Clean, Space Shuttle mission ! Liberals bummed out.....

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
::Rand Simberg ) wrote:
::: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
::: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
::: way as to indicate that:
::
:::
::: Rand Simberg wrote:
::: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away,
::: "Bernard Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
::: in such a way as to indicate that:
:::
::: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's
::: specialty -- such as WMD
:::
::: Which, it now turns out, existed.
:::
::: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce
::: them.
:::
:::
::: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...06/06/30/AR200
::: 6063001528.html
:::
::: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
::: war.
::
::: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
::: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
::: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
::
::But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
::: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
::: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
::: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
::: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
::: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
::
::: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
::: in Iraq.
::
::That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:
:"It turns out that we have not found weapons
f mass destruction."
efense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

How about the 500 or so that they've found?

500 what? Are you saying Rumsfeld didn't quote the above?

You have the damn Sec. of Def. stating what we are saying and here you
are saying he's wrong! McClod, you need to admit you're wrong and move
on. THAT is your damn advice to others, why is is so hard for you to
swallow your own medicine?

Eric


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"sss" wrote:

:My contention is that had liberals been in the White House instead of
eople like Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes, we would have already been
:to Mars

Who was the last 'liberal' who spent serious money on manned space
exploration?


Clinton by cutting the DOD budget.

What happened during the 8 Clinton years?

Clinton balanced the budget by not allowing the DOD budget to overrun
and thus balanced the whole US budget. NASA was funded at the same rate
as previous years.


Conclusion: Your contention is merely silly.


The problem with the GOP is that they view NASA as an extension of the
military even though Ike specifically created it otherwise. The Dems
want peaceful space exploration in lieu of war.

Eric

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"GatherNoMoss" writes:

My opinion of Liberals is so poor....So convinced am I of their
degenerate character...
that I do believe that Liberals are dissappointed that this Space
Shuttle mission was
a success.

Do you know what "raising a straw man" is? You've just provided a
perfect example.

Go ahead Lefties, protest...express your indignation.

No, thanks. PLONK!

The Commodore unto all: greetings.

What we are seeing is an example of a discussion gone amok in a country
which is going amok. We have not been divided in this manner since the Civil
War. Fortunately, the Internet (& Usenet beforehand) is giving us a method
of letting off steam without going
BANG! BANG!

Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:42:54 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
:: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
:: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:: Another Hezbollah Jihad Democrat Terrorist ) wrote:
::
:: [...]
::
:: : The Times recalled that Arkansas supported Clinton's husband when he ran for
:: : president in 1992 and 1996, but then went for George W. Bush in 2000. Just
:: : 46 percent of Arkansas voted for then-Vice President Al Gore in that
:: : election, and four years later the percentage of votes for the Democratic
:: : candidate fell, with 44 percent backing Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
:: : Although the state's two senators are Democrats, Arkansas has been
:: : increasingly seen as a Republican stronghold at the presidential level.
::
:: 46% and 44% is not a 'stronghold'.
:
:: 46% and 44% are what the *Democrats* got, you moron.
:
:No ****, the point is that 44% and 46% are much closer to 50% to speak of
:their smallness as providing a stronghold to the other side, you imbecile.

Then let's examine a couple of states that have long been regarded as
Democratic strongholds; New York and California. In New York, Kerry
only got 60% of the vote (and he practically qualifies as a 'native
son' up there). In that Democratic stronghold of California, he got
54%.

It seems that by Mr Chomko's logic, neither of those states could
possibly be considered a 'Democratic Stronghold' because the votes are
so close to 50%.

60% is 10% more than 50%, easily the largest margin of everything on
this thread.
54% is more in line with the differences in Ark., as CA is not a
stronghold whereas NY is.


The answer seems obvious and is in accord with the expected outcome;
El Chimpo is once more talking out his ass.

No, it is just that you don't know the difference between 4%, 6% and
10%.

Eric


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: So what do you want to call the 500+ that were found? Twinkies?
:
: The Dept of Defense says they aren't WMD's.
:
: The Sec of Defense says they aren't WMD's.
:
: Do you know something they don't?

No, but I do know something that YOU apparently do not. Their
complete statements apply to the context that we went in looking for
WMDs in - to whit, an ongoing program. That program was not found,
hence we didn't find the WMDs we went in expecting to find.

That is somewhat different than the way folks like you try to spin it.

I'll tell you what. You get in a room with one of these things and
we'll let the contents out. You come by later and tell us if it was a
WMD (any CBR weapon is categorized as a WMD these days).

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
: : .. .
: : :
: : : I'll simply note that the headline is at odds with the story. The
: : : headline says "U.S. didn't find WMDs". That isn't what the story
: : : says. The story says that they found "no evidence that Iraq produced
: : : chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War".
: : :
: : : Those two things are not the same thing.
: : :
: : : Again, what about the 500 or so that they've found?
: : :
: : :I'll simply note that you clipped the relevant part.
: :
: : I'll simply note that you are continuing to try to change the
: : question. The statement in question was the claim that we did not
: : find WMDs.
: :
: : :Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the
: : :same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in
: : :Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were
: : :looking for when we went in this time."
: : :
: : :So, we did not find the WMDs that we went looking for.
: :
: : But we did find WMDs. People who claim we did not are merely ignoring
: : the facts for political expediency.
: :
: :But we didn't invade Iraq because he had old WMD.
:
: Actually, it was one of many reasons - unaccounted for weapons.
:
: :We invaded Iraq
: :because he was "reinstigating" his chemical weapons facilities. Colin
: :Powell went before Congress and said "We know he has these plants. We
: :know where they are. We can't tell you where they are because that
: :would threaten our intelligence sources, but we know." We were also
: :told he (Saadam) had "Weapons of mass destruction with which he could
: :attack our troops within 45 minutes." These rusted, corroded pre-1991
: :canisters could hardly have been used within 45 minutes. It's doubtful
: :anyone in Saadam's regime even remembered they were there. So where is
: :the "reinstigated" WMD program? Where are the faciliites? Where are the
: :newly produced shells? Produce those and this is one liberal who will
: :apologize and state that he was wrong to critize W and his war.
: :
: :...but I'm not holding my breath waiting.
:
: So your line moves. But that's not the issue under discussion at the
: moment.
:
: Answer the question. Have we or have we not found WMD in Iraq: Yes
: or no?
:
:The question is moot.

No, the question is not moot. Answer it. Yes or no?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: So your line moves. But that's not the issue under discussion at the
: moment.
:
: Answer the question. Have we or have we not found WMD in Iraq: Yes
: or no?
:
:The question is moot.

No, the question is not moot. Answer it. Yes or no?

Yes, the question is moot. We found canisters. 500 corrodeded (sp)
unusable canisters. We have not yet found what we were told was there,
reinstigated facilities for the creation of WMD that could attack our
people in 45 minutes. Finding those (if they in fact exist) will
justify this war and it's death and carnage. Finding some unusable
cannisters will not.

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

Mitchell Holman wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
m:
:
: So what do you want to call the 500+ that were found? Twinkies?
:
: The Dept of Defense says they aren't WMD's.
:
: The Sec of Defense says they aren't WMD's.
:
: Do you know something they don't?

No, but I do know something that YOU apparently do not. Their
complete statements apply to the context that we went in looking for
WMDs in - to whit, an ongoing program. That program was not found,
hence we didn't find the WMDs we went in expecting to find.

That is somewhat different than the way folks like you try to spin it.

I'll tell you what. You get in a room with one of these things and
we'll let the contents out. You come by later and tell us if it was a
WMD (any CBR weapon is categorized as a WMD these days).



"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
George Bush, 5/31/03

vs.....

"It turns out that we have not found weapons
of mass destruction."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.

"enchomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
: :: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: :
: ::
: :: Rand Simberg wrote:
: :: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Bernard
: :: Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: ::
: :: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's specialty
: :: -- such as WMD
: ::
: :: Which, it now turns out, existed.
: ::
: :: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce them.
: ::
: ::
: :: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001528.html
: ::
: :: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
: :: war.
: :
: :: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
: :: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
: :: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
: :
: :But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
:Nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. How much uranium did they find?
:How much sarin or other chemicals did they find? A single small jar in
:a scientist's refrigerator is NOT WMD.

But is 500 artillery rounds enough to cross your threshold? That's
how many they've found so far.

: :: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
: :: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
: :: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
: :: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
: :: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
: :
: :: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
: :: in Iraq.
: :
: :That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:A small amount of chemcials we supplied them doesn't constitute WMD.

That's good, since that's not what we're talking about.

:Answer your own damn question!

Easy. A single chemical round constitutes, by definition, a WMD.

:And then answer the question what we
:found,

Some 500+ chemical rounds.

:and then tell me that they were trying to make WMD.

That's a different question.

:You can't do it!

As usual, you're behaving like an idiot.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com