Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

playon said… > CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between > Iraq and 9/11" > THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly > insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the > attacks on September 11th.[2]

As did Edwards.  Go read his speech from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off your high horse, unless you’re going to blast both of them.  Otherwise, you’re in the same moral swamp as whomever you’re blasting.

Response:

>playon said… > CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between > Iraq and 9/11" > THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly > insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the > attacks on September 11th.[2] >As did Edwards.  Go read his speech >from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off >your high horse, unless you’re going >to blast both of them.  Otherwise, >you’re in the same moral swamp as >whomever you’re blasting.

At worst, Edwards was falling for the administration’s line of BS just like most of Congress — but Cheney was involved in *creating* it.   Edwards is on solid ground, Cheney is up to his lying mouth in quicksand.        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->playon said… >> CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between >> Iraq and 9/11" >> THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly >> insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the >> attacks on September 11th.[2] >As did Edwards.  Go read his speech >from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off >your high horse, unless you’re going >to blast both of them.  Otherwise, >you’re in the same moral swamp as >whomever you’re blasting. > At worst, Edwards was falling > for the administration’s line > of BS just like most of > Congress — but Cheney was > involved in *creating* it. > Edwards is on solid ground, > Cheney is up to his lying > mouth in quicksand.

Ban cotton!!!!! When you see the dust mites that live in the lint collected in your navel, you are going to take a shit. In the mean time, a drop of kerosene on that cotton will kill them little bastards DEAD. BTW, a drop of kerosene on a small cotton ball will lubricate and cure a ticking vibrato problem in most amplifiers too. Not to mention, a rubbing voice coil in a speaker too. There are many great uses for kerosene and cotton. Just remember to never use cotton shirts, to avoid lint collection in your navel. Navel rot is running rampant through our population. <thinking> I almost forgot, those with navel piercings, are at greater RISK of infection!!!!! Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,        Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >playon said… > >> CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between > >> Iraq and 9/11" > >> THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly > >> insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the > >> attacks on September 11th.[2] > >As did Edwards.  Go read his speech > >from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off > >your high horse, unless you’re going > >to blast both of them.  Otherwise, > >you’re in the same moral swamp as > >whomever you’re blasting. > At worst, Edwards was falling > for the administration’s line > of BS just like most of > Congress — but Cheney was > involved in *creating* it. > Edwards is on solid ground, > Cheney is up to his lying > mouth in quicksand. >Ban cotton!!!!! >When you see the dust mites that live in the lint collected in your navel, you are going to take a >shit. >In the mean time, a drop of kerosene on that cotton will kill them little bastards DEAD. >BTW, a drop of kerosene on a small cotton ball will lubricate and cure a ticking vibrato problem in >most amplifiers too. >Not to mention, a rubbing voice coil in a speaker too. >There are many great uses for kerosene and cotton. >Just remember to never use cotton shirts, to avoid lint collection in your navel. >Navel rot is running rampant through our population. ><thinking> >I almost forgot, those with navel piercings, are at greater RISK of infection!!!!!

There are 1,054 American lives cut short because of the lying you "think" is a joke, Rich — but somehow Clinton lying about a BJ is what provokes your rage and all Dumber’nyuh crew’s lies about non-existent WMDs, phony "liberation," and a so-called homeland security effort that hasn’t spent a quarter of the cost of invading and occupying Iraq since 9/11/01 — and most of that money was already allocated before 9/11 — are funny to you? So, you do enjoy having your country’s leaders lie us into a meatgrinder while having no effect whatsoever on international terrorism?   Do you think it’s part of the president’s job description to govern by deception and fear?  How do you manage to stay bent-over like that — have you found a really great chiropractor or what?        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response:

>There are 1,054 American >lives cut short because >of the lying you "think" >is a joke, Rich — but >somehow Clinton lying >about a BJ is what >provokes your rage and >all Dumber’nyuh crew’s >lies about non-existent >WMDs

