Okay I know he is an idiot but…

[jficquette]

Here is some background information on how the Muslim world and its wars of conquest.

They conquered Spain in the 8th century. I would guess no one here would argue that Spain is not part of the Western World.

John

http://www.mideastweb.org/islamhistory.htm

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

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/

[larrylujack]

Bush won the 2000 election by less then 200 votes in Florida. Bush won Ohio in the last election by a few hundred votes.
–Actually, the “official” Florida numbers in 2000 were about 537 more for Bush, and Ohio was not that close in 2004.–

743 votes may not seem like much but multiply that by 435 congressional districts.
–Again, there is no evidence that illegals voting is widespread or significant to the extent that it affected the outcome of any election ever. In your example, in staunchly republican OC, how could the voting of 743 illegals, even if they were all for dems change the outcome when typically the repub wins in a 2:1 landlslide? Fact is, it is mathematically impossible.–

Why are you so defensive about the lack of integrity in our electoral process?
–Hardly defensive, just pointing out that there is no evidence to indicate elections are effected by illegals voting. What is far more revealing is your lack of concern about the 2000 Florida vote recount not being completed- thanks to the pro-Bush US supreme court- and the numerous irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.–

Don’t you think it’s significant that our elections can be determined by people who are not entitled to vote?
–Actually, this statement is again quite revealing of a lockstop pro-Bush view, as you may recall, wasn’t it the conservative majority of the US supreme court that dictated the outcome of the 2000 election by preventing the Florida vote recount? Why is it that you are so concerned with “illegals” voting and the “integrity of our electoral process” but could care less that the US supreme court intervened to block a Florida recount to determine who actually won, allowing the great leader to get in the White House? Talk about a double-standard: what kind of integrity does our electoral process have when the supreme court thwarts the will of the people in electing the president?–

Are you an Illegal?? You seem to be really paranoid that I am bringing up the facts.
–I have a work ethic like an illegal that’s for sure, hard and long hours on the job and in school I busted my a.. to get where I am. Bottom line is your so-called “facts” lead you to what? Even if a few illegals vote, there is no evidence it affects elections, suggesting you are using this as an excuse to justify xenophobic views towards immigrants.–

[larrylujack]

Bush won the 2000 election by less then 200 votes in Florida. Bush won Ohio in the last election by a few hundred votes.
–Actually, the “official” Florida numbers in 2000 were about 537 more for Bush, and Ohio was not that close in 2004.–

743 votes may not seem like much but multiply that by 435 congressional districts.
–Again, there is no evidence that illegals voting is widespread or significant to the extent that it affected the outcome of any election ever. In your example, in staunchly republican OC, how could the voting of 743 illegals, even if they were all for dems change the outcome when typically the repub wins in a 2:1 landlslide? Fact is, it is mathematically impossible.–

Why are you so defensive about the lack of integrity in our electoral process?
–Hardly defensive, just pointing out that there is no evidence to indicate elections are effected by illegals voting. What is far more revealing is your lack of concern about the 2000 Florida vote recount not being completed- thanks to the pro-Bush US supreme court- and the numerous irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.–

Don’t you think it’s significant that our elections can be determined by people who are not entitled to vote?
–Actually, this statement is again quite revealing of a lockstop pro-Bush view, as you may recall, wasn’t it the conservative majority of the US supreme court that dictated the outcome of the 2000 election by preventing the Florida vote recount? Why is it that you are so concerned with “illegals” voting and the “integrity of our electoral process” but could care less that the US supreme court intervened to block a Florida recount to determine who actually won, allowing the great leader to get in the White House? Talk about a double-standard: what kind of integrity does our electoral process have when the supreme court thwarts the will of the people in electing the president?–

Are you an Illegal?? You seem to be really paranoid that I am bringing up the facts.
–I have a work ethic like an illegal that’s for sure, hard and long hours on the job and in school I busted my a.. to get where I am. Bottom line is your so-called “facts” lead you to what? Even if a few illegals vote, there is no evidence it affects elections, suggesting you are using this as an excuse to justify xenophobic views towards immigrants.–

[larrylujack]

