|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. He is our President! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are really full of yourself today! I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word "my" with regard to him. You really are an idiot. It just bothers you that I don't automatically bestow respect on someone because of their title. There are many like you. I don't recall in which NG it was where I insisted on using the word "employees" to describe police officers. Someone became insanely angry because I refused to allow the term "public servant" into the discussion. I believe that person was on the verge of a stroke because of his anger. You apply all sorts of nonsensical terms to the office of president, like commander in chief, which, in your mind, exalts Bush to god-like status. Wrong. He is an employee. He never would've gotten past the first interview at many companies, unless they were looking for someone to rake leaves. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. He is our President! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are really full of yourself today! I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word "my" with regard to him. You really are an idiot. It just bothers you that I don't automatically bestow respect on someone because of their title. There are many like you. I don't recall in which NG it was where I insisted on using the word "employees" to describe police officers. Someone became insanely angry because I refused to allow the term "public servant" into the discussion. I believe that person was on the verge of a stroke because of his anger. You apply all sorts of nonsensical terms to the office of president, like commander in chief, which, in your mind, exalts Bush to god-like status. Wrong. He is an employee. He never would've gotten past the first interview at many companies, unless they were looking for someone to rake leaves. Doug you really have to wonder where the anger of yours comes from? You sit in your cubicle all day long as a shipping agent and when you no longer have your current job you will most likely be standing in the welfare line addressed as "next" with your hand out asking for somebody to do something for you. When President Bush no longer has his current job he will still be addressed as Mr. President and won't have to stand in any lines. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! John Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country lately, John? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Bert Robbins wrote: No data needed, I just need to keep repeating the statement until it is accepted as fact. As suspected. Nothing but blather from you. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! John Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country lately, John? Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing, tending their flocks and whatnot. Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure that's just misinformation. I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf? -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! John Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country lately, John? Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing, tending their flocks and whatnot. Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure that's just misinformation. I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf? John So, all you've got is sarcasm? You know nothing else about Iran except the nuclear threat, which, by the way, I agree with you about? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:40:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! John Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country lately, John? Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing, tending their flocks and whatnot. Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure that's just misinformation. I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf? John So, all you've got is sarcasm? You know nothing else about Iran except the nuclear threat, which, by the way, I agree with you about? Oh no. But just think, if we'd left Iraq alone, we could have *two* Irans! Now *that* would be exciting! No more until September! -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:40:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message m... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message news:7b9id21ii97jm9ltqu240e0n38l45kb25p@4ax. com... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. like iran! John Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country lately, John? Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing, tending their flocks and whatnot. Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure that's just misinformation. I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf? John So, all you've got is sarcasm? You know nothing else about Iran except the nuclear threat, which, by the way, I agree with you about? Oh no. But just think, if we'd left Iraq alone, we could have *two* Irans! Now *that* would be exciting! No more until September! John You've gone into your bi-weekly simpleton mode. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:13:23 -0400, JohnH wrote:
Oh no. But just think, if we'd left Iraq alone, we could have *two* Irans! LOL, instead we have the possibility of one Iran, stretching from Tehran to Beirut. Saddam's removal has left the door open for the Iranians. Hell, if I was a conspiracy believer, I might think Iran planed all this. Remember all that bogus intell? Chalabi, et al? Now *that* would be exciting! |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:31:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: It is signifcant that we had the same amount of support for the no fly zones from our european allies when Clinton lerft office as we do for the war now. Most of europe think it is folly to screw with these crazy SOBs. It is pretty much just us and the brits. This is all true. It's interesting, though, that some here can create a house of cards in their minds which justifies sending our kids over there because of misplaced valor. I have come full circle on this thing. In 1991 I told people this would be a tar baby that we could never extricate ourselves from. Then I started believing there might be a nobler cause there but I am back to let's get the hell out. Nothing we tried to do, came to pass. 15 years later we have exactly the holy war we said we were going to prevent. Sunnis, Shiites and Jews are shooting at each other every day. I say come home, try to stay out of it. There is no peace to be had in that region. Someone's going to come along and call you a liberal or a traitor. Be prepared. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:54:19 -0400, JohnH wrote: How does one tell the difference between a dead civilian and a dead terrorist? Please don't say the terrorist will have a rifle in his hands. -- Those infant terrorists were the sneakiest little *******s Ah, I didn't realize they were all infants. Bombs are not that selerctive, men women and kids all die when you blow up their house. Let's speed up this discussion. I'll add PatBert's response so it doesn't have to do it: "Well....they blow up innocent people too. Why can't we do it?" |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:31:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: It is signifcant that we had the same amount of support for the no fly zones from our european allies when Clinton lerft office as we do for the war now. Most of europe think it is folly to screw with these crazy SOBs. It is pretty much just us and the brits. This is all true. It's interesting, though, that some here can create a house of cards in their minds which justifies sending our kids over there because of misplaced valor. I have come full circle on this thing. In 1991 I told people this would be a tar baby that we could never extricate ourselves from. Then I started believing there might be a nobler cause there but I am back to let's get the hell out. Nothing we tried to do, came to pass. 15 years later we have exactly the holy war we said we were going to prevent. Sunnis, Shiites and Jews are shooting at each other every day. I say come home, try to stay out of it. There is no peace to be had in that region. Someone's going to come along and call you a liberal or a traitor. Be prepared. You know that in the right's eyes, liberal and traitor are synonymous!!! Not to mention anyone who has the unmitigated gall to think about the war. At all. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:12:42 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:43:56 -0400, thunder wrote: LOL, instead we have the possibility of one Iran, stretching from Tehran to Beirut. Saddam's removal has left the door open for the Iranians. Hell, if I was a conspiracy believer, I might think Iran planed all this. Remember all that bogus intell? Chalabi, et al? I doubt that area will never be "one" anything. If the Israelis left in the morning and the rest of the world just sat back and watched, those people wouild still be killing each other. That may be, but Iraq, under Saddam, was a check on Iranian influence. Without that check, you now have the Iranian ****e sphere running from Tehran, across southern Iraq, all the way to Beirut. Our President, nitwit that he is, hasn't marginalized Iran, he has made it a far more powerful, and dangerous player in the area. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:31:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: It is signifcant that we had the same amount of support for the no fly zones from our european allies when Clinton lerft office as we do for the war now. Most of europe think it is folly to screw with these crazy SOBs. It is pretty much just us and the brits. This is all true. It's interesting, though, that some here can create a house of cards in their minds which justifies sending our kids over there because of misplaced valor. I have come full circle on this thing. In 1991 I told people this would be a tar baby that we could never extricate ourselves from. Then I started believing there might be a nobler cause there but I am back to let's get the hell out. Nothing we tried to do, came to pass. 15 years later we have exactly the holy war we said we were going to prevent. Sunnis, Shiites and Jews are shooting at each other every day. I say come home, try to stay out of it. There is no peace to be had in that region. Someone's going to come along and call you a liberal or a traitor. Be prepared. You know that in the right's eyes, liberal and traitor are synonymous!!! Not to mention anyone who has the unmitigated gall to think about the war. At all. Exactly. The only opinion allowed on the war, is what is gleened from Fox News, and Sean Hannity. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:12:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Someone's going to come along and call you a liberal or a traitor. Be prepared. That would be ironic Look for it probably this evening. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:37:34 -0400, JohnH wrote: Bombs are not that selerctive, men women and kids all die when you blow up their house. Ah, I forgot that their weapons storage and firing positions are from their bedrooms. All the more of a reason to just get out of there. We seemed to have not learned a thing from a guerilla war in Vietnam. When a significant portion of the civilians don't want us there and we have no real national interest in staying, go home. At this point, I think the only way to stop the war is for every working citizen to stop having taxes withheld, and refuse to file next year. Refuse to respond to IRS letters. Refuse to vote. Remove the government's financial backing, as well as their mandate to govern. When their salaries get a bit thin, then we have a referendum on the war. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:53:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: All the more of a reason to just get out of there. We seemed to have not learned a thing from a guerilla war in Vietnam. When a significant portion of the civilians don't want us there and we have no real national interest in staying, go home. At this point, I think the only way to stop the war is for every working citizen to stop having taxes withheld, and refuse to file next year. Refuse to respond to IRS letters. Refuse to vote. Remove the government's financial backing, as well as their mandate to govern. When their salaries get a bit thin, then we have a referendum on the war. I think there is a more direct way. Joe Lieberman just had it demonstrated to him. The war is down to the short strokes. They are going to try to find a graceful/"honorable" way out but those last days when they are lifting the last of our people off the roof of the Al Rachid in helicopters is coming. The only question at this point is whether we will change our Israel policy too. I often think about one of the stated goals of the loonies who are behind Islamic terrorists. One of these goals, eliminating foreign presence, is not so far-fetched. Other countries have achieved this, and later, found a balance they were comfortable with (usually involving money). The loonies seem oblivious to successful models around the world, and they have never propped up anyone the world would see as a cool headed leader worth having a dialog with. It would be interesting to see a live-on-TV Q&A thing with bin Laden. I would require that it be shown, uncensored, on TV broadcasts all over the Middle East. I have questions and a great imagination. I'm not sure who should ask the questions, although I'd like to see someone with a black belt in debating. Maybe William Buckley. Q: Mr. bin Laden, you have close ties to the Taliban, which has as one of its stated goals a return to good ol'-timey ways, free of Western sin and corruption. But, the Taliban continues to encourage the production of heroin, and Afghanistan produced a bumper crop of poppies this year. It's a safe bet that proceeds from the sale of this crop will benefit the Taliban. Using an online search site for the Koran, there's nothing related to drugs or artificially altered states of consciousness, or even the words "poppy" or "poppies". So, for our listeners, could you please educate us on this issue, pointing out specific areas of the Koran which equate narcotics with a healthy society? Q: You and others have expressed the desire for all Western influences to leave the Middle East. We assume this includes all business contact with the rest of the world. For the benefit of Islamic citizens who would remain after Westerners leave, please explain in excrutiating detail what you expect will happen to the commercial structure of various countries in your region. And, can we assume that cash is a Western influence, and that you would like to end the sale of oil to the West? Q: It's known that many Muslims are uncomfortable with a lunatic speaking on their behalf. If you could pick a leader to represent the most embattled countries in the Middle East, someone who could actually hold an intelligent, productive dialog with virtually anyone he met, who would you choose, and why? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com