Swickley

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 156 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Swickley

• 
  3

  IT'S GREAT TO BE KING

  by Swickley in

  1. social
  2. current

  for those who missed it, here is the final outcome of the "rush limbaugh is a bigot" (aka.

  limpbag) thread (see ding dong the wizard is dead):

  stacy ---let me see if i understand what you're saying: now you did call me stupid but you didn't use the stupid word.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  oh c'mon, don't be so anal. You take yourself way too seriously.

  Honestly, isn't this more fun than the "how slutty are you" test?
• 
  3

  IT'S GREAT TO BE KING

  by Swickley in

  1. social
  2. current

  for those who missed it, here is the final outcome of the "rush limbaugh is a bigot" (aka.

  limpbag) thread (see ding dong the wizard is dead):

  stacy ---let me see if i understand what you're saying: now you did call me stupid but you didn't use the stupid word.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT, HERE IS THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE "RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIGOT" (aka. Limpbag) THREAD (SEE DING DONG THE WIZARD IS DEAD):

  STACY ---Let me see if I understand what you're saying: Now you did call me stupid but you didn't use the stupid word. You said I wasn't worth aruging with because I'm not intelligent enough to bother with (you've bothered a lot) so that's calling me stupid silly person So, what you're saying is that although I never used the "stupid" word, my other statements indicated that I really believed you were stupid. In other words, I didn't actually say you were stupid, I just made comments that insinuated you were dumb. THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT!!! RUSH LIMPBAG DID NOT SAY THAT "BLACKS ARE INFERIOR AND CAN'T COMPETE WITH WHITE QUARTERBACKS" BUT HIS OWN COMMENTS INSINUATED THAT VERY THING!!!!! SO, YOU SEE, IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, YOU HAVE JUST MADE MY ARGUMENT FOR ME.

  IP: 6chGLT2J0iG0D2Fe
• 
  101

  Wives Should Provide Sex On Demand - Dr. Laura

  by Mindchild in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i couldn't believe that i was reading this in the news....http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7446555%255e13762,00.html ok, dear it might fix my headache.

  by george gordon.

  october 3, 2003. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  Sorry, I had a double tough time getting through this thread. I hate this woman... she is an idiot

  So, STACY , regarding the above post , where is YOUR OUTRAGE ??? It seems others use name calling as well. I don't hear you complaining...
• 
  17

  Bush or chimp - whos da monk3y

  by Hamas in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  Hamas -- great pics! But, the similarity between the two is so great that they must be twins. I can't tell them apart! On the other hand, the chimp probably knows more words and can form a sentence. So I guess we can just ask a question, and see which one can form a sentence.
• 
  14

  Kennedy Speech on the House Floor

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. social
  2. current

  attached is "swimmer" kennedy's attack on bush recently, my comments...which i sent to him in the format below...are in red.. .

  http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.htmli have heard many of my colleagues today discussing my remarks on this administration's go-it-alone policy in iraq.

  the administration has not had a "go it alone" policy in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  SFO-Jim -- that is too funny (a sad subject, but funny what VW did!)
• 
  14

  Kennedy Speech on the House Floor

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. social
  2. current

  attached is "swimmer" kennedy's attack on bush recently, my comments...which i sent to him in the format below...are in red.. .

  http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.htmli have heard many of my colleagues today discussing my remarks on this administration's go-it-alone policy in iraq.

  the administration has not had a "go it alone" policy in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  And now, for something completely different, and more accurate -- by Max Cleland:

  "The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.

  In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

  Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

  The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

  However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

  There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

  Sound familiar? It does to me.

  The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

  Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:

  • Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.
  • If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.
  • If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.
  • If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.
  • If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.
  • If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.
  • In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.

  Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

  They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.

  A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

  A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.

  In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

  The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

  Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

  Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance."

  Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland volunteered for duty in Vietnam where he lost both of his legs and his right arm in a grenade explosion. He headed the Veterans Administration in the Carter administration and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996. In 2002, Cleland lost his bid for reelection when his opponent ran attack ads that questioned his patriotism and featured photos of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He has received numerous awards for his bravery and service including the military's Silver Star for Gallantry in Action. When the Reserve Officers' Association named Cleland its "Minute Man of the Year" for his work in the Senate, he joined past Presidents Bush, Reagan and Ford in receiving the association's highest honor. Currently, Max Cleland is a distinguished adjunct professor at American University's Washington Semester Program.
• 
  54

  Finish this sentence

  by micheal in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  what............. .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  ...was Robert Novak thinking????
• 
  47

  LASIK surgery

  by drwtsn32 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  i have a pre-op appointment for lasik eye surgery on thursday.

  assuming everything checks out ok my surgery will be on the following tuesday.

  woo hoo!!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  Several of my family members and friends have had the surgery. They were near-sighted and can now see far away with no problem. But what they didn't count on is that now they can't see up close. None of them can thread a needle anymore, without high power magnifying glasses, and all of them must wear reading glasses. One of them can't even see the computer screen and had to order a magnifying cover for it. May be this is not a problem for most, but reading is important to my job (and for relaxation as well). So, why have the surgery if you're going to have to wear glasses anyway... to see up close?

  Since I'm nearsighted, I asked my doctor (also nearsighted, with glasses) why he didn't have the surgery..? He stumbled trying to find the right words to answer, and finally said he didn't think the technology was perfected yet. So I said, yeah, I don't want anyone cutting on my eyes either..! He also admitted that you actually trade one defect for another -- i.e., you can see far away but will need reading glasses for anything close up. But, from what I have observed, the reading glasses don't seem to help much because all of my relatives (who had the surgery) still can't see up close and even squint with their reading glasses.

  Something to think about...
• 
  36

  Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth...

  by Aztec in

  1. social
  2. current

  washington, sept. 17 president bush said wednesday that there was no evidence that former iraqi president saddam hussein was involved in the sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against iraq.

  theres no question that saddam hussein had al-qaida ties, the president said.

  but he also said, weve had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with september the 11th.. the presidents comment was the administrations firmest assertion that there was no proven link between saddam and sept. 11. it came after vice president dick cheney clouded the issue sunday by saying, its not surprising people make that connection.. speaking on nbcs meet the press, cheney also repeated an allegation, doubted by many in the intelligence community, that mohamed atta, the lead sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior iraqi intelligence official in prague in the czech republic five months before sept. 11, 2001.. weve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it, cheney said sunday.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  ...just can't find a single quote where Bush stated Saddam was actually behind Sept 11.

  Right. And the JWs NEVER ACTUALLY SAID that 1975 was "the end" of this system of things either....
• 
  36

  Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth...

  by Aztec in

  1. social
  2. current

  washington, sept. 17 president bush said wednesday that there was no evidence that former iraqi president saddam hussein was involved in the sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against iraq.

  theres no question that saddam hussein had al-qaida ties, the president said.

  but he also said, weve had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with september the 11th.. the presidents comment was the administrations firmest assertion that there was no proven link between saddam and sept. 11. it came after vice president dick cheney clouded the issue sunday by saying, its not surprising people make that connection.. speaking on nbcs meet the press, cheney also repeated an allegation, doubted by many in the intelligence community, that mohamed atta, the lead sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior iraqi intelligence official in prague in the czech republic five months before sept. 11, 2001.. weve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it, cheney said sunday.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Swickley

  Thanks Robyn -- I enjoy being here, and all of the great comments and info!