600 mile range Federal law needed

Page 4 of 6  


it's humor. he's saying that the bush administration is so patently and observably incompetent, corrupt and criminal, that it would be superfluous for anybody outside of the administration to point it out. although humorous, the problem with his logic is that it vastly overestimates the intelligence of most americans.
i'll just keep slapping bumperstickers on my car. my fave right now is the one that looks like a bush-cheney campaign sticker, but actually it reads, "Moron-Psycho 00-08."
i've had it on my car for several months and i've received several middle-finger salutes as a result. i just raise my .357 sig-sauer in return. funny how some of us "tree-hugging libs" pack heat. blows em away when they discover it, figuratively speaking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Warlock wrote:

Most people trying to be humorous don't simultaneously give the impression of simultaneously foaming at the mouth and speaking gibberish.

Look at the lies he is using to make his point. Again, it comes off as lunatic fringe. None of the stuff he is stating as facts are true. For example "The hell with freedom of expression." Based on what. You've got nothing - and because of that, you won't come back with anything honest if at all.

Yeah - he's so intelligent he can't speak for himself and can't even answer a direct question (which you also make no attempt to answer - but it's understandable because - once again - you've got nothin' of substance to answer with).

We're all impressed. But not in the way you imagine. I guess you and Dave don't like them expressing themselves. Typcial libs. You want to be able to say anything you want, but when anyone responds back in a disapproving manner, we're suppressing your freedom of expression. But - again - that and the ultra hyperbole is what is hurting the democrats terribly.
I read an article by someone who was helping the New Orleans victims, and was starting to help a woman who was hunting for some relatives, but when the person writing the article saw a Bush bumper sticker on their car, they drove off and left them. That's your free-thinking liberal for you.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

only been hanging out in automotive-related newsgroups, huh? if you consider his postings to be frothy, you have been extremely sheltered.

i won't speak to the issue of freedom of expression, but in regard to virtually everything else -- the war in iraq, the economy, immigration, irresponsible tax cuts and while ballooning the deficit, the pathetic response to hurricane katrina, this administration is nothing short of criminal. as the saying goes, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." i would consider it frivolous to take anybody by the hand and lead them to the mountains of evidence regarding this administration's blunders, lies and malfeasance. anybody who doesn't realize what's happening is either wilfully blind or woefully stupid.

what was the question? i was simply responding to your apparent lack of humor.

they can express themselves all they like; but it's been my experience that rabid bush-backers are your typical "crash beer can on forehead, thump your chest, kill em all and let my non-existent god sort it out" kinda guys. they wear buffalo-check flannel sweaters, bad haircuts and have a vocabulary somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 words. i consider it to be good form to let them know that any bullying behavior on their part will be met with the reduction of their head to a pulpy and bloody mass. they understand that. other than that, they can express away.
Typcial libs. You want to

i'd do the same. i don't help the walking dead.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David wrote:

Now Bush is killing? I was under the impression that it was enemy combatants and terrorists that were killing. Silly me.

Welcome back to the group, Lloyd.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

And the astronauts never went to the moon, and the earth is flat, and Sadam never had WMD's, and Bush prayed hurricane Katrina into being and hitting the gulf coast. Yeah yeah - heard it all before from the lunatic fringe.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you actually listen to yourself?
Maybe if you'd pay more attention to what is going on in this country and get off that Faux News, you'd learn a thing or two.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By your replies, you wouldn't know it if it jumped up and bit you in your ass.

Yes, yes. Just as bush said. Tell me, how was Sadam supposed to prove he didn't have what he didn't have? That is like saying, show me you have something in your hand when you have nothing in your hand. It's all a play on words to make Sadam look guilty to the imbeciles that follow bush's line of thinking.

Where. Hiding in his underwear? Sadam had none. End of story.

I guess you're gonna try telling me Sadam invaded Kuwait 5000 times in the last 100 years? You are insane.

Clinton never said that.

Go back and check your history. Don't you remember you fools putting down the French because they voted against bush's war? So did the Germans, the Russians and the Chineese. All members of the UN Security Council. Jeez. And I thought you knew some facts.

Like I said. It's not provable.

As I said above, how was he supposed to prove the glass was empty when there was nothing inside to show?