FYI … Bush and his "crew" did not *lie* about WMD’s.  They simply repeated what they thought were facts that were passed on to them by our intelligence sources and by intelligence sources from the governments of other countries. In fact, you can’t even show that *ANYONE* within our government accurately knew otherwise … If you are going to call Bush a liar, you may as well call your two Johns liars, as well. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …" Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 ""Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "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 Should I go on?  I’m sure I can dig up quite a few more by JoKe and his puppet, John-Boy Edwards.   The simple fact that you claim this while knowing better makes you a liar. Stomp your feet and feign being "hurt" or "insulted", but someone who tells a lie is a liar. Main Entry: [4]lie Function: noun Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive Precisely what you just did. And since you brought him up (AGAIN!!!) …. "And from Dick Morris, about his years in the inner circle at the Clinton White House: "Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration’s supporters, Janet Reno’s objections, considerations of costs, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism." One can argue that 3,000 lives were cut short due to frivolous preoccupation of the Clintoon Administration. Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian

Response:

>Bush and his "crew" did not *lie* about WMD’s.  They simply repeated >what they thought were facts that were passed on to them by our intelligence >sources and by intelligence sources from the governments of other countries.

Bullshit. There was a concerted effort by Cheney et al to disregard anything that didn’t agree with their preconceived notions and support their desire to invade Iraq. They refused to look at any of the myriad of intelligence sources that were telling them that Saddam had no WMD. They lied through their teeth.

Response:

> >Bush and his "crew" did not *lie* about WMD’s.  They simply repeated >what they thought were facts that were passed on to them by our intelligence >sources and by intelligence sources from the governments of other countries. > Bullshit. There was a concerted effort by Cheney et al to disregard anything > that didn’t agree with their preconceived notions and support their desire to > invade Iraq. They refused to look at any of the myriad of intelligence sources > that were telling them that Saddam had no WMD. They lied through their teeth.

You know, I your logic calculator seems to be in calibration. I’m getting freaking tired of those making claims, like "They Lied", followed with the characterization, and not a direct quote of the lie in question. THIS, is a case of one getting stuck with the responsibility, and the other on the outside free to criticize and characterize, the one holding the responsibility. Kerry has the unique advantage of being the outside critic, doing the Monday morning quarterbacking BS. Based on what was in front of both Kerry and Bush, BOTH agreed on the same intel, at the same time, as did other governments. SORRY, I ain’t buying any of this shit. Now, all I hear is Kerry singing Bush’s song. Wow, imagine that. But, he wants to work with other countries, yet says NO, to a pink slip from the UN. If the tables were turned, would the situation be anymore correct!!!!!!! Now, since you think my post was a joke…… let’s paste a little thing you did not bring with you here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between >> Iraq and 9/11" >> THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly >> insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the >> attacks on September 11th.[2] >As did Edwards.  Go read his speech >from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off >your high horse, unless you’re going >to blast both of them.  Otherwise, >you’re in the same moral swamp as >whomever you’re blasting. > At worst, Edwards was falling > for the administration’s line > of BS just like most of > Congress — but Cheney was > involved in *creating* it.   > Edwards is on solid ground, > Cheney is up to his lying > mouth in quicksand.

