|
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented. Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial privatization for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will have been responsible for the change. Wonderful rationalization for upcoming backpedaling, but b.s You obviously don't know much about negotiations...particularly negotiations in which you hold all the cards. The sort of political arrogance your side exhibits is what is leading to its downfall Downfall? Republicans have won the last two Presidential elections, have added seats in the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and have increased the number of Governors in each of those same years. You better look up the definition of "downfall". |
HarryKrause wrote:
snip.. So, Bertie, tell us all about the titty clubs you visited while you were defending American from saggy breasts. Now there's an idea. Bert could help the recruiting program. He could list all his activities while in the USMC R and suck those poor impressionable high school kids in. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... HarryKrause wrote: snip.. So, Bertie, tell us all about the titty clubs you visited while you were defending American from saggy breasts. Now there's an idea. Bert could help the recruiting program. He could list all his activities while in the USMC R and suck those poor impressionable high school kids in. Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. |
NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... N.L. Eckert wrote: Very well said, my feelings exactly.... ================================== Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty there are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once. People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all wrong. And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war. Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel? Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions will lead to? I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East. Climb? It would be lower. Really? If bin Laden controlled the Middle East oil, it would lower oil prices? I'm fascinated to hear your reasoning. His reasoning is simple, you have no idea whether or not bin Laden would control mid east oil. Pure speculation. And ignorance. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: In the end, some form of Social Security reform will also be implemented. Perhaps it will be an older age to collect benefits. Perhaps it will be lower benefits for the affluent. Perhaps it will be partial privatization for people under age 35. In any case, Bush's strategy will have been responsible for the change. Wonderful rationalization for upcoming backpedaling, but b.s You obviously don't know much about negotiations...particularly negotiations in which you hold all the cards. The sort of political arrogance your side exhibits is what is leading to its downfall Downfall? Republicans have won the last two Presidential elections, have added seats in the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and have increased the number of Governors in each of those same years. You better look up the definition of "downfall". You have nowhere to go but...down. Sure we do. Can you say "filibuster-busting supermajority"? |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... N.L. Eckert wrote: Very well said, my feelings exactly.... ================================== Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty there are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once. People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all wrong. And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war. Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel? Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions will lead to? I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East. Climb? It would be lower. Really? If bin Laden controlled the Middle East oil, it would lower oil prices? I'm fascinated to hear your reasoning. His reasoning is simple, you have no idea whether or not bin Laden would control mid east oil. Pure speculation. And ignorance. Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. |
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. If I told you...I'd have to terminate you! Somethings are best left unsaid. |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:26:27 GMT, Don White
wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. If I told you...I'd have to terminate you! Somethings are best left unsaid. I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. |
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. Yeah..but having that nice horse to snuggle up to on cold nights...priceless! |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:31:48 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:26:27 GMT, Don White wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. If I told you...I'd have to terminate you! Somethings are best left unsaid. I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. Serving as a uniformed meter reader in some cities is more dangerous than serving stateside as a marine. In Bert's defense he is exactly the same as me - a former Marine. The fact that he didn't have the chance to kill people and break stuff isn't relevant. Sorry. I've been reading this comment for a while now and felt it was time to speak up. Carry on. |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:33:24 GMT, Don White
wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. Yeah..but having that nice horse to snuggle up to on cold nights...priceless! Good point. |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:21 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:31:48 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:26:27 GMT, Don White wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. If I told you...I'd have to terminate you! Somethings are best left unsaid. I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. Serving as a uniformed meter reader in some cities is more dangerous than serving stateside as a marine. In Bert's defense he is exactly the same as me - a former Marine. The fact that he didn't have the chance to kill people and break stuff isn't relevant. Sorry. I've been reading this comment for a while now and felt it was time to speak up. Carry on. In your defense, you're a former Marine, but you're not an asshole. Bert is. Well, I could introduce you to somebody who thinks that way of me, unfortunately she's married to me. :) |
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:21 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:31:48 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:26:27 GMT, Don White wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Don, why is it that you always post after Harry. When was the last time you had and original thought? Oh, you and Harry still haven't told anyone whcih uniformed military service you served in. If I told you...I'd have to terminate you! Somethings are best left unsaid. I KNOW I KNOW!!!! You served with Dudley Doright. Serving with him had to be hazardous duty. Serving as a uniformed meter reader in some cities is more dangerous than serving stateside as a marine. In Bert's defense he is exactly the same as me - a former Marine. The fact that he didn't have the chance to kill people and break stuff isn't relevant. Sorry. I've been reading this comment for a while now and felt it was time to speak up. Carry on. In your defense, you're a former Marine, but you're not an asshole. Bert is. But Krause.....you are not a former Marine but you are an asshole. Batting 1000 in the loser category once again. |
NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. Childish name calling will always help the simple when they can't further explain themselves. |
NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? |
wrote in message oups.com... Childish name calling will always help the simple when they can't further explain themselves. Are you explaining *your* MO Kevin? After all, you did some name calling in that reply of yours. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? More so than even a rock. |
..