Bullshit. There were never any Al Quaida in Iraq before bush got his war hardon and made a mess of everything getting 1896 American service men and women killed because he lied. Even that Zarqauwi (spelling?) dude said that he has just become a follower of Al Quaida, and that was after the war started. Didn't Fox News tell you that? I guess not. They won't tell you the truth if it makes their imbecile look bad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

We're not talking about inventorying boxes of cracker jacks here.
You need to read up on the law of the conservation of mass. Here's a word problem: If he had x amount of WMD's at some point, and he used y, then, by the law of the conservation of mass, he should have or be able to account for x-y. Like I said, it's not boxes of cracker jacks that are relatively unimportant, we're talking about WMD's.
Take a look at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp and http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

See above re: the law of the conservation of mass, and snopes.com and truthorfiction.com links about what the Dems, including what both Clintons, Kerry, and Robert "Sheets" Byrd were saying - not only after Clinton, but during Clinton's admin. Kind of hard for Bush to gen up false intel during the Clinton admin,. dontcha think?

Uh - whatever.

Yes - the French and Russians were trying to conceal their cashing in on the Oil for Food programs. They didn't want to mess up the good thing they had going with Saddam.

Ummm - by inventory records. The UN as well as Dems in Congress sure seemed to think he should have been able to. At the very best, he was a victim of his own sloppy record keeping.
>>Yes - provided training facilities and assylum. "Enemy of my enemy..."

From the snopes page - a quote of H. Clinton: ""In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
The Al Qaida connection has been re-proven since our intel flaws have been brought to light.
Also - read a book called "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis. Documents thoroughly Sadam's conection to the OK City bombing.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bill, give it a rest.
The US Army has been all over Iraq looking for WMD. You know damn well that the Republicans have been praying daily to God asking for the army to find bombs because if no WMD's are discovered by 2008 that fact will be hammered over and over and they are going to take a pretty serious political loss for it.
The army found Saddam, and his 2 psychotic sons, and it's a lot easier to hid a person, who can easily move from place to place, than a bomb which can be found by a Geiger counter.
Saddam didn't have nukes by the time of the invasion, simple as that. About the most you could possibly argue is he snuck them into Syria sometime before the war, but very few are going to believe it.
And as for biological WMD's or nerve gas or some other scenario, those simply aren't very good WMD's. Gas dissapates and if your enemy knows your going to use it, they can easily take precautions. And other biological agents like germ warfare kill indiscriminitely and you could easily cause a plague that would wipe out your own people too, they are very unstable weapons. And frankly, none of those have the sheer phychological value of a nuke - if gas or germ warfare was so good, why didn't we use them on Hiroshima instead of a nuke?
Saddam was a great bluffer in his day, and most of the rumors of Iraq having WMDs were undoubtedly plants designed to scare his neighbors.
Anyway, as I've observed over and over again, there were a lot of far more valid reasons to invade Iraq than WMDs. Such as the government there routinely using torture. Why are people so squeamish about the US going in to a country and blowing away psychotic rulers? Do Americans think it's a good thing to leave people like this up and in operation? Do they really think any other countries are going to step in and put a stop to it?

Considering that Al Qaida has a lot of people who are probably members of other terrorist organizations, it would he extremely unusual if among all the criminals that Saddam helped out, that none of them happened to be part of Al Qaida. But that does not mean that there were any high-level connections between Saddam's government and Al Quaida.
The problem with the Iraq war is that it should have been OVER a long time ago. It was frankly disrespectful of the Republican-controlled congress to not issue a formal declaration of war against Iraq, and to allow Bush unlimited time to deploy the Army in there. That is NOT what the US Constitution says is allowable and I thought you conservatives were big supporters of the Constitution. It is also disrespectful of Bush to make such an early declaration of the end of hostilities there when soldiers are still getting killed. If the war is over, then the US Army should LEAVE. And it is a crime that there's been such a lack of basics like Kevlar boots, which keep soldier's feet from being blown off by mines, and a lack of hardened HumVees - there's only one company in the country that retrofits them and they are way, way behind. When soldiers are welding scrap metal to vehicles in Iraq because some bean counter in the Pentagon is too busy playing politics, that person should be in the front lines not behind a desk! And this business of pulling in National Guard - if Bush wants to fight a war and there's not enough soldiers, then he should have activated the draft - otherwise why the hell are we still to this day registering kids for Selective Service. What a waste of money - they claim that they need a S.S. bureau in case of a draft - but when there's a lack of soldiers they don't turn on the draft!!!
Bush has run the Iraq war in the most half-assed way imaginable, just like he's running FEMA and the rest of the bureaus in the Executive branch. That is the problem.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

