We all lose. Nixon won twice and we all saw him resign after
:Watergate.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt....

:: Think about what that says about YOUR positions.
:
:Not a damn thing...

And so Eric demonstrates that he can't find a clue even if someone
slaps him across the face with it.

:Clinton won twice, what does that mean about YOUR posistions?

Not much, since I voted for him the first time he won. Then it became
obvious how much he lied about his positions. The second time he won,
Dole just wasn't a very good candidate. Clinton is very smart and
plays very dirty.

However, YOU got some 'splainin to do, Eric, since YOU are wanking on
about how much better the LOSERS are and what a stupid *** Bush is.

If he's so stupid, how come he cleaned your clock TWICE?

:: :: :: :: Oh, what am I thinking. Of course you don't.
:: :: :
:: :: :: And you're still not thinking, I see.
:: :: :
:: :: :I think you're still a jerk...
:: :
:: :: See what I mean about you still not thinking?
:: :
:: :Besides bug people, what do you do?
:
:: Why, I point out the errors in your thinking, Eric. Not that that is
:: particularly hard, given the magnitude of your errors, but then again,
:: if it took any time to deal with your idiocy I'd have killfiled you
:: long ago.
:
:Go ahead, I dare you! You don't have the guts to killfile me!

You really need to back off on those steroids, too. Just because you
don't have to worry about the side effects (since you already suffer
from all of them) doesn't mean you can abuse them until you actually
grow a muscle.

Perhaps you should try spinach?

[Eating it, not smoking it.] 

-- 
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson