Another Attempt To Hinder GA

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message
...
The democrats have been pressuring to create a department of
Homeland Security for years.

Ahh, I see. That's why we had eight years with a Democrat President without
a DHS being created?

You can make whatever claims you want about who wanted a DHS, the fact
remains it was Bush who presided over the creation of the DHS, not any other
President.

Pete

Ahh, I see. That's why we had eight years with a Democrat President
without a DHS being created?

You can make whatever claims you want about who wanted a DHS, the fact
remains it was Bush who presided over the creation of the DHS, not any
other President.

Pete




And it was President Bush that was served the most heinous Terrorist
attack that this country has ever seen.

You play the cards your delt and you deal with it effectively.. like you
got a pair...

------------------

The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting idly
by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:

1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New
York City, killing six people and injuring thousands

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
June 25, 1996, terrorists attacked the U.S. military complex and Khobar
Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding hundreds more

1998 Embassy Bombings
Aug. 7, 1998, terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 258 people. More than 5,000 were
injured.

2000 USS Cole Bombing
Oct. 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole as it sat in the Yemeni
port of Aden. The bomb killed 17 U.S. sailors. American officials
quickly linked the attack to bin Laden and al-Qaeda

-----------

Thank you President Bush for finally saying enough is enough. And when
AMERICANS are murdered on your watch we get action, not enablement.

FACT: Since Bush and DHS (With its flaws as any Gov agency has) no
attacks on American Soil... the fight is on their turf and our people
are safer today because of his action.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

You say that as though we are safer now than we were before.

Nothing that has been implemented that restricts my flying in any way
improves security for this country. Precious little of ANY of the DHS
activities improve security for this country, and much of what Bush
has overseen has decreased security for this country by increasing
global hostility toward us.

And you think they hated us any less or wanted to hug us on Sept 10th?
Wake up sir.


I never thought that before. If you have so little imagination that
the only solution you can think of is to turn ourselves into a police
state, then you are beyond help.



Pete, I've been a card carrying member of the GOP for 15 years now. I
fight and demand for my freedoms that this great country has blessed us
with. Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
restrictions. But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
to be delt with. So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
on topic )then I fly around it. At least I have the freedom to fly and
not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while I eat
a pizza before I go up.

Freedom isn't free.

"FullName" wrote in message
...
And you think they hated us any less or wanted to hug us on Sept 10th?
Wake up sir.

Yes, I *do* believe that more people in the world hate us today than did on
September 10th. You wake up yourself (and if you want your opinion to count
for something, quit hiding behind your anonymous fake name and address).

Pete, I've been a card carrying member of the GOP for 15 years now. I
fight and demand for my freedoms that this great country has blessed us
with. Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
restrictions.

That might have been true, in a time long ago. It is clearly not true
today. I suppose if you've only been involved with the Republican party for
15 years, that might be lost on you though.

But wake up.. the world has changed, evil exists and it has
to be delt with.

Wake up? Again with that? Uh, right.

So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
on topic )then I fly around it.

There's not a single TFR that actually succeeds in protecting whatever it is
supposed to protect. Even the 30 mile TFR that follows the President around
is useless.

I don't might a security measure as long as a) it doesn't violate my
Constitutional rights, and b) it actually DOES SOMETHING GOOD.

At least I have the freedom to fly and
not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while I eat
a pizza before I go up.

Freedom isn't free.

In your world, freedom apparently isn't freedom either.

Pete

"Doug" wrote in message
...
The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting idly
by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:

A little jealous that none of your Republicans are getting laid? Here's a
clue-by-four for you: get over it. If you think Clinton was the first
President to have an extra-marital affair, or the first to do so in the
White House, you are incredibly naive.

1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New
York City, killing six people and injuring thousands

Heh...yeah, right. It's all Clinton's fault, even though he was only in
office a month.

In any case, none of the bombings you mention resulted in our Constitutional
rights being taken away. I fail to see what your point is, unless it's to
prove my point for me.

FACT: Since Bush and DHS (With its flaws as any Gov agency has) no
attacks on American Soil... the fight is on their turf and our people
are safer today because of his action.

It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in the
distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades *prior* to
the creation of the DHS. Lack of attacks is in no way proof of the efficacy
of the DHS.

Back to logic class for you.

Pete

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in the
distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades *prior*
to
the creation of the DHS.

1993 WTC bombing wasn't an attack on US soil?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

FullName wrote

Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
restrictions.

How do you reconcile the "less Government" part of that assertion with
the fact that the size of government has grown, not shrunk, during the
Bush presidency (e.g. the new prescription drug entitlement pushed
through by Bush)? And with a Republican House and Senate to boot.

Dunno what planet you think you're on if you actually believe
Republicans as a group want to shrink the size of government.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

Yes, I *do* believe that more people in the world hate us today than
did on September 10th. You wake up yourself (and if you want your
opinion to count for something, quit hiding behind your anonymous fake
name and address).


Ok, I can see you point. Im sure there are more that hate us today. Like
the French, Germans adn Russians for us stopping their billions in illegal
UN oil for food money. Guess Russia now sees what terror actually means,
a shame that so many children and the innocent had to die. Interesting
isn't it? they were so against the war and yet the Islamo-facists STILL
killed their children, blew 2 planes out of the sky and blew up a subway.
And they were not even in Iraq... (guess there goes ALL your reasoning)

Lets see who else is more mad at us today...

Like the palenstinean murders that are no longer getting their blood money
from Saddam.

