OT: Top General warns against cut and running

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
--

"dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
> --
>[/color]


HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
long as it fits their agenda.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:14:00 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
>news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
>HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
>against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
>long as it fits their agenda.
>[/color]

You must be talking about dim George W Bush. That fits him to a T.

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=blue]
>
> "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
> HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
> against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
> long as it fits their agenda.[/color]

Gee, now why does this remind me of a certain someone & his administration?

Cathy
[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=blue]
>
> "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
> HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
> against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
> long as it fits their agenda.
>[/color]

You type that with a straight face?? lol

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=blue]
>
> "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>> --
>>[/color]
>
>
> HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
> against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
> long as it fits their agenda.
>[/color]


What the general is saying is that an orderly withdrawal is in order. But,
you prefer to hear "cut & run" because it only involves two words and an
abbreviation.

Actually, it's called a logogram - there's your word for today.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand[/url]


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:[color=blue]
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=green]
> >
> > "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
> > news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
> >> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
> >> --
> >>[/color]
> >
> >
> > HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
> > against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
> > long as it fits their agenda.
> >[/color]
>
>
> What the general is saying is that an orderly withdrawal is in order. But,
> you prefer to hear "cut & run" because it only involves two words and an
> abbreviation.[/color]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:itL6h.5488$Ka1.5388@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=green]
>>
>> "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
>> news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>>> --
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
>> against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
>> long as it fits their agenda.
>>[/color]
>
>
> What the general is saying is that an orderly withdrawal is in order. But,
> you prefer to hear "cut & run" because it only involves two words and an
> abbreviation.
>[/color]

As many here already know, I'm not at all a fan of Bush and his
administration. For some reason though, it seems that the liberals here like
to imply such when I post anything negative about their ever faithful fellow
demoncraps. What I find really ironic about this is that many times they
continue to be unable to defend the original accusation against them. I
think that they call that guilt displacement in sociology.Cute, but rather
childish.

Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at war.


"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ToN6h.11$mP4.3@newsfe23.lga...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:itL6h.5488$Ka1.5388@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
>>> news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
>>> against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable so
>>> long as it fits their agenda.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> What the general is saying is that an orderly withdrawal is in order.
>> But, you prefer to hear "cut & run" because it only involves two words
>> and an abbreviation.
>>[/color]
>
> As many here already know, I'm not at all a fan of Bush and his
> administration. For some reason though, it seems that the liberals here
> like to imply such when I post anything negative about their ever faithful
> fellow demoncraps. What I find really ironic about this is that many times
> they continue to be unable to defend the original accusation against them.
> I think that they call that guilt displacement in sociology.Cute, but
> rather childish.
>[/color]

Thank you.

"Mark" <bogusmailmark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163628963.180082.229510@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Actually, it's called a logogram - there's your word for today.
>
> [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampersand[/url]
>
>
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:[color=green]
>> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:NyK6h.30271$E_2.27921@newsfe18.lga...[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > "dbu'" <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
>> > news:repubs-3BD8B1.13570615112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15731613/[/url]
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > HA, you think that dims will want to listen to any general if it goes
>> > against their agenda? Hell no they wouldn't. All advice is acceptable
>> > so
>> > long as it fits their agenda.
>> >[/color]
>>
>>
>> What the general is saying is that an orderly withdrawal is in order.
>> But,
>> you prefer to hear "cut & run" because it only involves two words and an
>> abbreviation.[/color]
>[/color]

"Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
news:ZLN6h.59$gl5.26@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at
> war.[/color]

Let's consider a hypothetical situation: You (and I mean specifically YOU)
decide that the president is 100% wrong about the war he started. Do you
believe that you should not throw stones at him because we are at war?

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I9_6h.5519$Ka1.4370@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
> news:ZLN6h.59$gl5.26@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
>> Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at
>> war.[/color]
>
> Let's consider a hypothetical situation: You (and I mean specifically
> YOU) decide that the president is 100% wrong about the war he started. Do
> you believe that you should not throw stones at him because we are at war?
>[/color]

Wow....Joe and I are in complete agreement. What a historical moment.

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hp_6h.601$ya7.226@newsfe17.lga...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:I9_6h.5519$Ka1.4370@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZLN6h.59$gl5.26@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at
>>> war.[/color]
>>
>> Let's consider a hypothetical situation: You (and I mean specifically
>> YOU) decide that the president is 100% wrong about the war he started. Do
>> you believe that you should not throw stones at him because we are at
>> war?
>>[/color]
>
> Wow....Joe and I are in complete agreement. What a historical moment.
>[/color]


In other words, you think the very rights this country is based on should be
suspended during a war.

Presidents don't get to start wars. The Iraq war was a result of an act of
Congress. Do a search of the Congressional Record fro the facts, WBMA.


mike


"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I9_6h.5519$Ka1.4370@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
> news:ZLN6h.59$gl5.26@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
>> Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at
>> war.[/color]
>
> Let's consider a hypothetical situation: You (and I mean specifically
> YOU) decide that the president is 100% wrong about the war he started. Do
> you believe that you should not throw stones at him because we are at war?
>[/color]

If that's the case, you and others can stop saying that criticizing Bush
during a war will demoralize the troops. It won't. If a soldier is so easily
demoralized, it's because he wasn't cut out to be a warrior. Some people
aren't. He should be proud to know that free speech is still allowed in the
country he's supposedly defending.


But, it's NOT the case. Bush took ownership of the war before it even began.
Bush rattled the saber for months before the war. He was the one shooting
his mouth off about it. He was the fool who pulled that mission accomplished
stunt on the aircraft carrier. The buck stops with him. He's the boss.
Congress is also to blame, but they did what was politically expedient
because they're a bunch of sheep.



"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:ETednSoq9KXlEsHYUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Presidents don't get to start wars. The Iraq war was a result of an act
> of Congress. Do a search of the Congressional Record fro the facts, WBMA.
>
>
> mike
>
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:I9_6h.5519$Ka1.4370@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Roadrunner NG" <RRNG@highlandcraft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZLN6h.59$gl5.26@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Weak americans taking shots at a President of the other party while at
>>> war.[/color]
>>
>> Let's consider a hypothetical situation: You (and I mean specifically
>> YOU) decide that the president is 100% wrong about the war he started. Do
>> you believe that you should not throw stones at him because we are at
>> war?
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]