pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 14 Dec 2008 20:19:02
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Why do libs kill babies ?
yet they whine about killing terrorists ?


Are infants really that bad ?

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com






 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 17:55:45
From:
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 14, 10:19=A0pm, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid >
wrote:
> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
> Are infants really that bad ?
>
> -------=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com

They don't.

Croupe


  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:18:37
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 8:55 PM, croupec wrote:

> On Dec 14, 10:19pm, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
> > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> >
> > Are infants really that bad ?
> >
> They don't.

Why bother posting a comment ?
>
> Croupe

_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 16 Dec 2008 00:51:40
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:18:37 -0800, "La Cosa Nostradamus"
<a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 8:55 PM, croupec wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 10:19pm, "La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f4...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>> >
>> > Are infants really that bad ?
>> >
>> They don't.
>
>Why bother posting a comment ?

Because it happens to be correct, I'd assume.


 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 15:47:06
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?


What makes you so sure it's only "liberals" who have abortions?


  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:56:29
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15, 6:10=A0pm, "La Cosa Nostradamus"

> I'm a quite sure that the vast majority of babykillers are libs.


Show your work



  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 16:12:37
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 6:47 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:

> What makes you so sure it's only "liberals" who have abortions?

i didnt say only, punk

you did

lame attempt to derail the topic

nt

-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 17:21:28
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:12:37 -0800, "La Cosa Nostradamus"
<a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 6:47 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
>
>> What makes you so sure it's only "liberals" who have abortions?
>
>i didnt say only, punk
>
>you did
>
>lame attempt to derail the topic

OK, then, so why do conservatives kill babies?


    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:10:52
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 8:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:12:37 -0800, "La Cosa Nostradamus"
> <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 15 2008 6:47 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> >
> >> What makes you so sure it's only "liberals" who have abortions?
> >
> >i didnt say only, punk
> >
> >you did
> >
> >lame attempt to derail the topic
>
> OK, then, so why do conservatives kill babies?

Start your own thread for that, i guess.

I'm a quite sure that the vast majority of babykillers are libs.

The demographics i have seen for babykillers is strikingly akin to libs

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:55:40
From: Mark B [Diputsur]
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:cafj16x433.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 15 2008 8:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:12:37 -0800, "La Cosa Nostradamus"
>> <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 15 2008 6:47 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
>> >
>> >> What makes you so sure it's only "liberals" who have abortions?
>> >
>> >i didnt say only, punk
>> >
>> >you did
>> >
>> >lame attempt to derail the topic
>>
>> OK, then, so why do conservatives kill babies?
>
> Start your own thread for that, i guess.
>
> I'm a quite sure that the vast majority of babykillers are
<snip >

under the age of 25 and don't give a shit about politics.
most have no political views... why bother tryin to label
them as conservative or liberal?

Btw: How long have abortions been legal in this country?
35 years? Thought conservatives were supposed to be
against change! Shut the fuck already!




 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 08:39:40
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
>
> Are infants really that bad ?

but, but it is not a person. but, but the terrorist is just misunderstood
and deserves rehabilitation.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:55:15
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 11:39 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> >
> >
> > Are infants really that bad ?
>
> but, but it is not a person. but, but the terrorist is just misunderstood
> and deserves rehabilitation.
>

you are right

i have never seen a baby change. all they do is grow up, those fkkrs
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John

--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 22:16:29
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
WHY DO LOW LIFE SCUM BAG PEOPLE STIFF WHEN THEY MAKE A BET ?

no offense of course !!

-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:39:15
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 1:16 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> WHY DO LOW LIFE SCUM BAG PEOPLE STIFF WHEN THEY MAKE A BET ?
>
> no offense of course !!

i dunno, did the other party change the bet then after it won, want his
original bet back?

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 06:01:02
From: Scott/sjakma
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 3:39 AM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 1:16 AM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > WHY DO LOW LIFE SCUM BAG PEOPLE STIFF WHEN THEY MAKE A BET ?
> >
> > no offense of course !!
>
> i dunno, did the other party change the bet then after it won, want his
> original bet back?


I have asked you many times and you have not answered once.. Where did I
change the bet? Just admit you are a lowlife welching scumbag.

--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 20:56:29
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:

> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?

Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?

One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq. Regular people, defending their
homes and neighborhoods. You shitbag.

--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:56:13
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 17, 1:52=A0pm, "John_Brian_K" <a7ec...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > > A 'functioning nation' =A0wow how swell. =A0lol
>
> > You wouldn't laugh like that if you'd ever had to live in a non-
> > functioning nation.
>
> Let me guess you have right?
>
> > > They DIDNT have to worry about suicide bombers during his regime? =A0=
lol
>
> > No, they didn't. =A0I guess you don't remember all the way back to 2002
> > 'cause you were only 14 then, right?
>
> lol
>
> No I was uhhh...26. =A0Not much difference in your opinion I am sure.
>
> uhhh and for your reference:
>
> http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=3Diraq+suicide+bombers&num=3D10=
...

