|
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Jan 2, 10:27*am, John H wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 2, 10:10*am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r.... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. I'm not in anything. My goal is to see if he can 'argue' on a course, rather than acting like a Beagle on a leash in new territory, i.e. chasing off in a hundred directions each minute.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ROTF.. Great analogy. Now he has a new nickname... "Rover"... ;) |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:24:20 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:09:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:nkasl4lcnp605hrj8mp6v3fgeis5t0u1qt@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:qv8sl4t78r5ps8ohfjlf08ai1h202040el@4a x.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:3h7sl4lj07ug48helf3ekqv29diem1ht0m@ 4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:lr6sl41qc66du6mekjihh6q7ed4uifner ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0nov ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:opmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6h ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snr ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14fa ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtg ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H m wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: (considering what hasn't changed here in this NG) http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/ Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a miserable failure, and STILL don't see it. Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president? Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd, he would have had a great economy going for him. John H Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. What country would you have had him 'punish'? 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country, to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to the Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely unchallenged by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans. Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's. In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged (or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's borders. Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this country go free..... Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That will be funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies", who provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our soldiers. "The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006." I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from whence have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted felons. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Enuff. Bye. It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if you can call it logic. Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still not answered it. It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked us. You really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who attacked us. Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is rotting your brain, old soldier. Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a question, willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with personal insults, rather than simply answer the question? Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?" My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name the country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer because you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country from which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not share. So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from? "New Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers. Your statement: Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'? OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now I'm curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia, because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible 9/11. Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than any other into Iraq. Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq. Thank you. But, first things first. You seem to think that the government and people of a country are responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or not those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country. The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the royal family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government of Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more, and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get to your library: "...after the fact...." http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219 Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in. "Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life incidents, such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon." And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a reliable authority. If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a few of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to any country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties of this country. How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of his citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we? There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico. Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin with personal insults, rather than simply answer the question? Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin No, not 'onward'. Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. Oh please....slamming the source is so immature. Address the content. You are saying our military lied about this information. I use your source to show that the Saudi government was, contrary to your opinion, clamping down on would-be terrorists since 9/11. They have *pretended* to clamp down. They cannot do it. Anything more than an empty gesture would result in violence against the royal family. Their own citizens are the biggest threat to the stability of the royal family, which *is* the government. You would know this if you read actual books, and not just the one I presented you with earlier. Your source doesn't use the word 'pretended'. I said nothing about our military. Now, back on track...What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? Based on the number of lives taken in a carefully orchestrated fashion. How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating? Each murderer from Mexico likely carefully orchestrated his crime. There likely have been several hundred if not thousands of deaths and other serious crimes committed by Mexican citizens in this country over the past few years. The Saudis have done a great job on you. Fortunately, their PR campaign hasn't worked on everyone. "The Saudis were the first to get this new era of PR," says Kevin McCauley, editor of O'Dwyer's Public Relations, the leading trade publication covering the PR industry. Shortly after 9/11, Saudi Arabia entered into a $14 million-a-year contract with Qorvis, a Washington PR firm. Qorvis launched a TV campaign with ads on political talk shows featuring a procession of Saudi royals appearing alongside U.S. presidents, to highlight Riyadh as a close ally. Other TV spots, which ran in 14 American cities, touted the "shared values" of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The firm also shuttled Saudi officials on whirlwind tours of major media outlets, and broadcast ads promoting the 9/11 Commission finding that there was "no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded [Al Qaeda]"-while omitting the report's conclusion that "Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism." The PR blitz helped reduce the number of anti-Saudi articles and speeches, says McCauley, which allowed the Bush administration to keep ties to the kingdom close. "Other countries saw how this worked," notes McCauley, and in the wake of the Saudi contract, several authoritarian regimes beefed up their PR efforts. In 2002, petro state Qatar hired PR and lobbying firm Rahall Consulting to promote its commitment to democracy, though Qatar has no real opposition party. Rahall's owner, Tanya Rahall, is the sister of Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who, after the contract was signed, offered congressional resolutions praising Qatar's "democratic reform." Uganda hired public relations giant Hill & Knowlton to bat down criticism of its atrocious human rights record. Kazakhstan, where President Nursultan Nazarbayev won more than 90 percent of the vote in a widely criticized election, ran a U.S. advertising campaign touting itself as a "developing democratic country." Even the genocidal Sudanese government tried to get into the action, spending $530,000 on a firm called C/R International, run by a former State Department official, to organize trips to Sudan for congressional staffers and to emphasize that Sudan was "cooperating in the war on terrorism." The deal was canceled in the face of public scrutiny. Nation rebranding has become so common it even has inspired its own academic discipline, including a journal called Place Branding, in which professors pen lengthy, footnoted discourses on topics such as "How Can a Place Correct a Negative Image?" |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:24:20 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:09:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:56:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:25 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:qv8sl4t78r5ps8ohfjlf08ai1h202040el@4ax .com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:15:39 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:3h7sl4lj07ug48helf3ekqv29diem1ht0m@4 ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:52:42 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:lr6sl41qc66du6mekjihh6q7ed4uifner2 @4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:30:49 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:mc2sl4tt7v5u388uqhdragm2tgs0novb ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:15:16 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:opmql4ddpftn8a7qkqv6sa1reuj6hn ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 19:03:29 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:i4kql49nqc2rohr9rm4mlfs5snrk ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:5leql41nfqmlh62bup84k14far ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message news:9crpl49k4608ilg3qus7rtgt ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6inpl4dqaql6ds684kgn0 ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: (considering what hasn't changed here in this NG) http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/ Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a miserable failure, and STILL don't see it. Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president? Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd, he would have had a great economy going for him. John H Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. What country would you have had him 'punish'? 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country, to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to the Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely unchallenged by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans. Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's. In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged (or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's borders. Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this country go free..... Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That will be funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies", who provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our soldiers. "The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006." I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from whence have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted felons. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Enuff. Bye. It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if you can call it logic. Doug. I've presented nothing. I've asked a question. You've still not answered it. It's been long enough since 9/11 for you to know who really attacked us. You really can't answer the question, can you? You don't know who attacked us. Suggestion: Move your TV set to the attic for a year. Football is rotting your brain, old soldier. Doug, have you ever noticed that many liberals, when asked a question, willl ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or begin with personal insults, rather than simply answer the question? Here, oh brave man, "What country would you have had him 'punish'?" My goal at this point in the discussion is to find out if you can name the country which attacked us on 9/11. You may be avoiding the answer because you believe the attackers did not officially represent the country from which most of them originated. That's just an opinion which I do not share. So, let's keep it simple: Where did most of the attackers come from? "New Jersey", "Germany" or "Florida" are not permissible answers. Your statement: Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. My question: What country would you have had him 'punish'? OK - just out of curiosity, I'll name the country: Saudi Arabia. Now I'm curious to hear you explain why we could not have punished Saudi Arabia, because more than any other country you can name, they were responsible 9/11. Saudi Arabia was also responsible for sending more foreign fighters than any other into Iraq. Tell me why we could not have done to Saudi Arabia what we did to Iraq. Thank you. But, first things first. You seem to think that the government and people of a country are responsible and should be punished for the acts its current or former citizens against the citizens or properties of this county, whether or not those acts are sanctioned by the government of the country. The acts of the 9/11 thugs ***WERE*** sanctioned after the fact by the royal family, which, in case you don't know, are the entirety of the government of Saudi Arabia. That's hard for Americans to wrap their heads around because we have no such arrangement here. In the past, I've told you to read more, and you've provided some sort of nonsensical response. I'll try again. Get to your library: "...after the fact...." http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil.../dp/1400050219 Now, this sounds like a book to put your faith in. "Most of the stories he extends are mostly stories either heard on the street or stuff he learned of from acquaintances. Such sources usually disfigure facts, if not totally make them up. Some of the stories sound more like weak plots for low-budget movies rather than real life incidents, such as the Million Dollars briefcase "accidentally" left behind by Khashoggi, a Saudi Billionaire, after meeting with Richard Nixon." And yet, Baer (whose experience dwarfs yours or mine) is considered a reliable authority on the issue. You will now ask who considers him a reliable authority. If you believe that we should 'punish' Saudi Arabia for the acts of a few of its current or former citizens, then that logic should be applied to any country from whence citizens have acted against the people or properties of this country. How about when the actions of one ruler do not represent the desires of his citizens? We don't need to pursue this idea any further, now do we? There have been many more than 18 murderers, rapists, plunderers, and pillagers who've illegally entered this country from Mexico. Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Nice try. No....wait. Not even "nice". Lame. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ***ignore the question***, quickly change the subject, or begin with personal insults, rather than simply answer the question? Onward: Please provide your opinion on the information in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin No, not 'onward'. Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...hp&oref=slogin From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. Oh please....slamming the source is so immature. Address the content. You are saying our military lied about this information. I use your source to show that the Saudi government was, contrary to your opinion, clamping down on would-be terrorists since 9/11. They have *pretended* to clamp down. They cannot do it. Anything more than an empty gesture would result in violence against the royal family. Their own citizens are the biggest threat to the stability of the royal family, which *is* the government. You would know this if you read actual books, and not just the one I presented you with earlier. Your source doesn't use the word 'pretended'. I said nothing about our military. Now, back on track...What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? Based on the number of lives taken in a carefully orchestrated fashion. How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating? Each murderer from Mexico likely carefully orchestrated his crime. There likely have been several hundred if not thousands of deaths and other serious crimes committed by Mexican citizens in this country over the past few years. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 07:35:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote: On Jan 2, 10:27*am, John H wrote: On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 07:13:30 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 2, 10:10*am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. I'm not in anything. My goal is to see if he can 'argue' on a course, rather than acting like a Beagle on a leash in new territory, i.e. chasing off in a hundred directions each minute.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ROTF.. Great analogy. Now he has a new nickname... "Rover"... ;) It seems appropriate. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with
Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in conjunction with that country. I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in all its forms is good for America. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366 |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:29:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:24:20 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: snippage They have *pretended* to clamp down. They cannot do it. Anything more than an empty gesture would result in violence against the royal family. Their own citizens are the biggest threat to the stability of the royal family, which *is* the government. You would know this if you read actual books, and not just the one I presented you with earlier. Your source doesn't use the word 'pretended'. I said nothing about our military. Now, back on track...What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? Based on the number of lives taken in a carefully orchestrated fashion. How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating? Each murderer from Mexico likely carefully orchestrated his crime. There likely have been several hundred if not thousands of deaths and other serious crimes committed by Mexican citizens in this country over the past few years. The Saudis have done a great job on you. Fortunately, their PR campaign hasn't worked on everyone. more snippage. The Saudis have done nothing on me. Your cut and paste was not worth saving. Stay on track. How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating? And, address your insertion of the word 'pretended' in a document you thought highly enough of to suggest, but which you later disparage. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in conjunction with that country. I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in all its forms is good for America. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366 In a mind (and I use that term loosely) like Herring's, the Saudis are at heart Republican capitalists, and the facts that Saudis fund most of the terrorism in the world, that most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudis, that there are many government supported schools in Saudi Arabia that teach hatred of America, and that the Saudis are soaking us dry - well, hell, that's not important. What is important is that Bush is a good friend of the Saudis. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:40:48 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in conjunction with that country. I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in all its forms is good for America. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366 You did the right thing by giving up. Attempting to put words in my mouth is not 'winning an argument'....but is very dishonest. Have you ever noticed that you seem to have a very hard time staying on track? You may not consider yourself a liberal, but that ploy is used by most of them. Go check some of Harry's 'arguments'. You'll notice a strong similarity. Does my typing have an accent? I agree with you. The Saudis are a great ally, and historians should use "Special Relationship" to describe them as well as Great Britain. The Saudis are furthering our goals by helping to put lots of diplomats' kids through college. Bless the Saudis. http://www.cq.com/public/20060203_homeland.html |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:40:48 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: I give up, John. You are right. Saudi Arabia is a fabulous ally, on par with Great Britain and the "Special Relationship" which many historians use in conjunction with that country. I surrender. I love Saudi Arabia. They've done nothing wrong. Wahhabism in all its forms is good for America. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...54/ai_84107366 You did the right thing by giving up. Attempting to put words in my mouth is not 'winning an argument'....but is very dishonest. Have you ever noticed that you seem to have a very hard time staying on track? You may not consider yourself a liberal, but that ploy is used by most of them. Go check some of Harry's 'arguments'. You'll notice a strong similarity. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4ax .com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4a x.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4ax .com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@4 ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4a x.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c@ 4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. Here - chew on this number: 2973 By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that there WAS a government involved? |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4ax .com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@4 ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5c @4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. Here - chew on this number: 2973 By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that there WAS a government involved? Which government? |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4a x.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi@ 4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc5 ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. Here - chew on this number: 2973 By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that there WAS a government involved? Which government? Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the impression I described above. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"John H" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:59:59 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:pprsl45ee6sns59clo7t2h22p2cunlnu0i@4ax. com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4a x.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@ 4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltg ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0g ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. Here - chew on this number: 2973 By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that there WAS a government involved? Which government? Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the impression I described above. OK, bye. Yeah. You said that two messages ago, but now you're back. You said "Good, so we're done". Your research project for this year: Find books which describe the relationship between Paul Wolfowitz and a thing named Manucher Ghorbanifar. You will wonder how Wolfowitz fits into this picture. You *should* wonder. Don't ask. I won't tell you. Go find your public library. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:59:59 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:37:00 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:57:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:6bqsl4dt9tjergp1ihc4tabs3iee28qfhd@4ax .com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:04:05 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:bvhsl4lvnjimgtem3nr58smht54h859o6u@4 ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:41 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:iagsl49ru4iivi4odlhis7fcvf4oleltgi @4ax.com... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:26:14 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:ckcsl4lmodfghgp7lfd3lbfm3593j0gc ... On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:15:43 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 2, 10:10 am, John H wrote: Using your logic, should we not wreak havoc on Mexico? Yes, but in a way that's appropriate to the issue. Good, an answer. What does 'appropriate to the issue' mean in your usage? And, additionally, should we not 'punish' *any* country whose citizens or leaders expressed happiness after the 9/11 incident? Nope. That's not a good way to use our soldiers, although that doesn't matter to you. Doug, have you ever noticed that YOU, when asked a question, will ignore the question, quickly change the subject, or BEGIN WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS, rather than simply answer the question? Are you prepared to discuss the way the Saudis caused the deaths of more soldiers in Iraq than anyone other foreign power in the region? Are you now *CHANGING THE SUBJECT* again? If you are not prepared to discuss this issue, please explain why. Is there something in the article which you believe to be inaccurate? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...ghters.html?_r... From your (unbiased) source: "The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through." Note also that the entire article is "...according to senior American military officials." In other words, probably bull****. You deny being a liberal but base your 'arguments' on the NY Times. 'Nuff said. John, you are in a labrynth of misquoted facts and intellecual dishonesty. You are right about Mexico though. It is a pretty well documented fact that Vicente Fox encouraged and supported the Mexican incursion into the US in his time as President of Mexico. The corruption and gangland style of government is flowing over to the US and between the border scirmishes and the gangs he has sent here we have lost more US citizens than we lost in 9/11. But either way, Joe is not interested in such facts, just winning little arguments here. One wonders why he came back.. ================= Are you saying that if we adopt a policy in a certain part of the world, we must be consistent and adopt it everywhere else too? Did he say that? Wow. I missed it. Yes, and so did you. You're trying to divert the conversation to include Mexico, which is an entirely different animal from Saudi Arabia. No, I'm pouring an analogy over your head. You just don't like it. I see Mexico's government as a hopelessly corrupt and badly orchestrated mess. Not quite the same as Saudi Arabia. Quite a few of our diplomats and intelligence officials see Saudi Arabia the same way. What's your next move? This old ploy? "Well, how come these people are all FORMER diplomats or FORMER CIA agents? What did they do wrong?" Forget it. That doesn't work. I'm glad you see Mexico's government the way you do, but it's not pertinent to the discussion. The question on the table is, " How many lives must be taken to warrant the punishment of the country. And, who must do the orchestrating?" Your answer: More than 82 lives in one carefully orchestrated attack. And who must do the orchestrating? Anyone. But, it's unlikely that you can pin individual rape or robbery incidents on the Mexican government. On the other hand, we have loads of information which proves that the Saudi royal family donates funds directly to schools which train lunatics. Why not 79 lives in two carefully orchestrated attacks? Because I told you 82 was the number. We have a school right here in Alexandria that has been accused multiple times of teaching anti-US sentiment. I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it suggests that your Bush-bashing about Saudi Arabia should be spread around. http://tinyurl.com/a3arge You *never* saw me say that Clinton did not receive the same bribes as Bush-1, Bush-2, and all presidents back as far as Nixon. If you disagree, find where I claimed that Clinton was clean of Saudi bribes. Your rationale for the number, 82, doesn't cut it. You asked for a number. No matter what number I gave you, you would disagree with it. You know that. Good, so we're done. Here - chew on this number: 2973 By the way, if the 9/11 thugs were not working directly with any particular government, then why did GWB work so hard to create the impression that there WAS a government involved? Which government? Iraq. And do **NOT** tell me that he did not intentionally create the impression I described above. OK, bye. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"D K" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: (considering what hasn't changed here in this NG) http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/ Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a miserable failure, and STILL don't see it. Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president? Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd, he would have had a great economy going for him. John H Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. What country would you have had him 'punish'? 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country, to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to the Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely unchallenged by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans. Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's. In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged (or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's borders. Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this country go free..... Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That will be funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies", who provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our soldiers. "The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006." I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from whence have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted felons. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Enuff. Bye. It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if you can call it logic. Why are you always such an asshole, Doug? I asked John to name the country which attacked us on 9/11. If that's being an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Live with it. My impression at this point of the discussion is that John's refusal to name the enemy fits the constitutional term "adhering to the enemy" (see Article III section 3, definition of treason). What do you think? I think you are waaaay out there... |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"D K" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "D K" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: (considering what hasn't changed here in this NG) http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/ Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a miserable failure, and STILL don't see it. Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president? Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd, he would have had a great economy going for him. John H Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. What country would you have had him 'punish'? 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country, to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to the Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely unchallenged by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans. Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's. In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged (or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's borders. Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this country go free..... Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That will be funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies", who provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our soldiers. "The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006." I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from whence have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted felons. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Enuff. Bye. It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if you can call it logic. Why are you always such an asshole, Doug? I asked John to name the country which attacked us on 9/11. If that's being an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Live with it. My impression at this point of the discussion is that John's refusal to name the enemy fits the constitutional term "adhering to the enemy" (see Article III section 3, definition of treason). What do you think? I think you are waaaay out there... That's a good thing. Thank you. |
Completely On Topic: Sewage Crisis
"Jim" wrote in message ... D K wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:10:03 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:49:12 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:56:26 -0500, John H penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote: On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: (considering what hasn't changed here in this NG) http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/ Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a miserable failure, and STILL don't see it. Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president? Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd, he would have had a great economy going for him. John H Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us. What country would you have had him 'punish'? 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from one country. That country, to this day, broadcasts strong anti-American sentiment on their government owned radio. That same government, having close ties to the Bush administration, walked away from the mess, entirely unchallenged by the US government for their role in the death of 3,000 Americans. Their hands are just as dirty as Afghanistan's. In addition, although this country has claimed to arrest Al Qaeda operatives within their borders, I don't think any have been charged (or accused) of having terrorist targets *outside* of that country's borders. Afghanistan makes sense, but why punish Iraq and then let this country go free..... Doubters will attempt to trash the source of this information. That will be funny to watch, as the doubters try and rain disrespect all over OUR SOLDIERS, who uncovered the information about our so-called "allies", who provided the majority of foreign fighters who came to kill our soldiers. "The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid's target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq. The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006." I suppose, using your logic, we should wreak havoc on Mexico from whence have come a whole passel of murderers, rapists, and other assorted felons. -- ** Good Day! ** John H Based on YOUR logic, we should've attacked Peru in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. Enuff. Bye. It's fun to scare you away like this. You can't face your own "logic", if you can call it logic. Why are you always such an asshole, Doug? You should know better. Makes Boater look like a gentleman |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com