🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35C31B77.F7F@swbell.net>
on Sat, 01 Aug 1998 08:43:19 -0500, "Tracey-Levin."
<tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:

>George Worley wrote:
>
>> So you have 3 different enemies after you.  No way to win.  At best a
>> stalemate.

>You full of BS (Barbara Streisand)

And your so full BS (Bull Shit) that it makes these newsgroups stink.

>NORAD would not launch a missle without the proper approval.

You know your such an idiot.  If NORAD was to be overtaken by a civil
uprising there would be nothing that any one could do to stop a launch
towards our own cities.

>And, no matter how much of a response they fired off, all of the
>incoming ICBMs will hit their targets on US soil, you dim bulb.

No one ever said that our ICBM's could stop incoming Missiles, idiot.
No one ever said anything about stoping our incoming missiles with an
citizen's attack  on key military positions we could never launch a
counter attack.  Your such a dim wit. The whole purpose of the ICBM's
is not to use them at all except for a deterrent.  If no one is in
control of our ICBM's in the US, it is a sign to those nations that
have ICBM's  that they can fire upon the US without a counter strike.
Thus the only land that gets destroyed is the US not the entire world.
Idiot do what George Bush said "Read my lips", ICBM's are good for a
deterrent.

>If you commie libs had been smart (what an oxymoron), you would have
>encouraged development of a S.D.I. styled missle protection system, but
>no.

Give me a break, most of the Republicans that were in office at the
time of Reagan's "Starwars" initiative that were against this from the
start.   If the republic Congress is so powerful now why doesn't it
pass laws requiring the S.D.I development?   Sure it would veto by the
president but congress should have enough votes to override the
Presidential veto, don't you think?  Republicans do not want to spend
the money on S.D.I. development either, Mr No Show for Brains.

>You would rather use that money as a means to "buy" votes.

Oh you mean the money that the DNC gave back and like the republicans
not trying to "buy" votes with money by spending substantial more
money then the democrats.

>Why should Clinton want to defend the USA from China?  

Our biggest enemy is not China.  Our biggest enemy, besides the
idiots, like you, from within our borders, is the extremist from 3rd
world countries.  Missiles will not shot at us unless we do something
stupid like have a civil uprising.  

>His preidential election was helped along nicely by Chinese contributions.

So did George W. Bush's race for governor.  Actually is far is Clinton
is concern the Democratic National Committee (DNC) took the money not
Clinton...   The DNC returned all of the money that China gave to the
DNC.

Campaign monies is a whole separate issue... and both parties don't
want to open the Pandora's Box as it will get very messy for both
sides.