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

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?

Go back through your last 20 messages. You respect him. You pretend not to
notice his hideous illness.





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.


Many people much smarter than you (including a former president) have
crushed the "My country right or wrong" bull****. Substitute "president" for
"country". Still bull****.



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 insists that it continue. He lies to make sure it continues. He stands in
the way of ending it.





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.


You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

What I'm saying is that you keep proving my point. In an earlier post I
stated that you were incapable of discussing the war policies of Bush, to
wit "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 (that observation) wrong with the helmet discussion, but failed."

I wish that you had a desire and capability to discuss things rationally,
but you don't.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

dgk wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:40:43 -0700, "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.
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. ....snip the rest of the false constructs and conspiracy nonsense

Fooled? No. Being a conservative isn't about being a Republican or Democrat
or Libertarian, et al. The Republican party doesn't own conservatism or
conservatives, which was the thesis of my letter: the Republican party, if
they *wish* to be the party of conservatism, had better crap or get of the
pot.


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

clipped

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

I haven't followed the thread to see what your "hiring qualifications"
are, but I think Bush is just very clumsy. His speech patterns and body
language are very strange ... kind of like each time he walks out of the
White House, he has just practiced his "macho dude" walk. Sometimes he
sits with his knees together, hands between his knees, and a really,
really lost expression on his face, like a frightened kindergarten
pupil. It is like his entire persona and image are made up for public
display.

Of course most pols these days have "handlers", spin lessons, etc. None
of them, or very few, are the real deal. Carter was too honest, Ford a
tad clumsy but much more focused. Barry Goldwater, Ike, probably the
most refreshingly honest. Not that I remember much about Ike.

Bush reminds me of Howdy Doody, just dancing the dance that Rove and
Cheney tell him to dance. I can see Bush being a bartender or a truck
driver....remember when he groped the German President? Not a lot of
heads of state (or low-level managers) would get away with that. And
cussing with a mouth full of food with Tony Blair? Just a clumsy slob.

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
ink.net...

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?

Go back through your last 20 messages. You respect him.

I haven't written one thing that indicates any respect
for Bush. Your partisanship is causing you to hallucinate.


You pretend not to
notice his hideous illness.

I said I consider him highly inarticulate. I am not a
doctor, and neither are you. You don't know if he has
a "hideous illness" or not. As I wrote earlier, people
who supposedly are experts have not reached a
consensus. Tele-diagnosis based on informal
observation of media clips is not a recognized medical
practice.


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.


Many people much smarter than you (including a former president) have
crushed the "My country right or wrong" bull****.

I haven't expressed, implicitly or explicitly, a "my
country right or wrong" belief. You really are going
over a cliff.

What I said is, George W. Bush is your president.
That's a fact, and you're going to have to live with
it, unless you choose to renounce U.S. citizenship
prior to Bush leaving office.


Substitute "president" for
"country". Still bull****.

Nonetheless, George W. Bush is your president.


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 insists that it continue. He lies to make sure it continues. He stands in
the way of ending it.

None of that establishes that he's "comfortable" with
seeing permanently mangled veterans. If the war is
justified, then people just have to accept that some
troops are going to be killed or maimed, no matter how
uncomfortable it might make them feel.


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.


You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?

Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up
on it, either. Are you sure about this?

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

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

I haven't followed the thread to see what your "hiring qualifications"
are, but I think Bush is just very clumsy. His speech patterns and body
language are very strange ... kind of like each time he walks out of the
White House, he has just practiced his "macho dude" walk. Sometimes he
sits with his knees together, hands between his knees, and a really,
really lost expression on his face, like a frightened kindergarten pupil.
It is like his entire persona and image are made up for public display.

Of course most pols these days have "handlers", spin lessons, etc. None
of them, or very few, are the real deal. Carter was too honest, Ford a
tad clumsy but much more focused. Barry Goldwater, Ike, probably the most
refreshingly honest. Not that I remember much about Ike.

