JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would
have been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your
wrongly held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services committee would be aware, was aware, and
held hearings on the matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the
president should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss
intelligently if asked about them without any warning at a press
conference?

And this has to do with helmet padding systems, how? What I think the
president should be able to discuss at a press conference is not the
issue. The issue was: is the president responsible for equipment
development projects, R&D, evaluation and implementation?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Of course he's not. But he *should* be aware of the broad issue.

And I have no objective evidence to support the notion that he doesn't.

My
intuition says he's not.

But intuition is not the same as actual knowledge. In any event, it has no
bearing on your original contention.

And frankly, I don't care about the research
excuse.

It's not an excuse. Any system that is proposed, be it uniforms, armor, or
weapons, needs to be carefully looked at to determine if it increases
performance capabilitites and safety of the soldier. That takes time. There
have been, and can still be, horrible outcomes when improperly tested
equipment is rushed into deployment.

We're heading into year #4 of this nonsense. I understand the
types of injuries to be prevented are similar to those suffered by
race car drivers during crashes.

Not exactly. Explosive concussive forces are not the same as flailing
concussive forces. The only concern with car crashes is impact from flailing
force. Helmets are primarily concerned with stopping bullets, shrapnel, and
falling debris; that is probably 98% of the combat risk of injury to the
head. The current helmet systems are superb at this. They also would,
ideally, be able to lessen concussion from both explosive and flailing
forces, which make up probably less than 2% of trauma risks in combat.

Did the research begin with this
war, or is the government ignoring what's already known because some
bean counter needs to make the project appear to be new, novel and
HIS?

The research has been ongoing since WWI, when the first theater-wide use of
helmets occured. And improvements have constantly occured as knowledge has
increased and research has continued.

Did you even know that the main concern with the padding systems, especially
voiced by the marines, are that the pads:

-- Limit air circulation inside the helmet. This makes the interior
temperature in the helmet uncomfortable.
-- Increases sweat absorption of the pads, which creates problems with staph
infections, ringworm, and sores.
-- Captures sand and dirt and keeps it against the skin, creating abrasions
and rashes.

As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off their helmets much
more frequently, and put off wearing them during routine daily routines and
when riding in vehicles. This means that soldiers are increasing the risk of
head trauma and death, or head, facial and brain injuries. None of this is
near the problem with the standard web padding system. This means that the
pads which can help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death risk by
having his helmet off because it is tremendously uncomfortable.

It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of what is best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If the first 1000 Chrysler mini-vans went up in flames when the
windshield wipers were turned on, do you think Lee Iacocca would
have been aware of it?

Sorry, but that is hardly the same thing. This goes back to your
wrongly held analogy of the president as the CEO. The chairman of
the Senate Armed Services committee would be aware, was aware, and
held hearings on the matter.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Let's flip this around. What sorts of things DO YOU think the
president should be aware of, and maybe even able to discuss
intelligently if asked about them without any warning at a press
conference?

And this has to do with helmet padding systems, how? What I think the
president should be able to discuss at a press conference is not the
issue. The issue was: is the president responsible for equipment
development projects, R&D, evaluation and implementation?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


Of course he's not. But he *should* be aware of the broad issue.

And I have no objective evidence to support the notion that he doesn't.

My
intuition says he's not.

But intuition is not the same as actual knowledge. In any event, it has no
bearing on your original contention.

And frankly, I don't care about the research
excuse.

It's not an excuse. Any system that is proposed, be it uniforms, armor, or
weapons, needs to be carefully looked at to determine if it increases
performance capabilitites and safety of the soldier. That takes time.
There have been, and can still be, horrible outcomes when improperly
tested equipment is rushed into deployment.

We're heading into year #4 of this nonsense. I understand the
types of injuries to be prevented are similar to those suffered by
race car drivers during crashes.

Not exactly. Explosive concussive forces are not the same as flailing
concussive forces. The only concern with car crashes is impact from
flailing force. Helmets are primarily concerned with stopping bullets,
shrapnel, and falling debris; that is probably 98% of the combat risk of
injury to the head. The current helmet systems are superb at this. They
also would, ideally, be able to lessen concussion from both explosive and
flailing forces, which make up probably less than 2% of trauma risks in
combat.

Did the research begin with this
war, or is the government ignoring what's already known because some
bean counter needs to make the project appear to be new, novel and
HIS?

The research has been ongoing since WWI, when the first theater-wide use
of helmets occured. And improvements have constantly occured as knowledge
has increased and research has continued.

Did you even know that the main concern with the padding systems,
especially voiced by the marines, are that the pads:

-- Limit air circulation inside the helmet. This makes the interior
temperature in the helmet uncomfortable.
-- Increases sweat absorption of the pads, which creates problems with
staph infections, ringworm, and sores.
-- Captures sand and dirt and keeps it against the skin, creating
abrasions and rashes.

As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off their helmets
much more frequently, and put off wearing them during routine daily
routines and when riding in vehicles. This means that soldiers are
increasing the risk of head trauma and death, or head, facial and brain
injuries. None of this is near the problem with the standard web padding
system. This means that the pads which can help reduce 2% of injury risk
overall, create a risk that the soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98%
of the injury and death risk by having his helmet off because it is
tremendously uncomfortable.

It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of what is best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


You're right. It's best to have NO expectations of the president. None
whatsoever. This way, you're never disappointed. Same for his worshippers.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

snip...As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off their
helmets much more frequently, and put off wearing them during
routine daily routines and when riding in vehicles. This means that
soldiers are increasing the risk of head trauma and death, or head,
facial and brain injuries. None of this is near the problem with the
standard web padding system. This means that the pads which can
help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death
risk by having his helmet off because it is tremendously
uncomfortable. It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of what is
best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


You're right. It's best to have NO expectations of the president. None
whatsoever. This way, you're never disappointed. Same for his
worshippers.

