|
John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. Stick to cut'n'pastin'. OK Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. |
Harry Krause wrote:
Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. Good point Harry -- Shouldn't try to confuse him with facts. Many of these right wing types must see Bush as GOD. Likewise the military. Of course many were military trained NEVER to question an order from a "superior" |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? |
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it --- find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:09:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Harry Krause wrote: Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. Good point Harry -- Shouldn't try to confuse him with facts. Many of these right wing types must see Bush as GOD. Likewise the military. Of course many were military trained NEVER to question an order from a "superior" Good. Now you're getting the help you need. Stick with Harry. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:37:17 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it --- find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Hoisted again, Jimcomma. Better get Harry to help you out of this one too. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion. Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not work with Iraq. They may work with Iran. So what is your point Jim? Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS way? No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you can provide a link. Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing? Convienent memory! -- No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam? I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics. Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with other Countries? From your favorite news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html "The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program." Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the attempted personal attacks Jimcomma? OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world. I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to? http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior. Great. Bush is doing good....eh? I'll give him this one During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nothing has changed. Your point is? Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea? We already are. And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S. Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days. Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years, as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan Your point is? The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue of flip flopping during the campaign. No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core beliefs. Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in his dealing with other countries. Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion, Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm the war on terror, He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all troop funding, Again deceived Bull**** and a lame excuse. ANWAR, Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml...lops.htm#ANWAR http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm welfare reform, http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm the death penalty Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php the Patriot Act, Agreed affirmative action See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp ....and on and on and on. Go to this link for other support of my claims on his flip flops. http://www.nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm The fact remains that Kerry constantly changed his core beliefs and Bush hasn't. Yes, Kerry deserved the title of flip flop king. Suppose you can find an UNbiased, responsiblle source? Yep, perhaps biased against Kerry. But what specifically is untrue in what they say? Didn't bother to read it -- I figured as much. - find me something from Cnn, cnbc or even faux. Find it yourself. Oh, what the hell. Here you go: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5616-3546r.htm http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009 (includes clips from CNN) http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/waffles.asp http://news.forum.publicradio.org/ar.../10/01/0553207 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40491 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119904/posts http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/se...w.php?id=12261 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/835wicnq.asp Hundreds more. It was easy. ;-) |
"'''''suffering from
Tuukarrhea'''''''' Well tuukarrhea must be defined as one who **** out krause, krause and more krause ,,,lol,, all I ever do krause is laugh at the crap you spew,, lol,,, repeat what you post,,, so by definition "Tuukarrhea" is you!!!!!,,,, lol,,,, krause,,,, you off your meds again??/ slipping???? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:54:13 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. Stick to cut'n'pastin'. OK Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You know, it just occurred to me. Perhaps Herring is suffering from Tuukarrhea |
"''''''No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality.'''''''' LOL,,, what do you expect to get from a "discussion" with you krause??? Reality????? lol,,, ouch,,, krause,,, you screw up on the meds today krause??? Or mix too many with the good stuff from the upscale liquor store your buddy works at??? lol,,, ouch,,,, Shouldn't you be out feeding the little critters?? ,,, lol,,,oo my Reality,,,,??/ lol,,, reality,,, hmmmm now there is a word that is farthest from reach during a "discussion" with krause,,,, lollll ,,,, "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim, wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:38:59 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:22:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: Jimcomma! Don't just let our discussion go 'cause you got yourself trapped. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote: JimH wrote: Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing? *That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you know little of command. A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't. Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away with anything? Your first line says it all "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all, your parents were also responsible for you. Remember? And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held responsible. Why would they have allowed you to do it? They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know what was happening. If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing? As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance. But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little, ten-year-old Mary Sue? A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents, much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting. Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also nicely twisted. I thought you summed up things rather ell when you posted the following. "A commander is responsible for everything in his unit." So was your mother! "Hoisted on your own petard," as they say. The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. You best stick to cut'n'pastin. Which part of the following do you NOT agree with? The difference being that until I was an adult, my parents were called to account for my (very few) Misdeeds. Somehow the commanders are given a pass. No offense, but what do you expect to squeeze out of a "discussion" with the Bush-Military Apologist? Certainly not reality. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com