Bush reminds me of Howdy Doody, just dancing the dance that Rove and
Cheney tell him to dance. I can see Bush being a bartender or a truck
driver....remember when he groped the German President? Not a lot of
heads of state (or low-level managers) would get away with that. And
cussing with a mouth full of food with Tony Blair? Just a clumsy slob.

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.


Here's an indirect example of ***ONE*** of my hiring qualifications. A few
years ago, Kodak had an opening for someone to speak at meetings with
shareholders and financial analysts. One applicant was a guy whose command
of English was apparently limited to ebonics. Kodak told him "no thanks".
The guy took the company to court, but it didn't last long. Someone must've
taught him that when your job is communication, you must be intelligible.

I love language, and I think it's cool that this country contains so many
variations within English. People can do whatever they want, but if the job
is communication, Kodak was correct. English is English.

Bush's accent doesn't bother me. But, I cannot accept his frequent inability
to keep words and ideas straight. A major part of his job is communication.
His worshippers say "Oh come on - you know what he meant", when you point
out some hideous blunder. No. Sorry. When kids are little, sometimes only
their parents understand their words. That's not acceptable for a president.

"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your
foreign minister, who came to Texas."-To a Slovak journalist as quoted by
Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999. Bush's meeting was with Janez
Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.

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

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?

Go back through your last 20 messages. You respect him.

I haven't written one thing that indicates any respect for Bush. Your
partisanship is causing you to hallucinate.


You pretend not to notice his hideous illness.

I said I consider him highly inarticulate. I am not a doctor, and neither
are you. You don't know if he has a "hideous illness" or not. As I wrote
earlier, people who supposedly are experts have not reached a consensus.
Tele-diagnosis based on informal observation of media clips is not a
recognized medical practice.

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity. Pick
one. Some people say he's nervous, but I don't buy it, and I sure as hell
don't want someone that nervous anywhere near a possible decision to use
nuclear weapons. So: Physical illness, or stupidity?



Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.


You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?

Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either. Are
you sure about this?


Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether there
are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see them.

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

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?
Go back through your last 20 messages. You respect him.
I haven't written one thing that indicates any respect for Bush. Your
partisanship is causing you to hallucinate.


You pretend not to notice his hideous illness.
I said I consider him highly inarticulate. I am not a doctor, and neither
are you. You don't know if he has a "hideous illness" or not. As I wrote
earlier, people who supposedly are experts have not reached a consensus.
Tele-diagnosis based on informal observation of media clips is not a
recognized medical practice.

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.

Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?


Pick one. Some people say he's nervous, but I don't buy it, and I sure as hell
don't want someone that nervous anywhere near a possible decision to use
nuclear weapons. So: Physical illness, or stupidity?

How do you *know* there's something wrong?


Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.

You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either. Are
you sure about this?


Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether there
are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see them.

I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't
think an item like a sale of F-16 fighters to some
presumably significant country - not quite sure why
you're being so cagey with the name of the country -
would be all that hard to find. If I do a search on
"Bush" + "Columbia", for example, Google immediately
gives me a news hit entitled "Bush Faces Tough
Questions In Guatemala President Touts Compassion" from
CBS dated Mar 12, and clicking on the link shows that
reference is made to Bush's visit to Columbia prior to
having gone to Guatemala. So, if there really has been
a recent story about F-16s being sold to some major
country, I would think Google would turn it up.

Your sudden defensiveness about the quality of your
news source makes me a little nervous.

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

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.

Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?

If you haven't noticed his train wreck difficulties with language, then it's
time for you to drop this part of the discussion.




Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.

You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either.
Are you sure about this?


Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether
there are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see
them.

I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't think an item like
a sale of F-16 fighters to some presumably significant country - not quite
sure why you're being so cagey with the name of the country - would be all
that hard to find.


Sorry. I thought I mentioned Pakistan. Continue with your search. If you
find nothing about it, go away.