Um.. there were no stories about suicide bombers inside Iraq on the
first page of that search. Did you actually read your own links?
Those stories had to do with Saddam funding suicide bombers in _other
countries_. Saddam was a ruthless dictator who would punish the
entire family or even village of any suicide bomber inside Iraq.
>
> > Saddam was not a homicidal maniac, he was a ruthless dictator. =A0The
> > difference is that the latter is predictable and manipulatable. =A0I
> > guess you were in grammar school during the Iran-Iraq war when Donald
> > Rumsfeld was famously photographed shaking hands with our ally Saddam.
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/hussein121403.html
>
> Nope I was not in grade school, but if it makes you feel better to think =
I
> was go ahead. =A0It actually goes with the rest of your ideas here.
>
> > Stupid ulterior motives, that led to our doing more harm than good to
> > our own interests. =A0And, as is almost universally acknowledged now,
> > very poorly executed.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> poorly executed? =A0No doubt. =A0'More harm than good'? =A0THAT is debata=
ble. =A0I
> do not know anyone who lives over there. =A0I read the papers and watched
> the news in the beginning of all of this. =A0I do have an Arabic fiance a=
nd
> have spoke with her and alot of her family on these issues and they are
> all very well educated. =A0They seem to think that Iraq will be better of=
f
> after all of this. =A0Are they better off now as a whole than they were 1=
0
> years ago? =A0I dunno, but I am surprised you seem to think YOU know.

I think the fact that so very many of them are dead precludes things
being better now than they were before.

Tell you what, though, it's time to drop this. I've been debating the
Iraq War since 2002 and I am pretty darn tired of it.

- Bob T.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will =A0I =A0consider you =A0necessarily wise =A0because you are =A0g=
rave.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> BOOM byae
> John
>
> ----=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 18 Dec 2008 07:17:13
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> Tell you what, though, it's time to drop this. I've been debating the
> Iraq War since 2002 and I am pretty darn tired of it.
>
> - Bob T.

Have a nice day Bob!

And

Merry Christmas!

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:02:58
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 17, 11:13=A0am, "John_Brian_K" <a7ec...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > Well, yeah, after we wrecked the Iraqi economy and destroyed the
> > peaceful functioning of their neighborhoods. =A0Saddam was a nasty fuck=
,
> > but Iraq was a functioning nation when we invaded. =A0It's been five an=
d
> > a half years and it still isn't back to where it was. =A0When Saddam wa=
s
> > in charge they didn't have to worry about suicide bombers in their
> > marketplaces.
>
> A 'functioning nation' =A0wow how swell. =A0lol

You wouldn't laugh like that if you'd ever had to live in a non-
functioning nation.
>
> They DIDNT have to worry about suicide bombers during his regime? =A0lol

No, they didn't. I guess you don't remember all the way back to 2002
'cause you were only 14 then, right?
>
> > If you were Saddam and you had a choice between retiring wealthy to an
> > island somewhere and having the resources of the USA devoted to
> > killing you and your family. =A0My own personal idea at the time was th=
e
> > 'Palace a Day" warning. =A0Saddam had two dozen palaces around the
> > country. =A0Every day we would tell him which palaces was going to be
> > destroyed the following day so everyone could be evacuated, then the
> > US air force would flatten the entire complex. =A0After a few multi-
> > million dollar residences were reduced to rubble, Saddam might find
> > exile to Elba quite attractive.
>
> Yeah and he also 'might have' thought 'who the fuck are these people
> trying to push me out' =A0You are living in a fantasy world if you think =
he
> would have 'retired peacefully' =A0Oh yeah and if I were him. =A0I would =
not
> have murdered people and found ways to make MORE palaces while MY people
> were starving to death and then punish them for complaining about starvin=
g
> to death.
>
> I think you are attributing rational thought to a homicidal maniac. =A0Ma=
ybe
> you better think of who you are trying to ascribe rational thought to
> before you respond this time.

Saddam was not a homicidal maniac, he was a ruthless dictator. The
difference is that the latter is predictable and manipulatable. I
guess you were in grammar school during the Iran-Iraq war when Donald
Rumsfeld was famously photographed shaking hands with our ally Saddam.

>
> > In any case, there are a dozen regimes around the world just as bad as
> > Saddam and a few that are even worse. =A0If we really were invading
> > foreign countries to save their people from nasty dictatorships, we'd
> > have invaded Myanmar before we invaded Iraq.
>
> We have ulterior motives for going to Iraq of course. =A0The resulting
> liberation was just a bonus.

Stupid ulterior motives, that led to our doing more harm than good to
our own interests. And, as is almost universally acknowledged now,
very poorly executed.

- Bob T.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will =A0I =A0consider you =A0necessarily wise =A0because you are =A0g=
rave.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> BOOM byae
> John
>
> -----=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:52:47
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> > A 'functioning nation' wow how swell. lol
>
> You wouldn't laugh like that if you'd ever had to live in a non-
> functioning nation.

Let me guess you have right?

> > They DIDNT have to worry about suicide bombers during his regime? lol
>
> No, they didn't. I guess you don't remember all the way back to 2002
> 'cause you were only 14 then, right?

lol

No I was uhhh...26. Not much difference in your opinion I am sure.

uhhh and for your reference:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=iraq+suicide+bombers&num=10&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=2000&as_user_hdate=2002&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=

> Saddam was not a homicidal maniac, he was a ruthless dictator. The
> difference is that the latter is predictable and manipulatable. I
> guess you were in grammar school during the Iran-Iraq war when Donald
> Rumsfeld was famously photographed shaking hands with our ally Saddam.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cands/hussein121403.html

Nope I was not in grade school, but if it makes you feel better to think I
was go ahead. It actually goes with the rest of your ideas here.