I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your initial
point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not receiving proper
helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know what my expectations are,
here's a copy of a letter that I sent to both the GOP and the White House:

Dear Republican Party and President Bush:



With control of the executive and legislative branches of our national
government for so many years now, I expected:

1.. Meaningful slashes in government growth.
2.. An absolute reduction in budgetary pork and subsidies, like the
obscene levels of farm subsidies we have seen.
3.. Huge decreases in discretionary spending at all levels, and active
reform in non-discretionary areas leading to consolidation and streamlining
of all departments in the federal government with the goal to contain
unnecessary bureaucratic costs and overhead.
4.. Movement toward Medicare and Social Security reforms to contain the
near-future collapse of these two bloated programs. I am absolutely LIVID
regarding the addition of the prescription drug program to Medicare.
5.. Elimination of the Department of Education and the federal strings
which reduce local control of our schools.
6.. Far more cuts in taxes than the piddling puddle accomplished to date.
7.. Concrete protection of our southern border and an effective overhaul
in immigration which results not only in safety from terrorism, but also in
protection of my American culture. This included decreasing the amount and
types of legal immigration, as well as obliterating illegal immigration.
A Constitutional Amendment protecting the definition of traditional
marriage.
8.. Republican congressional leaders accepting responsibility for their
failures and stating how they are going to correct such failures, rather
than spinning and seeking ways to avoid criticism.
My 19 year old son is in his sophomore year at Seattle Pacific University as
a 4 year ROTC scholarship recipient. He follows each generation of men in
our family back as far as the American Revolution, who have gratefully
served our Nation. My father left school when he was sixteen and a half
years old to join the Marines in WWII. He fought and distinguished himself
on Iwo Jima, and then later, after leaving the Marines and finishing High
School, he joined the Army and fought in Korea. He served 26 years in the
Army, and I grew up on military bases. After graduation from high school, I
served during Vietnam.

Our soldier's best chance of survival during war has always been the
unremitting and merciless use of our entire arsenal to smash the enemy in so
ferocious a manner that it breaks his desire to continue the fight. I want
America to win the battle in Iraq; but I don't see the will from our
Commander-In-Chief to do so.

I do not see the number of troops needed to take ground once-and-for-all,
and to then hold it. I see reluctance to project of power by taking the
fight to the enemy and wiping him of the face of the earth. If the enemy is
hiding in a mosque, the mosque is not obliterated. If the enemy is hiding
within a section of a town or village, that section of town or village is
not obliterated. If this is a war THAN FIGHT IT AS A WAR. Don't you dare
tell me that my precious son may be part of a sensitive police action
designed to spare people or property in an ATTEMPT to root out the enemy at
the expense of HIS safety.

Unless my President has the cajones to find the generals needed to win this
war and to unleash the dogs of war, then bring our sons and daughters home.
If war will be waged AS A WAR, then I will be in continued support. But as
of now, I am finding the anger and bitterness at the Republicans taking
hold. Our military commanders need to take a page from Sherman; make war so
horrible that the support for the enemy crumples and the enemy is vanquished
and ground to dust.

Ever since I was allowed to vote, I have never missed voting. And I have
frequently, but not always, voted Republican. This time I am in a dark
dilemma. I cannot bring myself to vote for a democrat in the election. But
by the same token, I am so frustrated and angry at my party that I am
spitting nails. I have waited, with each of the last few election cycles as
the Republicans said the right things, and I voted for my Republican
candidate. Not this year. This year, I will not vote at all. I won't vote
for broken promises and dashed hopes; and I certainly won't cast my vote for
mediocrity in the form of "the lesser of two evils".

If you want my vote back, then cut the rhetoric and DO something. I gave you
a list. Get busy, or get lost.

With Sincere Regards,



David M. Bugg, The Grass Roots




--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

snip...As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off their
helmets much more frequently, and put off wearing them during
routine daily routines and when riding in vehicles. This means that
soldiers are increasing the risk of head trauma and death, or head,
facial and brain injuries. None of this is near the problem with the
standard web padding system. This means that the pads which can
help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death
risk by having his helmet off because it is tremendously
uncomfortable. It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of what is
best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


You're right. It's best to have NO expectations of the president. None
whatsoever. This way, you're never disappointed. Same for his
worshippers.

I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your initial
point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not receiving
proper helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know what my
expectations are, here's a copy of a letter that I sent to both the GOP
and the White House:


I will reiterate that it is (easily) possible for a president to put
pressure on anyone he chooses, in order to reach a certain goal. Whether
it's within his formal authority to do so is a moot point. It still happens,
and *should* happen when priorities are not being set correctly by lesser
beings.

Remember the "not enough armor on vehicles" fiasco? In the news, an
interview with one manufacturer: "We're running about half capacity. I could
crank up to 100% in a week or two, but nobody from the military is asking
for more product". A real president would've said "I don't care if it's 2:00
AM. Everyone responsible - my office - 90 minutes".

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

snip...As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off
their helmets much more frequently, and put off wearing them during
routine daily routines and when riding in vehicles. This means that
soldiers are increasing the risk of head trauma and death, or head,
facial and brain injuries. None of this is near the problem with
the standard web padding system. This means that the pads which
can help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death
risk by having his helmet off because it is tremendously
uncomfortable. It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of
what is best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


You're right. It's best to have NO expectations of the president.
None whatsoever. This way, you're never disappointed. Same for his
worshippers.

I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your
initial point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not
receiving proper helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know
what my expectations are, here's a copy of a letter that I sent to
both the GOP and the White House:


I will reiterate that it is (easily) possible for a president to put
pressure on anyone he chooses, in order to reach a certain goal.
Whether it's within his formal authority to do so is a moot point. It
still happens, and *should* happen when priorities are not being set
correctly by lesser beings.

Sorry, just got back from Lowes. Had to get the lumber and the Tap-cons to
build a new the interior wall in my garage. I'm remodeling part of the
garage into a new commercial kitchen space.

In terms of the helmet padding, how do you know that he hasn't inquired? How
do you know that the Marine Commandant didn't brief Bush during a meeting?
How do you know that Bush hasn't passed on that he wants the pads
implemented as soon as there is consensus that they are ready to do the job?
Give me something to agree with you on besides your personal bias,
supposition, and incomplete base of knowledge.

Remember the "not enough armor on vehicles" fiasco?

What fiasco? The up-armoring of the humvee? I know that when the humvee
began taking severe hits from the new phenomenon of IEDs, there was a
scramble to find a way to retrofit it with armor. I also know that early
attempts at up-armoring led to more deaths due to increased metal
fragmentation, and it led to soldiers being stranded among hostiles due to
vehicle breakdowns because of the vehicle being way overweight due to the
added armor. I know that priority was placed on developing the proper type
of armor that would minimize fragmention, that would be easy to retrofit in
the field, and would be compatible with the weight carrying limitations of
the humvee. I know that things are proceeding as they should.

In the news, an
interview with one manufacturer: "We're running about half capacity.
I could crank up to 100% in a week or two, but nobody from the
military is asking for more product".

That may be true or not. I know that there are at least six companies
providing up-armor kits. The company you mentioned may have had a limited
contract based on the type of vehicle he was manufacturing for. Or the DOD
may have been concerned about his quality control. Or he may be spouting
sour grapes.

A real president would've said
"I don't care if it's 2:00 AM. Everyone responsible - my office - 90
minutes".