And, I asked about news sources because some drones have been told to say
you can't trust this one or that one. I will shut down the conversation if
you exhibit any signs of having been trained, especially if it's clear that
your views came from a radio program whose only purpose is to sell garlic
pills and adjustable mattresses.

So, let's change a word: Which **major** or **popular** news sources have
you been ordered to pretend you don't trust?

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

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.
Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?

If you haven't noticed his train wreck difficulties with language, then it's
time for you to drop this part of the discussion.

I already said I noticed his highly inarticulate
speech, but that's not the same thing as being
qualified to say what causes it. I asked you a direct
question, and you didn't answer it. I think it's
pretty clear you have no credentials at all. Among
those who do who have spoken publicly on the matter,
there is no consensus that anything is "wrong" with
Bush, based on his speech ability.


Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.
You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either.
Are you sure about this?

Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether
there are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see
them.
I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't think an item like
a sale of F-16 fighters to some presumably significant country - not quite
sure why you're being so cagey with the name of the country - would be all
that hard to find.


Sorry. I thought I mentioned Pakistan.

No, you didn't, but I surmised that.


Continue with your search. If you
find nothing about it, go away.

Well, I found something that looked promising from the
BBC: "US to sell fighters to Pakistan". But when I
read the story, it's dated 26 Mar 2005. That's not
exactly "news".


And, I asked about news sources because some drones have been told to say
you can't trust this one or that one. I will shut down the conversation if
you exhibit any signs of having been trained, especially if it's clear that
your views came from a radio program whose only purpose is to sell garlic
pills and adjustable mattresses.

So, let's change a word: Which **major** or **popular** news sources have
you been ordered to pretend you don't trust?

No one has issued anyone any "orders" not to trust any
news sources. I don't know where you get this idea
that people who disagree with your partisan leanings
are under some sinister "orders" to think or believe
things.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Well, I found something that looked promising from the
BBC: "US to sell fighters to Pakistan". But when I
read the story, it's dated 26 Mar 2005. That's not
exactly "news".

snork He must've missed the most recent info about the potential sales of
F-18's to India. I'm sure there must be some point to his coyness.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.
Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?

If you haven't noticed his train wreck difficulties with language, then
it's time for you to drop this part of the discussion.

I already said I noticed his highly inarticulate speech, but that's not
the same thing as being qualified to say what causes it. I asked you a
direct question, and you didn't answer it. I think it's pretty clear you
have no credentials at all. Among those who do who have spoken publicly
on the matter, there is no consensus that anything is "wrong" with Bush,
based on his speech ability.

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




Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I couldn't
find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a little more
forthcoming.
You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either.
Are you sure about this?

Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether
there are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see
them.
I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't think an item
like a sale of F-16 fighters to some presumably significant country -
not quite sure why you're being so cagey with the name of the country -
would be all that hard to find.


Sorry. I thought I mentioned Pakistan.

No, you didn't, but I surmised that.


Continue with your search. If you find nothing about it, go away.

Well, I found something that looked promising from the BBC: "US to sell
fighters to Pakistan". But when I read the story, it's dated 26 Mar 2005.
That's not exactly "news".


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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


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

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


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



You snipped without noting my comment about your almost paranoid belief
that those who disagree with you are under some "orders" to think or
believe a certain way, or to disregard some media.

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

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

His condition can only be explained two ways: Illness, or stupidity.
Are you sure? What are your credentials in this field?
If you haven't noticed his train wreck difficulties with language, then
it's time for you to drop this part of the discussion.
I already said I noticed his highly inarticulate speech, but that's not
the same thing as being qualified to say what causes it. I asked you a
direct question, and you didn't answer it. I think it's pretty clear
you have no credentials at all. Among those who do who have spoken
publicly on the matter, there is no consensus that anything is "wrong"
with Bush, based on his speech ability.
If one of your kids spoke like Bush at age 10, would you ask the school
for any assistance in finding out why?
Probably. The answer might just be that he "processes information
differently." I hear that about quite a lot of kids.