So, you have those in the news, editorial, Op Ed, (Hi Ed <wink>) mass media all trying to pull a Dan Rather, and scoop the next guy.  You know, the wanna be’s after http://www.drudge.com/ You guys just cut and paste these ass hole views to support your man, or raised issue. The bottom line to me is, there is nothing different that Kerry could have done, and not repeat what Bush did, if he has National Security in the forefront. You HAD to go after Saddam, to open up his shell game.  Even the inspectors could NOT say, there were NO WMD’s anywhere in Iraq. We are in Iraq, not because of Bush, but because of the actions of Saddam Hussein, himself ONLY!!! Had he not fucked with the world, we’d not be in Iraq!!!!! Clinton did before Bush, what you claim Bush did.  And, on a no bid, who the freaking hell was there to bid against Haliburton. Who the hell could do it better and cheaper the Haliburton on a placed bid!!!!!!! <thinking> I don’t have the time to waste going through the whole bunch of crap Kerry has puked up in the media!!!!!! He’s just another rich ass mother fu_king lefty Liar Bull Shit Artist, with his finger in the wind, His voting record is out there, and it does not match up with the crap he pukes up in the media. <thinking> One last point, then I’m back to work. I don’t hear a lot of FACTS from the Kerry camp.   All I hear is a shit pile of characterization, in your end doe, and shit slinging. That shit never came out of the Bush camp. Character assignation is all you guys are good at. Like the way the NRA was slammed for wanting cop killer bullets, and wants the streets filled with assault guns. Your fight against street crime, through fostering gun paranoia in the media, paints the law abiding citizen as being a gun lover/nut case of high irresponsibility, and this places you at risk of life, because of such. So, all of the 20,000+ hand gun laws has gotten us, is a gun paranoid public at large, who thinks these laws really made them safer, and 911’s call to Duddly Doo Right, is going to save the Just like the quote of New Jersey’s finest lefty paranoid  Wing Nut,….. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/44094… http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2003729742.html And, this one, takes the cake!!!!!!! Doesn’t he get it!!!!!!! LOL, the terrorist, like the criminal, is not scared off by any freaking law. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/18/terrorists.guns/ They, freaking just could not give a shit.  They have their own source for them.  They ain’t going to Joe’s Gun Shop to get ‘em. All these gun laws have done, is taken away the ability for the common man to defend himself.  We are a disarmed public, at the mercy of the criminal, and now,….  the terrorist. This just flies in the face of sound thinking and logic. Case Closed. BTW, I missed the debate. Had to work, and had customers in all day long. The wife forgot to tape it for me. Oh well, back to work. When I see this kind of thing, Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,        Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers

Response:

http://flipflops.compassiongate.com/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Bush and his "crew" did not *lie* about WMD’s.  They simply repeated > >what they thought were facts that were passed on to them by our intelligence > >sources and by intelligence sources from the governments of other countries. > Bullshit. There was a concerted effort by Cheney et al to disregard anything > that didn’t agree with their preconceived notions and support their desire to > invade Iraq. They refused to look at any of the myriad of intelligence sources > that were telling them that Saddam had no WMD. They lied through their teeth. >You know, I your logic calculator seems to be in calibration. >I’m getting freaking tired of those making claims, like "They Lied", followed with the >characterization, and not a direct quote of the lie in question.

Where have you been the last couple of years, Rich?  The above is like saying "You guys keep telling me the sky is blue without offering any proof."  Colin Powell got up in front of the U.N. and publicly presented phony evidence to justify invading Iraq — how much more obvious does it have to get before you’ll be man enough to admit you’ve been duped? >THIS, is a case of one getting stuck with the responsibility, and the other on the outside free to >criticize and characterize, the one holding the responsibility.

That’s the burden of incumbency — Dumber’nyuh’s not an unknown anymore, it’s now common knowledge that he’s both dishonest and incompetent.  He’s obviously bungled his responsibility, the only question left is whether Kerry is a reasonable risk as an alternative — I think that’s a slam-dunk yes, ymmv.  Presidential reelection campains have always been referendums on the incumbent — even our greatest wartime president barely got a second term because the outcome of the Civil War was still in doubt in the minds of many voters when he ran, and Dumber’nyuh is no Lincoln! >Kerry has the unique advantage of being the outside critic, doing the Monday morning quarterbacking >BS.

Same goes for any challenger — but we do elect challengers when the incumbent’s performance is judged deficient.  Look up Carter, Jimmy and Bush, George H.W. for recent examples — neither got a second term because neither performed well enough to deserve one! >Based on what was in front of both Kerry and Bush, BOTH agreed on the same intel, at the same time, >as did other governments.

