Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [Slovak-World] My opinion

Expand Messages
  • wrabbit@wolfenet.com
    I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world s most sophisticated telecommunications equipment
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
      "I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications."

      But wasn't that Rumsfeld in the picture shaking Sadaam's hand when he gave them the weapons to kill the shiites in support of the war on Iran? Dec, 20, 1983.

      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

      And on the right are a few more people now in jail.

      How short are our memories?

      Still pissed off that any commander would let his people in the field take the fall for him, but that seems to be the way for GW and Rumsfeld.

      Dushan


      -----Original Message-----
      From: "John M," <sandman6294@...>
      Sent: Jun 1, 2004 10:04 AM
      To: Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [Slovak-World] My opinion

      At 10:51 AM 6/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
      >WOW!! I don't always agree with your statements Jack, but, I sure do this
      >one! Well said! Bravo!!
      >
      >Jack Gergely
      >Newport News

      If you believe Jack S wrote that then you're very easily deluded, which
      based on your statements now and in the past, is easy to deduce.

      http://www.probush.com/remember.htm

      Janko





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • gergely
      No, capt jack has already written me privately and said that he wasn t the author. None the less, it is a powerful statement. This kind of delusion I will
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
        No, capt jack has already written me privately and said that he wasn't the
        author.

        None the less, it is a powerful statement. This kind of delusion I will
        willingly accept.

        Jack Gergely

        -----Original Message-----
        From: John M, [mailto:sandman6294@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 1:04 PM
        To: Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [Slovak-World] My opinion


        At 10:51 AM 6/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
        >WOW!! I don't always agree with your statements Jack, but, I sure do this
        >one! Well said! Bravo!!
        >
        >Jack Gergely
        >Newport News

        If you believe Jack S wrote that then you're very easily deluded, which
        based on your statements now and in the past, is easy to deduce.

        http://www.probush.com/remember.htm

        Janko





        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • yawho2001
        ... wasn t the author.
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
          --- In Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com, "gergely" <gergely@v...> wrote:
          >No, capt jack has already written me privately and said that he
          wasn't the author.<

          After he accepted kudos for it.

          >None the less, it is a powerful statement. This kind of delusion I
          will willingly accept.<

          >Jack Gergely<

          Are you saying the statement is a delusion or are you saying you
          accept being deluded by CJ? The chances are the attributed author is
          also a delusion. Using a military title (MGySgt., USMC, Lt. Col.,
          etc.) when spinning Bushit for the Regressives is good practice.
          They lap it up. There is a good probability the author is a well
          paid propagandist who, like Dubyah, never served in combat or even
          served at all. There are truths, half truths and lies in the
          statement but that's politics and it'll get much worse as the half
          billion GOP dollars go to work in the "liberal" media this fall. As
          it stands now, Bush's billionaires are hard at work.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6217-2004Jun1.html

          "The White House is not a warm and fuzzy place these days, or so
          suggest two seminal articles from over the long weekend.

          In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei describe the
          unprecedented ferocity of the Bush campaign's often deceptive anti-
          Kerry advertising blitz.

          And in the New York Times, David E. Sanger describes a spectacular
          loss of discipline in the White House, now riven by vicious
          backbiting.

          Meanwhile, Matthew Cooper writes in Time magazine that President Bush
          is now keeping Saddam Hussein's gun in his study. Unloaded, we are
          assured.

          Messages of Negativity

          In The Post, Milbank and VandeHei write: "Scholars and political
          strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has
          been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the
          liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts.
          Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign,
          they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in
          speeches and in advertising.

          "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks
          on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100
          markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336
          negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. ................"

          Janko
        • krejc@aol.com
          CJ, very well put. noreen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
            CJ,
            very well put.
            noreen


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • krejc@aol.com
            In a message dated 6/1/04 10:39:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, humblebe@intergrafix.net writes: These soldiers went there to free these people, but they didn’t
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
              In a message dated 6/1/04 10:39:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              humblebe@... writes:
              These soldiers went there to free these people, but
              they didn’t want to be freed, they didn’t ask for us to go there, but there
              we are.

              The terrorists did not want us there nor the extremists who were happy with
              the status quo. but the educated and thinking people did.
              in Desert Storm, the coalition pulled out prematurely because their goal of
              freeing Kuwait was accomplished and this pulling out left the people at the
              northern border (who helped us during the Desert Storm War) vulnerable to the
              madman of Baghdad who slaughtered them and used more poisonous weaponry on them.
              For one thing, i am pretty sure that we are not going to do this to them a
              second time.
              Noreen


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • krejc@aol.com
              In a message dated 6/1/04 1:46:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sandman6294@yahoo.com writes: If you believe Jack S wrote that then you re very easily deluded,
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                In a message dated 6/1/04 1:46:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                sandman6294@... writes:

                If you believe Jack S wrote that then you're very easily deluded, which
                based on your statements now and in the past, is easy to deduce.

                http://www.probush.com/remember.htm
                Who cares who authored it? i am glad for the reminder that all it takes for
                evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
                by the way, i don't recall CJ as signing his name to it.
                Noreen


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • John M,
                ... I and many other people do. It appears that you don t care if a person is honest as long as you benefit from their actions. If someone steals something
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                  At 07:29 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
                  >In a message dated 6/1/04 1:46:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  >sandman6294@... writes:
                  >
                  >If you believe Jack S wrote that then you're very easily deluded, which
                  >based on your statements now and in the past, is easy to deduce.
                  >
                  >http://www.probush.com/remember.htm
                  >Who cares who authored it?