> Stupid ulterior motives, that led to our doing more harm than good to
> our own interests. And, as is almost universally acknowledged now,
> very poorly executed.
>
> - Bob T.

poorly executed? No doubt. 'More harm than good'? THAT is debatable. I
do not know anyone who lives over there. I read the papers and watched
the news in the beginning of all of this. I do have an Arabic fiance and
have spoke with her and alot of her family on these issues and they are
all very well educated. They seem to think that Iraq will be better off
after all of this. Are they better off now as a whole than they were 10
years ago? I dunno, but I am surprised you seem to think YOU know.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 09:37:48
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 17, 9:15=A0am, "John_Brian_K" <a7ec...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > Unfortunately, one of your children was killed in the US invasion and
> > another one was killed by terrorists two years later. =A0Your remaining
> > child took his family out of the country to avoid the violence.
> > Maybe, just maybe, you aren't so grateful to the USA for conquering
> > your country after all.
>
> Maybe just maybe they have a better opportunity in 'the other country'.

Well, yeah, after we wrecked the Iraqi economy and destroyed the
peaceful functioning of their neighborhoods. Saddam was a nasty fuck,
but Iraq was a functioning nation when we invaded. It's been five and
a half years and it still isn't back to where it was. When Saddam was
in charge they didn't have to worry about suicide bombers in their
marketplaces.

> Maybe just maybe they will come back when peace is restored. =A0Maybe jus=
t
> maybe the person that is left behind is happy at least one of his kids is
> safe and secure in another country. =A0Or maybe he would have rather-ed
> going through life worrying about that lone remaining living child being
> offed by Saddam because he happened to get in the way of a convoy oh
> Saddam's while he was out to survey 'his land'

Yeah, my guy who had two of his children killed would really feel
sorry for your guy who feels insecure about the dangers of Saddam's
regime.
>
> > If you actually looked at the numbers, you would see that your FEELING
> > is a poor substitute for statistics.
>
> For every link you give me that proves me wrong I could give you 3 that
> prove my point. =A0And around and round we go.
>
> > You say this as if it were necessarily true that Saddam would still be
> > ruling Iraq if we hadn't invaded. =A0Some way might very well have been
> > found to remove him from power without an actual war. =A0It would be OK
> > with me if that bastard was still alive living in luxury somewhere if
> > I could trade that for thousands of American lives and billions of
> > American dollars.
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Do you HONESTLY believe there was a way to remove Saddam WITHOUT violence
> or war? =A0If you do then we can agree to disagree right now because IMO
> there is NOWAY Saddam leaves rule of 'his' country based off ANYTHING
> ANYONE would say or do besides violence or war. =A0Especially Americans.

If you were Saddam and you had a choice between retiring wealthy to an
island somewhere and having the resources of the USA devoted to
killing you and your family. My own personal idea at the time was the
'Palace a Day" warning. Saddam had two dozen palaces around the
country. Every day we would tell him which palaces was going to be
destroyed the following day so everyone could be evacuated, then the
US air force would flatten the entire complex. After a few multi-
million dollar residences were reduced to rubble, Saddam might find
exile to Elba quite attractive.

In any case, there are a dozen regimes around the world just as bad as
Saddam and a few that are even worse. If we really were invading
foreign countries to save their people from nasty dictatorships, we'd
have invaded Myanmar before we invaded Iraq.

- Bob T.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will =A0I =A0consider you =A0necessarily wise =A0because you are =A0g=
rave.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> BOOM byae
> John
>
> -------=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 17 Dec 2008 11:13:17
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> Well, yeah, after we wrecked the Iraqi economy and destroyed the
> peaceful functioning of their neighborhoods. Saddam was a nasty fuck,
> but Iraq was a functioning nation when we invaded. It's been five and
> a half years and it still isn't back to where it was. When Saddam was
> in charge they didn't have to worry about suicide bombers in their
> marketplaces.

A 'functioning nation' wow how swell.

lol

They DIDNT have to worry about suicide bombers during his regime?

lol

> If you were Saddam and you had a choice between retiring wealthy to an
> island somewhere and having the resources of the USA devoted to
> killing you and your family. My own personal idea at the time was the
> 'Palace a Day" warning. Saddam had two dozen palaces around the
> country. Every day we would tell him which palaces was going to be
> destroyed the following day so everyone could be evacuated, then the
> US air force would flatten the entire complex. After a few multi-
> million dollar residences were reduced to rubble, Saddam might find
> exile to Elba quite attractive.

Yeah and he also 'might have' thought 'who the fuck are these people
trying to push me out' You are living in a fantasy world if you think he
would have 'retired peacefully' Oh yeah and if I were him. I would not
have murdered people and found ways to make MORE palaces while MY people
were starving to death and then punish them for complaining about starving
to death.

I think you are attributing rational thought to a homicidal maniac. Maybe
you better think of who you are trying to ascribe rational thought to
before you respond this time.

> In any case, there are a dozen regimes around the world just as bad as
> Saddam and a few that are even worse. If we really were invading
> foreign countries to save their people from nasty dictatorships, we'd
> have invaded Myanmar before we invaded Iraq.

We have ulterior motives for going to Iraq of course. The resulting
liberation was just a bonus.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 17 Dec 2008 08:53:16
From: Bob T.
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 17, 8:49=A0am, "John_Brian_K" <a7ec...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > Think about that, Bush apologists. Nearly half of the households in
> > Baghdad have lost at least one member to war-related violence. You stil=
l
> > think the Iraqis are oh so grateful for their "liberation?"
>
> Yes I do.
>
> Let us do a little experiment here crazy boy. =A0Let us say you live in a
> place where the 'ruler' kills people and tortures them whenever the fuck
> he wants for whatever reason he wants. =A0You live like this your whole l=
ife
> and live with fear every day of your life. =A0Now let us say that 'ruler'=
is
> gone and there is a promise of a democracy. =A0Eventually things are goin=
g
> to change. =A0Maybe not for you in your life, but for your children and y=
our
> children's children.

Unfortunately, one of your children was killed in the US invasion and
another one was killed by terrorists two years later. Your remaining
child took his family out of the country to avoid the violence.
Maybe, just maybe, you aren't so grateful to the USA for conquering
your country after all.

>
> For the sake of this argument I will give and say that the same amount of
> people have died as a result of the liberation that would have died under
> the old 'rulers' regime. (I personally do not think this is accurate in
> the least. =A0I feel LESS have died than would have under Saddam, but
> whatever)

If you actually looked at the numbers, you would see that your FEELING
is a poor substitute for statistics.
>
> Are you going to be more or less upset that the same number have died?
> With many most likely as a result of trying to help the liberation knowin=
g
> that there is 'light at the end of the tunnel'?
>
> Let me guess you think they would rather still have Saddam in power with
> no end in sight to his rule and his families rule over the land. =A0Right=
?

You say this as if it were necessarily true that Saddam would still be
ruling Iraq if we hadn't invaded. Some way might very well have been
found to remove him from power without an actual war. It would be OK
with me if that bastard was still alive living in luxury somewhere if
I could trade that for thousands of American lives and billions of
American dollars.

- Bob T.


   
Date: 17 Dec 2008 09:15:08
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> Unfortunately, one of your children was killed in the US invasion and
> another one was killed by terrorists two years later. Your remaining
> child took his family out of the country to avoid the violence.
> Maybe, just maybe, you aren't so grateful to the USA for conquering
> your country after all.

Maybe just maybe they have a better opportunity in 'the other country'.
Maybe just maybe they will come back when peace is restored. Maybe just
maybe the person that is left behind is happy at least one of his kids is
safe and secure in another country. Or maybe he would have rather-ed
going through life worrying about that lone remaining living child being
offed by Saddam because he happened to get in the way of a convoy oh
Saddam's while he was out to survey 'his land'

> If you actually looked at the numbers, you would see that your FEELING
> is a poor substitute for statistics.

For every link you give me that proves me wrong I could give you 3 that
prove my point. And around and round we go.

> You say this as if it were necessarily true that Saddam would still be
> ruling Iraq if we hadn't invaded. Some way might very well have been
> found to remove him from power without an actual war. It would be OK
> with me if that bastard was still alive living in luxury somewhere if
> I could trade that for thousands of American lives and billions of
> American dollars.
>
> - Bob T.

Do you HONESTLY believe there was a way to remove Saddam WITHOUT violence
or war? If you do then we can agree to disagree right now because IMO
there is NOWAY Saddam leaves rule of 'his' country based off ANYTHING
ANYONE would say or do besides violence or war. Especially Americans.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:36:39
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 14 2008 11:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
> Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
>
> One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq. Regular people, defending their
> homes and neighborhoods. You shitbag.

oh, so you condone defenseless kids, now i understand you

you dont like attacking those who can defend themselves

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:47:48
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 3:36 AM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 11:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >
> > > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> >
> > Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
> >
> > One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq. Regular people, defending their
> > homes and neighborhoods. You shitbag.
>
> oh, so you condone defenseless kids, now i understand you

No, you don't. You can't even form a complete sentence, I don't think you
understand much of anything.

> you dont like attacking those who can defend themselves

Huh?

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 14 Dec 2008 23:44:58
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 14 2008 9:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
> > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
> Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
>
> One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq.

Cite please?

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 14 Dec 2008 23:58:30
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 2:44 AM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 9:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >
> > > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> >
> > Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
> >
> > One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq.
>
> Cite please?

"The second [Lancet] survey, published on 11 October 2006, estimated
654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population,
through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and
involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006. More households were
surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636
excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a
95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% of those were
attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, and 46% unknown. The causes of
violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other
explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), and unknown
(2%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

An estimated 600,000 civilian ("excess") deaths as of October 2006. Do the
math.

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:05:40
From: bub
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:58:30 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>An estimated 600,000 civilian ("excess") deaths as of October 2006. Do the
>math.


ok,let's do the math using your numbers

600,000 in june of 2006

to make your million total bullshit stat that's another 400,000

oct 2006 to oct 2008 is equal to 730 days

that make a whopping 548 casulties every day sevens day a week

and that never made the news?

and your explanation is?




     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:19:51
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 16 2008 12:05 AM, bub wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:58:30 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >An estimated 600,000 civilian ("excess") deaths as of October 2006. Do the
> >math.
>
>
> ok,let's do the math using your numbers
>
> 600,000 in june of 2006
>
> to make your million total bullshit stat that's another 400,000
>
> oct 2006 to oct 2008 is equal to 730 days
>
> that make a whopping 548 casulties every day sevens day a week
>
> and that never made the news?
>
> and your explanation is?

The MSM has no desire to report on American atrocities. They don't make
for feel good headlines, and they threaten to portray the media's parent
companies (all of which are arms dealers of various sorts) in a bad light.

Any other questions?

----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




      
Date: 16 Dec 2008 01:55:44
From: bub
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:19:51 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>Any other questions?


yes...were you born a worthless piece of shit or did you have to work
at it?


      
Date: 16 Dec 2008 01:51:50
From: bub
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:19:51 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>The MSM has no desire to report on American atrocities.


ahhh a coverup.
must be a conspiracy between all the news agencies to coverup all the
deaths


    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 03:30:28
From: yesnomaybe
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:6afh16xq2r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 15 2008 2:44 AM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14 2008 9:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> > >
> > > > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> > >
> > > Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a
"civilian"?
> > >
> > > One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq.
> >
> > Cite please?
>
> explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), and unknown
> (2%).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
>
> An estimated 600,000 civilian ("excess") deaths as of October 2006. Do the
> math.


Your wikifu is weak.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

ibid...

Revels a 1200% error rate in all categories combined leaving a U.S. caused
rate of aprox. 22,000.






     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:45:29
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 4:30 AM, yesnomaybe wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6afh16xq2r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 15 2008 2:44 AM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 14 2008 9:56 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> > > >
> > > > Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a
> "civilian"?
> > > >
> > > > One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq.
> > >
> > > Cite please?
> >
> > explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), and unknown
> > (2%).
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
> >
> > An estimated 600,000 civilian ("excess") deaths as of October 2006. Do the
> > math.
>
>
> Your wikifu is weak.
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
>
> ibid...
>
> Revels a 1200% error rate in all categories combined leaving a U.S. caused
> rate of aprox. 22,000.

Lol! Author and neoconservative Steven Moore served as an adviser to Paul
Bremer (of CPA fame), you idiot. He had every reason to cover up the true
death toll.

Moore never reveals how he arrived at his 1200% error rate figure. Perhaps
he'd be credible if he showed his work?

His own conclusion sums up his ineptitude: "Without demographic
information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can
prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian
deaths is accurate." In other words he's just throwing shit at the wall
and hoping it sticks.

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:13:59
From: bub
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:45:29 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

> Author and neoconservative Steven Moore served as an adviser to Paul
>Bremer (of CPA fame), you idiot. He had every reason to cover up the true
>death toll.


ohhh a good old fashion cover-up.

leave it chrissy to find a cover-up. nothing is ever what it seems.


      
Date: 15 Dec 2008 14:22:56
From: BillB
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:povi16x2a1.ln2@recgroups.com...

> Moore never reveals how he arrived at his 1200% error rate figure. Perhaps
> he'd be credible if he showed his work?
>
> His own conclusion sums up his ineptitude: "Without demographic
> information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can
> prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian
> deaths is accurate." In other words he's just throwing shit at the wall
> and hoping it sticks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story




       
Date: 15 Dec 2008 14:55:28
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 5:22 PM, BillB wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:povi16x2a1.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> > Moore never reveals how he arrived at his 1200% error rate figure. Perhaps
> > he'd be credible if he showed his work?
> >
> > His own conclusion sums up his ineptitude: "Without demographic
> > information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can
> > prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian
> > deaths is accurate." In other words he's just throwing shit at the wall
> > and hoping it sticks.
>
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story

Thanks, Bill.

As of September, 2007: "According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461
adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years
of war was more than 1.2 million."
..
"ORB said its poll had a margin of error of 2.4%. According to its
findings, nearly one in two households in Baghdad had lost at least one
member to war- related violence, and 22% of households nationwide had
suffered at least one death. It said 48% of the victims were shot to death
and 20% died as a result of car bombs, with other explosions and military
bombardments blamed for most of the other fatalities."

Think about that, Bush apologists. Nearly half of the households in
Baghdad have lost at least one member to war-related violence. You still
think the Iraqis are oh so grateful for their "liberation?"

_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



        
Date: 17 Dec 2008 08:49:41
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> Think about that, Bush apologists. Nearly half of the households in
> Baghdad have lost at least one member to war-related violence. You still
> think the Iraqis are oh so grateful for their "liberation?"

Yes I do.

Let us do a little experiment here crazy boy. Let us say you live in a
place where the 'ruler' kills people and tortures them whenever the fuck
he wants for whatever reason he wants. You live like this your whole life
and live with fear every day of your life. Now let us say that 'ruler' is
gone and there is a promise of a democracy. Eventually things are going
to change. Maybe not for you in your life, but for your children and your
children's children.

For the sake of this argument I will give and say that the same amount of
people have died as a result of the liberation that would have died under
the old 'rulers' regime. (I personally do not think this is accurate in
the least. I feel LESS have died than would have under Saddam, but
whatever)

Are you going to be more or less upset that the same number have died?
With many most likely as a result of trying to help the liberation knowing
that there is 'light at the end of the tunnel'?

Let me guess you think they would rather still have Saddam in power with
no end in sight to his rule and his families rule over the land. Right?

