Support Sharon Angle
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 22 Jul 2010 17:49 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:18:56 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote: >On Jul 22, 1:16�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky >> >> >> >> >> >> <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: >> >On Jul 21, 9:58�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:19:30 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky >> >> >> <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 21, 7:33�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky >> >> >> >> <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> >I don't doubt there was some corruption in Bush's administration >> >> >> >too... or any other for that matter. Has nothing to do do with my >> >> >> >party or which is in power. Wasn't Bush/Cheney accused of giving large >> >> >> >contracts to their buddies? >> >> >> >> � My position is that Obama himself, not someone in his >> >> >> administration, is not corrupt. >> >> >> >> I don't think Bush, himself, was corrupt. � >> >> >> >> I do think that Cheney is, and was. >> >> >> >> BK >> >> >> >In that case, he surrounded himself with corruption... complicity. >> >> >> I really think that he was so unaware that he had no idea what they >> >> were doing. Cheney and company used him. �I don't see Bush as a bad >> >> guy, just inept. >> >> >I meant Obamma (moreso than Bush). >> >> That doesn't make sense Dudley. �In what case? >> >> BK > >I'll try to be clearer... >If Obama isn't corrupt, but he appointed a load of corrupt people to >his administration... then he's responsible for corruption in his >administration. That can be said about any sitting president. Now let's see proof that any of them appointed a load of corrupt people to their administrations. Puffery without fact. BK
From: bknight on 22 Jul 2010 17:50 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:19:43 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote: >On Jul 22, 1:18�pm, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT), dsc-ky >> >> <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: >> >> �Then it went to WMDs, >> >> which we all know now to be untrue. >> >> >Well, we sure didn't find any... whether that is conclusive proof or >> >not that they never existed? I don't know? SH was a very bad guy... >> >should have been killed when we were there in 91... >> >> He was our buddy then. �We have a history of backing bad guys, then >> turning on them. >> >> BK > >Then we should have turned sooner... ....or not helped them in the first place. BK
From: MNMikeW on 22 Jul 2010 17:52 <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message news:6teh46lub9c8d66b00erj2obavr1vc1qsp(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > wrote: > >> >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>news:k46h46tkt4v0j0c7mfi72hjuqnv4idf4as(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B." >>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jul 22, 1:02 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Well, my opinion is that removing Saddam was a good thing for the >>>>> region. >>>>> The timing is debatable but I believe we would have had to do it >>>>> eventually >>>>> anyway. I think Saddam did indeed have WMDs, but they were moved >>>>> elsewhere >>>>> before the invasion. >>>> >>>>A good thing for the region? So, we went to war there to make life >>>>better for Iran and Syria? Where do you suppose the WMD was moved to? >>> >>> A better question is where was our CIA spy planes when they were >>> moving all of this equipment? There were no WMDS. >>> >>> BK >> >>The truck convoys were photographed by satellite in 2002. >> > There were reports of such to Syria, but never confirmed by our > intelligence sources. There were no WMDS. > > BK They were confirmed.
From: bknight on 22 Jul 2010 18:06 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:52:59 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >news:6teh46lub9c8d66b00erj2obavr1vc1qsp(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >>>news:k46h46tkt4v0j0c7mfi72hjuqnv4idf4as(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B." >>>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Jul 22, 1:02 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Well, my opinion is that removing Saddam was a good thing for the >>>>>> region. >>>>>> The timing is debatable but I believe we would have had to do it >>>>>> eventually >>>>>> anyway. I think Saddam did indeed have WMDs, but they were moved >>>>>> elsewhere >>>>>> before the invasion. >>>>> >>>>>A good thing for the region? So, we went to war there to make life >>>>>better for Iran and Syria? Where do you suppose the WMD was moved to? >>>> >>>> A better question is where was our CIA spy planes when they were >>>> moving all of this equipment? There were no WMDS. >>>> >>>> BK >>> >>>The truck convoys were photographed by satellite in 2002. >>> >> There were reports of such to Syria, but never confirmed by our >> intelligence sources. There were no WMDS. >> >> BK > >They were confirmed. > BS Mike. They were NOT confirmed by our intelligence sources . You'll not find any cite to say so. There were some Iraqi scientists who said that, but were dismissed because it was suspected that they were trying to separate themselves from Saddam. BK
From: John B. on 22 Jul 2010 18:28
On Jul 22, 4:56 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:431708b5-f9ff-49d1-ab14-2b3c84176568(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 21, 12:07 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > <bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >news:v8jd46h1tk0ap2ckbe4dbfcrh8rtqa05fh(a)4ax.com...> On 21 Jul 2010 > > 10:16:16 GMT, Moderate <nos...(a)nomail.com> wrote: > > > >>The Obama economy is much worse than the Bush economy. > > > > He's doing his best to stem the Bush economy free fall that got us > > > here. > > > If this is Obamas best, we are totally fucked. Obama has no clue > > whatsoever > > about the economy. > > Unlike those brilliant economists McCain and Palin. > *********************************************** > > They could not be worse than Obama. They could and they would. |