"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

Bull****. Bush is broken, but you think it's normal. Therefore, YOU are
broken.




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.


More meaningless fluff. You're saying you have a time limit, outside of
which information is no longer useful. What is the name of the last book you
read which delved into the last 25 years of American history?



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.

You have no original thoughts of your own. So, everything you post must come
from another source. Since you believe Bush is normal and qualified, we know
you are stupid. The logical extension of that fact is that you are an AM
radio drooler.