a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders. Peace is the end result of some
entity winning a war. The world has never been at peace, only the losers
have been at peace with the winners of the conflict. There have always
been
tribes, towns, cities and nations at war.

Human nature prevents us from living in peace.

Well, the USA lost the war in Vietnam and now you are at peace and buying
from the winning side of that conflict. Twice, your nation has invaded
Canada and were thrown out. Now you are at peace with us and trying to
buy our companies that have been successful in your market.
Jim

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Heroux-Devtek.

Who?

Last time I was up in Waterloo all I could see were US companies names
everywhere I went. Well, except for Tim Horton's, I wish they would come
down to the US and replace Starbucks.

Bert, Heroux-Devtek is one of the largest manufacturers of aero-space
products and military hardware. They are so successful that your country
has tried to buy it for years. The USA ( Colt ) did, finally, purchase a
small division of this company that made the best sniper rifle in the world.
It was so good that your soldiers in Afghanistan borrowed some from the
Canadian soldiers. It so impressed the Americans that they told Colt about
this rifle and Colt wanted it! Now this $1000.00 rifle is sold by Colt to
the US Military for over $12,000.00 each.

For every US company in Waterloo, I could give you the names of 100 Canadian
ones. Did you ever hear of the Blackberry? Made in Waterloo by a
Canadian Company called Research In Motion! Look that one up. I own
shares in it that I bought for $17.00 each
Jim

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

I'd bet there are Canadians who wish they could move their country
away from the USA so as to avoid any missiles aimed at the USA that
miss.

Can we assume you'd clime up on that missile launcher to congratulate
them as GI Jane Fonda did?

One Jane Fonda has done more good than you and every single member
of your close and extended family.

Yep, that kinda says it all.

What good did the ChiComs do for the Tibetans? Oh, that's right there is
no mor Tibet.




What does Jane Fonda have to do with the fate of Tibet? Answer this at the
same time: What does Donald Rumsfeld's chummy relationship with Saddam have
to do with Saddam's violent behavior?

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:31:54 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:
Gorby spoke in lindsborg today. He does not agree with your Reagan
conclusions.

I predicted and explained that in a previous message.
Grobatsjow is a civilised, well mannered man.

Regards, Len.

Seeing that you are a fan of Socialist governments, why do your opinions of
Gorbi not surprise me.

So now I am a fan of socialist governments... LOL
Tell me jim do you even know what the term means socialist means?

But yes, I respect mr Gorbatsjov for that reason.
Lemme guess, you think of him as a weak, consensus seeker, and on top
of that he's lost, cause there is always a winner and a loser, isn't
that so Jim...

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:56:35 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:

There are always winners and losers in everything you do. The fact that
you
abhor competition and desire to seek consensus is very telling.
What makes you think (wrongly) I abhor competition?
Or is that synonymous with fighting to you, hm... very telling
indeed...
Seeking consensus is not a bad thing. You should take a modern course
in negociation or google for "prisoners dilemma". It resembles
co-existing a bit better tham your boxing-ring. It may enlighten you
that when both parties communicate intelligently the total outcome can
improve a lot.

I'll try it again in even simpler terms....
In thinking in simple winning/losing you always settle for a
suboptimal result. Tell me, who is winning, the intelligent negotiator
who finds a mutual interest and achieves a combined succes (that would
be me in this little comparison) or the boxer who knocks everything
down he doesn't directly understand (and that would be you)?

Or is this too much a braincracker for you...?

An American, you are not!

??? Huh ?
Come again ?

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

Hey Bill,

are you unconscious on the floor or what?

Geez, these rep's are easy game....

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:56:35 -0500, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:

There are always winners and losers in everything you do. The fact that
you
abhor competition and desire to seek consensus is very telling.
What makes you think (wrongly) I abhor competition?
Or is that synonymous with fighting to you, hm... very telling
indeed...
Seeking consensus is not a bad thing. You should take a modern course
in negociation or google for "prisoners dilemma". It resembles
co-existing a bit better tham your boxing-ring. It may enlighten you
that when both parties communicate intelligently the total outcome can
improve a lot.

I'll try it again in even simpler terms....
In thinking in simple winning/losing you always settle for a
suboptimal result. Tell me, who is winning, the intelligent negotiator
who finds a mutual interest and achieves a combined succes (that would
be me in this little comparison) or the boxer who knocks everything
down he doesn't directly understand (and that would be you)?

Or is this too much a braincracker for you...?

An American, you are not!

??? Huh ?
Come again ?

Bert is easier to understand if you get really drunk first. Get down to his
level.

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:04:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

An American, you are not!

??? Huh ?
Come again ?

Bert is easier to understand if you get really drunk first. Get down to his
level.

heheh, I'll drink to that!
I guess he thinks I'm from the us.
Wonder what triggered that brainfart...

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:53:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if we benefit from a strong
military. ;-) Bullets or butter? World's policeman doesn't come
without a cost.
It keeps your from harm.
Does it? And at what cost? It seems to me, since WWII, this country
has
been at peace . . . Well, at least a couple of years. Perhaps, if our
military wasn't so strong, we wouldn't be using them as much.

By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders.


Unless George W. Bush was president and you happened to be in the WTC on
11 September 2001.

We're not generally safe within our own borders. Any small group of
dedicated and bright terrorists can create a huge killing event in any of
our major cities any time they want.

Did not matter who was POTUS 11 September 2001. We would still have a
cleared spot where the WTC stood.

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Len" wrote in message
...
Hey Bill,

are you unconscious on the floor or what?

Geez, these rep's are easy game....



I see you have no answers, just troll remarks.

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:25:01 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


I see you have no answers, just troll remarks.

Yeah, right....

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:53:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if we benefit from a strong
military. ;-) Bullets or butter? World's policeman doesn't come
without a cost.
It keeps your from harm.
Does it? And at what cost? It seems to me, since WWII, this country
has
been at peace . . . Well, at least a couple of years. Perhaps, if
our
military wasn't so strong, we wouldn't be using them as much.
By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders.

Unless George W. Bush was president and you happened to be in the WTC on
11 September 2001.

We're not generally safe within our own borders. Any small group of
dedicated and bright terrorists can create a huge killing event in any
of our major cities any time they want.

Did not matter who was POTUS 11 September 2001. We would still have a
cleared spot where the WTC stood.

Prove that.

Careful, Harry. The drones like to say that since we've been in Iraq, there
have been no terrorist attacks here. Naturally, this is a stupid thing to
say, for any number of reasons. You're about to request something which
you've previously agreed is not within the control of any president.

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:53:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if we benefit from a strong
military. ;-) Bullets or butter? World's policeman doesn't come
without a cost.
It keeps your from harm.
Does it? And at what cost? It seems to me, since WWII, this country
has
been at peace . . . Well, at least a couple of years. Perhaps, if
our
military wasn't so strong, we wouldn't be using them as much.
By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders.

Unless George W. Bush was president and you happened to be in the WTC on
11 September 2001.

We're not generally safe within our own borders. Any small group of
dedicated and bright terrorists can create a huge killing event in any
of our major cities any time they want.

Did not matter who was POTUS 11 September 2001. We would still have a
cleared spot where the WTC stood.

Prove that.

You are stupid at times, but not that stupid. OBL trained pilots and
planned this total operation in 9 months. You want to buy a bridge?

a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:53:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if we benefit from a strong
military. ;-) Bullets or butter? World's policeman doesn't come
without a cost.
It keeps your from harm.
Does it? And at what cost? It seems to me, since WWII, this
country has
been at peace . . . Well, at least a couple of years. Perhaps, if
our
military wasn't so strong, we wouldn't be using them as much.
By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders.
Unless George W. Bush was president and you happened to be in the WTC
on 11 September 2001.

We're not generally safe within our own borders. Any small group of
dedicated and bright terrorists can create a huge killing event in any
of our major cities any time they want.
Did not matter who was POTUS 11 September 2001. We would still have a
cleared spot where the WTC stood.
Prove that.

You are stupid at times, but not that stupid. OBL trained pilots and
planned this total operation in 9 months. You want to buy a bridge?


You and others like you who cannot think in the abstract believe that just
because something is planned it has to be implemented.

Let's see. You say 9-11 was planned in nine months. Let's count back...
Why, that takes us back to just about when the Supremes decided Bush would
be POTUS.

Think there's a connection between Bush "winning" (ha!) and al Qaeda
deciding the US must pay a price?


Send me the check for the bridge. Abstract. Your brain can not envision
the concept.