Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:139sgj94cda0v57@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message > news:Ri9ni.41$wV4.33@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > >>> rofl You mean the results no one but wacko republicans predict? Oh, >>> right, I see them in your original post. >> >> It's simple common sense, so it's beyond your ability to comprehend.. > > Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull out > all troops, end satellite surveillance, eliminate all intelligence > gathering, stop flyovers or bombing sorties, decommission cruise missiles > etc. > > Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid motherfuckers. Pssst... Hey dumbass. "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required troops to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout by April 20, 2008." What's that word up there? "Complete"? Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... It means you're a MORON! Bawhahahahah! http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:ejtni.419$sh5.171@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > Mike Flannigan wrote: >> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:139sgimt30tco4b@corp.supernews.com... >>> >>> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >>> news:JJ8ni.42$wH1.30@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>> >>>> look at the "results" of Musharraf pulling troops out of remote >>>> Pakistan. >>> >>> Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull >>> out all troops, end satellite surveillance, eliminate all >>> intelligence gathering, stop flyovers or bombing sorties, >>> decommission cruise missiles etc. >>> >>> Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid motherfuckers. >> >> Pssst... Hey dumbass. >> >> "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required >> troops to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout >> by April 20, 2008." >> >> What's that word up there? "Complete"? >> >> Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... >> >> It means you're a MORON! >> >> Bawhahahahah! >> >> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story > > > bush,jr Republican supporters > trying to string this fisco out > so that bush,jr's successor > needs to deal with the mess. So Republicans want Iraq to be an issue in the 08 elections, huh? Good one, Sid! You're a fucking genius! Bawhahahahahahahah! Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Mike Flannigan wrote: > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:ejtni.419$sh5.171@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> Mike Flannigan wrote: >>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:139sgimt30tco4b@corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >>>> news:JJ8ni.42$wH1.30@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>>> >>>>> look at the "results" of Musharraf pulling troops out of remote >>>>> Pakistan. >>>> >>>> Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull >>>> out all troops, end satellite surveillance, eliminate all >>>> intelligence gathering, stop flyovers or bombing sorties, >>>> decommission cruise missiles etc. >>>> >>>> Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid >>>> motherfuckers. >>> >>> Pssst... Hey dumbass. >>> >>> "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required >>> troops to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout >>> by April 20, 2008." >>> >>> What's that word up there? "Complete"? >>> >>> Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... >>> >>> It means you're a MORON! >>> >>> Bawhahahahah! >>> >>> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story >> >> >> bush,jr Republican supporters >> trying to string this fisco out >> so that bush,jr's successor >> needs to deal with the mess. > > So Republicans want Iraq to be an issue in the 08 elections, huh? > > Good one, Sid! You're a fucking genius! > > Bawhahahahahahahah! Maybe not some sane Republicans....but bush,jr would dearly love that to happen. Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:139sgku5hebnm7c@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message > news:Sq9ni.46$wV4.30@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > >> On a related note.. Have you ever noticed that these kooks simultaneously >> believe that the resurgence of Al Qaeda is the fault of Bush and Iraq, > > Uh - "these kooks" apparently include our own government. The resurgence > of Al Queda IS the fault of Bush and Iraq, you stupid fuck. How did Al Qaeda gain in strength before Iraq, stupid fuck? Wonder what would happen if Al Qaeda took Iraq and their oil? That would diminish their strength, right stupid fuck? Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "J Carroll" <jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote in message news:oirni.12788$bz7.11876@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Mike Flannigan wrote: >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message >> news:Ppcni.7996$rR.7568@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> In News Xns9970A4F0B50ECIraq2008@216.196.97.131,, Iraq 2008 at >>> iraq2008@noemail.com, typed this: >>> >>>> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in >>>> news:%Rbni.8616$Od7.8527@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: >>>> >>>>> In News Xns9970A1E236F27Iraq2008@216.196.97.131,, Iraq 2008 at >>>>> iraq2008@noemail.com, typed this: >>>>> >>>>>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> news:139qekj6ej3sl0d@corp.supernews.com: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Iraq 2008" <iraq2008@noemail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:Xns997073438B707Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. U.S. troops will stop dying there >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You mean more US Civilians will start dying here >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How will pulling out of Iraq cause more civilians to die here in >>>>>>> the US? Explain. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20070717/469c3ec0_3ca6_ >>>>> 1552 620070717-916732413 >>>>> >>>>> . >>>> The article you reference only confirms my post. Clearly, >>> >>> Actually, it is in direct contradiction to your point. >> >> No, it affirms his point. Musharraf pulled his troops out of remote >> Pakistan and Al Qaeda moved right in. Same would happen in Iraq >> should the government fall there. It's simply a non-arguable >> no-brainer. > > It is a no brainer alright Mike, as in - there is no way on Earth Iran or > Saudi Arabia would tolerate it. > You'd better have Fran Townsend come up with something scarier than the > "fight them there or fight them here" lie. > We'll either have to fight them here or we won't regardless the outcome in > Iraq. If we lose Iraq the likelihood is greatly increased. How could this simple no-brainer elude you, Carol? Oh, that's right. You're a moron. I almost forgot. Next DNC talking point? Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Mike Flannigan wrote: > "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:139sgku5hebnm7c@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >> news:Sq9ni.46$wV4.30@bignews2.bellsouth.net... >> >>> On a related note.. Have you ever noticed that these kooks >>> simultaneously believe that the resurgence of Al Qaeda is the fault >>> of Bush and Iraq, >> >> Uh - "these kooks" apparently include our own government. The >> resurgence of Al Queda IS the fault of Bush and Iraq, you stupid >> fuck. > > How did Al Qaeda gain in strength before Iraq, stupid fuck? > > Wonder what would happen if Al Qaeda took Iraq and their oil? That > would diminish their strength, right stupid fuck? The funds came from Saudi Arabia.....bush,jr attacked Iraq. Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda. bush,jr fucked up ROYALLY because he's an ignorant, arrogant dolt. Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:139shrv77ljvia1@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message > news:I5rni.403$yW2.358@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >> No, it affirms his point. Musharraf pulled his troops out of remote >> Pakistan and Al Qaeda moved right in. Same would happen in Iraq should >> the government fall there. It's simply a non-arguable no-brainer. > > Only if you have no brain. > > Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull out > all troops, end > satellite surveillance, eliminate all intelligence gathering, stop > flyovers > or bombing sorties, decommission cruise missiles etc. > > Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid motherfuckers. Pssst... Hey dumbass. "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required troops to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout by April 20, 2008." What's that word up there? "Complete"? Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... It means you're a MORON! Bawhahahahah! http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story Quote
Guest Get a life Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 We all know that Sid9 is a moron!!!!!!!!!!! Right along with the dummyrat party. Jim "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message news:HKtni.390$wV4.135@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > > "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:139shrv77ljvia1@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >> news:I5rni.403$yW2.358@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >>> No, it affirms his point. Musharraf pulled his troops out of remote >>> Pakistan and Al Qaeda moved right in. Same would happen in Iraq should >>> the government fall there. It's simply a non-arguable no-brainer. >> >> Only if you have no brain. >> >> Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull out >> all troops, end >> satellite surveillance, eliminate all intelligence gathering, stop >> flyovers >> or bombing sorties, decommission cruise missiles etc. >> >> Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid motherfuckers. > > Pssst... Hey dumbass. > > "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required troops > to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout by April 20, > 2008." > > What's that word up there? "Complete"? > > Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... > > It means you're a MORON! > > Bawhahahahah! > > http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story > > > Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:139sg4s3c3vbd28@corp.supernews.com... > > "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message > news:carni.407$yW2.74@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > >>>> As of today, Al Qaeda is focusing it's efforts on Iraq and Afghanistan >>> >>> How the fuck do YOU know? >> >> WTF? You are unaware of Al Qaeda in Iraq? > > I am. I am also aware of Al Queda linked attacks elsewhere in the world - > including Europe. So called "Al Queda in Iraq" is a loose group of gangs > and thugs, well supplied by raids on our own troops. While they are IN > Iraq (they weren't before), they aren't "focusing" there - they are > focused on destruction world-wide. Much more so than before Bush's > disastrous foreign policy, you ignorant right-wing cocksucker. You're full of shit, Welch. Al Qaeda would love nothing more than for us to fail in Iraq and are FOCUSED on making that happen. As well as are the democrats, you ignorant filthy mouthed democrat traitor. >>> And if we already had Afghanistan - why did we need to invade Iraq? >> >> Because it was believed Saddam had WMDs and could pass them on to >> terrorists. > > No, it wasn't believed that Saddam had WMD's - Bush WANTED it to be true > so that he could proceed to help the terrorists by opening the Iraqi > territory and resources to them, you fucking traitor. Why did you delete my link that proves what I just said. Oh that's right. You're a liar. I almost forgot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PAIyRP3qhU Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "CoriousAboutBahai" <idontgiveoutmy@email.com> wrote in message news:Xns9970AC21BEC5Fidontgiveoutmyemailc@216.196.97.131... > "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:139qkesorpqkl4e@corp.supernews.com: > >> >> "Iraq 2008" <iraq2008@noemail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9970A1E236F27Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... >> >>>> How will pulling out of Iraq cause more civilians to die here in the >>>> US? Explain. >>>> >>> >>> You need me to spell it out? >> >> Yes. >> >>> As of today, Al Qaeda is focusing it's efforts on Iraq and >>> Afghanistan >> >> How the fuck do YOU know? > > Um, maybe because the fact is that we are fighting them there and not > here? Do facts mean nothing to you? DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! "Bokononism is the fictional religion practiced by many of the characters in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle. It is based on living by the untruths that make one happy, called foma. Many of the sacred texts of Bokononism were written in the form of calypsos. The foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, if you believe and adhere to these lies, you will live a happy life. Bokonon, a character in the novel, is the founder of the religion." In other words: Liberalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokononism Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:139sfk6i09k7pce@corp.supernews.com... > > "CoriousAboutBahai" <idontgiveoutmy@email.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9970AC21BEC5Fidontgiveoutmyemailc@216.196.97.131... > >>>> As of today, Al Qaeda is focusing it's efforts on Iraq and >>>> Afghanistan >>> >>> How the fuck do YOU know? >> >> Um, maybe because the fact is that we are fighting them there and not >> here? > > We're fighting them all over the world you ignorant unAmerican right-wing > nitwit fuckhead. And we weren't fighting them in Iraq at all - because > THEY WEREN'T FUCKING THERE. Uh huh... Why didn't you tell us about your time machine? >> Do facts mean nothing to you? > > Feel free to provide some. > >>> And if we already had Afghanistan - why did we need to invade Iraq? >>> >> >> Already answered. > > Fucking bullshit. Well, when you get through fucking bullshit. Maybe these guys can explain it to you for the zillionth time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PAIyRP3qhU Uh oh! Better reach for the "delete" key! Explain Explain Explain.... > Damn, you unAmerican terrorist-loving radical right-wing traitors are some > stupid motherfuckers. Somebody get the fire extinguisher! His hair is on fire again! Quote
Guest Mike Flannigan Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:KAtni.425$sh5.194@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > Mike Flannigan wrote: >> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:ejtni.419$sh5.171@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >>> Mike Flannigan wrote: >>>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:139sgimt30tco4b@corp.supernews.com... >>>>> >>>>> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:JJ8ni.42$wH1.30@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>>>> >>>>>> look at the "results" of Musharraf pulling troops out of remote >>>>>> Pakistan. >>>>> >>>>> Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull >>>>> out all troops, end satellite surveillance, eliminate all >>>>> intelligence gathering, stop flyovers or bombing sorties, >>>>> decommission cruise missiles etc. >>>>> >>>>> Damn, you radical right-wing traitors are some stupid >>>>> motherfuckers. >>>> >>>> Pssst... Hey dumbass. >>>> >>>> "Senate Republicans sunk a Democratic plan that would have required >>>> troops to begin coming home within 120 days, with a complete pullout >>>> by April 20, 2008." >>>> >>>> What's that word up there? "Complete"? >>>> >>>> Wonder what that means.. Any idea? Well, here's a clue... >>>> >>>> It means you're a MORON! >>>> >>>> Bawhahahahah! >>>> >>>> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-campaign0718,0,4662505.story >>> >>> >>> bush,jr Republican supporters >>> trying to string this fisco out >>> so that bush,jr's successor >>> needs to deal with the mess. >> >> So Republicans want Iraq to be an issue in the 08 elections, huh? >> >> Good one, Sid! You're a fucking genius! >> >> Bawhahahahahahahah! > > > Maybe not some sane > Republicans....but bush,jr > would dearly love that to > happen. Riiight.. Riiight.. Sure he does, Sid.. Sure he does... Everybody just keep smiling. I'll dial 9-1-1. Quote
Guest J Carroll Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Mike Flannigan wrote: > "J Carroll" <jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote in message > news:oirni.12788$bz7.11876@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> Mike Flannigan wrote: >>> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message >>> news:Ppcni.7996$rR.7568@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>>> In News Xns9970A4F0B50ECIraq2008@216.196.97.131,, Iraq 2008 at >>>> iraq2008@noemail.com, typed this: >>>> >>>>> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in >>>>> news:%Rbni.8616$Od7.8527@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net: >>>>> >>>>>> In News Xns9970A1E236F27Iraq2008@216.196.97.131,, Iraq 2008 at >>>>>> iraq2008@noemail.com, typed this: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>> news:139qekj6ej3sl0d@corp.supernews.com: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Iraq 2008" <iraq2008@noemail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:Xns997073438B707Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. U.S. troops will stop dying there >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You mean more US Civilians will start dying here >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How will pulling out of Iraq cause more civilians to die here >>>>>>>> in the US? Explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20070717/469c3ec0_3ca6_ >>>>>> 1552 620070717-916732413 >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>> The article you reference only confirms my post. Clearly, >>>> >>>> Actually, it is in direct contradiction to your point. >>> >>> No, it affirms his point. Musharraf pulled his troops out of remote >>> Pakistan and Al Qaeda moved right in. Same would happen in Iraq >>> should the government fall there. It's simply a non-arguable >>> no-brainer. >> >> It is a no brainer alright Mike, as in - there is no way on Earth >> Iran or Saudi Arabia would tolerate it. >> You'd better have Fran Townsend come up with something scarier than >> the "fight them there or fight them here" lie. >> We'll either have to fight them here or we won't regardless the >> outcome in Iraq. > > If we lose Iraq the likelihood is greatly increased. The likelyhood is exactly zero Mike. Nada, Zip, not going to happen. In fact, when we pull out, the resulting slaughter will be the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq. > > How could this simple no-brainer elude you, Carol? I'm very familiar with the history of the region Mike. Unlike you goober's, I've done my homework. Not only does your "no brainier" elude me, it's so far from reality that it falls into the realm of fantasy and has also eluded some of the finest military and geopolitical minds in the world. Most of them in fact. Listen Mike. Every one, and I mean every single one, of the legitimate governments in the region absolutely hates Al Qaeda. They would like very much to dispose of the entire lot of them. The exception to the rule is Pakistan. Al Qaeda enjoys real support there among the population and the intelligence service as well as the police and Army. There isn't a damned thing we can do about it either. -- John R. Carroll http://www.machiningsolution.com Quote
Guest SilentOtto Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Jul 17, 2:12 pm, "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote: > "Iraq 2008" <iraq2...@noemail.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9970713502798Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... > > > 1. The terrorists will claim victory > > 2. There will be dancing in the streets by Muslims all around the world > > 3. Bloody civil war will rage in Iraq followed by > > 4. The eventual rise of a militant Islamic state - and finally - > > 5. The focus of militant Islam will be back on attacking the US > > rofl Another deluded republican. Is there any other kind? Quote
Guest Bret Cahill Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 > 1. The terrorists will claim victory They claimed victory after Dumbya let them attack the WTC. They can always claim victory because they believe they are going to heaven with 70 camels. > 2. There will be dancing in the streets by Muslims all around the world Why is Dumbya spending $100 billion a year of U. S. tax money to rebuild a Muslim country? > 3. Bloody civil war will rage in Iraq You didn't just figger this out didja? Cheney knew this before he launched his eternal-quagmire-so-Repugs- could-hide-behind-the-troops idea. That's why Cheney will be tried for war crimes. followed by > 4. The eventual rise of a militant Islamic state Try him for treason as well. > - and finally - > 5. The focus of militant Islam will be back on attacking the US Cheney will be doing time. It's the only possible closure. > What does that spell for the democrats in 2012? No more Republicons trying to hide behind the troops. If they want tax cuts on the rich they need to explain why that's more important than health care. Jingoism won't work anymore. Bret Cahill Quote