Bull****. Bush is broken,

He might be, but you're not competent to say.


Well, I did a search on the web for "F-16" + "sales", and I
couldn't find any recent news stories. Perhaps you could be a
little more forthcoming.
You honestly missed it in the news? Seriously?
Yes. Not only that, but Google can't seem to pick up on it, either.
Are you sure about this?
Before I waste any time helping you with this, tell me first whether
there are any mainstream news sources you will not trust when you see
them.
I don't know that we agree on "mainstream", I wouldn't think an item
like a sale of F-16 fighters to some presumably significant country -
not quite sure why you're being so cagey with the name of the
country - would be all that hard to find.
Sorry. I thought I mentioned Pakistan.
No, you didn't, but I surmised that.


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

How recent does information need to be in order for you to consider it
valid?
It's not a question of whether or not it's "valid"; it's a question of
whether or not I consider it news. This sounds like a done deal to me,
nothing worthy of any agitation.


More meaningless fluff. You're saying you have a time limit, outside of
which information is no longer useful.

I'm saying that it appears the planes have been built
and shipped to Pakistan, and there's nothing to be done
about it now. Maybe they haven't shipped yet. If you
have evidence of that, let's have it. Otherwise, you
ought to stop moaning about something that's over and
done with.


You snipped without noting my comment about your almost paranoid belief
that those who disagree with you are under some "orders" to think or
believe a certain way, or to disregard some media.

You have no original thoughts of your own.

Oh, and you do, right? Heh heh heh... Yes, of course.


So, everything you post must come
from another source.

Mostly, I've asked original questions, and you've given
evasive, snarky answers to them - answers that do, of
course, reveal your harsh partisanship. I notice
you're not even bothering to dispute that any more.


Since you believe Bush is normal and qualified,

I never said or indicated any such thing. You really
do make a lot of wild, unsupported leaps of faith. Why
is that?


we know
you are stupid. The logical extension of that fact is that you are an AM
radio drooler.

And you reveal still further your deep partisanship, as
well as more illogical and unsupported conclusion.

Why *did* you ever bother trying to deny it?

On Mar 15, 5:36 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

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

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

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





I heard that about you Goo.









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

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

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

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

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




Validity doesn't count for much in Goo's world.






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




His partisanship vs your imbecility.

Wonder how this will turn out?






- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,

He might be, but you're not competent to say.


But here, you imply that he might not be normal or qualified:

Since you believe Bush is normal and qualified,

I never said or indicated any such thing. You really do make a lot of
wild, unsupported leaps of faith. Why is that?




As far as selling arms to Pakistan, your best response is "It's done, so
forget it". Based on that logic, all crimes are excused if they are in the
past.


And your radio training: Your endless repetition of one word, "partisan", is
the giveaway. You probably also loved "cut and run", "troop surge", and a
few others I can't remember.

Oh yeah: "folks". Your president has used the word to describe people who
build and deploy roadside bombs to kill our soldiers.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,
He might be, but you're not competent to say.

You *aren't* competent to say. Your "diagnosis" (huh),
and the language you use to express it, are motivated
mostly by your partisanship. You're not competent in
any medical field, and no ethical doctor would ever
attempt a diagnosis based on watching a few carefully
selected clips from CNN. You hate Bush and policies
his administration has followed, and rather than
explain, in temperate language, what it is that you
feel is objectionable about his policies and actions,
you engage in a sophomoric attack on his neurology,
using highly inflammatory language.

Partisan.


But here, you imply that he might not be normal or qualified:

Since you believe Bush is normal and qualified,
I never said or indicated any such thing. You really do make a lot of
wild, unsupported leaps of faith. Why is that?

No, I don't imply that. You made an unsupported
assertion: that I believe Bush is normal and
qualified. I merely told you that I hadn't commented
either way.


As far as selling arms to Pakistan, your best response is "It's done, so
forget it". Based on that logic,

Your own, peculiar illogic.


all crimes are excused if they are in the
past.

No. The arms sales to Pakistan might have been unwise,
but they didn't constitute a crime. Nor have I
"excused" the sale. I haven't really commented on it.

You were talking about the sale of F-16 fighter jets to
Pakistan as if it was something that hadn't yet
occurred, and that can and should be stopped. I simply
told you that I'm not as concerned about it, given that
it has already happened and can't be undone, as I would
be if the deal hadn't yet gone through.




And your radio training:

None. But that's what I'd expect a highly partisan
"critic" to say. You just don't realize that saying
things like that confirms you as a shrill partisan.


Your endless repetition of one word, "partisan", is
the giveaway.

It isn't a "giveaway" of any such thing. You *are*
highly partisan. It's foolish for you to deny it. As
I told you, your comments about a number of other
things besides Bush give *you* away.


You probably also loved "cut and run", "troop surge", and a
few others I can't remember.

More unsupported and wild leaps of inference, which you
make *only* because of your intense partisanship. I
haven't said anything about any of those, nor have I
said anything that would reasonably allow you to assume
what my positions on them are.


Oh yeah: "folks". Your president

....and yours: George W. Bush is, of course, your
president...


has used the word to describe people who
build and deploy roadside bombs to kill our soldiers.

I don't watch television, and I haven't heard him say
that. That would be a poor choice of word. Bush has
lots of company among the American public for that sort
of poorly thought word choice. I often hear
otherwise-articulate police spokesmen, describing how
the perpetrator of some heinous crime was captured, say
something along the lines of, "...and then the
gentleman exited the residence with his hands up."
People who have committed horrible crimes are not
"gentlemen".

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

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,
He might be, but you're not competent to say.

You *aren't* competent to say. Your "diagnosis" (huh), and the language
you use to express it, are motivated mostly by your partisanship. You're
not competent in any medical field, and no ethical doctor would ever
attempt a diagnosis based on watching a few carefully selected clips from
CNN.


I think we need to find out if you and I agree on terminology.

Bush displays odd speech patterns and a frequent inability to assemble
sentences effectively.

I call those symptoms. I do not consider the statement to contain or imply a
diagnosis (reasons for the symptoms).

Do you agree? If not, why not?

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

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,
He might be, but you're not competent to say.
You *aren't* competent to say. Your "diagnosis" (huh), and the language
you use to express it, are motivated mostly by your partisanship. You're
not competent in any medical field, and no ethical doctor would ever
attempt a diagnosis based on watching a few carefully selected clips from
CNN.


I think we need to find out if you and I agree on terminology.

Bush displays odd speech patterns and a frequent inability to assemble
sentences effectively.

Agreed.


I call those symptoms.

Of what?


I do not consider the statement to contain or imply a
diagnosis (reasons for the symptoms).

Earlier, you made comments that imply you *do* see his
speech as indicative of some diagnosable medical
condition. Now you've backpedaled considerably.


Do you agree? If not, why not?

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

Interesting. Here, you say I'm not competent to point out that Bush is
broken:

Bull****. Bush is broken,
He might be, but you're not competent to say.
You *aren't* competent to say. Your "diagnosis" (huh), and the language
you use to express it, are motivated mostly by your partisanship.
You're not competent in any medical field, and no ethical doctor would
ever attempt a diagnosis based on watching a few carefully selected
clips from CNN.


I think we need to find out if you and I agree on terminology.

Bush displays odd speech patterns and a frequent inability to assemble
sentences effectively.

Agreed.


I call those symptoms.

Of what?

How should I know? Are you stuck on this thought because someone else in the
thread suggested too much booze or drugs, and you think I agree with him?



I do not consider the statement to contain or imply a diagnosis (reasons
for the symptoms).

Earlier, you made comments that imply you *do* see his speech as
indicative of some diagnosable medical condition. Now you've backpedaled
considerably.

Well, it *is* indicative of "a condition". Whether it's medical or not, we
have no way of knowing, at least not until history is written, and maybe not
even then. In an article in The Atlantic a couple of years ago, one doctor
suggested presenile dementia. Others say he's just a nervous guy.

However, I make a distinction which a clinician might not: There are his
speech issues, and there are issues with his apparent lack of knowledge. I'm
acquainted with a highly experienced speech pathologist who says that the
two symptoms are often seen together in stroke patients. But, given Bush's
age, a stroke is less likely than something else.

Do you have any theories about the cause of Bush's condition?

"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.

Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...legroups .com

not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...legroup s.com

2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_
by Mark Fuhrman
http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Witness...75444-0041604?

2006 _Fighting for Dear Life: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo and
What It Means for All of Us_
by David C. Gibbs and Bob DeMoss
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Dear-...75444-0041604?

2005 _Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman_
by Diana Lynne
http://www.amazon.com/Terris-Story-C...75444-0041604?

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...legroup s.com

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....dfa0eba?hl=en&

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...individual.net

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
SNIP/
Do you have any theories about the cause of Bush's condition?


"Don’t get me started You never know when I might stop
Don’t get me started We both ought to let this thing drop
Don’t get me started Don’t get me started not now
Don’t get me started Cause it make me crazy "
Rodney Crowell


--
Don't you people understand that asking impertinent questions
of the White House is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants you
to do?

"Elmo" wrote in message
...

Don't you people understand that asking impertinent questions
of the White House is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants you
to do?


Not questioning the government is equal to treason.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Elmo" wrote in message
...

Don't you people understand that asking impertinent questions
of the White House is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants you
to do?


Not questioning the government is equal to treason.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...earch&va=IRONY

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:47:38 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:40:43 -0700, "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.
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. ....snip the rest of the false constructs and conspiracy nonsense

Fooled? No. Being a conservative isn't about being a Republican or Democrat
or Libertarian, et al. The Republican party doesn't own conservatism or
conservatives, which was the thesis of my letter: the Republican party, if
they *wish* to be the party of conservatism, had better crap or get of the
pot.

Just out of curiosity, what were the false constructs and conspiracy
nonsense?

dgk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what were the false constructs and conspiracy
nonsense?

Just a guess, but since that's what was written after the snip, I'd surmise
it applied to the snipped portion.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:07:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what were the false constructs and conspiracy
nonsense?

Just a guess, but since that's what was written after the snip, I'd surmise
it applied to the snipped portion.

Ah, so then out founding fathers didn't put prohibitions in place to
prevent abuses of corporate power? Stuff like the legal definition of
a corporate charter. I see. Or rather, I don't see. They did that
stuff.

Or that soldiers are killed to defend corporate profits? Not so in
World War II.

Hmm, Vietnam. Well, yes, that was markets and sphere of influence
stuff. Not really about freedom since we backed a dictatorship against
the will of the people (Eisehower said that we had to fight because
80% of the people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh if we had allowed
the elections to proceed).

After that? All about profits. But none as blatant as the Iraq war.

Still, if you voted for this bunch thinking that they were anything
other than corporate whores, you were wrong.

dgk wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:07:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what were the false constructs and conspiracy
nonsense?

Just a guess, but since that's what was written after the snip, I'd
surmise it applied to the snipped portion.

Snip.....as before, the crap is snipped. Go play with someone who cares.

--

"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:30:56 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:07:10 -0700, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what were the false constructs and conspiracy
nonsense?

Just a guess, but since that's what was written after the snip, I'd
surmise it applied to the snipped portion.

Snip.....as before, the crap is snipped. Go play with someone who cares.

What an odd group of newsgroups this one goes to. Triangle.General?
Maybe someone there cares.

But since I'm in home.repair, perhaps I can find out how to rip out
the tub...