 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:e5lAe.149346$sy6.48156@lakeread04... A couple of things wrong with that. First it was Puerto Rican separatist that shot up Congress and it was in 1954. Also The Philippine insurrection ended in 1902, 3 years after the Treaty of Paris and William Howard Taft is credited with negotiating it's end peacefully. We gave the Philippines their independence in 1946, 47 years after the Treaty of Paris. Not 100 years. Other than that, we are in agreement. Glenn, Oh boy, I'm not usually that sloppy but I wrote it off the top of my head, or you might say I pulled it out of my ass. I guess I just pulled an O'Reilly but unlike Bill I am more than ready to admit a mistake and apologize for it. Your rebuttal was pretty courteous and I thank you for that. I should have remembered the PR separatist connection for personal reasons. The Philippine insurrection movement is alive to this day. Many of the southern islands are no man zones and beyond the control of the recognized government. It wasn't to long ago that the guerrillas in control captured and killed a group of foreign nationals. Also, TR did send in the navy during his term and the result was truly something to behold, and not something wonderful. I also wouldn't argue the date they got their independence but it wouldn't be hard to make a case that the regime in charge was seriously manipulated and that this caused great resentment. We had a very large and visible armed presence at Subic and other places and those bases were sovereign soil. Panama and Nicaragua are other examples. When you get right down to it, the US might still be hitched to the UK had they been willing to allow us representation in parliament. That was what our own revolution was really about - self determination or at least some reasonable input. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
called Karl Rove, i I know who he is, Jim, but you people are freaking obsessed over him. The same way we were obsessed with the treason of Major Andree. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:40:44 -0500, B.B. .ru wrote: Diplomacy. We're nice to the Canadians, so they don't try to hurt us. There's also a bit of a military imbalance between the US and Canada which might enter into it if they decided to be a problem, isn't there? The idea that Canada tolerates us only out of fear of our military strength is pretty silly. Especially now that our military is on the other side of the planet, and a wee bit preoccupied. Call it a wild idea, but I think if we'd stop blowing up people in the Middle East, stop ****ing with their governments, and stop threatening them with all kinds of trade sanctions the population at large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us find any actual terrorists that may stick around. That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it. Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****. It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us. Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they wouldn't have escalated. Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the rise since Bush began "responding strongly"? It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?), and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the weasel-in-chief". From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to burn away ashes. Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being bad people by making them into dead people. Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war types doing about the terrorists? Nothing--we can't. Really? Nothing at all? Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas? So you feel that the government not only is the only group that can do anything about terrorism, but that they _should_ be the only ones to do it? Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness. Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something. The republican nutjobs have pretty much total control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats. Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see the quotes again? So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? You seem to have confused you with me. But above you said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent contradiction? You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique. But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in that case. So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before the vote. happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you. Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your stuff or kill you. The terrorists are not gorillas. So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what the ones I use mean? Wow. They are people and think pretty much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists. You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us. Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far. Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they. Oh wait, they didn't. Easy and cheap and comes with a lot of fringe benefits. Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive. It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us find any actual terrorists that may stick around." And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or something. Yes, that's already happening. OTOH, beating down everyone who might become a threat has never worked for long. Eventually people get tired of it and fight back. And yet, when we do that to the terrorists, you want us to stop so we can have a group-hug. You're the only one talking about hugging, bub. The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us, or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand. Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help. Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives sucked before they died in a police state. And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly? Singapore, for one. Relavance being....? |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:18:51 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, "B.B." . ru wrote: Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the rise since Bush began "responding strongly"? Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been on the rise since the 1960s. Last I checked, that's before W took office, right? But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before January 17, 2001. Correct? That's probably it. In his world, anyway. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article , Gunner wrote: Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been on the rise since the 1960s. But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before January 17, 2001. Correct? No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective? Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is? |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9 Jul 2005 18:43:23 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was "beneath me" to point this out. Yes, and I still stand by that. People who bitch about what's being done here, pointing to London and saying "See? It didn't do anything!!1!!!!eleven!111!"? Can you see a _bit_ of a logic gap there? Ah, dave, I see that we've spend a potful of money in iraq. Yes. Remind me again where that gummint spending gets spent? Oh yeah, employing USA'ns. So it's not like it evaporates or something, it it, Jim? I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq. As Bush said back in one of his state of the union addresses, '02 probably (yes, I can find it if you can't), and I'm going to paraphrase... ' OK, wow, that really sucked. AQ doesn't like us, a lot. Iraq also doesn't like us a lot. One of the things that would make this worse is if the two of 'em get together, because that would really suck even worse. We need to make sure that doesn't happen ' He didn't say they were connected, he said they needed to be prevented form doing so. SH had the weapons (you KNOW he had the weapons, Jim, so don't even), AQ had the operatives. The combination of the two would be bad. SH is now no longer viable, OBL is in hiding if he's alive, and the weapons are gone if we're lucky. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0500, B.B. . ru wrote: In article , Gunner wrote: Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been on the rise since the 1960s. But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before January 17, 2001. Correct? No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective? Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is? And why can't you Bush supporters stick with the context of the conversation. I was talking about worldwide terrorism since Bush has been in office. Gunner tried to steer the conversation towards the previous forty years, (and personal insults) and now you try to steer it towards terrorism in the US only. Why are you doing that--it does not have any bearing on what I said, even if it does have a few words in common. However, if you really do like the goal posts in their new position then explain to me how what we're doing these days guarantees there won't be any attacks on the US in the future. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/ |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 07:07:30 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... called Karl Rove, i I know who he is, Jim, but you people are freaking obsessed over him. The same way we were obsessed with the treason of Major Andree. (googled) Um, OK. Whatever you say, Jim. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:46 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote: Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is? And why can't you Bush supporters stick with the context of the conversation. You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. My statement above is in response to that concept. I was talking about worldwide terrorism since Bush has been in office. Gunner tried to steer the conversation towards the previous forty years, (and personal insults) and now you try to steer it towards terrorism in the US only. You said it hadn't helped. I'm showing how it apparently has helped. I didn't claim it has eliminated it everywhere, which seems to be your measure of success or failure. Why are you doing that--it does not have any bearing on what I said, even if it does have a few words in common. Well, it does, but you're not reading what I'm writing. However, if you really do like the goal posts in their new position then explain to me how what we're doing these days guarantees there won't be any attacks on the US in the future. Bloody. ****ing. Hell. I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. You claimed it wasn't helping. I mentioned that we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11/01, so maybe it _is_ helping. You counter with "if you can't guarantee, 100%, then it's not helping"? Wow. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. Take a global view. Don't just restrict your view to your own backyard. To put it another way, what are *you* as a taxpayer getting for your billions of dollars that's being shelled out right now? It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Hinz says... You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. Take a global view. Don't just restrict your view to your own backyard. To put it another way, what are *you* as a taxpayer getting for your billions of dollars that's being shelled out right now? It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. Jim Jim, That blank check you refer to is 5 billion per week for Iraq alone. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. R. Carroll" wrote in message . .. "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Dave Hinz says... You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. Take a global view. Don't just restrict your view to your own backyard. To put it another way, what are *you* as a taxpayer getting for your billions of dollars that's being shelled out right now? It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. Jim Jim, That blank check you refer to is 5 billion per week for Iraq alone. Sorry, that's per month. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 09:02:27 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. Take a global view. Don't just restrict your view to your own backyard. OK, then show me _any_ terrorist attack since 9/11/01 that's on the same scale. To put it another way, what are *you* as a taxpayer getting for your billions of dollars that's being shelled out right now? I'll take "No further attacks on US soil for 500, Jim." It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, Don't ascribe arguments to me that I haven't made. It's a cheap tactic. but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. So, you contend that it has escalated then, do you? |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: [...] That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it. Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****. It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us. No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it. Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they wouldn't have escalated. Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the rise since Bush began "responding strongly"? It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?), and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the weasel-in-chief". So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's war? I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening. According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly. From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to burn away ashes. Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being bad people by making them into dead people. Were they born evil? Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war types doing about the terrorists? Nothing--we can't. Really? Nothing at all? Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas? So you feel that the government not only is the only group that can do anything about terrorism, but that they _should_ be the only ones to do it? How did you come up with that? Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness. Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something. Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything. The republican nutjobs have pretty much total control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats. Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see the quotes again? So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? You seem to have confused you with me. No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that hugging thing. But above you said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent contradiction? You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique. Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend what I called "****ups" in Iraq. It seemed as if you were trying to say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing up the congressional vote. But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in that case. So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before the vote. I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this war is a good idea. But I suppose you've got a point--who am I to expect the president of the US to pay any attention to half of his people? happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you. Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your stuff or kill you. The terrorists are not gorillas. So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what the ones I use mean? Wow. Then why did you call them gorillas. They are people and think pretty much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists. You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us. No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments? Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far. Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they. Oh wait, they didn't. Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of Bush--both on the battlefield and off. Easy and cheap and comes with a lot of fringe benefits. Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive. It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us find any actual terrorists that may stick around." And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or something. Yes, that's already happening. No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who are calling them puppets aren't like me. OTOH, beating down everyone who might become a threat has never worked for long. Eventually people get tired of it and fight back. And yet, when we do that to the terrorists, you want us to stop so we can have a group-hug. You're the only one talking about hugging, bub. The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us, or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand. I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed. Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help. Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives sucked before they died in a police state. And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly? Singapore, for one. Relavance being....? It's a police state. You asked for a police state, so I named one. Was that not what you wanted? I can only read what you've typed in; I can't read your mind. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/ |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:47:09 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote: [...] That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it. Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****. It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us. No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it. The fight has already been picked. It was picked centuries ago. W didn't start the fight, yet you seem to be blaming him for it. If you turn around during a biker bar fight, you get something smashed over your head. It's not about not initiating a fight, it's about not giving somene who is already fighting with you an opening. Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they wouldn't have escalated. It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?), and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the weasel-in-chief". So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's war? Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, has it? I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening. Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again? I keep not seeing it. According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly. That's an unsupportably weak generality. From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to burn away ashes. Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being bad people by making them into dead people. Were they born evil? Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of changing cultures. Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war types doing about the terrorists? Nothing--we can't. Really? Nothing at all? Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas? So you feel that the government not only is the only group that can do anything about terrorism, but that they _should_ be the only ones to do it? How did you come up with that? Well, if you're saying you can't do anything because the republicans control the government, then logic would indicate that you feel the gummint has to fix it. You complain that you're not in it and therefore can't do anything; the logical meaning of that is that they're the only ones who can. Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness. Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something. Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything. Backpedal acknowledged. The republican nutjobs have pretty much total control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats. Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see the quotes again? So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? You seem to have confused you with me. No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that hugging thing. I'm not implying it's a ****up, I'm stating outright that people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it as well, so if you feel it's a ****up, you're welcome to blame _all_ the people who voted for it, not just the red ones. But above you said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent contradiction? You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique. Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend what I called "****ups" in Iraq. Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people. It seemed as if you were trying to say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing up the congressional vote. Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already. But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in that case. So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before the vote. I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this war is a good idea. Take it up with your congresscritters then. But I suppose you've got a point--who am I to expect the president of the US to pay any attention to half of his people? Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did. happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you. Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your stuff or kill you. The terrorists are not gorillas. So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what the ones I use mean? Wow. Then why did you call them gorillas. gorilla. Not guerilla. FFS. It's a ****ing analogy. Some big guy wants your stuff. Do you try to be friends, or do you whack 'em with a big stick? They are people and think pretty much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists. You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us. No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments? If you substitute "years" with "centuries", "meddle" with "being fundamentally incompatible with" and "government" to "culture", then I'd agree. Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far. Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they. Oh wait, they didn't. Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of Bush--both on the battlefield and off. Yes. Maybe he should have taken definative action instead of pussy-footing around, and we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11/01. Maybe. Weak responses (which you seem to see as good or something) emboldened the terrorists. Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive. It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us find any actual terrorists that may stick around." And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or something. Yes, that's already happening. No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who are calling them puppets aren't like me. OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping us, isn't? The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us, or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand. I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed. Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that. Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help. Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives sucked before they died in a police state. And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly? Singapore, for one. Relavance being....? It's a police state. You asked for a police state, so I named one. Was that not what you wanted? I can only read what you've typed in; I can't read your mind. Relavance of Singapore to a US vs. mideast terrorist group being what, exactly? |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B.B." u wrote in message news  In article , Dave Hinz wrote: On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0500, B.B. . ru wrote: In article , Gunner wrote: However, if you really do like the goal posts in their new position then explain to me how what we're doing these days guarantees there won't be any attacks on the US in the future. You needn't move the goal posts at all, unless you currently work out of the White House. It would be convenient to do so if you did. "Our military is confronting the terrorists, along with our allies, in Iraq and Afghanistan so that innocent civilians will not have to confront terrorist violence in Washington or London or anywhere else in the world." Richard Cheney Vice President of the United States September 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030917-3.html -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, Don't ascribe arguments to me that I haven't made. It's a cheap tactic. The comment was *not* attributed to you. I think that was pretty clear when I said "folks" and not "you." To be perfectly clear, I am aware that you personally would not and have to teh beset of my knowledge, made such a comment here. but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. So, you contend that it has escalated then, do you? John's number was what, $5B per month of your tax money, yes? Escalation or not, that's still a hunk-O-change. What would *you* like to see money like that spend on? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq. Prove it's not slowed down the tangos. You're smarter than that gunner. Then by your lights we should spend money because it slows down the marauding elephants from attacking my house in peeksill. Please remit *your* tax dollars directly to the jim rozen elephant prevention fund, and then I can then challenge *you* to prove that it's not slowing down the elephants. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
Yes. Remind me again where that gummint spending gets spent? Oh yeah, employing USA'ns. So it's not like it evaporates or something, it it, Jim? Ah, you seem to have a bit of a naive view of where this 'money' is coming from. All those in favor of massive deficit spending, please raise your hands....? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Aftershock says...
In article , says... In article , Gunner says... You're smarter than that gunner. Then you have a higher opinion of him than most of us. Gunner is no dummy - he may be a whacko right wing fundie but he's perfectly aware that you can't prove a negative proposition. The fact that he's resorted to a comment like that honestly has me a bit nonplussed. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 17:36:33 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Aftershock says... In article , says... In article , Gunner says... You're smarter than that gunner. Then you have a higher opinion of him than most of us. Gunner is no dummy - he may be a whacko right wing fundie but he's perfectly aware that you can't prove a negative proposition. The fact that he's resorted to a comment like that honestly has me a bit nonplussed. Jim Fundi? Im Buddist for Christs sake. Again you are wrong. So tell me Jim. Since you havent been raped, robbed or burgled in say..the last 5 yrs...there really isnt any need for police, is there? And there really shouldnt be any money spent on crime fighting..as you are not affected by crime. Correct? Gunner "Considering the events of recent years, the world has a long way to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the US." unknown |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 15:09:36 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, Don't ascribe arguments to me that I haven't made. It's a cheap tactic. The comment was *not* attributed to you. I think that was pretty clear when I said "folks" and not "you." To be perfectly clear, I am aware that you personally would not and have to teh beset of my knowledge, made such a comment here. Uh huh, but you just happened to bring it up while replying to my points. Got it. but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. So, you contend that it has escalated then, do you? John's number was what, $5B per month of your tax money, yes? Escalation or not, that's still a hunk-O-change. What would *you* like to see money like that spend on? Well, you act like that money evaporates. Doesn't it, you know, get spent to make things, employ people who spend, that sort of thing? It's like people bitching about space program spending. Where better to spend money than in the high-tech sector, where you get interesting research, products, and so on? |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 17:34:00 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... Yes. Remind me again where that gummint spending gets spent? Oh yeah, employing USA'ns. So it's not like it evaporates or something, it it, Jim? Ah, you seem to have a bit of a naive view of where this 'money' is coming from. The 'money' is real, even if the source is debt, Jim. It still employs people who spend it. Care to address the point rather than try to evade it? |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jul 2005 15:13:02 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says... I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq. Prove it's not slowed down the tangos. You're smarter than that gunner. Then by your lights we should spend money because it slows down the marauding elephants from attacking my house in peeksill. Have elepahnts _ever_ attacked your house in peeksill? I guess no. Have terrorists ever attacked the US on US soil? Um, I seem to recall yes. Have they done so since W's actions caused their operations to be diminished? I don't think they have. Please remit *your* tax dollars directly to the jim rozen elephant prevention fund, and then I can then challenge *you* to prove that it's not slowing down the elephants. The terrorists are real, Jim, the elephants in peeksill are not. You're slipping. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Gunner says...
Gunner is no dummy - he may be a whacko right wing fundie but he's perfectly aware that you can't prove a negative proposition. The fact that he's resorted to a comment like that honestly has me a bit nonplussed. Fundi? Im Buddist for Christs sake. Again you are wrong. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a Druid, right! So tell me Jim. Since you havent been raped, robbed or burgled in say..the last 5 yrs...there really isnt any need for police, is there? The local constabulary do a fine job of catching folks with the wrong color license plate, and they also were nice enough to alert me when the local punk swiped my dirt bike. But honestly I will revisit that very reasonable question when the cost for the local peekskill cops reaches 5 billion dollars per month. Pack a lunch my friend. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
The 'money' is real, even if the source is debt, Jim. It still employs people who spend it. Care to address the point rather than try to evade it? Let me put this in plain terms: WE ARE SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE Got it? The deficit spending is occurring on an unprecedented level and will screw up our economy for years to come. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it. Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****. It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us. No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it. The fight has already been picked. It was picked centuries ago. W didn't start the fight, yet you seem to be blaming him for it. Nah, I'm only blaming him for tossing more fuel on the fire. If you turn around during a biker bar fight, you get something smashed over your head. It's not about not initiating a fight, it's about not giving somene who is already fighting with you an opening. OK, then explain to me how invading Iraq, killing lots and lots of civilians, (and some insurgents who may or may not be local) and installing a government that appears to be completely powerless is gonna "not give someone an opening" to attack the US. Because I don't see it. I mean, here we are over here, in North America, and there our army is, on the other side of the planet. How does that make sense? Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing. It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?), and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the weasel-in-chief". So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's war? Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, has it? And I haven't had a cold since the last time I had one. Apparently I'm invulnerable to disease, eh? In fact, I haven't died yet, so I suppose I'm immortal too. Or maybe your logic is flawed. I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening. Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again? I keep not seeing it. Ask Tony Blair. According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly. That's an unsupportably weak generality. OK, Mr. Hugbot. http://research.lifeboat.com/worldterror.htm From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to burn away ashes. Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being bad people by making them into dead people. Were they born evil? Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of changing cultures. That's not an answer. "Who knows?" is a weak argument to support a war. So is the corollary: "Just in case." [...] Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness. Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something. Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything. Backpedal acknowledged. Clarification. Call it a backpedal if you like, but is there any further confusion you want ironed out? The republican nutjobs have pretty much total control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats. Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see the quotes again? So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? You seem to have confused you with me. No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that hugging thing. I'm not implying it's a ****up, I'm stating outright that people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it as well, so if you feel it's a ****up, you're welcome to blame _all_ the people who voted for it, not just the red ones. OK, I blame all the people who voted for it. And all of the goons who voted for them and plan to keep on voting for them. Now that we've got the blaming out of the way, how does all of this blaming make Iraq not a ****up? A ****up which the republicans in the White House are planning and leading. But above you said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent contradiction? You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique. Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend what I called "****ups" in Iraq. Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people. I don't own or control them--they are not "mine." But to use your language: "Your people" have the authority to end it, but they don't. In fact it's plainly obvious at this point that "your people" lied their asses off to get "my people" to consent to this cluster****. So, yeah, I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke or lose power--whichever comes first. It seemed as if you were trying to say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing up the congressional vote. Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already. And you are correct, sir, I've seen 'em all. It's amazing how many republicans in the workplace love their copy machines. Anyway, I know now, and I knew then that Democrats also voted for the war. I was right there, yelling at the TV when it happened on C-Span. But I just can't seem to figure out how any of that is supposed to turn a ****up into a nota****up. But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in that case. So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before the vote. I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this war is a good idea. Take it up with your congresscritters then. They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave. But I suppose you've got a point--who am I to expect the president of the US to pay any attention to half of his people? Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did. Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn country somewhere other than into the ground. happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you. Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your stuff or kill you. The terrorists are not gorillas. So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what the ones I use mean? Wow. Then why did you call them gorillas. gorilla. Not guerilla. FFS. It's a ****ing analogy. Some big guy wants your stuff. Do you try to be friends, or do you whack 'em with a big stick? What "stuff" are the terrorists trying to take? AFAIR some want us out of the Middle East, and a few want us all dead. But the vast majority would probably be pretty satisfied with an end to bombings in their cities, which I figure is an easily achievable goal. It would save us money on bombs and funerals to boot. They are people and think pretty much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists. You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us. No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments? If you substitute "years" with "centuries", "meddle" with "being fundamentally incompatible with" and "government" to "culture", then I'd agree. Well, I wouldn't. I see nothing about them that makes them fundamentally incompatible with us. Care to enlighten me? Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far. Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they. Oh wait, they didn't. Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of Bush--both on the battlefield and off. Yes. Maybe he should have taken definative action instead of pussy-footing around, and we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11/01. Maybe. Weak responses (which you seem to see as good or something) emboldened the terrorists. Which "He" are you referring to in the above? And how does one go about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military with homemade bombs? How do you embolden a guy who's willing to take on a mission that requires his own violent death? Seems like those folks are riding the upper reaches of boldness already. Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive. It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us find any actual terrorists that may stick around." And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or something. Yes, that's already happening. No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who are calling them puppets aren't like me. OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping us, isn't? What are you referring to? The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us, or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand. I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed. Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that. Me too! Yay! Agreement! Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help. Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives sucked before they died in a police state. And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly? Singapore, for one. Relavance being....? It's a police state. You asked for a police state, so I named one. Was that not what you wanted? I can only read what you've typed in; I can't read your mind. Relavance of Singapore to a US vs. mideast terrorist group being what, exactly? I saw no relevance between Singapore and the US--I just named off an example since you wanted one. If that wasn't what you wanted, be more specific with your questions. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/ |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:46 -0500, B.B. . ru wrote: In article , Dave Hinz wrote: Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is? And why can't you Bush supporters stick with the context of the conversation. You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. My statement above is in response to that concept. Actually, I claimed that it's been rising worldwide since Bush began his war on terrorism. Your statement was in response to something other than what I wrote. I was talking about worldwide terrorism since Bush has been in office. Gunner tried to steer the conversation towards the previous forty years, (and personal insults) and now you try to steer it towards terrorism in the US only. You said it hadn't helped. I'm showing how it apparently has helped. I didn't claim it has eliminated it everywhere, which seems to be your measure of success or failure. Nah, my measure is whether or not there's an upward trend all over the world. If Bush's war were effective then there would be a worldwide reduction. However, the opposite has happened. Being able to point to specific areas where there's been no rise or even a fall is positive, but not what I'm talking about. Why are you doing that--it does not have any bearing on what I said, even if it does have a few words in common. Well, it does, but you're not reading what I'm writing. Then please explain why an improvement in one place indicates success on a global level in light of huge failures in many places. Or if that wasn't what you were trying to say, clarify. However, if you really do like the goal posts in their new position then explain to me how what we're doing these days guarantees there won't be any attacks on the US in the future. Bloody. ****ing. Hell. I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. You claimed it wasn't helping. I mentioned that we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11/01, so maybe it _is_ helping. You counter with "if you can't guarantee, 100%, then it's not helping"? Wow. If your logic is that we haven't been attacked, therefore the policy works then it implies that you expect it to keep working. If you don't then the fact that we haven't been attacked for a while could be just as easily explained by something else, like dumb luck. "Maybe" is a ****-poor justification for a goddamned war. -- B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/ |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Jul 2005 08:09:13 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says... The 'money' is real, even if the source is debt, Jim. It still employs people who spend it. Care to address the point rather than try to evade it? Let me put this in plain terms: WE ARE SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE Yes, I got that part, Jim. Right there where I say "even if the source is debt, Jim." Point is, it then goes to people who then spend it. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:32:32 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote: BB Wrote, but snipped attributions of: No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it. The fight has already been picked. It was picked centuries ago. W didn't start the fight, yet you seem to be blaming him for it. Nah, I'm only blaming him for tossing more fuel on the fire. You just aid we picked the fight. Right up there, where it starts the line with . If you turn around during a biker bar fight, you get something smashed over your head. It's not about not initiating a fight, it's about not giving somene who is already fighting with you an opening. OK, then explain to me how invading Iraq, killing lots and lots of civilians, (and some insurgents who may or may not be local) and installing a government that appears to be completely powerless is gonna "not give someone an opening" to attack the US. Because I don't see it. Well, so far it seems to have worked, so I guess it doesn't matter if you're "seeing it" or not. I mean, here we are over here, in North America, and there our army is, on the other side of the planet. How does that make sense? Are you pretending our _entire_ army is over there? Seriously? Oh well, at least you got off the hugging thing. And yet, you're still pretending that if we're just nice to 'em they'll reciprocate by being nice to us. It's still dangerously naiive. Do we know each other from a.g.d. by the way? So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's war? Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, has it? And I haven't had a cold since the last time I had one. Apparently I'm invulnerable to disease, eh? In fact, I haven't died yet, so I suppose I'm immortal too. You're extending my "Well, it hasn't been as bad as before" into "it's perfect", which is a statement I haven't come close to making. Or maybe your logic is flawed. The flaw is in you taking my statements and distorting their meaning. I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening. Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again? I keep not seeing it. Ask Tony Blair. I wasn't aware that he lives in this country. According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly. That's an unsupportably weak generality. OK, Mr. Hugbot. http://research.lifeboat.com/worldterror.htm Mr. Hugbot. I kinda like that. From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to burn away ashes. Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being bad people by making them into dead people. Were they born evil? Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of changing cultures. That's not an answer. "Who knows?" is a weak argument to support a war. So is the corollary: "Just in case." It doesn't matter if they were born evil or not. The reason is irrelevant. The fact is, they want to kill us, and will do so given the opportunity. If we show weakness (which you think is "kindness" or whatever your words were), they'll take that opening. Just as they did repeatedly when Clinton failed to respond positively following the incidents working up to 9/11/01. [...] Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything. Backpedal acknowledged. Clarification. Call it a backpedal if you like, but is there any further confusion you want ironed out? Nope, I understand the nature of the "Oh, you meant _anything_, I meant _anything_" comment, thank you. So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? You seem to have confused you with me. No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that hugging thing. I'm not implying it's a ****up, I'm stating outright that people on the blue side of the aisle voted for it as well, so if you feel it's a ****up, you're welcome to blame _all_ the people who voted for it, not just the red ones. OK, I blame all the people who voted for it. And all of the goons who voted for them and plan to keep on voting for them. So would that include yourself? How did your representatives vote? You do know, I assume? Now that we've got the blaming out of the way, how does all of this blaming make Iraq not a ****up? A ****up which the republicans in the White House are planning and leading. Well, let's see. Their woodchipper-people-shredding dictator and his sons are out of power and/or dead, the infrastructure is being rebuilt, most of the country is safe. Hm, maybe there's more going on over there that's good, that we're not hearing much about. A couple friends of mine have come back from over there, and tell me that it's a different country than the press shows. Lots of good progress, and they're both ****ed that the press isn't giving them any mention for the progress. You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique. Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend what I called "****ups" in Iraq. Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people. I don't own or control them--they are not "mine." But to use your language: "Your people" have the authority to end it, but they don't. They were working on the same intel as "my people". In fact it's plainly obvious at this point that "your people" lied their asses off to get "my people" to consent to this cluster****. Gunner _JUST_ quoted Kerry, Clinton, Albright, and all those folks regarding Iraq. Do I need to dig 'em out, or can we stipulate that "your people" also agreed that he had the stuff and was a danger? Oh, and those quotes predate the W administration. So much for _that_ plan. So, yeah, I'll keep on blaming "your people" until they either fix what they broke or lose power--whichever comes first. Both sides voted for it, but you blame the other side. Got it. It seemed as if you were trying to say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing up the congressional vote. Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already. And you are correct, sir, I've seen 'em all. It's amazing how many republicans in the workplace love their copy machines. OK, evasion noted. What about those quotes, specifically? Anyway, I know now, and I knew then that Democrats also voted for the war. I was right there, yelling at the TV when it happened on C-Span. But I just can't seem to figure out how any of that is supposed to turn a ****up into a nota****up. But you're happy to criticize, even though you have nothing constructive to contribute. Got it. I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this war is a good idea. Take it up with your congresscritters then. They're not the ones replying to me--you are. It seems odd that you would butt into a conversation and then suggest that I leave. Butt into? Bite me. What have your congresscritters responded to you with? You _have_ contacted them, right? Mine are pretty damn responsive, even though I disagree with 1.5 of the 3 of them. Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did. Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn country somewhere other than into the ground. My point is that we voted for someone based on their pre-election statements. Changing policy at the whim of polls is _not_ what they're elected to do. Clinton didn't care; he just bounced around on whatever topics he thought would increase his poll numbers. The terrorists are not gorillas. So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what the ones I use mean? Wow. Then why did you call them gorillas. gorilla. Not guerilla. FFS. It's a ****ing analogy. Some big guy wants your stuff. Do you try to be friends, or do you whack 'em with a big stick? What "stuff" are the terrorists trying to take? AFAIR some want us out of the Middle East, and a few want us all dead. But the vast majority would probably be pretty satisfied with an end to bombings in their cities, which I figure is an easily achievable goal. It would save us money on bombs and funerals to boot. You're being intentionally dense. If someone threatens you, the best way to deal with that threat is to provide an effective defense, not as you'd suggest, to try to reason with them. I bet you're the type that, if faced with a mugger, would rather "give the man your wallet and hope he doesn't hurt you much", rather than to arm yourself with a legally concealed weapon. Am I wrong? No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments? If you substitute "years" with "centuries", "meddle" with "being fundamentally incompatible with" and "government" to "culture", then I'd agree. Well, I wouldn't. I see nothing about them that makes them fundamentally incompatible with us. Care to enlighten me? If you haven't studied history, I'm not going to try to fix that here. Sorry, but if you have no understanding of what's happened in the last thousand years or so, that might explain why you think you can reason with those people. Yes, I said "those people". Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of Bush--both on the battlefield and off. Yes. Maybe he should have taken definative action instead of pussy-footing around, and we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11/01. Maybe. Weak responses (which you seem to see as good or something) emboldened the terrorists. Which "He" are you referring to in the above? Context makes it quite obvious that "He" applies to Clinton. Need I diagram the sentences for you? And how does one go about emboldening a group that's currently taking on the US military with homemade bombs? By showing weakness. Do pay attention. How do you embolden a guy who's willing to take on a mission that requires his own violent death? Seems like those folks are riding the upper reaches of boldness already. Apparently they are not currently bold enough to attack the US on US soil again. And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or something. Yes, that's already happening. No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who are calling them puppets aren't like me. OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping us, isn't? What are you referring to? See what I mean? The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us, or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand. I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed. Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that. Me too! Yay! Agreement! Far as I'm concerned, we should tell 'em "Look. We helped SH, he got out of hand, and we came in and took him out. We gave you a reasonably good guy this time. Keep his ass in line, or we'll wander through _again_ with our forces, take _him_ out, and repeat as needed. Get your **** together and we won't have to keep doing this, but if the next guy makes noises like this last guy, we're taking him out. Now behave." Hopefully that makes my point of view clear. Given that it's not going to happen any time soon, the next best thing is to whack the troublemakers hard and repeatedly until they either change (ha!) or die. The alternative is to not take them out, and they'll take us out. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B.B." u wrote in message news In article , Dave Hinz wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:46 -0500, B.B. . ru wrote: In article , Dave Hinz wrote: Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is? There is something that you guys are overlooking. The US is still in an uproar as the result of the initial attack. We are still in the process of stripping US citizens of the thing we hold dear - our constitutionally protected freedoms. UBL isn't doing that and couldn't. We are ****ing away hundreds of billions off dollars without much real positive effect in our attempt to defeat "terrorism". Political turmoil is increasing, not abating. The country was as united as I have ever seen it on 12 September 2001. Look where we are now. We have served up the members of our armed forces as targets, hardened targets I'll grant you but the Russians were willing to take 10 to 1 losses against the Germans. We are squandering the most professional, well equipped, best trained, highly motivated fighting force the world has ever known and haven't bothered to ask let alone answer the most important question of all. What does "Victory" look like? Our armed forces are made up of some of our finest men and women. We owe it to them to ask and answer this question. They deserve it. We have overlaid our commercial and financial with regulations that impose enormous burdens and make us less competitive in the worlds manufacturing and financial markets at precisely the time we need to be focused on learning to deal with reality in these areas. The President of the United States and his entire administration ( our government ) are in the process of loosing whatever credibility they had not with the outside world, but here at home where it really counts because they have used any means to pursue ends that may or may not be realistically attainable rather than being truthful and operating transparently. The list goes on but one possible reason we have not seen further attacks here is that we are accomplishing the goals of our enemies quite well without further prodding. Why waste the energy with so little possible return. It sucks. Hard. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, the opaque "J. R. Carroll"
