Various Topics on Toyota

..oth.. ..m

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:13:44 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
>>
>> I can also remember the 200+ Marines being killed in Beruit under the
>> Reagan administration; Republicans did a good job at handling that; that
>> problem is certainly solved. USS Stark et al. I wonder why Hussein
>> wasn't finished off after Gulf War I? Apparently another lapse of
>> Republican judgement.
>
> I remeber the Iranians holding a bunch of Americans hostage (back in the
> Jimmy Carter era) for 400+ days, as soon as Reagan was innagurated,
> miraculously, all were released. Strange, huh?
>
>
>>
>> Scott, in your infinite partisanship you ***umed I am a democrat; i am a
>> moderate Republican I don't use 1) Big Business, 2) The Christian Right 3)
>> Neo-Conservatives to do my thinking.
>
>
> Wow , me either, except I'm not a moderate (fence setter, wishy washy,
> changes with wind, unsure of a position) I'm a conservative republican.
>>

Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled it.
Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.

..oth.. ..m

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:09:38 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
>>
>> It is this flag waving rhetoric that caused me to chastise the fund raiser
>> from the RNC.
>
>
> LOL, phony. So how did you take it when we had the buddist monks, and
> Charlie Tree, Riyadis and Chicoms giving to the democrat party? Kinda
> creepy when a communist country contributes to your party.
>
> I'm sure you were all over them chastizing the DNC, right?

No, because it was a discussion about my possibly donating to Bush's
re-election campaign. If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling. This has nothing to do
with the DNC; it has all to do with the "My way or the highway" attitudes
of the neo-conservatives in the administration.

When the RNC fundraiser called me, I told her I thought that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft were
"scary individuals" and I didn't think I would be supporting the party
this presidential election. I was immediately accused of "giving up on America".
So much for the Republican party of "inclusion" I told her that "this
type of talk" is what I find offensive about the entire party; I was
giving up on the party, not America.

It is odd that there is a growing number of Republican lawmakers concerned
about the record deficits; best they not raise the concerns else they will
be branded "liberals" and any reasonable discussion reduced to name
calling.

..oth.. ..m

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 04:47:48 +0000, Charks wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:58:36 +0000, Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Feb 2004 17:44:55 -0800, beguna@mindspring.com (Arthur Begun)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I actually wasn't looking for this. I was looking to see whether he
>>>> had said the danger is imminent. In fact he said we would not wait
>>>> until it was imminent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unlike the democrats that let people attack America (USS Cole etc
>>> etc) without doing their job.
>>>
>>> Because of the left (ie Demoncrats) being cowards and afraid to
>>> confront terrorists we ended up with 9/11.
>>>
>>> We now have a President that is not a weak kneed traitor and the War
>>> on Terror is being taken to the terrorists everywhere in the world.
>>>
>>> One of my boys is transporting Seals into areas you may never hear
>>> about. I would venture to say that there are a number of terrorists
>>> ***uming jungle temperature...
>>>
>>> ...Art....remember 9/11???
>>>
>>> We are at WAR, Art...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott in Florida
>>
>> It is this flag waving rhetoric that caused me to chastise the fund
>> raiser from the RNC. To try to pin a national tragedy on a
>> particular party is ludicrous and to suggest opposition to Bush's
>> stances is traitorous,
>> even if they might highlight "reasonable concerns" is equally
>> ludicrous.
>>
>> Perhaps the fact that we defend nations and prop up monarchies who
>> offer their people no hope of sharing in the wealth that we cart off
>> might be a root cause of 9/11.\
>
> NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING can justify what happened on 9/11, so spare me
> that ****ing liberal guilt trip, ***hole.

"Cause" does not mean "justification."

..T ..c..

Another Tom wrote:
>
> Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled it.
> Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.


I think you are thinking of an entire different deal Tom, you must be
pretty young?

All Reagan did to get the hostages release was to be inagurated. They
were petrified of what would happen and they knew "it would happen real
soon" if htey werent released. Same thing just happened to Lybia.

..T ..c..

Another Tom wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:09:38 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:
>
>
>>Another Tom wrote:
>>
>>>It is this flag waving rhetoric that caused me to chastise the fund raiser
>>>from the RNC.
>>
>>
>>LOL, phony. So how did you take it when we had the buddist monks, and
>>Charlie Tree, Riyadis and Chicoms giving to the democrat party? Kinda
>>creepy when a communist country contributes to your party.
>>
>>I'm sure you were all over them chastizing the DNC, right?
>
>
> No, because it was a discussion about my possibly donating to Bush's
> re-election campaign. If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
> just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling. This has nothing to do
> with the DNC; it has all to do with the "My way or the highway" attitudes
> of the neo-conservatives in the administration.
>
> When the RNC fundraiser called me, I told her I thought that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft were
> "scary individuals" and I didn't think I would be supporting the party
> this presidential election.

Tom, you've never supported anything but the liberal demonrat party.
Quit lying, well, try, your a demonrat.

Janet reno was scary, hur burning children in Waco, sendiing Elian back
to a communist dictator...

..e..

In article <bqXUb.14324$F23.13856@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
MDT Tech(R) <ssauer40@repairmen.com> wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled it.
> > Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.
>
>
> I think you are thinking of an entire different deal Tom, you must be
> pretty young?
>
> All Reagan did to get the hostages release was to be inagurated. They
> were petrified of what would happen and they knew "it would happen real
> soon" if htey werent released. Same thing just happened to Lybia.