Like the taliban that no longer have a seat of opression of 25 million
people.

Like Abu Abbas who no longer has safe haven in baghada after murding a
wheel chair bound man and dumping his body overboard.

Like al-queda leader Al-zarqui who no longer gets Iraqi state sponsored
medical treatment for his battle wounds.

Like the thousands of Saddam loyalist and thugs that no long can oppress,
rape, torture and kill their own countrymen. But yet.. sadly they find
ways to continue it still today. Through their mortars, IEDs and car
bombs. But thanks to self-loathers and America haters like yourself you
feed poision into our countries resolve and they get stronger with each
word you type. Stand behind them folks there Pete.. sure your families
real proud of that.

--
and to summarize, chew me..you do not decide or dictate how I express
myself, I will post as I choose. You may like your free viagra samples and
kiddie porn e-mail but I do not.



That might have been true, in a time long ago. It is clearly not true
today. I suppose if you've only been involved with the Republican
party for 15 years, that might be lost on you though.

Again couldnt agree with you more. My guess is that our great President is
beating the democrats to the entitlement punch. MANY conservitives like
myself are completely against many liberal issues he has produced (medicare
bondoggle for one)



Wake up? Again with that? Uh, right.

Snappy come back champ. We will then agree that there IS EVIL and it HAS
to be dealt with.




So if that means I have to fly around a TFR (keeping us
on topic )then I fly around it.

There's not a single TFR that actually succeeds in protecting whatever
it is supposed to protect. Even the 30 mile TFR that follows the
President around is useless.

Have you tested that theory? I can only imagine but if there is a radar
contact within the presidents TFR that is *not* supposed to be there then
Im sure there will be a few stinger missles produced from the trunks of the
motorcade... Care to prove my point?



I don't might a security measure as long as a) it doesn't violate my
Constitutional rights, and b) it actually DOES SOMETHING GOOD.

Prove to me where the changes that the President has lead us on havent done
any good. I can show you that they have.




At least I have the freedom to fly and
not worry about someone strapping on a bomb and wasting my ass while
I eat a pizza before I go up.

Freedom isn't free.

sniped ridiclous comment

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Doug" wrote in message
...
The last 8 years you speak of with NO DHS..you have Clinton sitting
idly by getting a BJ and "stuffing cigars" while:

A little jealous that none of your Republicans are getting laid?
Here's a clue-by-four for you: get over it. If you think Clinton was
the first President to have an extra-marital affair, or the first to
do so in the White House, you are incredibly naive.


Just like a liberal, gotta redirect to the sex thing. Apologize if I
was not more clear but the point was (and I'll type extra slow for you)
is that Clinton had other things on his mind then the security of the
United States. No one is suggesting he was the first to have an affair,
but he was the FIRST sitting president to be found GUILTY of PURJURY.
So no, I cannot get over the President LYING under OATH while our
country was systematically ATTACKED by Terrorists. And to re-direct us
all from his PERJURY and MONICA while he wagged the dog and killed
thousands of SERBS (who were fighting the Islamo-facists btw...) from
20,000 feet.. and you probably didnt say a thing.



1993 World Trade Center Bombing:
Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in
New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands

Heh...yeah, right. It's all Clinton's fault, even though he was only
in office a month.

hey, never said it was his fault that it was bombed... as it was not
Bushes fault that Sept 11th happened. It was his fault that NO action
was taken.. after the FIRST Trade Cetner attack, he warned Americans
against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the
bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

four more DEADLY attacks on Americans and our intrest were done while on
his watch.. Cumulating sadly on Sept 11th.

And the list goes on... you cannot deny it.


In any case, none of the bombings you mention resulted in our
Constitutional rights being taken away. I fail to see what your point
is, unless it's to prove my point for me.


what rights? Have you read the patriot act? the SAME act and LAWS that
we use against drug Dealers today... where were your "concerns" then?
Did you have them?

even so, nothing was done and PEOPLE DIED in ATTACK after ATTACK. Is
your point that your percived rights are more important then the
thousands killed while nothing was done.




It's unfortunate that you will eat those words, and probably not in
the distance future. We had no attacks on American soil for decades
*prior* to the creation of the DHS.

WRONG, get your facts:
1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000;
President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured
5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
punished

2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S.
sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down
and punished.

And before you lip off...
Embassies and Naval ships are considered Sovereign territory, so legally
yes they were on American Soil... Don't even make me get into McVeigh
and his domestic terrorism.. On Clintons watch.


Back to reality for you

Your pal,
-Doug

(Jim Rosinski) wrote in
om:

FullName wrote

Remember, it's the GOP that wants less Government and less
restrictions.

How do you reconcile the "less Government" part of that assertion with
the fact that the size of government has grown, not shrunk, during the
Bush presidency (e.g. the new prescription drug entitlement pushed
through by Bush)? And with a Republican House and Senate to boot.

Dunno what planet you think you're on if you actually believe
Republicans as a group want to shrink the size of government.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

Jim,
Planet Earth thanks, and having a 1 seat Senate majority in pushing
through a Liberal give-away entitlement isn't so hard. Bush is pandering to
those with their hand out in this country, folks that he hopes he will lure
away from the Grand-daddies of entitlement Dems... not going to happen and
should have never been done.

And yes as there are Pete-itots out there that sit on the far side of the
liberal see-saw there are too many so called "republicnas" that are near
that end with them. However there are still those in party, the
consertitive base, that believe that this is one path the Presdient should
not take.