.. .. The make EVERY street DOWNING STREETa href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/22214/1075" campaign/a .. .. .. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. Childish name calling will always help the simple when they can't further explain themselves. That's not name calling. That's a casual observation. Among those who affiliate themselves with left-of-center political ideology, you are the dumbest of the bunch. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? It would be impossible to explain to your feeble mind. |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America: " I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. " http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America: " I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. " http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm More from bin Laden: " Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world" -------------------------------------------------------------- Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin? |
NOYB wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America: " I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. " http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm More from bin Laden: " Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world" -------------------------------------------------------------- Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin? NOYB, first I'm not Kevin, second I never, EVER said he "wasn't after the region's oil supply". You can't understand a damned THING, can you? What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now, care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait????? |
wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't invaded Iraq? From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America: " I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. " http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm More from bin Laden: " Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world" -------------------------------------------------------------- Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin? NOYB, first I'm not Kevin, second I never, EVER said he "wasn't after the region's oil supply". You can't understand a damned THING, can you? What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now, care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait????? Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual. First of all, Kuwait was attacked by another country...not from within by a home-grown fundamentalist uprising Secondly, we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc. at the time Kuwait was invaded. If we had not had troops there, many speculate that Saddam would have kept pushing into Saudi Arabia. If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had virtually no militarty presence in the Middle East. His goal of overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have had the resources in place to stop it. Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government. What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (like we have today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists. bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny. The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East. The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border. They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help 'em do it! |
NOYB wrote: Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual. Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in control of all of the mideast oil? ANSWER IT, you are the one who stated it. It's nothing but speculation, and you know it, or else you'd answer. So, to try to make it look like you actually know something, instead of answering the bigger picture, you took a ****ing two word sentence and gave a long winded diatribe filled with more speculation!!!!! And you have the audacity to call other people dumb! Now, care to try again? Here are the questions I asked in direct response to YOU saying that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, bin Laden would be in control of mideast oil: What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now, care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait????? It's simple really, just answer the questions. |
wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual. Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in control of all of the mideast oil? You snipped my answer, so here it is again: If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had virtually no military presence in the Middle East. His goal of overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have had the resources in place to stop it. Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government. What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (unlike we have today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists. bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny. The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East. The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border. They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help 'em do it! |
HarryKrause wrote:
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? More so than even a rock. He's brighter than you are, Hertvik. .....and at least he boats! How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would do wonders for the tone in this newsgroup. |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... NOYB wrote: Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual. Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in control of all of the mideast oil? You snipped my answer, so here it is again: If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had virtually no military presence in the Middle East. His goal of overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have had the resources in place to stop it. Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government. What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (unlike we have today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists. bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny. The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East. The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border. They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help 'em do it! So that is your criteria for KNOWING that if we hadn't gone to Iraq, that bin Laden would have succeeded in taking over all of the mideast's oil supplies??????!!!!!!!! You have GOT to be kidding......... So, now that I've quit laughing, let me get this straight. You KNOW FOR A FACT, that because bin Laden said he wanted to control the oil supply, that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that he would have succeeded????? Oh, my god...... |
Can i see a copy of the pink slip for your 36' Lobster Boat?
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? More so than even a rock. He's brighter than you are, Hertvik. ....and at least he boats! How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would do wonders for the tone in this newsgroup. Pink slips or something else showing current registration! -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying to explain Harry out of a jam. I'm dumb?? More so than even a rock. He's brighter than you are, Hert. ....and at least he boats. I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out Krause? How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would do wonders for the tone in this newsgroup. One can be a boater and still not own a boat. But that sort of logic is beyond that hockey puck dented brain of yours.....eh Don? And is boat ownership some sort of status thing for you? If so, I earned my 25 year membership. If I recall, you just saved up enough money (and you are retired and living with your mother if I recall) to finally buy a little sailing boat. You could not even afford a decent snowblower if I recall also and settled for the $79 red light special at KMart.....an electric broom type. How brilliant for someone living up north. Pink slips or something else showing current registration! -- Yep, let's see the pink slip for that custom made 32 foot lobster boat. Oh................I forgot......................you don't own one. How funny. |
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:56 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
*JimH* wrote: ....and at least he boats. I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out Krause? Someone took you for a boat ride. How nice. I take my boats out several times a week. Since I live close by them, there is no need for me to spend the entire day on them when I go boating. We'll be out again Saturday or Sunday, if the weather is decent. Oh...don't look back, Hertvik. Some kid on a Big Wheels might be stalking you. If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. Harry, Harry, Harry.... -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:56 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: ....and at least he boats. I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out Krause? Someone took you for a boat ride. How nice. Yep. I take my boats out several times a week. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since I live close by them, I thought you previously said you moved your mysterious custom made 32 footer further away. Another lie? Why am I not surprised? there is no need for me to spend the entire day on them when I go boating. We'll be out again Saturday or Sunday, if the weather is decent. Do tell us about those adventures and which boat you chose to take out. He-he-he. Oh...don't look back, Hertv. Some kid on a Big Wheels might be stalking you. So when did you last take out that luxurious 23 foot fishing boat Krause? Yo........Whore? What where your winterization and winter storage charges for that boat last year compared to "Yo-Whore"? |
Harry does not allow Google to archive" his posts because someone once
showed that during the hours of 7 am and 12 am, he was never away from his keyboard for more than 30 min. It makes it hard to talk about all your boating experiences when you never leave your keyboard. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:56 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: ....and at least he boats. I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out Krause? Someone took you for a boat ride. How nice. Yep. I take my boats out several times a week. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since I live close by them, I thought you previously said you moved your mysterious custom made 32 footer further away. Another lie? Why am I not surprised? there is no need for me to spend the entire day on them when I go boating. We'll be out again Saturday or Sunday, if the weather is decent. Do tell us about those adventures and which boat you chose to take out. He-he-he. Oh...don't look back, Hertv. Some kid on a Big Wheels might be stalking you. So when did you last take out that luxurious 23 foot fishing boat Krause? Yo........Whore? What where your winterization and winter storage charges for that boat last year compared to "Yo-Whore"? |
HarryKrause wrote:
Naw, nowadays I do it because it gives boatless, pus-filled rectal fissures like you and Hertvik something to whine about... Naw, the real reason you no longer archive your posts is because you were getting tangled up in your own lies. You don't want others to be able to google and see what a nasty, self-centered, egotistical individual you really are, and how your stories change over time. It's hard to comprehend an individual so self-absorbed he would gratitiously post links to pictures of his driveway being paved in a boating newsgroup. Twerp. -- Charlie |
I am not sure what a wakeboard boat is, but I didn't sell it.
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Newsgroup Reader wrote: Harry does not allow Google to archive" his posts because someone once showed that during the hours of 7 am and 12 am, he was never away from his keyboard for more than 30 min. It makes it hard to talk about all your boating experiences when you never leave your keyboard. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:17:56 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: *JimH* wrote: ....and at least he boats. I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out Krause? Someone took you for a boat ride. How nice. Yep. I take my boats out several times a week. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since I live close by them, I thought you previously said you moved your mysterious custom made 32 footer further away. Another lie? Why am I not surprised? there is no need for me to spend the entire day on them when I go boating. We'll be out again Saturday or Sunday, if the weather is decent. Do tell us about those adventures and which boat you chose to take out. He-he-he. Oh...don't look back, Hertv. Some kid on a Big Wheels might be stalking you. So when did you last take out that luxurious 23 foot fishing boat Krause? Yo........Whore? What where your winterization and winter storage charges for that boat last year compared to "Yo-Whore"? Naw, nowadays I do it because it gives boatless, pus-filled rectal fissures like you and Hertvik something to whine about... When did you sell that wakeboard boat, Smithers? -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
N.L. Eckert wrote:
Very well said, my feelings exactly.... ================================== Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty there are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once. People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all wrong. And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war. -- ================================== Well, I feel that I can relate to this and I"m sure there are some others in this group that can do the same. I was called back to active duty when the Korean War broke out. I was told that it would be for one years service and no more than 6 months in Korea. I spent about 7 months in North Korea because of my spec. no., I had to train a new man to take my place. But true to their word, I was on my way back home after my 7 month tour of duty and was treated royally in the States when I returned. I still remember having filet for dinner in the mess hall. The closest thing to gormet food I ever had in the Army. These people in Iraq are having their tours extended constantly because Bush is running out of "cannon fodder". They are fighting a fanatical group of people that care not if they live or die. The government tends to hide the fact that there have been a number of suicides by troops that when they find that they are not to be rotated out, just can't face another tour in this armpit of the world. I maintain that LBJ (58,000 dead GIs and for what????) was the worst prez of the 20th Century, but Bush is running a close second........ |
|
"N.L. Eckert" wrote in message ... N.L. Eckert wrote: Very well said, my feelings exactly.... ================================== Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their duty there are heroic. Each one killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It is possible to do both at once. People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are forced to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are all wrong. And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this war. -- ================================== Well, I feel that I can relate to this and I"m sure there are some others in this group that can do the same. I was called back to active duty when the Korean War broke out. I was told that it would be for one years service and no more than 6 months in Korea. I spent about 7 months in North Korea because of my spec. no., I had to train a new man to take my place. But true to their word, I was on my way back home after my 7 month tour of duty and was treated royally in the States when I returned. I still remember having filet for dinner in the mess hall. The closest thing to gormet food I ever had in the Army. These people in Iraq are having their tours extended constantly because Bush is running out of "cannon fodder". They are fighting a fanatical group of people that care not if they live or die. The government tends to hide the fact that there have been a number of suicides by troops that when they find that they are not to be rotated out, just can't face another tour in this armpit of the world. I maintain that LBJ (58,000 dead GIs and for what????) was the worst prez of the 20th Century, but Bush is running a close second........ I agree that Johnson was the worst president we have ever had. The great society program has proven to be the worst money pit, besides Social Security. Johnson treated the Vietnam war as his personal play thing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com