JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
hlink.net...

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.
Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?
If you haven't noticed his train wreck difficulties with language, then
it's time for you to drop this part of the discussion.
I already said I noticed his highly inarticulate speech, but that's not
the same thing as being qualified to say what causes it. I asked you a
direct question, and you didn't answer it. I think it's pretty clear you
have no credentials at all. Among those who do who have spoken publicly
on the matter, there is no consensus that anything is "wrong" with Bush,
based on his speech ability.

If one of your kids spoke like Bush at age 10, would you ask the school for
any assistance in finding out why?

Probably. The answer might just be that he "processes
information differently." I hear that about quite a
lot of kids.


Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.
You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either.
Are you sure about this?
Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether
there are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see
them.
I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't think an item
like a sale of F-16 fighters to some presumably significant country -
not quite sure why you're being so cagey with the name of the country -
would be all that hard to find.

Sorry. I thought I mentioned Pakistan.
No, you didn't, but I surmised that.


Continue with your search. If you find nothing about it, go away.
Well, I found something that looked promising from the BBC: "US to sell
fighters to Pakistan". But when I read the story, it's dated 26 Mar 2005.
That's not exactly "news".


How recent does information need to be in order for you to consider it
valid?

It's not a question of whether or not it's "valid";
it's a question of whether or not I consider it news.
This sounds like a done deal to me, nothing worthy of
any agitation.

You snipped without noting my comment about your almost
paranoid belief that those who disagree with you are
under some "orders" to think or believe a certain way,
or to disregard some media. That's a very strange
position for you to adopt. Or I should say, it *would*
be a very strange position, if not for the fact that it
is predictable based on your extreme partisanship.