clearly wrote: There is something that you guys are overlooking. The US is still in an uproar as the result of the initial attack. We are still in the process of stripping US citizens of the thing we hold dear - our constitutionally protected freedoms. UBL isn't doing that and couldn't. We are ****ing away hundreds of billions off dollars without much real positive effect in our attempt to defeat "terrorism". PRECISELY! Remember that promise lots of folks made when the attack was over? "We won't let it change us." Fat f*ck*ng lot of good that did. Back in 11/04, CBS said "According to bin Laden's math, each $1 al Qaeda has spent on strikes has cost the United States $1 million in economic fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and Afghanistan." Political turmoil is increasing, not abating. The country was as united as I have ever seen it on 12 September 2001. Look where we are now. We have served up the members of our armed forces as targets, hardened targets I'll grant you but the Russians were willing to take 10 to 1 losses against the Germans. We are squandering the most professional, well equipped, best trained, highly motivated fighting force the world has ever known and haven't bothered to ask let alone answer the most important question of all. What does "Victory" look like? Our armed forces are made up of some of our finest men and women. We owe it to them to ask and answer this question. They deserve it. Amen to that. We have overlaid our commercial and financial with regulations that impose enormous burdens and make us less competitive in the worlds manufacturing and financial markets at precisely the time we need to be focused on learning to deal with reality in these areas. The President of the United States and his entire administration ( our government ) are in the process of loosing whatever credibility they had not with the outside world, but here at home where it really counts because they have used any means to pursue ends that may or may not be realistically attainable rather than being truthful and operating transparently. Bingo, but do the sheeple know that? Unfortunately, not yet. I wish they'd hurry up and wake up to it. The list goes on but one possible reason we have not seen further attacks here is that we are accomplishing the goals of our enemies quite well without further prodding. Why waste the energy with so little possible return. And while we waste billions on protecting 1 area, 15 more are left wide open. After 9/11, how many planes do you thing any semi- intelligent tango would attempt to board and blow up? Once they do decide to attack here again, look out. It'll surely be our water/gas/power supplies, other modes of transportation, internet, or simply any gathering of people anywhere. Let's see any force in the world protect against that. It just isn't going to happen and all of this feigned "protection" is wasted. Everything which is being done is all dog and pony show ****; just a "show" for the fearful public. The scary thing is that it's working. People are bending to the will of their overlords. It sucks. Hard. Bigtime. - Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? - http://diversify.com Full Service Web Application Programming |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote: Political turmoil is increasing, not abating. The country was as united as I have ever seen it on 12 September 2001. Look where we are now. Ayup..once the Left decided they had ammo to use on Bush..they have done all they can do to create as much turmoil as they can. But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with the Left. Gunner "Considering the events of recent years, the world has a long way to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the US." unknown |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Jul 2005 08:07:11 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Gunner is no dummy - he may be a whacko right wing fundie but he's perfectly aware that you can't prove a negative proposition. The fact that he's resorted to a comment like that honestly has me a bit nonplussed. Fundi? Im Buddist for Christs sake. Again you are wrong. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a Druid, right! Does it worship trees? If not..its likely just a duck. So tell me Jim. Since you havent been raped, robbed or burgled in say..the last 5 yrs...there really isnt any need for police, is there? The local constabulary do a fine job of catching folks with the wrong color license plate, and they also were nice enough to alert me when the local punk swiped my dirt bike. But honestly I will revisit that very reasonable question when the cost for the local peekskill cops reaches 5 billion dollars per month. Pack a lunch my friend. Jim Please do. And get back to me on it. Gunner "Considering the events of recent years, the world has a long way to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the US." unknown |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, "J. R. Carroll" wrote: But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with the Left. So Coulter is a leftie now? Her statements and behavior are embraced by nut jobs such as yourself. Tell me again how this sort of offensive nonsense brings us all together in the face of a common enemy. It doesn't. Coulter is acting the fool and doing Osama's job for him in the service of ------ what was it again? Remind me. Oh yeah, it's that "we" thing you keep talking about. Anne Coulter - American Taliban. Coulter highlights: a.. "If you don't hate Bill Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." b.. "Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole." c.. "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. ... They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world." d.. "I think [calling Clinton a scumbag] is factually correct. ... I don't think you could win a slander suit on that. Truth is a defense." e.. "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." f.. "There are no good Democrats." g.. "I take the Biblical idea. God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" h.. "I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty. I think they are retarded." i.. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." j.. "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." k.. "Even if corners were cut, [Iran-Contra] was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats." l.. "[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." m.. "A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean." -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:26:01 GMT, "J. R. Carroll"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, "J. R. Carroll" wrote: But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with the Left. So Coulter is a leftie now? Her statements and behavior are embraced by nut jobs such as yourself. Tell me again how this sort of offensive nonsense brings us all together in the face of a common enemy. It doesn't. Coulter is acting the fool and doing Osama's job for him in the service of ------ what was it again? Remind me. Oh yeah, it's that "we" thing you keep talking about. Anne Coulter - American Taliban. Its called...responding in kind. But then..you knew that didnt you? Want me to post some highlights from the Left...including Leftist politicians? Coulter is of course simply a writer. She cannot interfer in votes or legislation. Then we have folks like Nazi Pelosi..King Teddy Kennedy the 1st, etc. Really really want me to go there? Coulter highlights: a.. "If you don't hate Bill Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." b.. "Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole." c.. "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. ... They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world." d.. "I think [calling Clinton a scumbag] is factually correct. ... I don't think you could win a slander suit on that. Truth is a defense." e.. "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." f.. "There are no good Democrats." g.. "I take the Biblical idea. God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees God says, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" h.. "I think, on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling that we can't execute the retarded, American journalists commit mass murder without facing the ultimate penalty. I think they are retarded." i.. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." j.. "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." k.. "Even if corners were cut, [Iran-Contra] was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats." l.. "[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." m.. "A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses, such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled, and mean." Damn I love that woman..and she is sexy too! Gunner "Considering the events of recent years, the world has a long way to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the US." unknown |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Dave Hinz says...
John's number was what, $5B per month of your tax money, yes? Escalation or not, that's still a hunk-O-change. What would *you* like to see money like that spend on? Well, you act like that money evaporates. Doesn't it, you know, get spent to make things, employ people who spend, that sort of thing? You are still missing the point. The present adminstration is acting like a crack whore with unlimited use of stolen credit cards. YOUR credit cards. YOU pay the bills for their largess. YOU don't get anything when they spend the money. YOU don't see terrorism being combatted in any way. YOU are going to have to deal with the screwed up economy for years to come. Why can't use consider using that $5B/month for doing some good in the world? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On 11 Jul 2005 15:09:36 -0700, jim rozen wrote: In article , Dave Hinz says... It just frosts my cake when I see folks here complain bitterly about how their school taxes are used to teach the demon evolution, Don't ascribe arguments to me that I haven't made. It's a cheap tactic. The comment was *not* attributed to you. I think that was pretty clear when I said "folks" and not "you." To be perfectly clear, I am aware that you personally would not and have to teh beset of my knowledge, made such a comment here. Uh huh, but you just happened to bring it up while replying to my points. Got it. but they'll write a blank check for a few billion a year for a war that seems to do nothing more than encourage terrorism on a gobal level. So, you contend that it has escalated then, do you? John's number was what, $5B per month of your tax money, yes? Escalation or not, that's still a hunk-O-change. What would *you* like to see money like that spend on? Well, you act like that money evaporates. Doesn't it, you know, get spent to make things, employ people who spend, that sort of thing? It's like people bitching about space program spending. Where better to spend money than in the high-tech sector, where you get interesting research, products, and so on? Dave, The great "Coalition of the Willing" is being almost entirely bank rolled by the US. Fuel, food and water are supplied by non US sources for the most part. When we offered Turkey 16 billion to base and launch forces from their soil the refused. The bidding went as high as 27 billion but the answer didn't change. As a matter of fact, the Turks nearly refused us the use of Incirlick. Those that did take our money made the team and nothing of what we pay will ever see it's way home again. The reconstruction budget for Iraq stands at about 32 billion to date. The first 75,000 is tax exempt for US contractors and what isn't taxed and is paid as wages is gone. Our own leaders are telling us that even when we finish in Iraq we will be shifting additional resources elsewhere. Space program? I don't think so. Unless you think the next wiz bang/high tech miracle thingy is going to come out of the middle east. Perhaps new oil field recovery techniques will be developed. Iraqi oil production is barely worth having at this point. I spoke with a contractor seven months ago whose team was evaluating the northern Iraqi oil fields around Kirkuk. Apparently Saddam is getting the last laugh. He had set up injection wells in the fields pumping their largest reserves. Instead of pressurizing those fields with live steam and water they were using oil. This is the quickest way to destroy recoverable reserves known to man and they have been doing it since about 2000. The yield has gone from over 50 percent to less than 30 and when it reaches 24 percent, these reserves will no linger be economically viable. So much for this mess paying for itself and you would think our oil man President and his associates would have had a clue. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:26:01 GMT, "J. R. Carroll" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:26:35 GMT, "J. R. Carroll" wrote: But then..thats the Left. They are good at that. The politics of personal destruction outweighs the good of the nation every time, with the Left. So Coulter is a leftie now? Her statements and behavior are embraced by nut jobs such as yourself. Tell me again how this sort of offensive nonsense brings us all together in the face of a common enemy. It doesn't. Coulter is acting the fool and doing Osama's job for him in the service of ------ what was it again? Remind me. Oh yeah, it's that "we" thing you keep talking about. Anne Coulter - American Taliban. Its called...responding in kind. But then..you knew that didnt you? No it isn't. It's called hate speach and if she had used racial epithets she would have been arrested and jailed. As for being sexy, there is an old saying - beauty is only skin deep, ugly is to the bone. Dear Anne hit every branch during her fall from the ugly tree and she's a pig no matter how much lipstick you smear on her. And she's a hit and run lawyer to boot. -- John R. Carroll Machining Solution Software, Inc. Los Angeles San Francisco www.machiningsolution.com |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| JVC AV-28WR2EK with blue gun stuck on | Electronics Repair | |||
| Pioneer PRO510HD blue haze and low flashes | Electronics Repair | |||
| Mitsubishi CK-3526R, no blue. | Electronics Repair | |||
| blue is better | UK diy | |||
| Blue, blue, my world is blue -- is this fixable? | Electronics Repair | |||
Linear Mode