And how do you know he didn't? And how do you know that Armed Services
Committee, whose job it is to oversee this type of thing, also didn't do
that?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

snip...As a result of the above, soldiers with the pads take off
their helmets much more frequently, and put off wearing them during
routine daily routines and when riding in vehicles. This means that
soldiers are increasing the risk of head trauma and death, or head,
facial and brain injuries. None of this is near the problem with
the standard web padding system. This means that the pads which
can help reduce 2% of injury risk overall, create a risk that the
soldier may make himself vulnerable to 98% of the injury and death
risk by having his helmet off because it is tremendously
uncomfortable. It ain't a bean-counter issue, it is an issue of
what is best for the
soldier. How is this something that Bush is responsible for?


You're right. It's best to have NO expectations of the president.
None whatsoever. This way, you're never disappointed. Same for his
worshippers.

I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your
initial point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not
receiving proper helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know
what my expectations are, here's a copy of a letter that I sent to
both the GOP and the White House:


I will reiterate that it is (easily) possible for a president to put
pressure on anyone he chooses, in order to reach a certain goal.
Whether it's within his formal authority to do so is a moot point. It
still happens, and *should* happen when priorities are not being set
correctly by lesser beings.

Sorry, just got back from Lowes. Had to get the lumber and the Tap-cons to
build a new the interior wall in my garage. I'm remodeling part of the
garage into a new commercial kitchen space.

In terms of the helmet padding, how do you know that he hasn't inquired?
How do you know that the Marine Commandant didn't brief Bush during a
meeting? How do you know that Bush hasn't passed on that he wants the pads
implemented as soon as there is consensus that they are ready to do the
job? Give me something to agree with you on besides your personal bias,
supposition, and incomplete base of knowledge.

Remember the "not enough armor on vehicles" fiasco?

What fiasco? The up-armoring of the humvee? I know that when the humvee
began taking severe hits from the new phenomenon of IEDs, there was a
scramble to find a way to retrofit it with armor. I also know that early
attempts at up-armoring led to more deaths due to increased metal
fragmentation, and it led to soldiers being stranded among hostiles due to
vehicle breakdowns because of the vehicle being way overweight due to the
added armor. I know that priority was placed on developing the proper type
of armor that would minimize fragmention, that would be easy to retrofit
in the field, and would be compatible with the weight carrying limitations
of the humvee. I know that things are proceeding as they should.

In the news, an
interview with one manufacturer: "We're running about half capacity.
I could crank up to 100% in a week or two, but nobody from the
military is asking for more product".

That may be true or not. I know that there are at least six companies
providing up-armor kits. The company you mentioned may have had a limited
contract based on the type of vehicle he was manufacturing for. Or the DOD
may have been concerned about his quality control. Or he may be spouting
sour grapes.

A real president would've said
"I don't care if it's 2:00 AM. Everyone responsible - my office - 90
minutes".

And how do you know he didn't? And how do you know that Armed Services
Committee, whose job it is to oversee this type of thing, also didn't do
that?


If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell me
right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue or not.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.

I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding and
up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on incomplete and
misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my facts on those two
issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate from the media. I know
that I have a direct and personal stake in the function, or dysfunction, of
our military. And I know that trying to displace anger at the wrong person
doesn't solve any problems or lessen the responsibilities of those who truly
have the responsibility to make things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold the
President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.

I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding and
up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on incomplete and
misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my facts on those two
issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate from the media. I know
that I have a direct and personal stake in the function, or dysfunction,
of our military. And I know that trying to displace anger at the wrong
person doesn't solve any problems or lessen the responsibilities of those
who truly have the responsibility to make things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold the
President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder another
3000 American soldiers, just for kicks? Let me know when you write to your
president about that.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.

I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding
and up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on
incomplete and misdirected information. I know that I am certain of
my facts on those two issues. I know that my information doesn't
eminate from the media. I know that I have a direct and personal
stake in the function, or dysfunction, of our military. And I know
that trying to displace anger at the wrong person doesn't solve any
problems or lessen the responsibilities of those who truly have the
responsibility to make things work. You have seen a copy of the letter
which details what issues I hold
the President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


OK. Never mind the helmet padding.

Fine.

How about conspiracy to murder
another 3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?

*I* could discuss it. However, given your ability to dismiss facts and
replace the void left with bias, uninformed opinion, and invective, it would
have to be with someone other than you, Joe. Sorry, you had your chance to
prove me wrong with the helmet discussion, but failed.

Let me know when you
write to your president about that.

When you say "your president", I'm take that to mean that you believe I have
some sort of 'personal' president. Sorry, but I don't have a personal
president, unless you are counting SWMBO. However, maybe you are not a
citizen of the United States and say this to mean the person who holds the
Office of the President here in America. In either event, why would I let
you know when I correspond to either?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:


I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your initial
point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not receiving proper
helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know what my expectations are,
here's a copy of a letter that I sent to both the GOP and the White House:

Dear Republican Party and President Bush:



With control of the executive and legislative branches of our national
government for so many years now, I expected:

1.. Meaningful slashes in government growth.
2.. An absolute reduction in budgetary pork and subsidies, like the
obscene levels of farm subsidies we have seen.
3.. Huge decreases in discretionary spending at all levels, and active
reform in non-discretionary areas leading to consolidation and streamlining
of all departments in the federal government with the goal to contain
unnecessary bureaucratic costs and overhead.
Cut rest.
Sounds Libertarian. Ron Paul from Texas is a Libertarian with
a Republican label. I guess he doesn't have a whole lot of friends in
Washington.

Dean

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.
I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding and
up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on incomplete and
misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my facts on those two
issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate from the media. I know
that I have a direct and personal stake in the function, or dysfunction,
of our military. And I know that trying to displace anger at the wrong
person doesn't solve any problems or lessen the responsibilities of those
who truly have the responsibility to make things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold the
President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder another
3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?

What "conspiracy to murder"? That would be a serious
charge, except that coming from a nakedly partisan
polemicist, it doesn't have any seriousness to it at all.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange for
our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to get
it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home
with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any
other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment
is always undergoing testing and modification, even during
wartime. There are three helmet systems in use, and they are being
retro-fitted with the new padding system. Even without the new
padding system, the helmets are incredibly effective. I know from
experience. With the new padding system, it's even better solving
some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official
testing and adoptation was completed by the military. And they
have helped in getting them out faster than thru normal military
channels. This has nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation called
America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the head
of the federal government. Government is a big part of America, but
it is not the country, and the federal government is not the only
governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not
all of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the
president is *not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no
separation of powers in a corporation: no courts, no legislature.
You exhibit massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by
failing to note that the entire Article I of the Constitution, 10
sections in all, spell out the powers and responsibilities of the
*legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.
I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.
Not partisanship.
Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in revealing language,
that your partisanship is clear.
Just to be sure you and I share the same definition of "partisanship",
are you saying my comments are the result of disliking a certain
political party, or just one particular person?
You express a cohesive set of political beliefs that place you firmly to
one side of the center.