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



        
Date: 15 Dec 2008 20:04:04
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:55:28 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 5:22 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:povi16x2a1.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > Moore never reveals how he arrived at his 1200% error rate figure. Perhaps
>> > he'd be credible if he showed his work?
>> >
>> > His own conclusion sums up his ineptitude: "Without demographic
>> > information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can
>> > prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian
>> > deaths is accurate." In other words he's just throwing shit at the wall
>> > and hoping it sticks.
>>
>>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story
>
>Thanks, Bill.
>
>As of September, 2007: "According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461
>adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years
>of war was more than 1.2 million."
>..
>"ORB said its poll had a margin of error of 2.4%. According to its
>findings, nearly one in two households in Baghdad had lost at least one
>member to war- related violence, and 22% of households nationwide had
>suffered at least one death. It said 48% of the victims were shot to death
>and 20% died as a result of car bombs, with other explosions and military
>bombardments blamed for most of the other fatalities."
>

I had never even heard of the ORB poll before this, but it seems as if
it follows right along with the famous Lancet publication.

Here is one little known journalist that takes a long, skeptical look
at the published accounts of the ORB poll.

http://www.fumento.com/military/lancet2008.html

The Casualties of War
The Lancet Study of Iraq Deaths is Further Discredited
By Michael Fumento
The Weekly Standard, February 4, 2008
Copyright 2008 The Weekly Standard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the new World Health Organization-Iraqi government study of
war-related Iraq deaths reached wildly different conclusions from two
much-hyped reports in the British medical journal the Lancet is no
surprise to anyone who has followed the issue. But the new study
highlights the fanaticism of the Lancet and its defenders and
illustrates yet again the bias of mainstream media coverage of the
Iraq war.

In late October, 2004 Lancet published a report estimating 98,000
war-related deaths in the first 18 months of the conflict. Two years
later, the Lancet updated that figure to a stunning 655,000 Iraqis
dead by July 2006 as a consequence of the March 2003 U.S. invasion,
with 600,000 of those directly from violence. The media stood at
attention and saluted. "Within a week, the study had been featured in
25 news shows and 188 articles in U.S. newspapers and magazines,
including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles
Times," according to an excellent investigative report in the January
4 National Journal. CBS News called the 2006 Lancet report a "new and
stunning measure of the havoc the American invasion unleashed in
Iraq."

Inevitably, the World Socialist website demanded: "Why is the American
press silent on the report of 655,000 Iraqi deaths?" Too bad it wasn't
silence (or at least a modicum of skepticism) is what should have
greeted the Lancet report.

The latest study, called the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS), was
published in the January 9 issue of the nation's most prestigious
medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine. It found an
estimated 151,000 excess violent deaths from the U.S-led invasion in
March 2003 through June 2006, when compared to violent deaths in the
prewar period. This is roughly one-fourth the war-related deaths found
by Lancet in 2006. Further, for the most recent comparable reporting
time periods for both surveys, it found the Lancet 2006 number to be
more than seven times that of its own survey. And other estimates
indicate the IFHS figures themselves may be too high.

One estimate that's far lower even than the IFHS figures comes from
IraqBodyCount.org, the antiwar website which at the time of Lancet
2004 reported 14,000-16,000 war-related deaths. Even now Iraq Body
Count tallies fewer than 90,000 fatalities. Its figures, according to
its website, include "individual or cumulative deaths as directly
reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by
hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently
reported in the media." It doesn't, however, include combatant deaths
among Iraqis, which would be picked up by household surveys like that
of the IFHS.
(Osama bin Laden himself in his pre-election 2004 video used the Iraq
Body Count figures to decry the volume of blood spilled by the
infidels.)

Then there's the U.N-conducted Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004
(ILCS). Using a dataset significantly larger than that of either of
the Lancet studies 22,000 households versus 988 for Lancet 2004 and
1,849 for Lancet 2006 it found 24,000 war-related deaths from the
opening of the war until May 2004.
That's only the first 14 months of conflict compared with 18 in Lancet
2004, but it does stretch the imagination that in those ensuing four
months the numbers of deaths somehow quadrupled.

Only one source found higher numbers than either Lancet paper a poll
by the British Opinion Research Business (ORB). It claimed in a
September 2007 press release that "more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens
have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003." (Emphasis
added.) The polling ended in August 2007, and the actual alleged death
toll was over 1.2 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

(Snippage here)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
As National Journal revealed, Lancet's 2006 study was about half
funded by antiwar billionaire George Soros, who in a November 2003
Washington Post interview said that removing President Bush from
office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and
death."
This no doubt explains the release of the Lancet study four weeks
before the 2006 midterm elections, just as Lancet's 2004 study was
released days before the presidential election.
Even the magazine's ardent defenders don't claim the timing was a
coincidence.

The 2006 Lancet report states only, "Funding was provided by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Refugee and
Disaster Response of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health."
Soros is known for concealing his massive political donations, and the
Lancet was complicit on this occasion.

Not that any of these revelations appears to have fazed the authors or
editor of the Lancet.
Just as defenders of Lancet 2006 claim that the ORB poll, with its far
higher death rate, was somehow "quite consistent with Lancet 2006, so
does the coauthor of both Lancet studies, Les Roberts, astonishingly
insists that the much-lower IFHS numbers are also consistent with
Lancet 2006.

