"Robatoy" wrote:

Fair enough. BUT... don't brow-beat me when *I* don't speak Spanish.
That's all I am saying.

Ever since I escaped Mrs, Joss's Latin classes in high school, decided
trying to learn a foreign language was something I'd let others do.

That policy is still in force.

Lew

"Lee Michaels" wrote:

My concern is that this looks an awful like responding to state
sponsored terrorism. And we have always had the policy of not
negotiating with terrorists. Wanna bet that there are some
terrorists getting some ideas about this?

Doubt it.

Sending "Slick Willie", one of the best to ever play the game on the
world stage, to put a face on this operation, sends a message that
Obama's people are operating at a whole different level than the rest
of the players.

"Speak softly and carry a BIG stick" just took on a whole new meaning,
IMHO.

Lew

On Aug 5, 8:33*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:


Then another common tactic of those without a valid case, take some
small insignificant tangential point and blow it up into some
seemingly irrifutable fact of misstatment of you opponent.


You mean like your accusation that I called Hillary and all women
seamstress(ses)?

You know you are starting to look pretty silly, don't you?

On Aug 5, 8:33*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
No parallels? Now you are starting to sound like a communist, refuting
the truth in the face of it hoping no one will notice.

What were we talking about... uhh, Bill being sent to Korea instead of
Hillary. So how on ****ing earth does your coal miner\seamstress
anaology not apply. Pretty transparent.

Then another common tactic of those without a valid case, take some
small insignificant tangential point and blow it up into some
seemingly irrifutable fact of misstatment of you opponent.

The surrogate mother thing is ridiculous. And then in your firemen
statement you say it right there, you don't think there are a "lot" of
women who could carry your fat ass and then also state the same might
be true for men. Exactly! It doesn't matter if you are a woman or a
man, it matters if you can do the job. Hillary can stand up to those
*******s and say you deal with me or you don't deal at all. **** them
if they don't want to hear it from a woman.

By the way, from your clear condesention to women, I doubt there woudl
be many who would want to save you from a fire.

P.S. if you need another tangential issue maybe you can attack my
spelling or punctuation.


Boys-o-boys.. you must be a librul..all that cussin'...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


I was so frustrated over the whole sorry affair that, when I got off duty,
I went home and beat my wife.



You didn't kick the dog first?

--

-Mike-

Robatoy wrote:

So the Iranians work towards the bomb, Israel attacks, Iran
counter-attacks, maybe millions die, and it's all the fault of Bush
and Obama for having Secretaries of State who squat to pee.

Like the Trojans and the Greeks, another war over (a couple of)
women. At least this war would have a reason better than some.

Somebody slap me. I am in complete agreement with what you just said.

Sometimes a progressive's gut reaction CAN be overcome by reality. In this
case, we believe women are equal in all respects but liberals hold that to
discriminate against a woman is simply evil. No truck will be given to any
suggestion that there might be a case where it's appropriate.

Well, there obviously ARE cases and to not recognize them works to our
detriment.

Another example that's pending: There are 615 Catholic hospitals in the U.S.
(accounting for 1/8th of all community hospitals) that will have to decide
whether to shut down if the pending health care legislation prevails. They
will face this decision because of the mandates on abortion.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with a woman's right to choose, potentially
loosing 12.5% of the nation's hospital capacity is an outstanding
consideration.

"HeyBub" wrote:

Another example that's pending: There are 615 Catholic hospitals in
the U.S. (accounting for 1/8th of all community hospitals) that will
have to decide whether to shut down if the pending health care
legislation prevails. They will face this decision because of the
mandates on abortion.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with a woman's right to choose,
potentially loosing 12.5% of the nation's hospital capacity is an
outstanding consideration.

The catholic church of Rome already has a problem with the catholic
church of the USA.

Time to fish or cut bait.

Lew

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:26:07 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Well, there obviously ARE cases and to not recognize them works to our
detriment.

Let's see now. I have to negotiate an agreement with a guy down the
street who just happens to be the grand imperial wizard of the kkk. Of
course I want to negotiate the best terms possible for me. I have two
candidates that I can send to do the negotiation. One is an
experienced, competent negotiator who is a White, Anglo-Saxon
Protestant male. The other is the Rev. Jesse Jackson. To whom do I
delegate the negotiations? Decisions, decisions!

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Lee Michaels" writes:
I loved the line in an article I read. It showed that Clinton reputation is
alive and kicking.

It said, New York Post declared, "Bubba gets the chicks."

The other line I heard was, Slick Willie wasn't going to pass up the
oppoertunity to save two asian chicks.

My concern is that this looks an awful like responding to state sponsored
terrorism.

I'm not sure one would class North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Which terrorists are being sponsored?

Certainly NK is in violation of several arms-control regimes, particularly
with respect to Scud-derivitive missile and nuclear technology[*]. But I'm not aware
of NK sponsoring terrorism, per se.

In anycase, dislike it as we might, KJI _is_ the government of North
Korea and one should always attempt to talk with governments, even
Iran. Dictating to a foreign government has never worked, Cuba has
shown the futility of embargo as a tool for regime change and Bush
Jr. has shown the futility of forced regime change.

scott
[*] Most of which came from AQ Khan and Pakistan, to whom we give
foreign aid.

Tom Veatch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:26:07 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Well, there obviously ARE cases and to not recognize them works to
our detriment.

Let's see now. I have to negotiate an agreement with a guy down the
street who just happens to be the grand imperial wizard of the kkk. Of
course I want to negotiate the best terms possible for me. I have two
candidates that I can send to do the negotiation. One is an
experienced, competent negotiator who is a White, Anglo-Saxon
Protestant male. The other is the Rev. Jesse Jackson. To whom do I
delegate the negotiations? Decisions, decisions!

How about you send an experienced black negotiator who happens to be the
head of the roughest street gang in town, and have him take his armed
minions? Now the situation is more analogous to a negotiation by the US
Secretary of State.

Scott Lurndal wrote:

In anycase, dislike it as we might, KJI _is_ the government of North
Korea and one should always attempt to talk with governments, even
Iran. Dictating to a foreign government has never worked, Cuba has
shown the futility of embargo as a tool for regime change and Bush
Jr. has shown the futility of forced regime change.


We HAVE tried to talk to NK, from the agreements signed in 1994 by the
Clinton administration to the failed Six Party talks of last year. By my
count, we have had negotiations with NK seven times since 1990. It's obvious
they won't talk.

No, the only thing left is to destroy their ratty government. A good time
would have been when Clinton was in the capitol - all the state's high
ranking factotums were in attendance. A low-yield nuke would have been
appropriate.

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:03:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

How about you send an experienced black negotiator who happens to be the
head of the roughest street gang in town, and have him take his armed
minions? Now the situation is more analogous to a negotiation by the US
Secretary of State.

I'm sure you're right. That's undoubtedly a major reason the US is so
loved and respected throughout the Arab world.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Aug 6, 6:23*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:03:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"

wrote:
How about you send an experienced black negotiator who happens to be the
head of the roughest street gang in town, and have him take his armed
minions? *Now the situation is more analogous to a negotiation by the US
Secretary of State.

I'm sure you're right. That's undoubtedly a major reason the US is so
loved and respected throughout the Arab world.


Holy ****. Tom gets it.

Tom Veatch wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:03:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

How about you send an experienced black negotiator who happens to be
the head of the roughest street gang in town, and have him take his
armed minions? Now the situation is more analogous to a negotiation
by the US Secretary of State.

I'm sure you're right. That's undoubtedly a major reason the US is so
loved and respected throughout the Arab world.

The only thing that the US could do that would make it "loved and respected
throughout the Arab world" is to nuke Israel into a radioactive desert.
Since that's not going to happen, we have to settle for being feared.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:27:17 -0700 (PDT), RonB
wrote:

I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB



Yes, he is not aging well. Bill Clinton is my favorite, excellent
speaker too.