That's a strange conclusion,

Not really.


considering that I've voted for 4-5 Republicans
in the last two elections.

That's nice. It doesn't speak much at all to your
placement along the political spectrum.


Back to the issue at hand: Do you believe Bush is competent?

Who says that is the issue at hand?

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news
OK. Never mind the helmet padding.

Fine.

How about conspiracy to murder
another 3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?

*I* could discuss it. However, given your ability to dismiss facts and
replace the void left with bias, uninformed opinion, and invective, it
would have to be with someone other than you, Joe. Sorry, you had your
chance to prove me wrong with the helmet discussion, but failed.

Let me know when you
write to your president about that.

When you say "your president", I'm take that to mean that you believe I
have some sort of 'personal' president. Sorry, but I don't have a personal
president, unless you are counting SWMBO. However, maybe you are not a
citizen of the United States and say this to mean the person who holds the
Office of the President here in America. In either event, why would I let
you know when I correspond to either?

--
Dave


Dave, here's something about me, and probably about you, too. I am not a
neurosurgeon. As a result of not being a neurosurgeon, I do not walk into
hospitals, put on a gown, mask and surgical gloves, and pretend to be a
neurosurgeon. Although I think neurosurgery is very interesting, I have
never impersonated that type of doctor and operated on a human being or any
other animal.

I also don't know how to fly a passenger jet, so I've never insisted on
driving when I've been on those jets. I don't like the idea of doing risky
jobs when I have no idea how to do those jobs correctly. I know what I'm
qualified to do, and what I'm not qualified to do.

This explains why I say "your president". With other presidents, I was
comfortable using "the president" or "our president" word combinations. But,
not George Bush. Something is seriously wrong with him, and you are fully
aware of that. If he didn't have the self-awareness to know he was
unqualified, someone else was certainly close enough to him to tell him
"George - this is not a good idea, until you're diagnosed. It's not fair to
the country".

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.
I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding and
up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on incomplete
and misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my facts on
those two issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate from the
media. I know that I have a direct and personal stake in the function,
or dysfunction, of our military. And I know that trying to displace
anger at the wrong person doesn't solve any problems or lessen the
responsibilities of those who truly have the responsibility to make
things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold the
President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder another
3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?

What "conspiracy to murder"? That would be a serious charge, except that
coming from a nakedly partisan polemicist, it doesn't have any seriousness
to it at all.


Not partisan. If the current president was a democrat and the situation was
otherwise identical, I'd be saying the same thing. Perhaps you are one of
those unfortunate people who thinks a president should be respected, no
matter how bad they may be. Is that it?

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

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT can't put his foot down and arrange
for our
soldiers to have the protective gear they need. They have to
get it
from a CHARITY. Otherwise, they are at high risk of coming home
with
brain injuries that are more prevalent in this war than any
other.
It isn't as simple as you make it sound, Joe. Military equipment
is always undergoing testing and modification, even during
wartime. There are three helmet systems in use, and they are
being retro-fitted with the new padding system. Even without the
new padding system, the helmets are incredibly effective. I know
from experience. With the new padding system, it's even better
solving some of the issues with blast concussion.

Operation Helmet began providing new liners before official
testing and adoptation was completed by the military. And they
have helped in getting them out faster than thru normal military
channels. This has nothing to do with Bush.
It has everything to do with Bush. The title "commander in chief"
means he is, in effect, the CEO of a very large corporation
called America.
False; that's just a wretchedly ****ty analogy. America is not a
corporation, and the president doesn't run "America"; he is the
head of the federal government. Government is a big part of
America, but it is not the country, and the federal government is
not the only governmental entity in the country.

Even limiting the analysis to the federal government, which is not
all of government, which in turn is not all of the country, the
president is *not* like a CEO of a corporation. There is no
separation of powers in a corporation: no courts, no legislature.
You exhibit massive and *willful* ignorance of the Constitution by
failing to note that the entire Article I of the Constitution, 10
sections in all, spell out the powers and responsibilities of the
*legislative* branch.

You are a benighted polemicist, and stupid beyond words.
I'm not saying the president is responsible for funding projects.
You slopped together a ****ty analogy; that's all. You're blinded by
partisanship, so I'm not surprised you can't see facts as they are.
Not partisanship.
Yes, it's partisanship. You've said enough, and in revealing
language, that your partisanship is clear.
Just to be sure you and I share the same definition of "partisanship",
are you saying my comments are the result of disliking a certain
political party, or just one particular person?
You express a cohesive set of political beliefs that place you firmly to
one side of the center.


That's a strange conclusion,

Not really.


considering that I've voted for 4-5 Republicans in the last two
elections.

That's nice. It doesn't speak much at all to your placement along the
political spectrum.


Back to the issue at hand: Do you believe Bush is competent?

Who says that is the issue at hand?

I say it's the issue at hand.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:40:43 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:


"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

....

I have high expectations for a President. But that wasn't your initial
point. You basically were asserting that soldiers were not receiving proper
helmet gear because of Bush. If you want to know what my expectations are,
here's a copy of a letter that I sent to both the GOP and the White House:

Dear Republican Party and President Bush:



With control of the executive and legislative branches of our national
government for so many years now, I expected:

1.. Meaningful slashes in government growth.
2.. An absolute reduction in budgetary pork and subsidies, like the
obscene levels of farm subsidies we have seen.
3.. Huge decreases in discretionary spending at all levels, and active
reform in non-discretionary areas leading to consolidation and streamlining
of all departments in the federal government with the goal to contain
unnecessary bureaucratic costs and overhead.
4.. Movement toward Medicare and Social Security reforms to contain the
near-future collapse of these two bloated programs. I am absolutely LIVID
regarding the addition of the prescription drug program to Medicare.
5.. Elimination of the Department of Education and the federal strings
which reduce local control of our schools.
6.. Far more cuts in taxes than the piddling puddle accomplished to date.
7.. Concrete protection of our southern border and an effective overhaul
in immigration which results not only in safety from terrorism, but also in
protection of my American culture. This included decreasing the amount and
types of legal immigration, as well as obliterating illegal immigration.
A Constitutional Amendment protecting the definition of traditional
marriage.
8.. Republican congressional leaders accepting responsibility for their
failures and stating how they are going to correct such failures, rather
than spinning and seeking ways to avoid criticism.
My 19 year old son is in his sophomore year at Seattle Pacific University as
a 4 year ROTC scholarship recipient. He follows each generation of men in
our family back as far as the American Revolution, who have gratefully
served our Nation. My father left school when he was sixteen and a half
years old to join the Marines in WWII. He fought and distinguished himself
on Iwo Jima, and then later, after leaving the Marines and finishing High
School, he joined the Army and fought in Korea. He served 26 years in the
Army, and I grew up on military bases. After graduation from high school, I
served during Vietnam.

Our soldier's best chance of survival during war has always been the
unremitting and merciless use of our entire arsenal to smash the enemy in so
...


I think that you were fooled, like most true conservatives have been
fooled. These people mouth what you believe, but care only about
making the wealthy even richer. That is their agenda. They believe
that corporations should run the world. True fascists. Not William
Buckley or Barry Goldwater, those were true conservatives. Them I
have respect for.

The wars you fight for are very rarely about freedom. They are about
money and always have been. Iraq has nothing to do with freedom, only
with dividing the oil among the big corporations. There was a quote
from a US General, I can't recall his name, that said that after the
US dollar began to travel abroad for investments, the US soldiers
followed to protect those investments. That is what this is all about.

Our founding fathers were wary of the power of corporations having
been on the receiving end of that power. That put all kinds of limits
on corporate power, and those limits have been eliminated over the
years. Now, multinational corporations have no loyalty to any country,
as Haliburton showed so well just the other day.

While I don't know anything about this particular website except that
I have read it, you might find it interesting:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corp...ations_us.html

clipped

This explains why I say "your president". With other presidents, I was
comfortable using "the president" or "our president" word combinations. But,
not George Bush. Something is seriously wrong with him, and you are fully
aware of that. If he didn't have the self-awareness to know he was
unqualified, someone else was certainly close enough to him to tell him
"George - this is not a good idea, until you're diagnosed. It's not fair to
the country".


Finally! Someone has a CLUE that boy George is a spoiled,
over-privileged, alcoholic sap. Clue: his father get's weepy about how
"misunderstood" the boy is. NOBODY has ever said "no" to the boy.
Well, ever since his daddy confronted him for drunk driving and the boy
was going to go "mano y mano". The boy tol' his daddy who is
boss/decider. How on earth would anyone with money and trying to buy
influence EVER say NO to the boy? He has never accomplished anything,
including graduate from college, without his family influence.

The whole family values/xtian coalition bunch are cynical, hypocritical
phonies who give God a bad name. Every "God bless.." from the creep
makes my skin crawl.

"When in doubt, choose life..." the famous solution to the political
mess surrounding Terri Schiavo. The whole bunch forgot about the
sanctity of marriage and what it really means, legally and morally.
Nobody but the spouse had the right to interfere, not even parents.

"Mission accomplished". Yeh, right. As clueless then as now about why
we should not have entertained the idea of interfering again with
Iran/Iraq. We supported Saddam against Iran and expect Iran not to want
to wipe us out?

"Support our troops." More to it than flag waving, but you can't buy
the rest at Walmart. It is common knowledge around these parts that VA
medical care system is a mess, with long waits. Again, he is clueless.
One would think that with the nature and number of casualties from
George's war that medical care would be a primary concern. The pol's
use Walter Reed for photo ops. I cannot relate to being severely burned
or a multiple amputee, but a politician would be about the last think I
would want to see. If the boy had any real patriotism, he would have
served full-time while enlisted, not part-time so's he could go politicking.

Loyalty: George is famous for his loyalty to underlings. Ask Kathryn
Harris, who helped assure his latest free ride.

There is one consistent characteristic to George's methods. It is to
God-bless ad-nauseum while his dog pack assaults the reputations of good
people who dare to oppose them. The answer to a "no" vote about going
into Iraq was to rely on emotionalism, rather than reason, and attack
the patriotism of ANYONE who dared to oppose or question them.

Oath of office: Sworn to uphold and defend the constitution......?
Doesn't that mean, by extension, the laws that all relate to the
constitution? The constitution and the people are the US of A.

What if all Americans, for just a year or so, decided to buy only
American-made goods? Wild idea, I know, and hard to tell. Tough, even
if we had to do without......it's crazy, but it is part of supporting
troops who, if they survive, will (maybe) be back to work in the US of A.

"Norminn" wrote in message
thlink.net...
clipped

This explains why I say "your president". With other presidents, I was
comfortable using "the president" or "our president" word combinations.
But, not George Bush. Something is seriously wrong with him, and you are
fully aware of that. If he didn't have the self-awareness to know he was
unqualified, someone else was certainly close enough to him to tell him
"George - this is not a good idea, until you're diagnosed. It's not fair
to the country".
Finally! Someone has a CLUE that boy George is a spoiled,
over-privileged, alcoholic sap. Clue: his father get's weepy about how
"misunderstood" the boy is. NOBODY has ever said "no" to the boy. Well,
ever since his daddy confronted him for drunk driving and the boy was
going to go "mano y mano".


I'm not sure what the cause is, but the symptoms are clear to anyone with
eyes and ears, assuming they're not in the habit of worshipping humans. I've
seen videos of him while he was governor of Texas, regardless of how good a
governor he was, he was pretty sharp at the time. So, something's changed. A
couple of experts have suggested presenile dementia. It doesn't matter,
though. Something is wrong with him, and it was obvious during his first
presidential campaign. That his party allowed him to run is an insult to the
entire country.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.
I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding and
up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on incomplete
and misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my facts on
those two issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate from the
media. I know that I have a direct and personal stake in the function,
or dysfunction, of our military. And I know that trying to displace
anger at the wrong person doesn't solve any problems or lessen the
responsibilities of those who truly have the responsibility to make
things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold the
President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder another
3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?
What "conspiracy to murder"? That would be a serious charge, except that
coming from a nakedly partisan polemicist, it doesn't have any seriousness
to it at all.


Not partisan.

Yes, very plainly partisan. Your comments about
immigration, coupled with your knee-jerk
anti-Republican bull****, give you away.


If the current president was a democrat and the situation was
otherwise identical, I'd be saying the same thing.

********.

You very clearly suffer from acute BDS - Bush
Derangement Syndrome. However, there's more to it than
that, as your reflexive comments about "President Rove"
and other nonsense show, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/25rf7x
- want to tell us again about that indictment, comrade?


Perhaps you are one of
those unfortunate people who thinks a president should be respected, no
matter how bad they may be. Is that it?

No. I just like pointing out to partisan hacks that we
see you for what you are.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.
I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding
and up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on
incomplete and misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my
facts on those two issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate
from the media. I know that I have a direct and personal stake in the
function, or dysfunction, of our military. And I know that trying to
displace anger at the wrong person doesn't solve any problems or
lessen the responsibilities of those who truly have the responsibility
to make things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold
the President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder
another 3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?
What "conspiracy to murder"? That would be a serious charge, except
that coming from a nakedly partisan polemicist, it doesn't have any
seriousness to it at all.


Not partisan.

Yes, very plainly partisan. Your comments about immigration, coupled with
your knee-jerk anti-Republican bull****, give you away.

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy, am I
prejudiced against Italians? Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and
the kid just happens to be Italian?



If the current president was a democrat and the situation was otherwise
identical, I'd be saying the same thing.

********.

You very clearly suffer from acute BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome.
However, there's more to it than that, as your reflexive comments about
"President Rove" and other nonsense show, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/25rf7x -
want to tell us again about that indictment, comrade?


Nah...no need to. The point of that comment was that its recipient was
famous for discounting *ALL* negative information about his political
deities, and still is. If he personally held a video camera and recorded
George Bush raping kindergarten kids, he would not believe what was on the
videotape the next day.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

If you are actually able to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, tell
me right now. I need to know whether this conversation will continue
or not.
I know that the issues that you have raised regarding helmet padding
and up-armoring humvees are based, perhaps unintentionally, on
incomplete and misdirected information. I know that I am certain of my
facts on those two issues. I know that my information doesn't eminate
from the media. I know that I have a direct and personal stake in the
function, or dysfunction, of our military. And I know that trying to
displace anger at the wrong person doesn't solve any problems or
lessen the responsibilities of those who truly have the responsibility
to make things work.

You have seen a copy of the letter which details what issues I hold
the President accountable. Helmet padding is not one of them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
OK. Never mind the helmet padding. How about conspiracy to murder
another 3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?
What "conspiracy to murder"? That would be a serious charge, except
that coming from a nakedly partisan polemicist, it doesn't have any
seriousness to it at all.

Not partisan.
Yes, very plainly partisan. Your comments about immigration, coupled with
your knee-jerk anti-Republican bull****, give you away.

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy, am I
prejudiced against Italians?

What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and
the kid just happens to be Italian?



If the current president was a democrat and the situation was otherwise
identical, I'd be saying the same thing.
********.

You very clearly suffer from acute BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome.
However, there's more to it than that, as your reflexive comments about
"President Rove" and other nonsense show, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/25rf7x -
want to tell us again about that indictment, comrade?


Nah...no need to.

No need to admit that you didn't know what you were
talking about? No need to admit that your unconcealed
glee over a bogus story about an indictment of Karl
Rove was due to your partisan blindness - that you hate
Rove because he has been the architect of spectacular
Republican electoral success?

What a joke.


The point of that comment was that its recipient was
famous for discounting *ALL* negative information about his political
deities, and still is.

You said the indictment existed, and you didn't know
what you were talking about. It was partisan wishful
thinking. You claim you "merely" consider Bush to be
an awful president, but there you were virtually
jumping up and down in ecstasy over a false story of an
indictment of the architect of Republican electoral
success.

You're free to be as nakedly partisan as you like, and
clearly are; but why do you lie about it?

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy, am
I prejudiced against Italians?

What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens to
be Italian?


When did you begin worshipping human beings?

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy, am
I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens to
be Italian?


When did you begin worshipping human beings?

Never. When did you erroneously think you could get
away with posing invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do
you keep lying about your naked partisanship?

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy,
am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens to
be Italian?


When did you begin worshipping human beings?

Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying about
your naked partisanship?


I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe ANYONE to
criticized your president. If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of
criticism would NOT cause you to yell "partisan".

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news
OK. Never mind the helmet padding.

Fine.

How about conspiracy to murder
another 3000 American soldiers, just for kicks?

*I* could discuss it. However, given your ability to dismiss facts
and replace the void left with bias, uninformed opinion, and
invective, it would have to be with someone other than you, Joe.
Sorry, you had your chance to prove me wrong with the helmet
discussion, but failed.
Let me know when you
write to your president about that.

When you say "your president", I'm take that to mean that you
believe I have some sort of 'personal' president. Sorry, but I don't
have a personal president, unless you are counting SWMBO. However,
maybe you are not a citizen of the United States and say this to
mean the person who holds the Office of the President here in
America. In either event, why would I let you know when I correspond
to either? --
Dave


Dave, here's something about me, and probably about you, too. I am
not a neurosurgeon....snip of nonsense

This explains why I say "your president".

It does? All it did was explain that you're not a brain surgeon or a pilot.

With other presidents, I was
comfortable using "the president" or "our president" word
combinations.

Ah, so you are an American.

But, not George Bush. Something is seriously wrong with
him,

Not really. But it's fun watching the flecks of foam spew from the Bush
haters.

and you are fully aware of that.

Fully aware of your hatred spewing bile.... sure.

If he didn't have the
self-awareness to know he was unqualified, someone else was certainly
close enough to him to tell him "George - this is not a good idea,
until you're diagnosed. It's not fair to the country".

Oh, I see. You're not a brain surgeon, your a psychiatrist. Good one.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy,
am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens to
be Italian?

When did you begin worshipping human beings?
Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying about
your naked partisanship?


I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe ANYONE to
criticized your president.

No. By the way, unless you're not an American citizen,
he is *your* president as well.

I have not defended Bush or his policies or actions.


If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of
criticism would NOT cause you to yell "partisan".

It suffices to say that your [ahem] "criticism" is
plainly unvarnished partisanship. You are not merely
criticizing Bush, even if he is the focal point for
you. It is the perspective from which you attack him,
not simply that you're attacking him. Your perspective
is blatantly obvious: well to one side of the center.
Your positions and language in other issues are what
give you away.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...


Fully aware of your hatred spewing bile.... sure.

If he didn't have the
self-awareness to know he was unqualified, someone else was certainly
close enough to him to tell him "George - this is not a good idea,
until you're diagnosed. It's not fair to the country".

Oh, I see. You're not a brain surgeon, your a psychiatrist. Good one.

--
Dave


Just so I'm clear about your observational abilities, are you saying you see
NOTHING wrong with his speech patterns or word choices?

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy,
am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens
to be Italian?

When did you begin worshipping human beings?
Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying
about your naked partisanship?


I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe ANYONE
to criticized your president.

No. By the way, unless you're not an American citizen, he is *your*
president as well.

I have not defended Bush or his policies or actions.


If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of criticism would NOT cause
you to yell "partisan".

It suffices to say that your [ahem] "criticism" is plainly unvarnished
partisanship. You are not merely criticizing Bush, even if he is the
focal point for you. It is the perspective from which you attack him, not
simply that you're attacking him. Your perspective is blatantly obvious:
well to one side of the center. Your positions and language in other
issues are what give you away.


If you're told by a prospective employer that you are not qualified for the
job they're offering, are you being attacked?

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

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in Italy,
am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just happens
to be Italian?
When did you begin worshipping human beings?
Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying
about your naked partisanship?

I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe ANYONE
to criticized your president.
No. By the way, unless you're not an American citizen, he is *your*
president as well.

I have not defended Bush or his policies or actions.


If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of criticism would NOT cause
you to yell "partisan".
It suffices to say that your [ahem] "criticism" is plainly unvarnished
partisanship. You are not merely criticizing Bush, even if he is the
focal point for you. It is the perspective from which you attack him, not
simply that you're attacking him. Your perspective is blatantly obvious:
well to one side of the center. Your positions and language in other
issues are what give you away.


If you're told by a prospective employer that you are not qualified for the
job they're offering, are you being attacked?

You aren't merely commenting on the lack of
qualification of your president, George W. Bush.
You're doing much more than that. And you're doing it
with a partisan motivation.

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in
Italy, am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just
happens to be Italian?
When did you begin worshipping human beings?
Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying
about your naked partisanship?

I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe
ANYONE to criticized your president.
No. By the way, unless you're not an American citizen, he is *your*
president as well.

I have not defended Bush or his policies or actions.


If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of criticism would NOT cause
you to yell "partisan".
It suffices to say that your [ahem] "criticism" is plainly unvarnished
partisanship. You are not merely criticizing Bush, even if he is the
focal point for you. It is the perspective from which you attack him,
not simply that you're attacking him. Your perspective is blatantly
obvious: well to one side of the center. Your positions and language in
other issues are what give you away.


If you're told by a prospective employer that you are not qualified for
the job they're offering, are you being attacked?

You aren't merely commenting on the lack of qualification of your
president, George W. Bush. You're doing much more than that. And you're
doing it with a partisan motivation.


Not really. There *is* something physically wrong with him which, according
to MY hiring specifications makes him unqualified for the job. If you do NOT
agree that there is something wrong with him, you could (but will not) stop
by the nearest school and ask to spend a few minutes talking to a speech
pathologist about his/her observations of Bush. Ask your doctor, too.

If they say they notice nothing, then they have not been paying attention.
Or, they worship humans, which is a very dangerous thing to do.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

If I complain about the behavior of a child in a restaurant in
Italy, am I prejudiced against Italians?
What a goofy and inapt analogy!


Or, am I rightly pointing out bad behavior, and the kid just
happens to be Italian?
When did you begin worshipping human beings?
Never. When did you erroneously think you could get away with posing
invalid complex questions?

You are lying about your naked partisanship. Why do you keep lying
about your naked partisanship?
I'm quite sure that you would use the word "partisan" to describe
ANYONE to criticized your president.
No. By the way, unless you're not an American citizen, he is *your*
president as well.

I have not defended Bush or his policies or actions.


If I'm wrong, explain exactly which types of criticism would NOT cause
you to yell "partisan".
It suffices to say that your [ahem] "criticism" is plainly unvarnished
partisanship. You are not merely criticizing Bush, even if he is the
focal point for you. It is the perspective from which you attack him,
not simply that you're attacking him. Your perspective is blatantly
obvious: well to one side of the center. Your positions and language in
other issues are what give you away.

If you're told by a prospective employer that you are not qualified for
the job they're offering, are you being attacked?
You aren't merely commenting on the lack of qualification of your
president, George W. Bush. You're doing much more than that. And you're
doing it with a partisan motivation.


Not really.

Yes, really; you are.


There *is* something physically wrong with him

You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any
expertise to evaluate any evidence if you somehow
acquired it.

You really have a bad case of BDS.


which, according
to MY hiring specifications makes him unqualified for the job. If you do NOT
agree that there is something wrong with him, you could (but will not) stop
by the nearest school and ask to spend a few minutes talking to a speech
pathologist about his/her observations of Bush. Ask your doctor, too.

If they say they notice nothing, then they have not been paying attention.
Or, they worship humans, which is a very dangerous thing to do.

I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and
its potential significance as a symptom of some kind of
neurological defect. I never heard or read anything
definitive about it, and the experts quoted in stories
didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those
experts.

Anyway, this is all sideshow. The real issue is your
blatant partisanship, and your risible lying about it.

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

There *is* something physically wrong with him

You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to evaluate
any evidence if you somehow acquired it.

I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but most
doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I never
heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts quoted in
stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those experts.


If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script, I hope someone other than you
is responsible for supervising your children's education. You are blind. I
expect the president to be a clear and intelligent spokesperson for our
country. Bush is not.

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to
families who die."-speaking with reporters on facing the challenges of war,
Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006


"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's
aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."-Sept.
6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."-Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full
mentality."-Speaking on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007. You'll
probably say that someone misunderstood him when they transcribed the words,
so:
http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3...hinterview.mp3

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

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to evaluate
any evidence if you somehow acquired it.

I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but most
doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.

You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I never
heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts quoted in
stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those experts.


If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,

I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you
is responsible for supervising your children's education. You are blind. I
expect the president to be a clear and intelligent spokesperson for our
country. Bush is not.

Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I
don't believe lack of speaking ability necessarily
indicates inability to be an effective and good
president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't
indicate that a president *is* effective and good.

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

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.

I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but
most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.

You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I never
heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts quoted in
stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those experts.


If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,

I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a clear
and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.

Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe lack
of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an effective and
good president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't indicate that a
president *is* effective and good.


Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are in
the country country to do much about it. And, your president is selling
F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.

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

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.

I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but
most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.

You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I never
heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts quoted in
stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those experts.


If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,

I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a
clear and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.

Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe lack
of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an effective
and good president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't indicate
that a president *is* effective and good.


Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are in
the country country to do much about it. And, your president is selling
F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.


Pardon my typo: "in the WRONG country".

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

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.
I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but
most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.
You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I never
heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts quoted in
stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those experts.

If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,
I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a clear
and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.
Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe lack
of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an effective and
good president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't indicate that a
president *is* effective and good.


Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are in
the country country to do much about it. And, your president

Yours, too.


is selling
F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.

Why do you suppose that is?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.
I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but
most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.
You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I
never heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts
quoted in stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those
experts.

If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,
I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a
clear and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.
Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe
lack of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an
effective and good president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't
indicate that a president *is* effective and good.


Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are in
the country country to do much about it. And, your president

Yours, too.

Take full responsibility for your treasonous act. You hired the asshole.
He's all yours. All I ever want from him is five minutes alone in a room.
His boys can search me for weapons first.



is selling F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.

Why do you suppose that is?

I've heard all the excuses. Which one do YOU worship?

Hint: There isn't one single example of a country like ours getting a
straight deal from any country in the Middle East that we've called an ally.
And, don't say "Israel".

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.
I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong", but
most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.
You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its potential
significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological defect. I
never heard or read anything definitive about it, and the experts
quoted in stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not one of those
experts.
If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability to
assemble thoughts coherently without a script,
I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a
clear and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.
Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe
lack of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an
effective and good president, just as polished speaking delivery doesn't
indicate that a president *is* effective and good.

Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are in
the country country to do much about it. And, your president
Yours, too.

Take full responsibility for your treasonous act.

What treasonous act? You really are falling over the
cliff of irrationality now.


You hired the asshole.

I didn't vote for him.


He's all yours.

George W. Bush is, of course, your president, unless
you want to tell us you're not a U.S. citizen or U.S.
national.


All I ever want from him is five minutes alone in a room.
His boys can search me for weapons first.

Something is really wrong with you.


is selling F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.
Why do you suppose that is?

I've heard all the excuses. Which one do YOU worship?

I don't know what you're talking about.



Hint: There isn't one single example of a country like ours getting a
straight deal from any country in the Middle East that we've called an ally.
And, don't say "Israel".

I won't.

I still want to know why you think it is we're selling
F-16 planes to the country which [sic] harbors our
primary enemy.

Why do you like to be so vague? Do you think it's
amusing or witty?

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.
I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong",
but most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.
You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its
potential significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological
defect. I never heard or read anything definitive about it, and the
experts quoted in stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not
one of those experts.
If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability
to assemble thoughts coherently without a script,
I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a
clear and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.
Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe
lack of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an
effective and good president, just as polished speaking delivery
doesn't indicate that a president *is* effective and good.

Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are
in the country country to do much about it. And, your president
Yours, too.

Take full responsibility for your treasonous act.

What treasonous act? You really are falling over the cliff of
irrationality now.


You hired the asshole.

I didn't vote for him.

And yet you vouch for his effectiveness. Same as a vote.




He's all yours.

George W. Bush is, of course, your president, unless you want to tell us
you're not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.


I've already taught you that I disowned the boy. He is a disgrace to this
country.



All I ever want from him is five minutes alone in a room. His boys can
search me for weapons first.

Something is really wrong with you.


Something is really wrong with a president who is comfortable with seeing
"folks" come home from a war, permanently mangled. He should be lying beside
them, mangled. Not dead. That would be too good for him.




is selling F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.
Why do you suppose that is?

I've heard all the excuses. Which one do YOU worship?

I don't know what you're talking about.



Hint: There isn't one single example of a country like ours getting a
straight deal from any country in the Middle East that we've called an
ally. And, don't say "Israel".

I won't.

I still want to know why you think it is we're selling F-16 planes to the
country which [sic] harbors our primary enemy.


Because if you haven't read all the possible reasons, then you're not
prepared to discuss the issue. All you need to know is that your president
was happy to sell weapons to a leader who is not assisting us in the method
agreed to. If you need to know more, there's a place called a library.
Someone should be able to help you find your nearest one.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
thlink.net...

There *is* something physically wrong with him
You have no evidence to support that claim, nor any expertise to
evaluate any evidence if you somehow acquired it.
I was going to say "something physically or psychologically wrong",
but most doctors no longer make that distinction. Take your pick.
You still have no expertise.


I am aware of media speculation about Bush's speech and its
potential significance as a symptom of some kind of neurological
defect. I never heard or read anything definitive about it, and the
experts quoted in stories didn't reach a consensus. You were not
one of those experts.
If you find nothing wrong with his speech patterns, or his inability
to assemble thoughts coherently without a script,
I find him highly inarticulate.


I hope someone other than you is responsible for supervising your
children's education. You are blind. I expect the president to be a
clear and intelligent spokesperson for our country. Bush is not.
Many presidents have not been good public speakers. I don't believe
lack of speaking ability necessarily indicates inability to be an
effective and good president, just as polished speaking delivery
doesn't indicate that a president *is* effective and good.
Whatever you say, Rudy.

Meanwhile, our primary enemy is growing stronger, and our soldiers are
in the country country to do much about it. And, your president
Yours, too.
Take full responsibility for your treasonous act.
What treasonous act? You really are falling over the cliff of
irrationality now.


You hired the asshole.
I didn't vote for him.

And yet you vouch for his effectiveness.

No, I don't. How did you reach that erroneous conclusion?


Same as a vote.

No, it isn't. I think Bill Clinton was a moderately
effective president in some areas, and I didn't vote
for him, either. Plus, I'm certain some people who did
vote for Bush are disappointed at his effectiveness in
many areas.


He's all yours.
George W. Bush is, of course, your president, unless you want to tell us
you're not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.


I've already taught you that I disowned the boy.

Meaningless blather. He is your president. He will be
for a little under two more years, unless he dies in
office, resigns, or is impeached and removed.


He is a disgrace to this country.

Nonetheless, he is your president. You don't have to
like it, but he is your president, and barring
something quite unexpected, he will be for almost two
more years.


All I ever want from him is five minutes alone in a room. His boys can
search me for weapons first.
Something is really wrong with you.


Something is really wrong with a president who is comfortable with seeing
"folks" come home from a war, permanently mangled.

What makes you think he's "comfortable" with that?


He should be lying beside
them, mangled. Not dead. That would be too good for him.

Your partisanship is really getting the better of you.


is selling F-16s to the country which harbors our primary enemy.
Why do you suppose that is?
I've heard all the excuses. Which one do YOU worship?
I don't know what you're talking about.


Hint: There isn't one single example of a country like ours getting a
straight deal from any country in the Middle East that we've called an
ally. And, don't say "Israel".
I won't.

I still want to know why you think it is we're selling F-16 planes to the
country which [sic] harbors our primary enemy.


Because if you haven't read all the possible reasons, then you're not
prepared to discuss the issue.

That's not an answer to what I asked.


All you need to know is that your president

....and yours...

was happy to sell weapons to a leader who is not assisting us in the method
agreed to.

When was this agreement made? Was it oral or in
writing? Who made it?


If you need to know more, there's a place called a library.
Someone should be able to help you find your nearest one.

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.