Bush won the 2000 election by less then 200 votes in Florida. Bush won Ohio in the last election by a few hundred votes.
–Actually, the “official” Florida numbers in 2000 were about 537 more for Bush, and Ohio was not that close in 2004.–

743 votes may not seem like much but multiply that by 435 congressional districts.
–Again, there is no evidence that illegals voting is widespread or significant to the extent that it affected the outcome of any election ever. In your example, in staunchly republican OC, how could the voting of 743 illegals, even if they were all for dems change the outcome when typically the repub wins in a 2:1 landlslide? Fact is, it is mathematically impossible.–

Why are you so defensive about the lack of integrity in our electoral process?
–Hardly defensive, just pointing out that there is no evidence to indicate elections are effected by illegals voting. What is far more revealing is your lack of concern about the 2000 Florida vote recount not being completed- thanks to the pro-Bush US supreme court- and the numerous irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.–

Don’t you think it’s significant that our elections can be determined by people who are not entitled to vote?
–Actually, this statement is again quite revealing of a lockstop pro-Bush view, as you may recall, wasn’t it the conservative majority of the US supreme court that dictated the outcome of the 2000 election by preventing the Florida vote recount? Why is it that you are so concerned with “illegals” voting and the “integrity of our electoral process” but could care less that the US supreme court intervened to block a Florida recount to determine who actually won, allowing the great leader to get in the White House? Talk about a double-standard: what kind of integrity does our electoral process have when the supreme court thwarts the will of the people in electing the president?–

Are you an Illegal?? You seem to be really paranoid that I am bringing up the facts.
–I have a work ethic like an illegal that’s for sure, hard and long hours on the job and in school I busted my a.. to get where I am. Bottom line is your so-called “facts” lead you to what? Even if a few illegals vote, there is no evidence it affects elections, suggesting you are using this as an excuse to justify xenophobic views towards immigrants.–

[larrylujack]

Bush won the 2000 election by less then 200 votes in Florida. Bush won Ohio in the last election by a few hundred votes.
–Actually, the “official” Florida numbers in 2000 were about 537 more for Bush, and Ohio was not that close in 2004.–

743 votes may not seem like much but multiply that by 435 congressional districts.
–Again, there is no evidence that illegals voting is widespread or significant to the extent that it affected the outcome of any election ever. In your example, in staunchly republican OC, how could the voting of 743 illegals, even if they were all for dems change the outcome when typically the repub wins in a 2:1 landlslide? Fact is, it is mathematically impossible.–

Why are you so defensive about the lack of integrity in our electoral process?
–Hardly defensive, just pointing out that there is no evidence to indicate elections are effected by illegals voting. What is far more revealing is your lack of concern about the 2000 Florida vote recount not being completed- thanks to the pro-Bush US supreme court- and the numerous irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.–

Don’t you think it’s significant that our elections can be determined by people who are not entitled to vote?
–Actually, this statement is again quite revealing of a lockstop pro-Bush view, as you may recall, wasn’t it the conservative majority of the US supreme court that dictated the outcome of the 2000 election by preventing the Florida vote recount? Why is it that you are so concerned with “illegals” voting and the “integrity of our electoral process” but could care less that the US supreme court intervened to block a Florida recount to determine who actually won, allowing the great leader to get in the White House? Talk about a double-standard: what kind of integrity does our electoral process have when the supreme court thwarts the will of the people in electing the president?–

Are you an Illegal?? You seem to be really paranoid that I am bringing up the facts.
–I have a work ethic like an illegal that’s for sure, hard and long hours on the job and in school I busted my a.. to get where I am. Bottom line is your so-called “facts” lead you to what? Even if a few illegals vote, there is no evidence it affects elections, suggesting you are using this as an excuse to justify xenophobic views towards immigrants.–

[larrylujack]

Bush won the 2000 election by less then 200 votes in Florida. Bush won Ohio in the last election by a few hundred votes.
–Actually, the “official” Florida numbers in 2000 were about 537 more for Bush, and Ohio was not that close in 2004.–

