On 13 Dec 2004 06:49:00 -0800, wrote:

But once the reservists were done with the assignment, they should have
sought out the units the vehicles belonged to, he said.
"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first
thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases,"
Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those
trucks could be used for other units."

I think this may be the operative part......

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

They did not say that the trucks were distroyed. Just dropped off at the
wrong bases with no ID which screwed up the paper work. If the bean
counters had this much control over the fighting troops 35 years ago my
supply sargent would have spent most of his life in Levenworth.

The neo-cons nice little war plans have gone to hell in a handbasket and
costing a lot more than anticipated so now they want to screw the troops by
pinching pennys. I wonder if Rumsfeld has the nerve to have one of those
yellow support our troops ribbons on his car.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2004 06:49:00 -0800, wrote:

But once the reservists were done with the assignment, they should have
sought out the units the vehicles belonged to, he said.
"Instead of taking the trucks back to their rightful owners, the first
thing was erasing the identity marks and dumping them off at bases,"
Wicker said. "They destroyed it. They did the enemy's job. ... Those
trucks could be used for other units."

I think this may be the operative part......

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:50:45 -0500, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

They did not say that the trucks were distroyed. Just dropped off at the
wrong bases with no ID which screwed up the paper work. If the bean
counters had this much control over the fighting troops 35 years ago my
supply sargent would have spent most of his life in Levenworth.

The neo-cons nice little war plans have gone to hell in a handbasket and
costing a lot more than anticipated so now they want to screw the troops by
pinching pennys. I wonder if Rumsfeld has the nerve to have one of those
yellow support our troops ribbons on his car.

I wonder if it would offset your **** the Troops sticker?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?
--
Cliff

This again validates the ancient maxim =AB be careful what you wish for
as you might get it. =BB

A continual chant of the conservatives (including myself) was that
government should be run more like business. What I had not counted on
was the change in American business from a high-volume, high value
added, long dollar mindset to denominator management and the
buy-ruin-sell MBA mentality.

Blaming the hourly employees for the failure of ill conceived and
grossly under funded initiatives is unfortunately typical of current
American management, and where there are no more hourly employees to
blame, the educational system can always be held responsible. It is
never the responsibility of the suits.

Who supports our troops more? The people that want to shut down these
foreign adventures, bring our troops home, possibly for deployment on
our borders, or those who are actively planning to expand the war to
Iran, while providing inadequate and defective materiel (not only lack
of armor, but soft M16 barrels that shoot-out in as few as 500 rounds),
insufficient tactical and strategic planning and who are actively
engaging in war profiteering?

As high as the up-front cost of these disasters, debacles, and SNAFUs
are to the front-line troops, the long-term cost to the Republic will
be far higher. We cannot outsource the defense of the country.

In article .com,
says...

Who supports our troops more? The people that want to shut down these
foreign adventures, bring our troops home, possibly for deployment on
our borders, or those who are actively planning to expand the war to
Iran, while providing inadequate and defective materiel (not only lack
of armor, but soft M16 barrels that shoot-out in as few as 500 rounds),
insufficient tactical and strategic planning and who are actively
engaging in war profiteering?

Apparently those magnetic stick-on car ribbons that folks use
to voice their 'support' are manufactured in....

China.

Why am I not suprised here.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?

Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Don't worry.
Herr shrubbie plans to eliminate it altogether, right?

Or at least go into AT LEAST another US$ (who knows what they will
be worth at this rate) 2,000,000,000,000 in debt ASAP rather than
perhaps increasing taxes by 0.5% to keep it working long past 2052 ...

See "Inventing A Crisis":
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/120704.html

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize?
Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut?

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the
taxation of Social Security benefits.
Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton.

WHY are you always bashing republicans?

HTH
--
Cliff

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize?
Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut?

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the
taxation of Social Security benefits.
Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton.

WHY are you always bashing republicans?

HTH

That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it.

Russ

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize?
Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut?

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the
taxation of Social Security benefits.
Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton.

WHY are you always bashing republicans?

HTH

That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it.

Would it? Who had veto power?
Was it, as claimed, Clinton?
Who loves deficits and has never vetoed anything AFAIK?

BTW, Read the link ....... and think a bit about this new SCAM.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize?
Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut?

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the
taxation of Social Security benefits.
Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton.

WHY are you always bashing republicans?

HTH

That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it.

Russ

Indeed it would. The Republicans only gained control of One house, in
1994

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:30:10 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:29:25 GMT, Russ wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:16:44 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:21:01 -0800, TheTruth
wrote:

My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

Do we have yet another entry for the idiot of the month prize?
Or just another lying winger or fundie or gunnut?

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the
taxation of Social Security benefits.
Guess who? Ronnie Raygun & Bush ...... NOT Clinton.

WHY are you always bashing republicans?

HTH

That would be a democratic majority in congress, wouldn't it.

Russ

Indeed it would. The Republicans only gained control of One house, in
1994

Was that before or after Ronnie Raygun & Bush got their bill
passed? Before or after they ran up their huge deficits?

[
President Ronald Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the
Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make
recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into
law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare
programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits;
]

Here's the proud photo op Ronald Reagan took of him signing the bill
into law: (about 1/3 down)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/briefhistory.html just before a
pictiure of Clinton signing the bill that allowed Seniors to keep
working, if they so desired G.

HTH
--
Cliff

"TheTruth" wrote in message
news:xzKvd.33643$ve.9250@fed1read06...
In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?

Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

You are feeding at the welfare trough, skimming 7+% of my income to do so,
and you are bitching about having to pay income taxes? That's funny.

Greetings and Salutations.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:17:39 GMT, "jeff"
wrote:

"TheTruth" wrote in message
news:xzKvd.33643$ve.9250@fed1read06...
In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?

Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

You are feeding at the welfare trough, skimming 7+% of my income to do so,
and you are bitching about having to pay income taxes? That's funny.


The fact of the matter is that SS takes closer to 15%. Your
direct contribution is 7+%. Your employer has to match that...which
is cash you never see. Of course, those of us that are self-employed
get to pay both sides of that...so we DO see the entire amount.
I don't know what the answer is...short of a combination
approach where for a given period of time, say, 20 years, the worker
not only pays the 14% or so SS tax, to keep the folks that have paid
into the system for the folks in the past, AND has to make a similar
contribution to their OWN account for the future.
of course, if the government simply lifted the current cap
on earnings taxed by SS, that would help a lot to get a bunch more
cash into the system...and would cause much wailing and gnashing of
teeth amongst the high-income folks.
Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as
of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system...
and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off,
and relieve us of the problem. There might be some minor discomfort
and inconvenience among the folks that should be getting their
cut of the pie, but, who fall after the cut-off date. I am sure,
though that they have children, or churches, or some other support
group that will keep them from freezing to death under a bridge,
or pestering folks on the street, asking for hand-outs.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:34:04 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

of course, if the government simply lifted the current cap
on earnings taxed by SS, that would help a lot to get a bunch more
cash into the system...

Probably fix it right away.

and would cause much wailing and gnashing of
teeth amongst the high-income folks.

Yep. Too bad ... they pay a lower % in total taxes now.

And unearned income .... why should those that actually
work for a living pay a higher total tax rate under the
wingers?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:34:04 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as
of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system...
and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off,
and relieve us of the problem.

That will not work at all.
You get to a point were all are old and nobody is paying
into it .....

Right now it's been running a surplus for decades. They have
"borrowed" the surplus.
When it comes time to repay their borrowings (at low interest
rates) who is going to pay for the huge hikes in taxes?

That's a very real issue/problem. The neocons & wingers
are playing with smoke & mirrors again.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:34:04 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

I am sure,
though that they have children, or churches, or some other support
group that will keep them from freezing to death under a bridge,
or pestering folks on the street, asking for hand-outs.

For the fourth year in a row the ranks of the homeless, ill &
starving have increased greatly. 20 to 30% per year?
--
Cliff

In article , Dave Mundt says...

Alternatively, I suppose that we could simply say that as
of an arbitrary date, no more folks would get added to the system...
and eventually, all the folks getting social security would die off,
and relieve us of the problem. There might be some minor discomfort
and inconvenience among the folks that should be getting their
cut of the pie, but, who fall after the cut-off date.

Another approach would be to simply say, "it's stopping right now."

The SS taxes go away, and so do the disbursments. There's going
to be a large dislocation when the system stops, why drag it out?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In (OT) army takes care of its own? on Tue, 14 Dec 2004
15:21:01 -0800, by TheTruth, we read:

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:08:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Money is a bit tight.

Unlike when Clinton was pres?
Or just much worse?

Taxes are lower than when Klinton was in office. My Social Security is
taxed now thanks to your socialist buddy Klinton.

And spending is the highest in the history of the republic.

Not even close. It was much higher during WW2, when adjusted for
inflation.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

And spending is the highest in the history of the republic.


Not even close. It was much higher during WW2, when adjusted for
inflation.


How much higher? WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it?

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:


WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it?


So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim.



What has Gunner got against Strabo?


Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:27:35 GMT, Strabo

wrote:


And spending is the highest in the history of the
republic.


Not even close. It was much higher during WW2,
when adjusted for
inflation.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:19:16 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:

Interesting

Only if you didn't _already_ understand that when the government spends
more than it receives, America goes deeper in debt.

Now that I've made it all clear, perhaps you can understand why I am a
fiscal conservative and you are a borrow-and-spend wastrel.

It's fine with Gunner as long as he & "his" get their welfare
benefits.
After all, who is going to pay off the deficit? That's free welfore
money for Herr shrubbie & the neocons to spend (NOT Gunner),
is it not?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:17:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Afterall, there is a war on.

Where?
Why?
Who started it?
Why?
How many killed so far?
Where?
Why?
How long do you hope to keep it going?
Why?

You liked it. Are you paying for it? Did you even join?
--
Cliff

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:


WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it?


So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim.



What has Gunner got against Strabo?

He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****.

Mysterion wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:


WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it?



So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim.



What has Gunner got against Strabo?


He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****.


Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that
Strabo gets regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Mysterion wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:56:41 GMT, Thomas Nulla
wrote:


WW2 was a period of total war wasn't it?



So the Cliffnoid is admitting he lied in his original claim.



What has Gunner got against Strabo?


He doesn't agree with Goofer's global socialist horse****.


Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets
regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.

Standard Goofer tactic.
He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes
inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it must
be a dog".
When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long - he
makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and claims
victory.

He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic.

Mysterion wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets
regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.


Standard Goofer tactic.
He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes
inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it
must be a dog".
When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long
- he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and
claims victory.

He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic.

I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal -
for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year".
He has strong opposition though.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote:

Mysterion wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets
regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.


Standard Goofer tactic.
He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes
inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it
must be a dog".
When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long
- he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and
claims victory.

He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic.

I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal -
for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year".
He has strong opposition though.

The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism"
which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one
candidate)".


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...f657bd65 ca1f


I'm proud of the lads .... they have made such rapid progress
from being such total unknowns only a short time ago .......
--
Cliff

In article ,
Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote:

Mysterion wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets
regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.


Standard Goofer tactic.
He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes
inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it
must be a dog".
When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long
- he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and
claims victory.

He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic.

I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal -
for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year".
He has strong opposition though.

The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism"
which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one
candidate)".


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...thread/fc1bac3
9d955763f/dd30f657bd65ca1f?q=auk+gunner+strider+%22Bag+of+Co al%22&_done=%2Fgro
ups%3Fq%3Dauk+gunner+strider+%22Bag+of+Coal%22%26s tart%3D0%26scoring%3Dd%26num
%3D100%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3Dw%26as_min
d%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D 20%26as_maxm%3D12%26as_maxy%
3D2004%26safe%3Doff%26filter%3D0%26&_doneTitle=Bac k+to+Search&&d#dd30f657bd65c
a1f


I'm proud of the lads .... they have made such rapid progress
from being such total unknowns only a short time ago .......

i cant tell for sure who h reader was before last month
maybe the wanderer or milky way

arf meow arf

cthulu loves you
he loves the little children
with ketchup please

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:54:27 +0000, Guido wrote:

Mysterion wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Oh! Someone else makes Gunner dizzy then. I suppose that Strabo gets
regularly accused of spinning and twisting too.


Standard Goofer tactic.
He accuses you of twisting his words while twisting yours and makes
inferences like "Since all dogs have four legs, if it has four legs it
must be a dog".
When he runs out of ammo in a battle of wits - it never takes very long
- he makes thinly veiled death threats, killfiles the opposition and
claims victory.

He's a hypocritical jackass with serious problems in the area of logic.

I see that he's been nominated by AUK for the "Bag of Coal -
for the most hate-filled and censorious k00k of the year".
He has strong opposition though.

The option choice seems to be "Gunner & Strider of misc.survivalism"
which they seem to consider to be one choice "(vote for one
candidate)".

During the Klintoon administration they were actually individuals who
occasionally spoke in favor of freedom.

Odd how dreams of a socialist empire and a flip of the electoral coin can
replace "Live Free or Die" with "The State is God - All Hail the State".