|
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
Eisboch wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch I am. Y-A-W-N. Rehash of hash. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You and I have no clue. If we did, they wouldn't be effective. But, tying up resources and attention of terrorists in Iraq helps. It also, (and here's where you will flip out) assures our access to oil (although we are not currently taking advantage of it.) We still get the bulk from other sources. You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our Achilles's heel. You are good at asking questions. Let me ask one of you that's probably uncomfortable for many to answer. If suddenly the US supply of oil dried up .... Saudi Arabia said "Screw you".... and the rest of our sources of oil withdrew from the market .... would you support military action to secure oil for the US? Eisboch Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You and I have no clue. If we did, they wouldn't be effective. But, tying up resources and attention of terrorists in Iraq helps. If they're so effective, then why have there been attacks in England, Spain, and Bali? It also, (and here's where you will flip out) assures our access to oil (although we are not currently taking advantage of it.) We still get the bulk from other sources. Obviously, we need access to oil. This is why Truman went to great lengths to make sure our diplomats, and representatives of our oil companies were all over the Saudis like cats on mice at the end of the war. We built that country, and edged out our biggest competitor: The British. You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our Achilles's heel. You are good at asking questions. Let me ask one of you that's probably uncomfortable for many to answer. If suddenly the US supply of oil dried up .... Saudi Arabia said "Screw you".... and the rest of our sources of oil withdrew from the market .... would you support military action to secure oil for the US? Eisboch Sure. Why not? But, I'd pick the country which also posed the biggest security risk in other ways. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. Ah ha! Excellent. Now maybe he can focus his efforts on helping some used car dealers moved inventory with that big, fake never-ending smile of his. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. Ah ha! Excellent. Now maybe he can focus his efforts on helping some used car dealers moved inventory with that big, fake never-ending smile of his. Turn off your NG reader, you need a break. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Feb 7, 12:47*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. *(Many believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from his personal problems with "that woman".) *Who knows for sure? Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the dog". *Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. *What would you be saying then? *Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.. You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. *This is Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets. If he had done what GWB did, but did it back in 1998, there very well have never been a 9/11. Now don't go blowing smoke about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. *It's the engagement and weakening of al Qaeda and it's many terrorist organizations/factions across the globe that has, so far, been effective in preventing another attack. *There are no "good" terrorists and that included Saddam. Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially around the election cycles. He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight. Eisboch He also told us a long, long time ago that it was Mission Accomplished...... |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. Ah ha! Excellent. Now maybe he can focus his efforts on helping some used car dealers moved inventory with that big, fake never-ending smile of his. Turn off your NG reader, you need a break. No can do. It's also the email chute. It generates money all day long. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Feb 7, 10:45*am, HK wrote:
wrote: On Feb 7, 10:33 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote: HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in messagenews:Zr6dncNEC8Q9gjbanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comca st.com... There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons. Harry, Instead of saying "...resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis" it would be just as accurate to say *... "resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of millions of Iraqis". * The way you worded that sentence it doesn't matter what number you use, it is still a true statement. Who cares, as long as we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, right? "Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura (150 members and a chairman appointed by the monarch for four-year terms); note - though the Council of Ministers announced in October 2003 its intent to introduce elections for half of the members of local and provincial assemblies and a third of the members of the national Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura, incrementally over a period of four to five years, to date no such elections have been held or announced." Maybe the country described above should be our next stop. I wonder why ReggieTurd keeps addressing questions or making suggestions to me? What an ass. Harry, I find it easier to address my comments directly to you, instead of pretending to have you filtered, and then making snide personal insults.. * *I love to make a comment and then wait to see how you handle it when no one quotes my comment in a response. *You still responding to my post, sometimes by starting a new post that address the issue I raised. * No one really believes you use a filter anymore than you own a lobster boat or are married to a Dr. Dr., so why bother.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - We are his muse... * what's the plual of muse, mise?? Anyway, we have chosen our lot..;) The plural of muse is muses. You do know that the Muses were female, right? That probably explains you, but I had no idea that a bag'o'sh*t like Reggie could be considered inspirational.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There's that culture and sophistication Harry has! |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. Ah ha! Excellent. Now maybe he can focus his efforts on helping some used car dealers moved inventory with that big, fake never-ending smile of his. Or helping to find decent jobs for the thousands of people he laid off... I saw the speech. It was the usual Republican rabble-rousing right-wing bullship, with the typical "fear factor" thrown in for good measure. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Feb 7, 10:23*am, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... There is no need to speculate over how many might be dead if Saddam were still in power. What's the point of that? The point is, Bush's actions resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and for what? For Bush's personal political reasons. Harry, Instead of saying "...resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis" it would be just as accurate to say *... "resulted in the deaths of up to hundreds of millions of Iraqis". *The way you worded that sentence it doesn't matter what number you use, it is still a true statement. Who cares, as long as we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, right? "Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura (150 members and a chairman appointed by the monarch for four-year terms); note - though the Council of Ministers announced in October 2003 its intent to introduce elections for half of the members of local and provincial assemblies and a third of the members of the national Consultative Council or Majlis al-Shura, incrementally over a period of four to five years, to date no such elections have been held or announced." Maybe the country described above should be our next stop. I wonder why ReggieTurd keeps addressing questions or making suggestions to me? What an ass.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Wow, you're high society, oh so tasteful high cultural name calling is SO great.... |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... We could've "owned" Saudi Arabia as easily as we "owned" Iraq. Probably easier, since it would've been totally unexpected. And, we have little or no concern for what the rest of the world thinks, so that's not a factor at all. Hope you are listening to Romney right now. Eisboch No. What's up? Turn off your Newsgroup reader and read some real news, either online or the internet. Ah ha! Excellent. Now maybe he can focus his efforts on helping some used car dealers moved inventory with that big, fake never-ending smile of his. Or helping to find decent jobs for the thousands of people he laid off... I saw the speech. It was the usual Republican rabble-rousing right-wing bullship, with the typical "fear factor" thrown in for good measure. Harry, How many people do you have on your payroll? |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:03:55 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our Achilles's heel. 