                  I and many other people do. It appears that you don't care if a person is
                  honest as long as you benefit from their actions. If someone steals
                  something you like and gives it to you would you say who cares?

                  >i am glad for the reminder that all it takes for evil to flourish is for
                  >good men to do nothing. by the way, i don't recall CJ as signing his name
                  >to it.
                  >Noreen

                  I don't believe cowboys going off half cocked to fight the "Axis of Evil"
                  without the support of their traditional allies and good intelligence
                  qualifies as "a good man doing something". The Pentagon's darling Ahmed
                  Chalabi is now being cast adrift but only after the rigged intelligence he
                  passed on was swallowed by an administration raring to go to war for
                  political purposes.

                  You imply a decrepit tin horn dictator is a world threat? Most of the
                  world didn't think so. No navy, no air force, an army with antiquated
                  weapons systems? Yes, you can kill people, and they are doing so, with low
                  tech weapons but the outcome was never in doubt. A good analogy would be
                  the Polish horse cavalry fighting the German Panzer divisions, which they
                  did in 1939. You might call it a brave but it was certainly a futile
                  act. Did he make the world a safer place? I don't think so. He may have
                  increased the number of terrorists.

                  As for Jack S signing his name, when you post a long statement without
                  using quotes and giving credit to the author or providing the source, it's
                  called plagiarism. The subject was My Opinion and it was posted by him.
                  Jack G commented:

                  "WOW!! I don't always agree with your statements Jack, but, I sure do this
                  one! Well said! Bravo!!"

                  and Jack S replied:

                  "Thank you Jack.
                  CJ"

                  Janko
                • capt jack
                  Well put Noreen. CJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                    Well put Noreen.

                    CJ


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • yawho2001
                    ... I and many other people do. It appears that you don t care if a person is honest as long as you benefit from their actions. If someone steals something
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                      --- In Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com, krejc@a... wrote:
                      >Who cares who authored it?<

                      I and many other people do. It appears that you don't care if a
                      person is honest as long as you benefit from their actions. If
                      someone steals something you like and gives it to you would you say
                      who cares?

                      >i am glad for the reminder that all it takes for evil to flourish is
                      for good men to do nothing.<

                      I don't believe a cowboy president going off half cocked to fight a
                      preemptive war against the "Axis of Evil" without the support of our
                      traditional allies and good intelligence qualifies as "a good man
                      doing something". The Pentagon's darling Ahmed Chalabi is now being
                      cast adrift but only after the rigged intelligence he passed on was
                      swallowed by an administration raring to go to war for political
                      purposes.

                      You imply a decrepit tin horn dictator is a world threat. Many
                      Americans and most of the world didn't think so. No navy, no air
                      force, an army with antiquated weapons systems. Yes, you can kill
                      people with low tech weapons but the outcome was never in doubt. A
                      good analogy would be the Polish horse cavalry fighting the German
                      Panzer divisions, which they did in 1939. You might call it a brave
                      act but it was also certainly a futile act. Did he make the world a
                      safer place? I don't think so. He may have increased the number of
                      terrorists and the odds of doing more damage here and abroad.

                      >by the way, i don't recall CJ as signing his name to it.
                      Noreen<

                      As for Jack S signing his name, when you post a long statement
                      without using quotes and giving credit to the author or providing the
                      source, it's called plagiarism. The subject was My Opinion and it
                      was posted by CJ. Jack G commented:

                      "WOW!! I don't always agree with YOUR statements Jack, but, I sure do
                      this one! Well said! Bravo!!"

                      and Jack S replied:

                      "Thank you Jack.
                      CJ"

                      Janko
                    • capt jack
                      Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                        "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks
                        on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100
                        markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336
                        negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. ................"

                        Janko

                        I guess there is just a lot more negative things about Kerry than there is about Bush! :-)

                        CJ


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • yawho2001
                        ... attacks ... there is about Bush! :-) ... Gee, I guess it s because he has money to burn given by the people he gave almost a trillion in tax cuts. He
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 1, 2004
                          --- In Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com, capt jack <captjack00@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been
                          attacks
                          > on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100
                          > markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336
                          > negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. ................"
                          >
                          > Janko
                          >
                          > I guess there is just a lot more negative things about Kerry than
                          there is about Bush! :-)
                          >
                          > CJ

                          Gee, I guess it's because he has money to burn given by the people he
                          gave almost a trillion in tax cuts. He can't win on substantive
                          issues so he hopes idiots will buy his Bushit. I see you've bought it.

                          Janko
                        • capt jack
                          Gee, I guess it s because he has money to burn... I assume you are talking about J. gigolo Kerry in that statement, as if he doesnt have millions at his
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 2, 2004
                            "Gee, I guess it's because he has money to burn... "



                            I assume you are talking about J. "gigolo" Kerry in that statement, as if he doesnt have millions at his disposal and more available from his women and supporters.

                            CJ


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.