From: ron.sam{please-remove}@cox.net   
      
   "Chris"  wrote in message   
   news:K33Eb.90978$%h4.24414@twister.tampabay.rr.com...   
   >   
   > "rl"  wrote in message   
   > news:i82Eb.57790$cQ.6187@okepread05...   
   > > > Funny, the administration didn't elaborate on that when they condemned   
   > > > Saddam and his troops the first time.  I wonder why?   
   > >   
   > > Maybe they thought anyone who possessed $0.02 worth of common sense   
   would   
   > > know the difference?   
   >   
   > Are you saying that they'd actually trust the public to draw it's own   
   > conclusions so close to the re-election?  I doubt it.   
      
   I suppose some of us see black helicopters in every rain cloud.  Believe   
   what you want.   
      
   >   
   > > I guess they could have not shown him at all, too, and just announced to   
   > > everyone that they had him.  Or they could have pulled out some old   
   > archive   
   > > stuff from back when he was in power and said, "This is the guy we   
   > caught!"   
   > >   
   > > There are an infinite number of other possibilities they "could" have   
   > done.   
   > >   
   > > But the bottom line is they chose to prove to the world, and more   
   > > importantly, the Iraqi people that we had, indeed caught him, and that   
   he   
   > > was being afforded basic, humane health care.   
   >   
   > And they couldn't have proven they caught him without showing him being   
   > picked at for headlice?  I'd love to get paid afew grand for a candid shot   
   > of some celebrity in an inopportune moment, but I'd not be following them   
   to   
   > a doctor's office to catch them being swabbed for a throat culture.   
      
   Why do I get the impression that it wouldn't really matter to you what they   
   filmed him doing?  You've got it set in your mind that the Evil Bush Empire   
   is out to destroy the world and nothing they can do will ever set "right"   
   with you.  How unfortunate that we could not have seen shots of Osama having   
   the headlice being picked from his head pre 9/11 under Clinton's watch.   
      
   >   
   > They could have waited till afterwards, or filmed the guy when they caught   
   > him.  They did have a CNN reporter along for the ride, or so it's been   
   said.   
   > Why not film Saddam at any other time?  Why was it so damned important to   
   > show him being treated like a pet at the veterinary clinic?   
      
   See above.   
      
   >   
   > > > > But then, I'm sure that there are some out there who would choose to   
   > > > > question any/every step we take as a nation.   
   > > >   
   > > > It's a right we have under the Constitution.  The right to question   
   our   
   > > > government's actions and choices.  You should look into that sometime.   
   > >   
   > > I was wondering when the discussion would begin to slant into a personal   
   > > attack.  It never seems to be a long wait when you're talking with one   
   of   
   > > the Bush-Bashers.   
   >   
   > You start talking about people questioning what we do as a nation, I   
   explain   
   > it's a right,   
   > and that becomes a "personal attack" from me?  Explain.   
      
   No problem.  The whole snide little, "You should look into it sometime"   
   quip.  You guys can't get 5 sentences out of your moth without attacking   
   somebody, but scream foul when you get the same treatment.  Do as I say, not   
   as I do kind of stuff.   
      
   >   
   > > Funny how quick you are to shield yourself behind the same Constitution   
   > that   
   > > was followed to place President Bush in Office.   
   >   
   > That's assuming he was voted in legally.  That has not been categorically   
   > proven.  In fact, the recount, which would have verified it one way or the   
   > other, was cancelled.   
      
   Which recount?  The second, third, or fourth one?  Get over it.  And it was   
   proven to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court - which pretty much makes it   
   a slam dunk as far as the definition of "proven" goes in the legal sense.   
      
   >   
   > I'm not saying he didn't get into his position legally, just pointing out   
   > the facts of the matter.  I'm not shielding myself behind the   
   Constitution.   
   > I merely mentioned the right to question our government's actions is   
   > guaranteed.  What's wrong?   
      
   Nothing.  What's wrong with having the Supreme Court decide the outcome of a   
   close race as prescribed by the Constitution?   
      
   >   
   > > > > Some of them still can't get over the Florida thing.  They just   
   can't   
   > > > figure   
   > > > > out why we followed the guidelines set forth by the Constitution.   
   > > >   
   > > > Any special reason why you brought up Florida?  I sure didn't.   
   > >   
   > > It's my Right under the Constitution to talk about anything I like.   
   > > Remember?   
   > > Or do you have a special, secret, Constitution On/Off switch attached to   
   > > your keyboard so that you can make sure it is always "on" for you and   
   > "off"   
   > > for me?   
   >   
   > Again, what's so damn special about Florida?  You claim it's your right to   
   > talk about anything you like, so talk.  I'm listening.   
      
   I'm done talking.  Read back through the post if you want to refresh your   
   memory.  But don't tell me you're Constitutionally guaranteed the right to   
   question the Government and then in the same post pretend I'm not allowed to   
   bring up whatever issue I like.  The whole point is, you guys have never   
   gotten over Bush getting into the White House, and you sit back in the   
   corner screaming about every stinking decision that is made - almost to the   
   point of second guessing how many squares of paper he uses to wipe his ass   
   with.   
      
   So I say again - get over it.  You'll get another chance in 2004.  But don't   
   hold your breath with that pack of losers the Dems are fielding.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)