Except Kerry was presented with cooked intelligence while Dumber’nyuh’s people were the ones cooking it — big funkin’ difference! >SORRY, I ain’t buying any of this shit. >Now, all I hear is Kerry singing Bush’s song. >Wow, imagine that.

He’s always been strong that way — ask Sen. McCain.  There’s no contradiction between being anti-terrorist and against a bloody failure of an irrelevant war — a chief executive’s #1 job is prioritization, and Dumber’nyuh’s are way out of whack! >But, he wants to work with other countries, yet says NO, to a pink slip from the UN.

Exactly right — and exactly the way every U.S. president has worked for almost a century.  Working with other countries won two world wars and the cold war, working alone has never resulted in success in a non-trivial conflict.  Want to invade Granada or nab Noriega alone — that’s fine.  Want to occupy a vast country with 25 million people, many of them hostile, alone — that’s a recipe for disaster. >If the tables were turned, would the situation be anymore correct!!!!!!!

Absolutely — Kerry would have put Iraq on the back burner where it belonged and concentrated our effort and resources on Al Qaeda were they belonged.  There was no urgency to deal with Iraq, that was invented because this president wanted to invade Iraq way before 9/11/01 — the attacks of that day, with a little booster shot form lies and exaggerations, just made his ambitions tenable politically – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Now, since you think my post was a joke…… let’s paste a little thing you did not bring with you >here. > >> CHENEY’S MISLEAD: "I have not suggested there’s a connection between > >> Iraq and 9/11" > >> THE TRUTH: As the Washington Post reports today, Cheney has repeatedly > >> insinuated and "strongly suggested" that Saddam Hussein was behind the > >> attacks on September 11th.[2] > >As did Edwards.  Go read his speech > >from Sept 12, 2002.  So get off > >your high horse, unless you’re going > >to blast both of them.  Otherwise, > >you’re in the same moral swamp as > >whomever you’re blasting. > At worst, Edwards was falling > for the administration’s line > of BS just like most of > Congress — but Cheney was > involved in *creating* it.   > Edwards is on solid ground, > Cheney is up to his lying > mouth in quicksand. >So, you have those in the news, editorial, Op Ed, (Hi Ed <wink>) mass media all trying to pull a Dan >Rather, and scoop the next guy.  You know, the wanna be’s after http://www.drudge.com/

Matt Drudge is a funkin’ gossip monger — he’ll print any rumor he thinks will build site traffic. >You guys just cut and paste these ass hole views to support your man, or raised issue.

Mostly, I post reports — when I post an editorial, what it is is clearly stated. >The bottom line to me is, there is nothing different that Kerry could have done, and not repeat what >Bush did, if he has National Security in the forefront.

Absolute bullshit — Iraq was a phony priority at a time when we had *much* more important fish to fry, fish that are still swimming around uncaught! >You HAD to go after Saddam, to open up his shell game.  Even the inspectors could NOT say, there >were NO WMD’s anywhere in Iraq.

Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.  There was virtually zero risk in putting off dealing with Saddam Hussein indefinitely — if there was any real danger, his mideast neighbors would have supported us like they did in Gulf War I.  In terms of terrorism against the U.S., Iraq was a big fat zero. >We are in Iraq, not because of Bush, but because of the actions of Saddam Hussein, himself ONLY!!!

Dumber’nyuh made the decision to invade an unrelated country when the U.S. was under threat from elsewhere — that on him, and he should pay for it with his job! >Had he not fucked with the world, we’d not be in Iraq!!!!!

On that we agree — but not on the verdict. >Clinton did before Bush, what you claim Bush did.  And, on a no bid, who the freaking hell was there >to bid against Haliburton.

It’s a matter of scale, Rich — past a certain amount you simply do not award a contract without bidding.  There’s no reason the work couldn’t have been spread around to several companies — that would have stood a chance of keeping them honest! >Who the hell could do it better and cheaper the Haliburton on a placed bid!!!!!!!

Like I said, there was no reason to put all the eggs in the Halliburton basket — the world is full of companies who’d have gladly bid. [meandering snipped]        Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access              >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Response: