Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#721
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for others to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal. Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it? Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided. Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your president used American lives to achieve: - One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs - One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical: Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready for it - One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations. Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from the inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games. He also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading Iraq was the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head of the CIA had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam quietly, it would not have given your president the erection he craved. Instead, he wasted American lives for his own personal thrills. And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which happened anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from under their rocks. There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right. BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet? Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask? Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at some point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the same time, I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to have a problem with lawyers. |
#722
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win? |
#723
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Jim Yanik" . wrote in message 0.85... We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush, i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that category. Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become some other country's citizen. If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job? You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous. Only a fool would stay there. Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not. No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches. Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company? The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds. Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich him personally, regardless of what it did to the company. Think about a Ken Lay type of boss. Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others, including the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking. |
#724
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .prodigy.com... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message news:1121533745.714099.305050@g43g200 0cwa.googlegroups.com... "I'm 52. You've shocked me. I'm surprised you were an adult in the period between the REAL Bush's presidency and now, and somehow managed not to notice some contradictions to what YOU have said in the past day or two. For instance, we OWNED the borders of Iraq in almost total safety during those years. " LOL And once again it's Doug Kanter doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. He seems to equate age with knowledge, yet at 52 he doesn't even know geography. The two borders that are the biggest problem in Iraq are the borders with Syria and Iran. The US never had any control over those. Age is relevant. If he'd said he was 22, then it would be possible he was still in the teenage stage of being oblivious during the first half of the 1990s. So what's *your* excuse for being so ignorant? I take it you do not work in a profession which involves trying new things, or you wouldn't have such doubts about what's possible and what's not. You simply choose not to entertain the ideas to start with. Stop some weapons from moving to the exact place we knew they'd go? Not possible. I'm curious as to what your Politically Correct justification for interfering with trade between two sovereign nations would be. The job of enforcing U.N. sanctions is the responsibility of the U.N. , not the U.S. They had, at least fleetingly, access. That they failed to do anything at all is obvious. You must've been busy or sleeping when we were flying missions into Iraqi territory to enforce the no-fly zone. That was YEARS before the invasion. Once we went that far, do you think the idea of "sovereign nation" meant jack **** to anyone in Washington? And, if we'd occupied a chunk of desert, stopped vehicles, and actually found some with weapons which violated U.N. sanctions, we probably would've looked golden to the rest of the world. And you'd have been among the very first to bitch about "Empire Building". At that time it was a U.N. problem. Remember the Sanctions? Now you bitch that the U.S. didn't move, but just recently you bitched that it DID. Apparently, the subtleties of timing are something you don't understand. Tell me: Did you hear much public complaining about the way we handled the no-fly zones around Iraq for several years? No. You didn't. Why do you suppose that is? Timing? So it's a good thing to do on Tuesday, but not on Thursday? What the action does isn't important; WHEN that action is taken is? Holy ****...I really *do* need to explain everything, don't I? :-) Timing: Your president began waving his dick and making threats against Iraq 6-8 months before invading. Remember? Within days of 9/11? For that entire period of time, he did nothing, thereby allowing the weapons to leave the country. To "move" is not enough. To "move" correctly is what's important. Your president was more concerned with preaching than achieving the correct goals. He preached about how WMDs would eventually make their way out of Iraq and be used by terrorists elsewhere. \ He, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell said they knew exactly where the WMDs were, remember? Powell showed satellite photos of the weapons sites to the U.N., remember? Then, your president did nothing. Remember? And what did YOUR president do ? Sorry. The "what about the previous president" excuse has been eliminated from the list of sensible responses for people who are unable or unwilling to answer the real question. It's like telling your mommy you broke somebody's car window because all your friends were doing it. Totally irrelevant. The CURRENT president is the important issue, since he's still in a position to do more damage. With that in mind, why did he allow the weapons to vanish? The question is totally relevant as you claim Pres. Bush is NOT your President. Now... what did YOUR (present) President do ? Are you telling me that because you think Clinton didn't do enough, no subsequent president can ever be judged on his own actions? Time stopped with Clinton? If Bush is clearly shown to make mistakes, it's fiction because someone before him made mistakes? Be careful with your anwer. You're already up to your waist in ****. You don't want to get much deeper without a snorkel. Now we know... you believe that Clinton is your (present) President. Reality isn't your long suit at all. As to waist deep, "go ahead; make my day". And the deepest waste in here is you. -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
#725
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for others to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal. Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it? Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided. Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your president used American lives to achieve: - One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs - One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical: Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready for it - One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations. Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from the inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games. He also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading Iraq was the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head of the CIA had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam quietly, it would not have given your president the erection he craved. Instead, he wasted American lives for his own personal thrills. And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which happened anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from under their rocks. There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right. BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet? Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask? Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at some point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the same time, I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to have a problem with lawyers. Wm. Shakespeare had the solution to the lawyer problem. -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
#726
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Jim Yanik" . wrote in message 70.85... We've been through this explanation. I did not vote for the REAL Bush, i.e.: the current slob's father, but I respected him. Some people are so far from worthy that I disown them. The current slob is in that category. Doesn't matter,he's still your President,until you disown the USofA,become some other country's citizen. If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job? You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous. Only a fool would stay there. Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not. No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches. Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company? The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds. Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich him personally, regardless of what it did to the company. Think about a Ken Lay type of boss. Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others, including the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking. No thanks, I managed to retire anyway, and am much happier for it. But I am wondering how you manage to love a company that treats you that way. -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
#727
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message
... Sorry. The "what about the previous president" excuse has been eliminated from the list of sensible responses for people who are unable or unwilling to answer the real question. It's like telling your mommy you broke somebody's car window because all your friends were doing it. Totally irrelevant. The CURRENT president is the important issue, since he's still in a position to do more damage. With that in mind, why did he allow the weapons to vanish? The question is totally relevant as you claim Pres. Bush is NOT your President. Now... what did YOUR (present) President do ? Are you telling me that because you think Clinton didn't do enough, no subsequent president can ever be judged on his own actions? Time stopped with Clinton? If Bush is clearly shown to make mistakes, it's fiction because someone before him made mistakes? Be careful with your anwer. You're already up to your waist in ****. You don't want to get much deeper without a snorkel. Now we know... you believe that Clinton is your (present) President. Reality isn't your long suit at all. As to waist deep, "go ahead; make my day". And the deepest waste in here is you. Don't get upset. I'm trying to learn from you. You have a really interesting view of the world. So: You take your car for an oil change. The mechanic forgets to put a pad over the fender. He gouges the bejeezus out of the paint with his belt buckle. Naturally, you rip him a new asshole and his shop pays to have the fender repainted. 5000 miles later, you try another mechanic. The guy installs the new filter, puts in a quart of oil, and gets interrupted by a phonecall. Comes back to the car, thinks he's put in all the oil, starts it up, and goodbye engine. Burns hole in seat with cigarette ashes. Based on the way you evaluate Bush, it sounds like you'd let the second mechanic slide because the first one was also a slob. |
#728
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: Nope. The president should lead by example, and be an icon for others to follow. If that's the case, then murder is legal. Just exactly whom did the President murder, and when did he do it? Also need to know the results of the trial, and which judge presided. Others will refer to dead Iraqis, but that's too obvious. Your president used American lives to achieve: - One goal which he failed at: Finding the WMDs - One goal which smart people in the region agree is nonsensical: Jamming democracy down the throat of a country that might not be ready for it - One goal which was hypocritical: Saving the Iraqi people from a bad leader. Hypocritical because in other places, like Africa, we sent a handful of Marines to "evaluate" situations. Your president could have used covert means to eat away at Iraq from the inside, like termites do to a house. Why didn't he do that? In an interview before his first election, he was asked about his leisure activities. He said he spent about an hour a day playing video games. He also said he didn't read much - maybe just newspapers. Invading Iraq was the only method which fit his view of the world. If the head of the CIA had presented a perfect plan for eliminating Saddam quietly, it would not have given your president the erection he craved. Instead, he wasted American lives for his own personal thrills. And any other action would have brought out the lawyers. Which happened anyway. No matter what he does/does not, they crawl out from under their rocks. There's a reason it's called "covert", especially if it's done right. BTW, what do YOU do for a living? Are you bar certified yet? Grocery wholesale. I specialize is handling those clients who will only interact with suppliers via computer (pretty much). Why do you ask? Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. I'm sure that if you needed a lawyer to twist things in your favor at some point, you'd be happy to have someone very talented. But, at the same time, I realize it's stylish for many of the sheep to pretend to have a problem with lawyers. Wm. Shakespeare had the solution to the lawyer problem. In the future, try not to sound like one of your sources when you comment on certain professions. Remember that although George and Rush *want* you to repeat what they say, they really don't care if it makes you look foolish. Pick your own wording to disguise your priests. |
#729
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message
... If you're convinced that a coworker is incompetent, do you quit your job? You're convinced that the boss is incompetent and dangerous. Only a fool would stay there. Not if you love the company, which you obviously do not. No, I could never love bloodsucking leeches. Leeches? All companies? Or just one with a bad boss? If the latter, why do you assume that a bad boss makes a bad company? The bad boss (CEO) absconded with my, and others,pension funds. Also, I've never had a boss that worked for anything that didn't enrich him personally, regardless of what it did to the company. Think about a Ken Lay type of boss. Half the companies I've worked for have been that way. The others, including the current one, have been the exact opposite. Keep looking. No thanks, I managed to retire anyway, and am much happier for it. But I am wondering how you manage to love a company that treats you that way. What way? I have no problem with my company. |
#730
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win? I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you; quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time your baloney is exposed for what it is. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
#731
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Miller" wrote in message m... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message m... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win? I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you; quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time your baloney is exposed for what it is. Nonsense. I've given you plenty of good reasons why George Bush is unable to modify an SUV, even with the help of his lawyer. You simply cannot comprehend. |
#732
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message om... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message om... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Is that how you squirm out of a debate you cannot win? I hadn't observed myself being on the losing end of any debates with you; quite the reverse, actually. You keep changing your position every time your baloney is exposed for what it is. Nonsense. I've given you plenty of good reasons why George Bush is unable to modify an SUV, even with the help of his lawyer. You simply cannot comprehend. Like I said... stoner. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
#733
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. .. In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? |
#734
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning." -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
#735
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . .. In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning." About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now? |
#736
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message om... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning." About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now? Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-) And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way. -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
#737
|
|||
|
|||
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . com... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning." About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now? Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-) And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way. Keep in mind that you were responding to a situation in which Miller ran out of fuel, and so he reverted to stupid assumptions about drugs. Then, you and I joined in. This has nothing to do with your retirement. |
#738
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Gort" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message .com... In article , Gort wrote: Curiosity. You seem to have a penchant for twisting things, so "lawyer" came to mind. You're too charitable. The word that came to my mind was "stoner". Now, there's a rather random thought, typical of an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning. How'd you come up with "stoner"? I take it that you have firsthand knowledge and experience as "an alcoholic who begins hitting the sauce in the morning." About as much as Miller does with "stoners". Happy now? Sure. I've been happy since the day I retired :-) And I don't need/use "sauce" to be this way. Keep in mind that you were responding to a situation in which Miller ran out of fuel, and so he reverted to stupid assumptions about drugs. Then, you and I joined in. This has nothing to do with your retirement. Thanks, I did realize that, but I wanted to rub his face in the fact that I'm happy. It would seem that he isn't, and never will be. -- If you find a posting or message from myself offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Heading to London first of June | Metalworking | |||
Source for quality DG units - SE London? | UK diy | |||
**** Thames Valley or London Group meet on March 17th ***** | UK diy | |||
Kitchen Worktops London | UK diy | |||
Rewiring cost + any recommended sparkies? (South London, Croydon Area) | UK diy |