Guest SilentOtto Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Jul 17, 2:06 pm, Iraq 2008 <iraq2...@noemail.com> wrote: > 1. The terrorists will claim victory > 2. There will be dancing in the streets by Muslims all around the world > 3. Bloody civil war will rage in Iraq followed by > 4. The eventual rise of a militant Islamic state - and finally - > 5. The focus of militant Islam will be back on attacking the US You forgot.... 6. Hordes of militant Islamofacists will swim the oceans, holding their AK-47's in their teeth, and invade America 7. They'll take control of the U.S.A. because liberals will be too afraid to fight and will hide under their beds, and institute Islamic law. 8. Thanksgiving will be replaced by Ramadan and the Muslim invaders will celebrate it by having their liberal slaves roast Christian babies and serve them with apples in their mouths. 9. The Christian men who are allowed to live will be castrated and Christian women will be forced into harems. 10. Finally, Muslims will take over the world, dig a big hole where Israel used to be and let the sea flow in to wash away the Jewish contamination. > What does that spell for the democrats in 2012? > > 1. The End of the Democratic Party (as we know it today) Rightards like you have been predicting the end of the Democratic party for as long as I can remember. I'll file that prediction along side the WMD we found, Saddam's al Qaeda training camps, Iraq's nuclear weapons program and the flowers we picked up off the streets of Baghdad after we were greeted as liberators. Quote
Guest Bret Cahill Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 > 1. The terrorists will claim victory They claimed victory when Dumbya let them attack the WTC. > 2. There will be dancing in the streets by Muslims all around the world Why is Dumbya wasting $100,000,000,000 a year of taxpayer money to rebuild a Muslim nation? > 3. Bloody civil war will rage in Iraq followed by When did yer weedle noggin' figger THIS out? Cheney knew that even before he launched his eternal-quagmire-so- Repugs-could-hide-behind-the-troops-forever distraction. > 4. The eventual rise of a militant Islamic state - and finally - > 5. The focus of militant Islam will be back on attacking the US Cheney & Dumbya will need to be charged with treason as well as war crimes. > What does that spell for the democrats in 2012? Jingoism is dead and Repugs will no longer be able to hide behind the troops. Bret Cahill Quote
Guest SilentOtto Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 17, 2:40 pm, Iraq 2008 <iraq2...@noemail.com> wrote: > "Mike Flannigan" <mflanni...@yomoashouse.com> wrote innews:xW7ni.25$wH1.9@bignews8.bellsouth.net: > > > > > > > > > "Iraq 2008" <iraq2...@noemail.com> wrote in message > >news:Xns9970713502798Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... > >> 1. The terrorists will claim victory > >> 2. There will be dancing in the streets by Muslims all around the > >> world 3. Bloody civil war will rage in Iraq followed by > >> 4. The eventual rise of a militant Islamic state - and finally - > >> 5. The focus of militant Islam will be back on attacking the US > > >> What does that spell for the democrats in 2012? > > >> 1. The End of the Democratic Party (as we know it today) > > > Nope. Sorry. They will blame Bush and the mind-numbed sycophants will > > march in lock step. > > > Just look at what they were saying when it was reported that Al Qaeda > > had set up shop in remote Pakistan where Musharraf had pulled HIS > > troops out. Harry said that it happened because of Iraq: > > > "Given President Bush's stubborn dedication to keeping our > > overextended military mired in an Iraqi civil war, it is not > > surprising that al Qaeda has been able to reorganize and rebuild." > > > -Harry Reid > > > And on queue, this is what we were treated to by the parroting > > democrats here. > > > "All the time we focused our military in Iraq, Al Qaeda had all the > > time in the world to rebuild." > > > -Captain America > > > Amazing isn't it? The lesson with Pakistan is obvious to anyone who > > can think. Pulling out without the Iraqi army able to tamp down Al > > Qaeda in Iraq would create a vacuum for them to work in. Yet, all > > Harry Reid had to do was tell them something obviously stupid and then > > they know what to think. > > > So you see? Your theory would only be correct if democrats had enough > > brains to think for themselves, but they don't. They are told what to > > think and will be told it's Bush's fault. > > > And plus, they'll have a zillion illegals naturalized by then, one > > party rule will be instituted and it will be the end of America. > > I personally believe that the "kooks" actually represent a fraction of > the Democratic party. Look at the initial level of support for the Iraq > war... When the liberal agenda is implemented, the result will be that > they will be exposed for the idiots they really are. > > I simply cannot believe that very many Americans will contiue to support > these morons once the results of their actions are clearly seen. "Results of their actions"? You've got to be fucking kidding.... Look at the "result" of Bush's "actions" in Iraq... It's a bloody mess, and it's been a bloody mess for at least three years, with every year being worse than the one before. They follow a strategy, telling us at every turn how much "progress" they're making, until the strategy's failure become so obvious that no amount of spin can hide the mess, then they implement a new strategy and start the entire process all over again. And, rightards like you still support Bush and his failed policy and try the same tired old scare tactics that got us into the mess in Iraq to begin with. You rightard cocksuckers have been WRONG about EVERY predictions you've collectively made about Iraq. You predicted we'd find WMD. You were WRONG. You predicted the discovery of Saddam's ties to al Qaeda. You were WRONG. You predicted the war would pay for itself. You were WRONG. You predicted our troops would be greeted as liberators. You were WRONG. You suggested that the insurgency was only a few dead enders. You were WRONG. You predicted that Iraqi's would be able to come together and make democracy work. You were WRONG. Now, you come on here, posting another bullshit list of bullshit predictions based on a childish understand of the issue, and you can't understand why thinking people roll their eyes, conclude that you're full of shit and prepare to vote Democrat. Why don't you do yourself a big fat fucking favor and shut the hell up before the men in the white coats come and take you away. > You can only fool most of the people some of the time... But, apparently one can fool some of the people all of the time. They're called rightards. Quote
Guest sleeper Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Iraq 2008 <iraq2008@noemail.com> waxed rhapsodic in news:Xns997073438B707Iraq2008@216.196.97.131: > "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:139q1ijnab79v25@corp.supernews.com: > >> >> "Iraq 2008" <iraq2008@noemail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9970713502798Iraq2008@216.196.97.131... >> >> 1. U.S. troops will stop dying there > > You mean more US Civilians will start dying here thanks to republican port and border security policies. we'll try to undo those and put real enforcement in place. just say, "thank you," and walk away. >> 2. American blood will no longer be spilled to support a socialist >> Islamic theocracy > > In your dreams - Islamists will focus thier attacks on US civilians "be afraid. be very afraid." why are you so afraid? >> 3. Billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars will stop being wasted there > > Only liberals consider defending America as "a wast of tax dollars" america is in the western hemisphere, in case you hadn't noticed. but thanks to republican policies which opened our southern border and ignored our ports, terrorists could just walk in any old time. but don't fret your empty little head. democrats will start putting things right and you won't have to fear a bunch of religious kooks any more. except the ones born here. like mcveigh. >> 4. The Iraqi people will take responsibility for their own safety, >> security and future > > LOL - you live in a dream world! iraq will fracture no matter how long the u.s. stays. so we're going to stop shoveling money down that hole. -- http://www.kexp.org listener-powered and commercial-free. Quote
Guest sleeper Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> waxed rhapsodic in news:Qbtni.376$wV4.137@bignews2.bellsouth.net: > > "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:139sggspjl1dk25@corp.supernews.com... >> >> "Mike Flannigan" <mflannigan@yomoashouse.com> wrote in message >> news:2Vqni.395$yW2.215@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >>> WTF..? What part of Al Qaeda would simply return, set up shop, train >>> and plan the next 9/11 do you not understand? >> >> The part where that's completely fucking ridiculous. > > Yes, the democrats are completely fucking ridiculous. > >> Pulling out tens of thousands of ground troops doesn't mean we pull >> out all troops, end satellite surveillance, eliminate all >> intelligence gathering, stop flyovers or bombing sorties, >> decommission cruise missiles etc. > > The bill that the democrats sponsored and just went down to defeat > called for a COMPLETE pullout, dipshit. maybe you'd care to read it (or have it read to you.) notice the words "reduction" and "transition." the whole thing sounds pretty reasonable and intelligent to me. more than we've been given from that asshole who's squatting at 1600 pennsylvania ave. http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/text-of-reed-levin-amendment.html Monday, July 16, 2007 Text of Reed-Levin Amendment SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN IRAQ. (a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive political process. © Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions: (1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure. (2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces. (3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations. (d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection © by April 30, 2008. nor does the house bill - passed last thursday and sent to committee on monday - mention "cut-and-run, precipitous withdrawal, complete pullout, surrender, defeat, or [insert idiotic corporate media buzzword]." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110IZIc9u:: > Any stupid-thing-else you'd like to embarrass yourself by saying, > mow-ron? there's no need. you're a one-boy show. republicans will soon see what it feels like to be on the plantation that hillary clinton referred to last year. maybe democrats should exercise the "nuclear option" next time republicans obstruct congressional business. in any case, bush is trying to ram this "war" farther up the public's ass than we're willing to accept, and he's going to pay the price for it. -- http://www.kexp.org listener-powered and commercial-free. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.