There is "far more in common in the results than appears at first
glance," he has said.
Or at second or third glance, he might have added. As if there could
possibly be anything consistent with one survey that finds more than
seven times the deaths as another survey over the same reporting
period.

It therefore appears that we can expect, just before this year's
national election, a new Lancet survey in which the American
imperialist troops and their Iraqi puppets will be shown to have
killed every single Iraqi. Twice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------

>Think about that, Bush apologists. Nearly half of the households in
>Baghdad have lost at least one member to war-related violence. You still
>think the Iraqis are oh so grateful for their "liberation?"
>

Let's just do a reality check here.
1,000,000 civilian deaths over a 6 year period.
166,000 civilian deaths average over every single year.

13,833 civilian deaths average over every single month.

461 civilian deaths every single day, averaged over every single
month, every single year, for 6 entire years.

If anyone paying attention over the last 6 years can believe that,
they will believe damn near anything.

--------------------------------------------------------
Some say that illiteracy is our single biggest problem.
Others say that innumeracy is an even bigger problem.


         
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:14:33
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 9:04 PM, FL Turbo wrote:

<snip pedantic garbage >

> If anyone paying attention over the last 6 years can believe that,
> they will believe damn near anything.

You obviously haven't been paying attention.

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




          
Date: 17 Dec 2008 08:48:51
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:14:33 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 9:04 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
><snip pedantic garbage>
>

Maybe you quit reading before the Reality Check at the end.
For you and any other RGP readers who may have missed it, here it is
again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's just do a reality check here.
1,000,000 civilian deaths over a 6 year period.
166,000 civilian deaths average over every single year.

13,833 civilian deaths average over every single month.

461 civilian deaths every single day, averaged over every single
month, every single year, for 6 entire years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But wait
Maybe we can find another Reality Check to do.

Consider the number of 1,000,000 deaths reported in the Lancet survey.
Consider the number of 100,000 deaths reported by the IBC (Iraq Body
Count).

Another way of saying that is that it would mean that the IBC MISSED
counting 9 out of every 10 deaths.

That is the conclusion that you would have to accept if you believe
the 1,000,000 estimate.

>> If anyone paying attention over the last 6 years can believe that,
>> they will believe damn near anything.
>
>You obviously haven't been paying attention.
>

Throughout 2006, 2007, and the earlier part of 2008, the headline news
had carried reports of truck bombings, suicide bombings, etc almost
every other day.

Damn near impossible to miss all the reports.

I remember casualties over a hundred, but I can't remember a report
with 461 civilian deaths.

It stretches the imagination to believe that there were an average of
461 casualties every single day, over 6 entire years.

Yet, that is exactly what you would have to believe to accept the
1,000,000 number.






           
Date: 17 Dec 2008 14:33:39
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 17 2008 9:48 AM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:14:33 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 15 2008 9:04 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
> >
> ><snip pedantic garbage>
> >
>
> Maybe you quit reading before the Reality Check at the end.
> For you and any other RGP readers who may have missed it, here it is
> again.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let's just do a reality check here.
> 1,000,000 civilian deaths over a 6 year period.
> 166,000 civilian deaths average over every single year.
>
> 13,833 civilian deaths average over every single month.
>
> 461 civilian deaths every single day, averaged over every single
> month, every single year, for 6 entire years.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But wait
> Maybe we can find another Reality Check to do.
>
> Consider the number of 1,000,000 deaths reported in the Lancet survey.
> Consider the number of 100,000 deaths reported by the IBC (Iraq Body
> Count).
>
> Another way of saying that is that it would mean that the IBC MISSED
> counting 9 out of every 10 deaths.
>
> That is the conclusion that you would have to accept if you believe
> the 1,000,000 estimate.
>
> >> If anyone paying attention over the last 6 years can believe that,
> >> they will believe damn near anything.
> >
> >You obviously haven't been paying attention.
> >
>
> Throughout 2006, 2007, and the earlier part of 2008, the headline news
> had carried reports of truck bombings, suicide bombings, etc almost
> every other day.
>
> Damn near impossible to miss all the reports.
>
> I remember casualties over a hundred, but I can't remember a report
> with 461 civilian deaths.
>
> It stretches the imagination to believe that there were an average of
> 461 casualties every single day, over 6 entire years.
>
> Yet, that is exactly what you would have to believe to accept the
> 1,000,000 number.

you know dam well many libs LIKE a big death toll number.
They see 1 million and now they have ammunition to use.

How many libs do you think actually did the math to verify it ?

apparently none/few

_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 01:14:50
From: bub
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:56:29 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>
>One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq


blah blah bullshit blah


   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:00:45
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 2:14 AM, bub wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:56:29 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq
>
>
> blah blah bullshit blah

Refute it or STFU up already.

------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 08:37:16
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
> Refute it or STFU up already.

You pull an arbitrary number out your asshole and you expect people to
refute it? With what? Evidence to the contrary so you can turn the
number on its head with some bullshit ChrisRobin math? You made the
comment SUBSTANTIATE it.

How about YOU refute the point that, if left in power, Saddam would have
killed more than the casualties in this WAR.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:35:27
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 11:37 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > Refute it or STFU up already.
>
> You pull an arbitrary number out your asshole and you expect people to
> refute it? With what? Evidence to the contrary so you can turn the
> number on its head with some bullshit ChrisRobin math? You made the
> comment SUBSTANTIATE it.