743 votes may not seem like much but multiply that by 435 congressional districts.
–Again, there is no evidence that illegals voting is widespread or significant to the extent that it affected the outcome of any election ever. In your example, in staunchly republican OC, how could the voting of 743 illegals, even if they were all for dems change the outcome when typically the repub wins in a 2:1 landlslide? Fact is, it is mathematically impossible.–

Why are you so defensive about the lack of integrity in our electoral process?
–Hardly defensive, just pointing out that there is no evidence to indicate elections are effected by illegals voting. What is far more revealing is your lack of concern about the 2000 Florida vote recount not being completed- thanks to the pro-Bush US supreme court- and the numerous irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 election.–

Don’t you think it’s significant that our elections can be determined by people who are not entitled to vote?
–Actually, this statement is again quite revealing of a lockstop pro-Bush view, as you may recall, wasn’t it the conservative majority of the US supreme court that dictated the outcome of the 2000 election by preventing the Florida vote recount? Why is it that you are so concerned with “illegals” voting and the “integrity of our electoral process” but could care less that the US supreme court intervened to block a Florida recount to determine who actually won, allowing the great leader to get in the White House? Talk about a double-standard: what kind of integrity does our electoral process have when the supreme court thwarts the will of the people in electing the president?–

Are you an Illegal?? You seem to be really paranoid that I am bringing up the facts.
–I have a work ethic like an illegal that’s for sure, hard and long hours on the job and in school I busted my a.. to get where I am. Bottom line is your so-called “facts” lead you to what? Even if a few illegals vote, there is no evidence it affects elections, suggesting you are using this as an excuse to justify xenophobic views towards immigrants.–

[robson]

Curious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.

[robson]

Curious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.

[robson]

Curious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.

[robson]

Curious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.

[robson]

Curious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.

[Ren]

LOL, so a text written by a man in his 70’s with typo’s that doesn’t agree with your world view is not to be taken seriously??

Why would a retired general named Farmington go through so much trouble to put out something that is a fraud?? Why would he risk his reputation by pulling what would be a schoolboy prank?

First of all, the text was supposedly written by a Gen Cash, not Gen Farrington. Farrington (again, supposedly) wrote the introduction. Changes like this happen when something gets mass e-mailed, slightly changed, then e-mailed again. That’s mostly where you’ll find this document – pasted on blogs after people get it via e-mail.

The letter has the feel of something written by some bored far-right neo-nazi social misfit, taking a break from writing his manifesto and cleaning his assault rifle – not a retired general. Now I know why… after doing a little more research, it looks like the e-mail was from an editorial which has Gen Cash’s name on it. The grammatical errors were added, along with emphasis on certain words, because our bored social misfit, genius that he is, never learned how to copy and paste. He apparently took Cash’s original document, retyped it, and then started spamming people.

Which facts are in error and please give us the documentation that disputes them.

Even assuming Cash wrote it, I still have some problems with the content. For example – “Oil will not be available to this country at any price.”

Yeah, because the mid-east is the only region on Earth with oil. Last I heard, Canada was our number one supplier of oil. Venezuela and Mexico are number 3 and 4 on the list, after Saudi Arabia.

You can also count me as yet another person (registered non-partisan) who voted for Bush, now regrets that vote, and considers him to be a complete moron.

Feel free to escalate the personal attacks, if you like, and/or forward the spam letter to all your friends. Me, I’m going out to look at houses 🙂

[Ren]

LOL, so a text written by a man in his 70’s with typo’s that doesn’t agree with your world view is not to be taken seriously??

Why would a retired general named Farmington go through so much trouble to put out something that is a fraud?? Why would he risk his reputation by pulling what would be a schoolboy prank?

First of all, the text was supposedly written by a Gen Cash, not Gen Farrington. Farrington (again, supposedly) wrote the introduction. Changes like this happen when something gets mass e-mailed, slightly changed, then e-mailed again. That’s mostly where you’ll find this document – pasted on blogs after people get it via e-mail.

