"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

Maybe they will try Clinton for that as soon as they try
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for lying us into two fake wars.
History will show that Bush et al failed America in those dark days.

I understand your feelings for the scores killed at Waco. Now if only
you could work up some sympathy for the *thousands* of American troops
and *tens of thousands* of civilians maimed and killed by W's folly.

On 4/24/2010 6:51 PM, Cicero Venatio wrote:

Bush fought for oil, Clinton executed the Davidians simply because they
absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Bush fought for oil??? You may be right, that -may- have been the real
reason, but as far as I know, that was NEVER publicly admitted to by the
Bush administration -- essentially the American public was lied into two
phony wars (that we are STILL paying the price for).

Anyway, even if Bush did do it "for oil", are you implying that Bush gets
a free pass to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of
innocent civilians just because it was "for oil"? Does oil justify that?

...absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It may have had more to do with the
Davidians having illegal weapons. The fire appeared to be
accidental/unintentional. I don't think the ATF or Bill Clinton overtly
planned on having a fire. The government probably would have been
perfectly happy if the Davidians honored the ATF legal search warrant.

Finally, let's be pragmatic...

Yes, the 86 bogus Waco deaths were sad, even though accidental and not
specifically planned.

However, Bush DID overtly plan the two bogus wars.

86 accidental deaths versus tens of thousands of deaths that we the people
were lied into. So, you tell me, who is the bigger criminal, Clinton or
Bush?

If you think Clinton should be tried for those 86 deaths, well, fair
enough. But then I'm contending that Bush should be tried for the tens of
thousands of deaths he lied us into.


Good post.

Let the Riots Begin! They already have.

http://www.devilfinder.com
Photos of lawn mower oil drain plug

That B HO ButtKisser thinks he is a World Authority, a Super Chief
expert on everything.But, he was too Stupid to look for that oil drain
plug.He pushed his $65.00 pawn shop lawn mower to my sidewalk, (last
year) he rattled my front screen door, he said,,,
Show me where that oil drain plug is!

It was right there, I showed it to him.There was a light bit of dirt had
it covered up.

Show me where that oil drain plug is!
cuhulin

wrote:
Let the Riots Begin! They already have.

http://www.devilfinder.com
Photos of lawn mower oil drain plug

That B HO ButtKisser thinks he is a World Authority, a Super Chief
expert on everything.But, he was too Stupid to look for that oil drain
plug.He pushed his $65.00 pawn shop lawn mower to my sidewalk, (last
year) he rattled my front screen door, he said,,,
Show me where that oil drain plug is!

It was right there, I showed it to him.There was a light bit of dirt had
it covered up.

Show me where that oil drain plug is!
cuhulin


Logic dictates that the drain be at the lowest point in the motor proper.

Some lawn mowers don't have an oil drain plug.To change the oil in
those, you have to suck it out with a vacuum pump or turn the lawn mower
upside down.It naturally makes more sense to have an oil drain plug on
the bottom.I won't ever buy a lawn mower that doesn't have an oil drain
plug on the bottom.Next time you go lawn mower shopping be sure it has
an oil drain plug on the bottom.
cuhulin

wrote:
Some lawn mowers don't have an oil drain plug.To change the oil in
those, you have to suck it out with a vacuum pump or turn the lawn mower
upside down.It naturally makes more sense to have an oil drain plug on
the bottom.I won't ever buy a lawn mower that doesn't have an oil drain
plug on the bottom.Next time you go lawn mower shopping be sure it has
an oil drain plug on the bottom.
cuhulin

I've been using electrics since the early '80s

On 4/26/2010 8:40 AM, dave wrote:
wrote:
Let the Riots Begin! They already have.

http://www.devilfinder.com
Photos of lawn mower oil drain plug

That B HO ButtKisser thinks he is a World Authority, a Super Chief
expert on everything.But, he was too Stupid to look for that oil drain
plug.He pushed his $65.00 pawn shop lawn mower to my sidewalk, (last
year) he rattled my front screen door, he said,,,
Show me where that oil drain plug is!

It was right there, I showed it to him.There was a light bit of dirt had
it covered up.

Show me where that oil drain plug is!
cuhulin


Logic dictates that the drain be at the lowest point in the motor proper.

Lawnmower Party? Will they have failin-palin speak at their next get
together? Or, was this Ricky Nelson's last song?

Sure is good to be home.

Drifter...

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:17:02 -0500, "John Agosta"
wrote:


"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

Maybe they will try Clinton for that as soon as they try
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for lying us into two fake wars.
History will show that Bush et al failed America in those dark days.

I understand your feelings for the scores killed at Waco. Now if only
you could work up some sympathy for the *thousands* of American troops
and *tens of thousands* of civilians maimed and killed by W's folly.

On 4/24/2010 6:51 PM, Cicero Venatio wrote:

Bush fought for oil, Clinton executed the Davidians simply because they
absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Bush fought for oil??? You may be right, that -may- have been the real
reason, but as far as I know, that was NEVER publicly admitted to by the
Bush administration -- essentially the American public was lied into two
phony wars (that we are STILL paying the price for).

Anyway, even if Bush did do it "for oil", are you implying that Bush gets
a free pass to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of
innocent civilians just because it was "for oil"? Does oil justify that?

...absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It may have had more to do with the
Davidians having illegal weapons. The fire appeared to be
accidental/unintentional. I don't think the ATF or Bill Clinton overtly
planned on having a fire. The government probably would have been
perfectly happy if the Davidians honored the ATF legal search warrant.

Finally, let's be pragmatic...

Yes, the 86 bogus Waco deaths were sad, even though accidental and not
specifically planned.

However, Bush DID overtly plan the two bogus wars.

86 accidental deaths versus tens of thousands of deaths that we the people
were lied into. So, you tell me, who is the bigger criminal, Clinton or
Bush?

If you think Clinton should be tried for those 86 deaths, well, fair
enough. But then I'm contending that Bush should be tried for the tens of
thousands of deaths he lied us into.


Good post.

It is for those of you with selective memories.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire,
including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to
develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by
the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H.
W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist
organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight
terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those
who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the
President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution
reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove
the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

And the left's selective memory doesn't stop there.
Clinton only responsible for the deaths of the Branch Davidians and no
one else eh?

Guess his random bombings to enforce the same UN resolutions that are
given above don't count?
Or the 100,000 plus deaths resulting from the mass bombing of the
Balkins?
Or the loss of the military lives in the farce in Somalia?
Or the bombing of innocent civilian targets by the Clinton
administration based upon faulty intel? He must have been lying as
well at the time based upon your logic.

Bobba Ooooooom Mow Mow,,, Bobba Ooooooom Mow Mow,,,,, Folks, come on
down to Doggy's Used Car City!
We have a real good deal on a 1953 Pontiac Automobile,,, drives out just
like brand new!

That Olympic semi gloss exterior house paint, it says on the label, 25
Years Warranty.
My old buddy in Richland would say,,, It has a lifetime guarantee! It
will last you the rest of your life!
cuhulin

Chicago Lawmakers: Call in the National Guard [113 homicide victims so
far!!!]
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=288200

Duhhhhh,,, Chicago (I have been through there before, in December 1956)
is a hell of a lot larger than Jackson.So far, this year there have been
at least fifty homicides in Jackson, or more.
cuhulin

"Joe from wrote in message
...

Maybe they will try Clinton for that as soon as they try
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for lying us into two fake wars.
History will show that Bush et al failed America in those dark days.

I understand your feelings for the scores killed at Waco. Now if only
you could work up some sympathy for the *thousands* of American troops
and *tens of thousands* of civilians maimed and killed by W's folly.

On 4/24/2010 6:51 PM, Cicero Venatio wrote:

Bush fought for oil, Clinton executed the Davidians simply because they
absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Bush fought for oil??? You may be right, that -may- have been the real
reason, but as far as I know, that was NEVER publicly admitted to by the
Bush administration -- essentially the American public was lied into two
phony wars (that we are STILL paying the price for).

Anyway, even if Bush did do it "for oil", are you implying that Bush gets
a free pass to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of
innocent civilians just because it was "for oil"? Does oil justify that?

...absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It may have had more to do with the
Davidians having illegal weapons. The fire appeared to be
accidental/unintentional. I don't think the ATF or Bill Clinton overtly
planned on having a fire. The government probably would have been
perfectly happy if the Davidians honored the ATF legal search warrant.

Finally, let's be pragmatic...

Yes, the 86 bogus Waco deaths were sad, even though accidental and not
specifically planned.

However, Bush DID overtly plan the two bogus wars.

86 accidental deaths versus tens of thousands of deaths that we the people
were lied into. So, you tell me, who is the bigger criminal, Clinton or
Bush?

If you think Clinton should be tried for those 86 deaths, well, fair
enough. But then I'm contending that Bush should be tried for the tens of
thousands of deaths he lied us into.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:17:02 -0500, "John Agosta
wrote:

Good post.

On 4/26/2010 7:01 PM, First Post wrote:

It is for those of you with selective memories.

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire,
including interference with weapons inspectors.

Yup, Saddam did that but basically minor harassment on his part, hardly
a reason to start an almost TRILLION dollar war.

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to
develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region."

Pure bull$hit. You don't commit American lives and a trillion dollars on
"alleged". Ultimately, Bush and Cheney admitted on national TV that
there were *NO* WMDs.

On top of all that, you talk about "security in the Persian Gulf
region."

Us being there threatens the "peace and stability" of the region because
first of all, a war can hardly be defined as peace, now can it? More
importantly, when we leave the region (if we ever can), the Shiites,
Sunni and Kurds who still hate each other, and will start the biggest
civil war you have ever seen, hardly leading to "peace and stability" in
the region.

This all goes back to Bush Junior having NO exit strategy when he
started this fiasco -- and there is still no exit strategy.

I won't even talk about the fraudulent "yellowcake" lies.

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Huh? This is a reason to spend a trillion American dollars and THOUSANDS
of American lives? Who put us in charge of Iraqi civilians?

Besides, if we followed your fractured "logic" above, we would be at war
with 20 or 30 additional countries that don't treat their civilian
population nicely.

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass
destruction against other nations and its own people".

Well, sorry. WE (the USA) sold Saddam the chemicals to make the poison
gas they used on the Kurds. And Rumsfeld has the receipts to prove it.

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by
the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H.
W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War.

So? A LOT of countries are hostile to us and many because of G.W. Bush's
fake war. It is a matter of public record that Bush hurt our image
abroad more than any president in history. (And there you go with that
"alleged" again).

* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq.

Again, PURE B-U-L-L-$-H-I-T!!! They were NOT "known to be in Iraq" at
the time the war started. (Are they in Iraq now, seeing as we have
destabilized the country? Maybe.) You obviously missed the national TV
broadcast when Bush/Cheney said "there was NO al-Quaeda in Iraq". (or
were they lying then, too?)