Er, prove it? It's one thing to make-believe little bravado fairy tales
in your head like a little child, it's another thing to expose yourself
as doing so in public (if you were of average intelligence you'd be
embarr***ed), and another still to vote or otherwise support public
policy based on fairy tales in your childish little
black-and-white-world mind. You probably didn't even make them up
yourself; they were probably fed to you by someone else. Why are right
wingers so enamoured with power and domination, that they need to
concoct these little dramas? Do they feel that weak? Are they
compensating for something they're lacking in?

oh well,
Steve

..e..

In article <_ZEUb.10736$213.10110@edtnps89>,
"Charks" <Charks@Charkstank.com> wrote:

> Scott in Florida wrote:
> > On 5 Feb 2004 17:44:55 -0800, beguna@mindspring.com (Arthur Begun)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I actually wasn't looking for this. I was looking to see whether he
> >> had said the danger is imminent. In fact he said we would not wait
> >> until it was imminent.
> >>
> >
> > Unlike the democrats that let people attack America (USS Cole etc etc)
> > without doing their job.
> >
> > Because of the left (ie Demoncrats) being cowards and afraid to
> > confront terrorists we ended up with 9/11.
> >
> > We now have a President that is not a weak kneed traitor and the War
> > on Terror is being taken to the terrorists everywhere in the world.
> >
> > One of my boys is transporting Seals into areas you may never hear
> > about. I would venture to say that there are a number of terrorists
> > ***uming jungle temperature...
> >
> > ...Art....remember 9/11???
> >
> > We are at WAR, Art...
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott in Florida
>
> Liberal saps fail to accept that fact and the terrorists play on that sappy
> mentality.

So that explains why terrorists attacked with George W. Bush in office.
Guess they knew he'd invade Iraq if they did! Boy did they get theirs!
They messed with the wrong party!! whoo hoo!!! Nice to know you
right-wing brainiacs think Bush is a "liberal." I'd take a sappy
mentality over a teenaged dumb*** mentality any day. Do your parents
know you're online??

Normal people miss Clinton's (for all his faults) spreading American
values and prosperity around the globe--winning people's hearts and
minds, instead of creating new generations of terrorists the way George
W. Bush is.

Steve

..tri..

Beautifully put Steve.

I also agree that the Bush supporters here sound like scared little
children.

Patriot


"Steve" <steve@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:steve-62E642.10482607022004@news.east.cox.net...
> In article <bqXUb.14324$F23.13856@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net>,
> MDT Tech(R) <ssauer40@repairmen.com> wrote:
>
> > Another Tom wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled
it.
> > > Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.
> >
> >
> > I think you are thinking of an entire different deal Tom, you must be
> > pretty young?
> >
> > All Reagan did to get the hostages release was to be inagurated. They
> > were petrified of what would happen and they knew "it would happen real
> > soon" if htey werent released. Same thing just happened to Lybia.
>
> Er, prove it? It's one thing to make-believe little bravado fairy tales
> in your head like a little child, it's another thing to expose yourself
> as doing so in public (if you were of average intelligence you'd be
> embarr***ed), and another still to vote or otherwise support public
> policy based on fairy tales in your childish little
> black-and-white-world mind. You probably didn't even make them up
> yourself; they were probably fed to you by someone else. Why are right
> wingers so enamoured with power and domination, that they need to
> concoct these little dramas? Do they feel that weak? Are they
> compensating for something they're lacking in?
>
> oh well,
> Steve

..oth.. ..m

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:44:39 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I guess "negotiating with terrorists" is the way Reagan handled it.
>> Can we say "arms for hostages"; That certainly is a deterrant.
>
>
> I think you are thinking of an entire different deal Tom, you must be
> pretty young?
>
> All Reagan did to get the hostages release was to be inagurated. They
> were petrified of what would happen and they knew "it would happen real
> soon" if htey werent released. Same thing just happened to Lybia.


Apparently Lawrence Walsh wasted a lot of time in generating this report.
It is a public record.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/

..oth.. ..m

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:46:53 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:

> Another Tom wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:09:38 +0000, MDT Tech® wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Another Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is this flag waving rhetoric that caused me to chastise the fund raiser
>>>>from the RNC.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL, phony. So how did you take it when we had the buddist monks, and
>>>Charlie Tree, Riyadis and Chicoms giving to the democrat party? Kinda
>>>creepy when a communist country contributes to your party.
>>>
>>>I'm sure you were all over them chastizing the DNC, right?
>>
>>
>> No, because it was a discussion about my possibly donating to Bush's
>> re-election campaign. If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
>> just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling. This has nothing to do
>> with the DNC; it has all to do with the "My way or the highway" attitudes
>> of the neo-conservatives in the administration.
>>
>> When the RNC fundraiser called me, I told her I thought that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft were
>> "scary individuals" and I didn't think I would be supporting the party
>> this presidential election.
>
> Tom, you've never supported anything but the liberal demonrat party.
> Quit lying, well, try, your a demonrat.

>
> Janet reno was scary, hur burning children in Waco, sendiing Elian back
> to a communist dictator...

Please read "If all the RNC and you have to offer is "the DNC is
just as bad", I'm sorry that is not compelling." again.

The fact you frame all your speech towards opposing viewpoints with a contemptuous
tone (e.g. Quit lying..." and demorant 'sic'") I image the entire democratic
process must be a tremendous annoyance to you. This is why I am glad my
vote counts as much as yours. (I'm sure that's annoying to you as well)


The fact that you frame every