On 7/18/15 2:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

I'll defend JFK. He actually was for getting us out. Was Truman who,let
the French back in to Indochina who started it.


D'oh. No. Actually, it was the Brit, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl
Mountbatten of Burma. who let the French back into Indochina. The Brits
were put in charge of what became South Vietnam to help the French
re-establish their colonial control over it.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

Answering that could prove embarrassing, so he probably won't.
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 7/18/15 2:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

Answering that could prove embarrassing, so he probably won't.


What a surprise...two of .wrecked.boats righties who are ignorant of
history. The modern war in Vietnam started in 1945, dummies, long before
Kennedy or Johnson became POTUS. Eisenhower reluctantly escalated
assistance to the French in the early 1950s. That's really when we
started getting involved. Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon escalated and
carried on our efforts there. What were you two doing during modern
history classes in high school and college, pulling Mary Jane's pigtails?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:04:41 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

What were you two doing during modern
history classes in high school and college, pulling Mary Jane's pigtails?

===

Bettter that than smoking Mary Jane with you.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/18/15 2:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

Answering that could prove embarrassing, so he probably won't.


What a surprise...two of .wrecked.boats righties who are ignorant of
history. The modern war in Vietnam started in 1945, dummies, long before
Kennedy or Johnson became POTUS. Eisenhower reluctantly escalated
assistance to the French in the early 1950s. That's really when we
started getting involved. Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon escalated and
carried on our efforts there. What were you two doing during modern
history classes in high school and college, pulling Mary Jane's pigtails?

They did not even talk about the colonies except for the nasty Algerians
fighting their beloved French sugar-daddies. And the only thing DeGulle
ever did correctly was warn Ike to just leave Indochina after Dien Bien
Phu. Ike ignored that and took up after the FFL with American Supplied
equipment and munitions lost. Maybe you should have actually studied the
history, instead of listening to a biased liberal arts instructor
pontificate.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/18/15 2:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

I'll defend JFK. He actually was for getting us out. Was Truman who,let
the French back in to Indochina who started it.


D'oh. No. Actually, it was the Brit, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl
Mountbatten of Burma. who let the French back into Indochina. The Brits
were put in charge of what became South Vietnam to help the French
re-establish their colonial control over it.

Truman could have put the cabosh on it. Lots of the present problems were
we let the pre-war colonists back in to the colonies. Algeria for one.
France was not a good colonizer.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:04:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/18/15 2:56 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:01:38 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 09:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

===

A war that was started by one Democrat and heavily escalated by
another. Or have you forgotten JFK and LBJ?

Answering that could prove embarrassing, so he probably won't.


What a surprise...two of .wrecked.boats righties who are ignorant of
history. The modern war in Vietnam started in 1945, dummies, long before
Kennedy or Johnson became POTUS. Eisenhower reluctantly escalated
assistance to the French in the early 1950s. That's really when we
started getting involved. Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon escalated and
carried on our efforts there. What were you two doing during modern
history classes in high school and college, pulling Mary Jane's pigtails?

Being 'involved' and going to war are two different things. But you wouldn't know
that, would you?
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/18/15 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:18:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 7/18/15 2:32 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:16:35 -0700, jps wrote:



Trump's appeal is that he is not a politician.

That's a load of crap and so is he. The Mexican people don't love
him,
he can't build an impenetrable wall, he has no viable plan to be the
president who creates the most jobs in history.

Selective listening on your part. He's a politician alright,
plucking
all the strings that any populist message politician would.

The problem is Trump seems to appeal to low information voters and
that is most of them.
In my wife's circle of construction trades, mechanics, service workers
and general working class folks, he seems to touch on what they want
to hear.
I doubt he can win an election but it will be scary how well he does
and that is not just going to be republicans. Folks like Harry ignore
just how many people who vote democratic are the same working class
people I am talking about.

Her description is Trump sounds like a union organizer and she hates
him.


Funny, in all the years I've worked with labor unions, I've never heard
any organizer who sounded as vile as Trump. Trump has some real
fans/defenders right here in .wrecked.boats.

He seems to be saying the type of things working class people like to
hear. Maybe you just don't spend enough time slumming with the
proletariat.
There are plenty of people who blame the "Mexicans" (generic for any
immigrant) for their lack of success in life. Union organizers would
be at the top of that list.


The union organizers I know are out organizing the Latinos into the
unions...the first real part of that is a home visit in the evening to
make sure the wife knows about union health and welfare benefits for
the members of families.

Do they tell them that no matter how hard their husband works, he will
get the same raise as the slacker who has no ambition? Do they know
about the corruption in those pension plans?

Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-7, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/18/2015 9:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/18/15 9:45 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:18:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/18/15 2:32 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:16:35 -0700, jps wrote:


Trump's appeal is that he is not a politician.
That's a load of crap and so is he. The Mexican people don't love him,
he can't build an impenetrable wall, he has no viable plan to be the
president who creates the most jobs in history.

Selective listening on your part. He's a politician alright, plucking
all the strings that any populist message politician would.
The problem is Trump seems to appeal to low information voters and
that is most of them.
In my wife's circle of construction trades, mechanics, service workers
and general working class folks, he seems to touch on what they want
to hear.
I doubt he can win an election but it will be scary how well he does
and that is not just going to be republicans. Folks like Harry ignore
just how many people who vote democratic are the same working class
people I am talking about.

Her description is Trump sounds like a union organizer and she hates
him.

Funny, in all the years I've worked with labor unions, I've never heard
any organizer who sounded as vile as Trump. Trump has some real
fans/defenders right here in .wrecked.boats.
No, you're lying again. No one is defending Trump. He doesn't need it.
Folks here
*are* knocking those who persist in misrepresenting his comments.

You're one of them. But then, we know your low opinion of integrity.


Funny stuff, defending Trump the Birther Racist. But, of course, what
one would expect from a racist p.o.s. like you. Funnier yet, your
indirectly claiming "integrity" for yourself, what with your history of
racism and your participation in a war of nonsense that killed 55,000
Americans and about a million Asians.

Heh heh. There he goes again. Harry, are you really Lawrence
O'Donnell? Sounds just like something he'd say ... and then apologize
for later after the damage is done.
Possible, but Harry never makes an apology to anyone for any reason.


He is incapable of that. He has been caught in many lies and he thinks
no one will notice. Threads end when someone mentions his bankruptcies
and tax debts.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:59:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/17/2015 5:48 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:17:05 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:12:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Did anyone else happen to catch Lawrence O'Donnell's performance on
"Morning Joe" yesterday?

O'Donnell reminds me a lot of Harry in terms of his politics and
ideologically. Very liberal with no tolerance for other points of view
and of the GOP in particular. He even uses some of the same words and
phrases that Harry likes to use when describing (attacking) anyone with
a conservative streak.

Anyway, the subject was Trump and his financial statement release.
O'Donnell accused Trump of lying, particularly about how much money
NBC has paid him for his 14 season run of "The Apprentice".

O'Donnell had no proof of his assertion that Trump was lying. He just
went on a half hour emotional rant about it, using air time that was
reserved for other guests and topics. It got to be a free for all at
one point with Joe Scarborough ripping O'Donnell a new asshole ... for
being an asshole. Even the liberal Mika Brzezinski appeared to be shell
shocked with O'Donnell's rantings as were the other panel members.

Later that evening on his own show "The Last Word" O'Donnell apologized
profusely for his performance. He even admitted that he liked Donald
Trump and Trump had sent him a message of congratulations back when
O'Donnell returned to the show following a lengthy recovery from an
accident he was involved in.

He said that rather than sue O'Donnell for his slander on the show,
Trump had offered a bet. He said he'd bet O'Donnell's yearly pay from
MSNBC that his claims were accurate.

O'Donnell refused, saying he's not a betting man plus ... he admitted
that he could be wrong. He had no proof. Instead he just apologized
again and apologized to the other Morning Joe guest who's time he used
in his ranting and raving.

Making up **** and lying seems to be the liberal way to win an argument
but I think O'Donnell realized he attacked the wrong person this time.


"Making up **** and lying seems to be the liberal way to win an
argument."

You really addled enough to say that after ranting about Lawrence
making **** up?

Holy crap, Richard. Aluminum tubes, yellowcake, WMDs (in and around
Tikrit), mobile weapons labs, mushrooms clouds?

Let me correct it for you... Making up **** and lying seems to be
some human's way to win an argument.

Lawrence's little escapade didn't result in anyone's death but I'm
sure you consider him as morally bankrupt as Bush, Cheney, Perle,
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.

It's nice to know you've never been led to believe something, made a statement about
same, and then found out you'd been misled.

You're some kind of super, man. Right up there with Krause, who's also never made a
mistake.

Huh? I was pontificating on the relative moral bankruptcy of Lawrence
vs. "conservatives" who apparently don't make **** up and lie to win
arguments.



Why is it necessary to compare despicable and dishonest behavior as if
some are minor while others are major. It's an equal character flaw.

One flaw's outcome is misinformation, the other is death. The question
is, at what point do you abandon your flaw in the interest of the
greater good?

I doubt Lawrence would send people to their deaths based a on lie but
neither of us know that for sure.