I ponied up the Lancet study in another thread last night, which posited
600,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed by 2006. Simple extrapolation
leads to the ~1 million dead figure by the end of 2008. Try to keep up.

> How about YOU refute the point that, if left in power, Saddam would have
> killed more than the casualties in this WAR.

It's impossible to refute a silly hypothetical like that. However I could
easily prove that U.S. sanctions alone caused more Iraqi deaths than
Saddam ever did and that's not even including the death toll from the
current conflict. Wanna play?

--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




      
Date: 16 Dec 2008 13:18:36
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
>Wanna play?

not with you. You are crazy.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 03:17:46
From: yesnomaybe
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:defh16xa3r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 15 2008 2:14 AM, bub wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:56:29 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
> > <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq
> >
> >
> > blah blah bullshit blah
>
> Refute it or STFU up already.
>

If your intention is to say that U.S. forces have killed 1 million civilians
then it's so ludicrous there is no need to refute it. Arguing with fools is
never a wise policy. Then again you are the bldg. 7 moron so I guess even
responding to your post is equally unwise.

ploink...








     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 01:20:47
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
"yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com > wrote in message
news:gi57bj$ecq$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:defh16xa3r.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> On Dec 15 2008 2:14 AM, bub wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:56:29 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
>> > <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq
>> >
>> >
>> > blah blah bullshit blah
>>
>> Refute it or STFU up already.
>>
>
> If your intention is to say that U.S. forces have killed 1 million
> civilians
> then it's so ludicrous there is no need to refute it. Arguing with fools
> is
> never a wise policy. Then again you are the bldg. 7 moron so I guess even
> responding to your post is equally unwise.
>
> ploink...

Lookee there -- spammy used up a fresh nym just to pretend to killfile you.

That's part of his mating dance, you know.

Jim




      
Date: 15 Dec 2008 03:32:11
From: yesnomaybe
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com > wrote in message
news:88OdnfI5IcjtvNvUnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@cablespeedmi.com...
> "yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:gi57bj$ecq$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >
> > ploink...
>
> Lookee there -- spammy used up a fresh nym just to pretend to killfile
you.
>
> That's part of his mating dance, you know.
>
> Jim

Fucking retard...

ploink...




       
Date: 15 Dec 2008 01:36:24
From: Clave
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
"yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com > wrote in message
news:gi586k$ktk$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> news:88OdnfI5IcjtvNvUnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@cablespeedmi.com...
>> "yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:gi57bj$ecq$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> >
>> > ploink...
>>
>> Lookee there -- spammy used up a fresh nym just to pretend to killfile
> you.
>>
>> That's part of his mating dance, you know.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Fucking retard...
>
> ploink...

I win again.

Jim




        
Date: 15 Dec 2008 10:46:14
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 2:36 AM, Clave wrote:

> "yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:gi586k$ktk$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >
> > "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDammit@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> > news:88OdnfI5IcjtvNvUnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@cablespeedmi.com...
> >> "yesnomaybe" <ynm@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:gi57bj$ecq$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >> >
> >> > ploink...
> >>
> >> Lookee there -- spammy used up a fresh nym just to pretend to killfile
> > you.
> >>
> >> That's part of his mating dance, you know.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > Fucking retard...
> >
> > ploink...
>
> I win again.
>
> Jim

Who are you saying he is? It's hard to keep up sometimes...

--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:54:51
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:tk4h16xf3q.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
>> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
> Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
>
> One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq. Regular people, defending their
> homes and neighborhoods. You shitbag.

I believe the actual number, according to the site provided, was 151,000.
Of those, how many were killed by Americans and how many were killed by
their fellow muslims? Sadam killed 2,000,000 so if he had remained in
power, how many would he have killed in the same time frame?

Irish Mike





   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:37:24
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?
On Dec 15 2008 12:54 AM, Irish Mike wrote:

> "ChrisRobin" <a9dbf1e@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tk4h16xf3q.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 14 2008 11:19 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >
> >> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
> >
> > Do you even know the difference between a "terrorist" and a "civilian"?
> >
> > One million CIVILIANS killed in Iraq. Regular people, defending their
> > homes and neighborhoods. You shitbag.
>
> I believe the actual number, according to the site provided, was 151,000.
> Of those, how many were killed by Americans and how many were killed by
> their fellow muslims? Sadam killed 2,000,000 so if he had remained in
> power, how many would he have killed in the same time frame?
>
> Irish Mike

thats a great point, maybe he will call u bad names for it

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 23:45:30
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:me2h16xdsp.ln2@recgroups.com...
> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
>
> Are infants really that bad ?

There's big money in the baby killing business. The Planned Parenthood
abortion mills alone generate more than $1 billion a year and they make
large contributions to the liberal Democrat politicans who support them.
Obama is the abortion industry's poster boy and gets $ thousands in
political contributions from them each year. Liberals bitch and moan
endlessly about the rights of some terrorist scumbag while they're standing
knee deep in the blood of murdered infants.

Irish Mike





 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 22:17:49
From: mccard
Subject: Re: Why do libs kill babies ?

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:me2h16xdsp.ln2@recgroups.com...
> yet they whine about killing terrorists ?
>
>
> Are infants really that bad ?
>
>
Thought you were taking a year off?