I don't at all disagree with much (not all) of what you said. Some things are black, some things are gray, some things are white. When people say that something is one when it is the other, I may choose to speak out. You really ought to read that book by Jayna Davis ("The Third Terrorist") about the OK City bombing. It truly does document that Sadam sent some of his Republican Guard boys over here to assist in that operation (though the training that our lily whites got was in the Philipines). It also clearly documents how screwed up our FBI was at the time - clearly an intentional cover up from above of the facts that would have blown the top off of that whole thing. Senator Spector was part of the coverup.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It seems only in your convoluted way of determine facts from rumor and distortion, is it a problem.
Bush has run the Iraq war in the most half-assed way imaginable, just

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

Yep, I think that is a large part of what happened. Saddam wanted people to think he had such weapons and managed to provide the justification for invasion by doing so. His bluff got called.
IMO, the "problem" is that the modern US is not at all geared up for playing the army of occupation role and is making a hash of it. Of course if our country and military were programmed to be effective conquerors and occupiers then there would be an even bigger set of problems!
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're very confused. Surely you must realize that we WILL have much more energy efficient vehicles as long as the price of gas stays VERY HIGH. The problem with it right now is it's too low to sell fuel efficient vehicles, and nobody will buy them. The technology is child's play.
It's certainly possible to mandate efficient vehicles, ration gasoline, and sell it for 25 cents a gallon (or somewhere in there). Amazingly (to me, at least) no country on earth ever did that. They all chose many years ago to get the price VERY HIGH instead. America is the only country that tried to keep it low and mandate efficiency without rationing. That is because we want our poor folks to be able to drive without so much hardship. Other countries want their poor to take the bus. It's a different set of ideals. In a sense, our plan has backfired, because people switched to trucks (that didn't have mandated efficiency) and burned the cheap gas like crazy, creating the current and future fuel shortage.
I realize this is just a urinating contest, and I hope you won't think less of me because I said something about it. I just really am having a hard time beliving that any liberal could as ignorant as you are pretending to be, arguing the opposite side from the one you're supposed to.
And for pete's sake stop crossposting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure, just tell me where the original post came from and where and when this became cross posted?????????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Don" wrote: "Or we could just fire the supreme court, use voting machines that actually work right and get rid of the republikans fixing the elections. Bush never did win either election. But then, you probably believe the lies told by the bush puppy media.
Regardless, the facts still remain. We could have more energy efficient vehicles in the near future if bush/cheney would quit pandering to the oil companies."
Learn the facts. The voting machines did work the idiots voting could not vote properly. Unfortunately for you, popular vote does matter as much in a presidential election. Then again it could be to your benefit since if we counted popular vote some politicians would never get elected because the big cities would control the vote.
By the way every recount showed Bush won.
Sarge
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, you need to learn the facts. Bush NEVER won a federal election. Only in the recounts that favored bush did he win. And those were so mucked up just to get those figures. Not to mention the illegal purge of legally registered voters. And yes, the machines were faulty. Still are. If they were so accurate, then why is it the republikan party refuses to allow a paper trail added to all of the machines used?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

... and like I said you think that the lunar landing was faked and that Bush prayed Katrina into being and hitting New Orleans. Again - as long as we have people like you speaking publicly on behalf of the libs, the Democrat pary has an uphill battle. All we conservatives ask is that you keep up the good work.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If no one reply to these loonies they would go away. They are social rejects that have no life. The only place they can attract an audience for their convoluted logic is with an OT post in a NG.
mike
wrote in message If they

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I really don't care if the lunar landing was faked.
I don't think bush or any religious fanatic could pray any hurricane into existence, much less where it's going to hit.
I only believe in facts. Not the idiotic ideas you have of us liberals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bill, are you a religious man? Are you a so-called christian?
If so, just how in the hell do you think you're going to get into heaven by badmouthing liberals? Remember, jesus was the biggest liberal of them all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.