The letter has the feel of something written by some bored far-right neo-nazi social misfit, taking a break from writing his manifesto and cleaning his assault rifle – not a retired general. Now I know why… after doing a little more research, it looks like the e-mail was from an editorial which has Gen Cash’s name on it. The grammatical errors were added, along with emphasis on certain words, because our bored social misfit, genius that he is, never learned how to copy and paste. He apparently took Cash’s original document, retyped it, and then started spamming people.

Which facts are in error and please give us the documentation that disputes them.

Even assuming Cash wrote it, I still have some problems with the content. For example – “Oil will not be available to this country at any price.”

Yeah, because the mid-east is the only region on Earth with oil. Last I heard, Canada was our number one supplier of oil. Venezuela and Mexico are number 3 and 4 on the list, after Saudi Arabia.

You can also count me as yet another person (registered non-partisan) who voted for Bush, now regrets that vote, and considers him to be a complete moron.

Feel free to escalate the personal attacks, if you like, and/or forward the spam letter to all your friends. Me, I’m going out to look at houses 🙂

[Ren]

LOL, so a text written by a man in his 70’s with typo’s that doesn’t agree with your world view is not to be taken seriously??

Why would a retired general named Farmington go through so much trouble to put out something that is a fraud?? Why would he risk his reputation by pulling what would be a schoolboy prank?

First of all, the text was supposedly written by a Gen Cash, not Gen Farrington. Farrington (again, supposedly) wrote the introduction. Changes like this happen when something gets mass e-mailed, slightly changed, then e-mailed again. That’s mostly where you’ll find this document – pasted on blogs after people get it via e-mail.

The letter has the feel of something written by some bored far-right neo-nazi social misfit, taking a break from writing his manifesto and cleaning his assault rifle – not a retired general. Now I know why… after doing a little more research, it looks like the e-mail was from an editorial which has Gen Cash’s name on it. The grammatical errors were added, along with emphasis on certain words, because our bored social misfit, genius that he is, never learned how to copy and paste. He apparently took Cash’s original document, retyped it, and then started spamming people.

Which facts are in error and please give us the documentation that disputes them.

Even assuming Cash wrote it, I still have some problems with the content. For example – “Oil will not be available to this country at any price.”

Yeah, because the mid-east is the only region on Earth with oil. Last I heard, Canada was our number one supplier of oil. Venezuela and Mexico are number 3 and 4 on the list, after Saudi Arabia.

You can also count me as yet another person (registered non-partisan) who voted for Bush, now regrets that vote, and considers him to be a complete moron.

Feel free to escalate the personal attacks, if you like, and/or forward the spam letter to all your friends. Me, I’m going out to look at houses 🙂

[Ren]

LOL, so a text written by a man in his 70’s with typo’s that doesn’t agree with your world view is not to be taken seriously??

Why would a retired general named Farmington go through so much trouble to put out something that is a fraud?? Why would he risk his reputation by pulling what would be a schoolboy prank?

First of all, the text was supposedly written by a Gen Cash, not Gen Farrington. Farrington (again, supposedly) wrote the introduction. Changes like this happen when something gets mass e-mailed, slightly changed, then e-mailed again. That’s mostly where you’ll find this document – pasted on blogs after people get it via e-mail.

The letter has the feel of something written by some bored far-right neo-nazi social misfit, taking a break from writing his manifesto and cleaning his assault rifle – not a retired general. Now I know why… after doing a little more research, it looks like the e-mail was from an editorial which has Gen Cash’s name on it. The grammatical errors were added, along with emphasis on certain words, because our bored social misfit, genius that he is, never learned how to copy and paste. He apparently took Cash’s original document, retyped it, and then started spamming people.

Which facts are in error and please give us the documentation that disputes them.

Even assuming Cash wrote it, I still have some problems with the content. For example – “Oil will not be available to this country at any price.”

Yeah, because the mid-east is the only region on Earth with oil. Last I heard, Canada was our number one supplier of oil. Venezuela and Mexico are number 3 and 4 on the list, after Saudi Arabia.

You can also count me as yet another person (registered non-partisan) who voted for Bush, now regrets that vote, and considers him to be a complete moron.

Feel free to escalate the personal attacks, if you like, and/or forward the spam letter to all your friends. Me, I’m going out to look at houses 🙂

[Author]

Posts