"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:50:29 GMT, Jeff McCann
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 11:16:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 23 May 2005 00:23:12 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


NEW YORK May 22, 2005 - Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

was

heckled during a speech to Jewish leaders on Sunday, and about 1,500
demonstrators staged a noisy street protest against the Gaza
disengagement
plan he was defending......................

Yeah. Something like that. I sometimes wonder if American Jews had
to

live

in Israel, whether the circumstances there would change their
attitude.
Much like Irish Americans who support the IRA, they have the luxury
of
taking a stance without having to face the consequences.

Jeff

I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?

Same idea, different axis. I just don't spare much time wondering
about
those types.

Jeff


You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted.

Gunner, the quality of your posts appear to me to be declining
pprecipitously . You can now be reliably counted upon to attempt to
personally demean and rail against anyone you perceive, rightly or
wrongly, to be not toeing the party line as you see it, and in the same
predictable and shopworn manner, rather than face the substance of the
post.

Just taking pages from the Democratic Party Playbook. Are you miffed
that its being used against you?

your posts are showing clear signs of "intellectosclerosis." You are
displaying a shrinking and hardening analytical capacity. Your posts,
often already dull and repetitive, are becoming increasingly inane and
irrelevant, in my judgment.

Speaks volumes about the lack of quality in your judgement.

Your posts here are an example of this.

I merely commented on how easy it was for people to take a strong
position on the "right" solution to someone else's problem, when they
don't have to suffer the consequences themselves. The example at hand
was those who oppose Israel's peace process with the Palestinians but
aren't themselves at risk getting blown up if the violence continues. I
took no stance on the peace process itself.

Yes and?

I AGREED WITH YOU that anti-Israel types do the same kind of thing,
i.e., they'd probably be more sympathetic to Israel's problems if they
had to live in that very precarious nation. I then commented that
Israel-haters aren't worth much thought to me (being as I support Israel
in general). But that was still enough to set you off.

Set me off?

"I sometimes wonder if those anti-Isreal types had to live there for a
couple years, if they would change their tunes any?"

Oh now theres a rant if Ive ever seen one. Wowsers. I really should
be embarressed.

Yep. "You wouldnt. Your tolerance of diversity of opinion is well noted."
That is a rant if there ever was one. Not a long one, nor even a good one,
but a rant nonetheless. And yes, you really should be embarrassed, your
lame attempt at misdirection notwithstanding.

Your response? A sneering personal implication, and one apparently
based on a complete failure to comprehend what had gone before.

Actually Jeff, while you obviously didnt like the comment..it was an
observation, based on what ...5 yrs or so of reading your posts?

Any rant is just an observation. The lack of meaningful content, snide tone
and irrelevence are what makes it a rant.

While you occasionally demonstrate a moment of dazzeling clarity...its
much too rare and does little to counter your boiler plate
partisanship

Um, Gunner, you obviously missed that I was pointing out that the protest
against Mrs. Bush was meaningless. That's hardly boiler-plate
partisanship.

and the rather pathetic upset that your party is no
longer A. In control. B. Of any particular note in the grand scheme of
things, C. Down by the bow, the rats are swimming off and the band is
still playing, albit in a frenzey.

On the other hand, the above is a pretty good example of boiler-plate
partisanship. You really are a hoot, Gunner.

Frankly Jeff.... Im rather embaressed for you and many others here.
Its the same tired rhetoric Ive heard before..in the 60s. The really
sad part..isthat then, .it was directed against the war because of its
alleged immorality. Today, while lip service is payed to that
convention as a convient cover..its no more and no less a cover to
hide your anti conservative, anti Bush, anti Right bigotry. Sad
reallly....watching the spew, the hate, the spin and pure bull**** you
lads blat out and yet trying to maintain a holier than thou demeaner
about "War is bad for childern and other living things", when you and
your ilk are just as scared of the "bad old muslims" but find this a
perfect time to demonstrate both your partisanship and your
intolerance. One supposes its the Last Great Desperate Act of
Defiance as your side of the asle becomes redundant.

Shrug. Must suck to be one of you.

That's not a window you're looking through, it's a mirror. You don't need
to spend the rest of your days in a fog of mental confusion. Go see your
doctor about adjusting your medications, and do it soon, OK? ;-)

Jeff