Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
sometime has to put up the record.

The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
Rove.

No WMD's

Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!

Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
< Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.

And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?

See how dum conspiracy theories are?

There's NO winning this word-war.

So get back to Mustangs.
- - - - -- -
And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.

The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

Aren't conspiracy theories great? They just had one on how we couldn't
possible have sent men to the moon and had them return safely and
alive. The same people who say this are some of the same people who
say we have aliens at Area 51 who have been helping us with our space
program since 1947 when they crashed near Roswell. : )

Is it X-Files? Or is it Memorex?

I think it's a conspiracy by GM to undermine the work Ford has done in
developing systems which were used in the space program.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:24:50 GMT, Backyard Mechanic
> wrote:

>Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
>sometime has to put up the record.
>
>The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
>say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
>offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
>Rove.
>
>No WMD's
>
>Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
>Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
>Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
>< Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
>And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
>See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
>There's NO winning this word-war.
>
>So get back to Mustangs.
>- - - - -- -
>And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
>the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
>with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
>The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

Around 8/12/2005 8:24 AM, Backyard Mechanic wrote:

Subject: Again: Keep the #$%# politics off here!

....And off you go into a political rant. Oh, the irony.


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /

Your brain is a weapon of mass desrtruction...



Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
> sometime has to put up the record.
>
> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
> Rove.
>
> No WMD's
>
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
> There's NO winning this word-war.
>
> So get back to Mustangs.
> - - - - -- -
> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
> the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
> with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

One last thought;

Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you
believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why
dont you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'.

P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to
go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said;
SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go get him.


Backyard Mechanic wrote:

> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
> sometime has to put up the record.
>
> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus to
> Rove.
>
> No WMD's
>
> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could keep
> Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>
> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every OTHER
> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>
> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>
> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>
> There's NO winning this word-war.
>
> So get back to Mustangs.
> - - - - -- -
> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out that
> the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing to do
> with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>
> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

wrote:

> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to
> go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said;
> SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go get him.

It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't have
signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the support,
a link to terrorism had to be established/created.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

wrote in
oups.com:

> wrote:
>
>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
>> get him.
>
> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra

Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
conjured up the justification to invade Iraq? Just checking..

National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their
life on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by
their own contract.


Santiago v. Rumsfeld

The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when
his eight-year enlistment ran out.

A federal appeals court backed the military in keeping thousands of men and
women in uniform and often in combat even though their enlistments are
supposed to be over. Santiago's attorney, Steven Goldberg, failed to
convince the court that the law governing the president's stop-loss
authority allows him to involuntarily extend soldiers beyond their
enlistment time only if they are on active duty -- and not simply notified
of the possibility that they might be called up to active duty.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, about 50,000 soldiers have been
subjected to stop loss, according to Lt. Col Bryan Hilferty, an Army
spokesman. Currently, 14,000 soldiers are affected by stop loss. And 412
members of the 4,200-member Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat
Team, which recently returned from a year in Iraq, had their enlistments
involuntarily extended.
The courts have recognized that a federal statute authorizing mobilization
of reservists trumps a contrary interpretation of an enlistment document."

Seems the government has won the battle on this one, but in the process they
may well have lost the war. They may be able to forcibly keep the personal
they have, but in so doing, they are making it damn hard to get new
personnel.




> wrote in message ...
>
> One last thought;
>
> Guard/Army recruitment is down (unless thats another lie). Since you
> believe in what your current administration is doing so strongly, why dont
> you enlist and walk patrol with the rest of the people 'over there'.
>
> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had to go.
> IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have simply said; SH is
> bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go get him.
>
>
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>
>> Everytime we see a LIB come on here with the same old tired lies., then
>> sometime has to put up the record.
>>
>> The 16 words in the State of the Union... since proven that British STILL
>> say that, Clarke twisted the thing because he was pi%%ed that he wasnt
>> offered the big job, and Wilson flat out lied... so he shifts the focus
>> to Rove.
>>
>> No WMD's
>>
>> Short reason: SH got rid of them because he realized his units could use
>> them against him, so he acted as though he STILL had them, so he could
>> keep Iran et al at bay... Miscalculation!
>>
>> Evidence: Duelfer; more evidence, the new Chem suits found at >Every
>> OTHER
>> < Republican Guard unit! Each thought the next unit had them.
>>
>> And if Dubya and the CIA KNEW there weren't any, why didnt we find them?
>>
>> See how dum conspiracy theories are?
>>
>> There's NO winning this word-war.
>>
>> So get back to Mustangs.
>> - - - - -- -
>> And if you think I'm on here just to zing Libs, I'd like to point out
>> that the charity funds being shifted to finance Air America had nothing
>> to do with AA, it was the guy that was on both boards who was at fault.
>>
>> The big scandal there is that the NY Times wouldnt report it.

"Joe" > done said:

> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.: As contradictory as this sounds, I actually agree that SH had
>>> to go. IMO it would have been alot better if Dubya would have
>>> simply said; SH is bad, and he has to ****ing go, so we're gonna go
>>> get him.
>>
>> It wasn't presented that way because the American public wouldn't
>> have signed on. The public wanted revenge for 911. So to get the
>> support, a link to terrorism had to be established/created.
>
> Patrick, are you saying the current administration pretty much
> conjured up the justification to invade Iraq?


The justification was "conjured up" by the prior administration with the "Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338).

A Course Set by Congress
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A23
The Washington Post

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq
didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days
of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House.
Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's
ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a
democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats
of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative
Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a
vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the
House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and
six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill
Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the
time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of
law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world
without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on
Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated
Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by
Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Mar7.html


> Just checking..

With all the political obfuscation going on, it's good to check one's facts to
separate nonsense from reality. This is especially true for those amongst us
with very short memories or who willingly lap up whatever the bleating
partisans tell them.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/

"351CJ" > done said:

> National Guard and Army Reserve, actually military wide, recruitment is down
> for many reasons, I believe one of the most significant reasons for this
> military wide recruitment glut is their stop-loss "extending enlistment"
> policy. Who the hell wants to enter into a contract with and put their life
> on the line for a government who decides they DO NOT have to abide by their
> own contract.
>
> Santiago v. Rumsfeld
>
> The 9th Circuit is the highest court yet to consider the legality of how the
> administration is carrying out its "stop-loss" policy of involuntary
> extension of soldiers' enlistment. Sgt. Emiliano Santiago of the Oregon
> National Guard accused the Bush administration of subjecting him to an
> illegal, "backdoor draft" by telling him he could not leave the Army when his
> eight-year enlistment ran out.


There is no "backdoor draft," and there are not contract-breaking "extended
enlistments." Every service members willingly and voluntarily signs a contract
that says the military can keep them as long as they are needed.

It's difficult for me, especially as a veteran, to have sympathy for people who
sign contracts without knowing exactly what that contract requires of them.



- Max -
=======
Would you believe this man has gone as far
as tearing Dubya stickers off the bumpers of cars,
and he voted for John F. Kerry for President?
http://hometown.aol.com/maxx2112/

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!
http://www.cafepress.com/justsaynoto6to5/