Peace Themed Jerseys?

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:14:32 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Dumbass -

When a government's existence is in question is when they will use WMD.

That's when ours would use them right?

So when Saddam's government was being vaporized, over a period of weeks (plenty
of time to give the order), why didn't he use them?

Answer: he didn't have them.

Felching Moron,

Like I said before, you must not be able to think very clearly to only
understand or believe one scenario.

And you have the nerve to use the term 'Dumbass' on others? Not only
has it become one of the lamest things ever seen on usenet, but it
seems to describe you every time you use it.

Laughable.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:57:25 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0500, Lindsay from
wrote:

Rump ranger, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. You on
the other hand can only envision one scenario. There is far too much
evidence, noise and rhetoric floating around for anyone to make any
definitive statements one way or the other and be taken seriously.

No, there is solid evidence that Iraq was disarmed, and then there are flaky
weaselings by the Bush cabal that he hadn't.

You can say that over and over, but yet you can not provide one shred
of credible evidence to back up your claim. Just like Saddam.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:59:50 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:


While I don't agree with the thought that there was any real 'support'
from France or Russia, what you say is essentially correct. However that
would only matter in the scenario that Saddam comes through the war alive
and in control of Iraq. I cannot imagine he ever thought the latter was
even remotely possible.

I still disagree with you on this. According to some of Saddam's
cronies's they believed that France would be able to stop the US from
going in. They even believed that if we went into Iraq we would never
make it all the way to Baghdad. Why would they believe that? We
didn't go that far last time.

You are also assuming that Saddam thinks like a rational human being.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:40:15 GMT, "G.T."
wrote:

Pete wrote:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002


Yes, and who bullied the CIA into providing such BS reports that pulled the
wool over our Senators' and Representatives' eyes? Kerry's decision of
support could only be as bad as the intelligence provided to him.

So the CIA was bullied for over 10 years to continually provide the BS
reports you dream about?

"Lindsay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:14:32 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Dumbass -

When a government's existence is in question is when they will use WMD.

That's when ours would use them right?

So when Saddam's government was being vaporized, over a period of weeks
(plenty
of time to give the order), why didn't he use them?

Answer: he didn't have them.

Felching Moron,

Like I said before, you must not be able to think very clearly to only
understand or believe one scenario.

And you have the nerve to use the term 'Dumbass' on others? Not only
has it become one of the lamest things ever seen on usenet, but it
seems to describe you every time you use it.

Laughable.



Dumbass -

That scenario is the one pointed to by nearly all the evidence, whether they
be testimony from scientists in his regime, his lack of use of the phantom
WMD, the lack of WMD found, the testimony of higher ups in the regime or
simple logic.


Other scenarios: JFK was killed by aliens from outer space. It's possible
isn't it?

OJ Simpson was framed by Mark Fuhrman. Possible.

Do you believe that OJ is guilty? or does your incredibly expansive mind
embrace all scenarios?

"Lindsay" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:57:25 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:35:11 -0500, Lindsay
from
wrote:

Rump ranger, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. You on
the other hand can only envision one scenario. There is far too much
evidence, noise and rhetoric floating around for anyone to make any
definitive statements one way or the other and be taken seriously.

No, there is solid evidence that Iraq was disarmed, and then there are
flaky
weaselings by the Bush cabal that he hadn't.

You can say that over and over, but yet you can not provide one shred
of credible evidence to back up your claim. Just like Saddam.



Dumbass -

A negative cannot be proven.

You warmongers are such pussies. Saddam Hussein a threat to the United
States. haha.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
A negative cannot be proven.

Can you prove it?

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0600, Kevan Smith
wrote:


Thanks, Claire.

I've found that the far right often distort facts to engage in slander of the
peace movement.

Sometimes I wonder if there are GOP operatives who go around the 'net seacrhign
fopr anti-war anti-Bush statements so they can respond with their own vicious
propaganda. I sweasr, if I get called anti-American just one more time, I'm
going to be sorely tested in my pledge to refrain from violence.

LOL! Anti-american peaceniks like you are fun. Don't go Postal on us
here Kevan.

You really need to take your blinders off and learn a few things here
Kevan. Don't just keep repeating the same things over and over again
with no proof or evidence to back things up. You need to get a better
understanding of what you are talking about and who you are
supporting.

Step 1) Learn who ANSWER is and who Not In My Name is. Find out what
who their founders are and what they believe in. They are not just
peaceniks. You'll find out that they are the same people who
demonstrated at the G8. They are "anti-american" in a way because
they believe in an overthrow of our capitalist society. You'll find
out that they are not just anti-GOP but also anti-Democrat. The Dem's
aren't far left enough for them.

I have absolutely no problem with who those groups are or what they
believe in. They have a right to it. Just don't be duped into
believing that they are simply anti war groups with no hidden agendas.

In article 4000fb54$1@darkstar, Benjamin Weiner
wrote:

I rather liked Violet Crumble though, especially
since it sounds like it should be the name of a
lead singer in a riot grrl band


Sort of the anti-Spice Girls, right? Maybe you can be their
Svengali-like manager, Ben. Think of the possiblities!

--
tanx,
Howard

"Candygram for Mongo!!!"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:32:48 -0500, "WHO?" wrote:

Based upon the extreme hatred that most Dems have of the man, Bush must be
doing something right - I mean interesting.

Interesting in the Chinese sense (as in "may you live in interesting
times) I think. I don't know anybody who hates Shrub. We may despise
his warmongering and be contemptuous of the obvious influence of his
oil buddies on US policy, but most of the hate speech seems to come
from Bush, Limbaugh, Faux News and so on.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk