Ping : Don White
 

On May 6, 2:21*pm, HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"jim78565" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:GYmdnUAwbcJ2ApzXnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews. com...
"Don White" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
I think I finally got an ID on my Grandfathers Boat. Ever heard of a
Waymouth?. An older fishing charter Captain down the Lake from me ID'd
it. Dont know if it's positive, but he swears that's what it is.
Gonna do a google on it, and see if I get a hit.

Can't say I have.
Is it spelled Waymouth or Weymouth? * * * * * * * * * * * *S.
The Brits have a bad habit of misspelling many words.

Eisboch
I happen to know that you also have a Weymouth in MA. *(we have one here
in NS of course).
A future professional hockey player named Bobby Sheehan, who was in my
grade 12 class when he played his junior hockey here, came from there..

As a matter of fact, I believe our village got it's name from the
Loyalists who left Mass in the mid 1700s when the ungrateful rabble was
acting up..
http://www.weymouthnovascotia.com/
My gawd. You sure do know your geography.
And when it came time to fight for what's right, the pansies ran north..

What's the matter...?
You still sore from your navy days when someone sabotaged you by putting
sand in your Vasoline?

You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that happened in the 1600's when slammer's family left Virginia,
dumb ass.

Ping : Don White
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it, as
did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and some
lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They deserve
respect.

Eisboch

Ping : Don White
 

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"jim78565" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Don White" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

I think I finally got an ID on my Grandfathers Boat. Ever heard of a
Waymouth?. An older fishing charter Captain down the Lake from me
ID'd
it. Dont know if it's positive, but he swears that's what it is.
Gonna do a google on it, and see if I get a hit.


Can't say I have.
Is it spelled Waymouth or Weymouth? S.
The Brits have a bad habit of misspelling many words.

Eisboch
I happen to know that you also have a Weymouth in MA. (we have one
here in NS of course).
A future professional hockey player named Bobby Sheehan, who was in
my grade 12 class when he played his junior hockey here, came from
there.

As a matter of fact, I believe our village got it's name from the
Loyalists who left Mass in the mid 1700s when the ungrateful rabble
was acting up..
http://www.weymouthnovascotia.com/
My gawd. You sure do know your geography.
And when it came time to fight for what's right, the pansies ran north.

What's the matter...?
You still sore from your navy days when someone sabotaged you by
putting sand in your Vasoline?


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?


No dimwit we were talking about the revolution. Is your brain stuck in
the vietnam Bush groove. Jump ahead a little, donkey breath, and we can
talk about Obama's wars. Who knows. Maybe he can invade a few more
countries and escalate it into WW3.

Ping : Don White
 

"jim78565" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?


No dimwit we were talking about the revolution. Is your brain stuck in the
vietnam Bush groove. Jump ahead a little, donkey breath, and we can talk
about Obama's wars. Who knows. Maybe he can invade a few more countries
and escalate it into WW3.



Which brings up one of the reasons Obama and his legal beagles don't want to
pursue legal proceedings against anyone in the Bush administration.

The issue of authorizing Predator bombing raids within Pakistan and the
unfortunate killing of innocents in the process has already raised the issue
of war crime charges against him.

Talk is cheap and easy during a campaign. Decisions as the
Commander-in-Chief are not so simple.

Eisboch

Ping : Don White
 

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim
referring to U.S. males who headed north during the war against
Vietnam so they wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and
villages in order to protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the
Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it,
as did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and
some lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They
deserve respect.

Eisboch


My "take" on the war against vietnam is a lot stronger than the view I
presented, which I heard from more than a few contemporaries.

Sometimes the real reasons and history of why nations get themselves
involved in wars fade out of consciousness. They sure have for Vietnam.

I think we are getting ourselves deeper and deeper in the crap in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Modern foreign occupiers/invaders have not had
a lot of success dealing with Afghanistan. Pakistan is a horror of a
whole different magnitude because of its nuclear weapons. What *we* are
supposed to do with either of these failed countries is beyond my
understanding. Neither of the governments of those countries have the
ability to withstand religious zealots. Hell, Pakistan was founded by
religious zealots.

When we finally leave Iraq, whenever that is, it, too, will slide back
into failed nation status, ripe for the plucking by the religious zealots.

Ping : Don White
 

Eisboch wrote:

"jim78565" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim
referring to U.S. males who headed north during the war against
Vietnam so they wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and
villages in order to protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the
Viet Cong?


No dimwit we were talking about the revolution. Is your brain stuck in
the vietnam Bush groove. Jump ahead a little, donkey breath, and we
can talk about Obama's wars. Who knows. Maybe he can invade a few more
countries and escalate it into WW3.



Which brings up one of the reasons Obama and his legal beagles don't
want to pursue legal proceedings against anyone in the Bush administration.

The issue of authorizing Predator bombing raids within Pakistan and the
unfortunate killing of innocents in the process has already raised the
issue of war crime charges against him.

Talk is cheap and easy during a campaign. Decisions as the
Commander-in-Chief are not so simple.

Eisboch

It's too bad, then, that we had such a simpleton as CiC the last eight
years.

Ping : Don White
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim referring
to U.S. males who headed north during the war against Vietnam so they
wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and villages in order to
protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the Viet Cong?



Horsepuckey.

By far, the majority that fled did so because they didn't want to expose
themselves to any danger or felt they could pick and choose their
constitutional obligations.
Lot's of stories made up, but those are the real reasons. I lived it, as
did you. Let's not re-write history to serve your purpose.

True conscientious objectors stayed and made their cases. Some won and
some lost. Those that lost paid their dues in other ways. They deserve
respect.

Eisboch


My "take" on the war against vietnam is a lot stronger than the view I
presented, which I heard from more than a few contemporaries.

Sometimes the real reasons and history of why nations get themselves
involved in wars fade out of consciousness. They sure have for Vietnam.




"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed for
a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time. I
don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they are
found to be in error in history's hindsight.



I think we are getting ourselves deeper and deeper in the crap in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Modern foreign occupiers/invaders have not had a
lot of success dealing with Afghanistan. Pakistan is a horror of a whole
different magnitude because of its nuclear weapons. What *we* are supposed
to do with either of these failed countries is beyond my understanding.
Neither of the governments of those countries have the ability to
withstand religious zealots. Hell, Pakistan was founded by religious
zealots.

When we finally leave Iraq, whenever that is, it, too, will slide back
into failed nation status, ripe for the plucking by the religious zealots.


I agree with you and am not critical of Obama's actions thus far in
Pakistan.
It's a serious problem and a real risk to our national security and that of
our allies.
I wouldn't want his job. But my point was that few of these problems are
really as simple as the Monday morning quarterbacks make them out to be.

Eisboch

Ping : Don White
 

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"jim78565" wrote in message
...

HK wrote:

You sure have some oblique "penpals." Is SepticTank FloridaJim
referring to U.S. males who headed north during the war against
Vietnam so they wouldn't have to bomb or shoot women, children and
villages in order to protect Topeka, Kansas, from an invasion by the
Viet Cong?


No dimwit we were talking about the revolution. Is your brain stuck
in the vietnam Bush groove. Jump ahead a little, donkey breath, and
we can talk about Obama's wars. Who knows. Maybe he can invade a few
more countries and escalate it into WW3.



Which brings up one of the reasons Obama and his legal beagles don't
want to pursue legal proceedings against anyone in the Bush
administration.

The issue of authorizing Predator bombing raids within Pakistan and
the unfortunate killing of innocents in the process has already raised
the issue of war crime charges against him.

Talk is cheap and easy during a campaign. Decisions as the
Commander-in-Chief are not so simple.

Eisboch

It's too bad, then, that we had such a simpleton as CiC the last eight
years.

Your whiz kid isn't doing any better. Too bad we can't go back to George
the 1st, maybe even Reagan, and start over.

Ping : Don White
 

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

Ping : Don White
 

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:27:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 06 May 2009 14:55:51 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"Reasons" then and now are two entirely different things. When pressed
for a decision, you have to act on the information you have at the time.
I don't find fault with anyone who does so in good faith, even if they
are found to be in error in history's hindsight.

Except when going to war, you had better be damned sure. "Whoops, sorry",
doesn't cut it to the dead.

It's was vomit inducing to hear the former administration use the
"finish the job" excuse in order to honor those who "paid the ultimate
price."

Finishing the job in this case would be to uphold the law so that
others don't have to pay the ultimate price for lawbreaking liars.