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter promoted an energy initiative to be energy independent by the year 2000. What happened? Ronald Reagan was elected and dismantled it, stating market forces would keep the oil flowing. It seems to me, market forces are keeping the blood flowing. We should have listened to Carter. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 12:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially around the election cycles. He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight. Eisboch He also told us a long, long time ago that it was Mission Accomplished...... Good grief, has that remark ever been stretched out of context and meaning. He wasn't referring to the war on terror. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 12:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially around the election cycles. He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight. Eisboch He also told us a long, long time ago that it was Mission Accomplished...... Good grief, has that remark ever been stretched out of context and meaning. He wasn't referring to the war on terror. Eisboch As any good linguist or psychologist/psychiatrist will tell you, how words are perceived is often more important than how they are meant. So, when Bush used the term "Pakis" to describe Pakistanis, it didn't matter why he used the term (ignorance, stupidity, a lame attempt to sound cool). The only thing that mattered was that it's an insulting word, as far as many Pakistanis are concerned. That trumps any possible explanation for using the word. Case closed. "Mission accomplished" falls into the same category, along with "This young democracy" (describing Iraq). These tricks might work with kindergarten kids and adults who think like children that age, but not with adults who've been awake for 20 or 40 or 60 years. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... As any good linguist or psychologist/psychiatrist will tell you, how words are perceived is often more important than how they are meant. So, when Bush used the term "Pakis" to describe Pakistanis, it didn't matter why he used the term (ignorance, stupidity, a lame attempt to sound cool). The only thing that mattered was that it's an insulting word, as far as many Pakistanis are concerned. That trumps any possible explanation for using the word. Case closed. "Mission accomplished" falls into the same category, along with "This young democracy" (describing Iraq). These tricks might work with kindergarten kids and adults who think like children that age, but not with adults who've been awake for 20 or 40 or 60 years. Holy crap! He was on the deck of a freeking aircraft carrier, complimenting it's crew for successfully completing a current, but sort term operational mission and deployment in support of the war on terror. The fact that many take the comment as a declaration of victory on the entire global war on terror is their screw-up, not his. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:39:20 -0500, HK wrote:
Right after 9-11, Bush awoke from his coma and was told a bunch of Saudis attacked. He spun around his world globe, stuck his thumb on Iraq, and said, "attack those damn Saudis." Good joke, but more accurately, the punch line should be: "attack those damn Saudis by proxy". Other than the possibilty of Iraqi WMDs, which a lot of people believed, that is one explanation that really makes sense. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:02emq3hneibhf84ukcc02po3qdkfbrakda@4ax .com... On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote: On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote: Tim wrote: HK wrote: Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the best hope is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a third party. And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine. You like nightmares?? ========================== Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There are no exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of the lot. When you do, come back and explain how you did it. No, you'll have to figure that out on your own. ============================ I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been on their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into the **** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through association. Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white shoes and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list. Huckabee is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the Saudis, and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that country. What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese and Russians? -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from them at an amazing rate. Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil mean I'm 'against' them? Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of the USA? -- John H They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm sure they have an interest in our financial health. For the moment. -- John H What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to replace the cash flow China gets from us? Pertinence? -- John H Yes, there is pertinence. Read the last few messages again. If you don't see the pertinence, nothing I can say will help you. Doug, I've already agreed that the Chinese, for the moment, are interested in our financial welfare, as long as they find it in their national interests to be so interested. -- John H You also said "for the moment". What will change their interest in our well being? Not *needing* the cash flow from us, or being able to overcome us militarily once we've disarmed, of which you folks seem most desirous. -- John H |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:56fmq39rj3etdpsd62d4stg15cupdpumeq@4ax. com... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:02emq3hneibhf84ukcc02po3qdkfbrakda@4a x.com... On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote: On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote: Tim wrote: HK wrote: Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the best hope is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a third party. And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine. You like nightmares?? ========================== Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There are no exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of the lot. When you do, come back and explain how you did it. No, you'll have to figure that out on your own. ============================ I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been on their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into the **** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through association. Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white shoes and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list. Huckabee is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the Saudis, and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that country. What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese and Russians? -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from them at an amazing rate. Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil mean I'm 'against' them? Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of the USA? -- John H They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm sure they have an interest in our financial health. For the moment. -- John H What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to replace the cash flow China gets from us? Pertinence? -- John H Yes, there is pertinence. Read the last few messages again. If you don't see the pertinence, nothing I can say will help you. Doug, I've already agreed that the Chinese, for the moment, are interested in our financial welfare, as long as they find it in their national interests to be so interested. -- John H You also said "for the moment". What will change their interest in our well being? Not *needing* the cash flow from us, or being able to overcome us militarily once we've disarmed, of which you folks seem most desirous. -- John H "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? You can just imagine how many reports John masacarred, or witnessed being masacared. Very traumatic. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Don White" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? You can just imagine how many reports John masacarred, or witnessed being masacared. Very traumatic. And the white-out.....I hear many of those guys started mainlining the stuff. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
Don White wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? You can just imagine how many reports John masacarred, or witnessed being masacared. Very traumatic. I've been ignoring Herring for a while, but I see he is still sniffing up my butt. Herring is not a healthy person, and it sours his attitude towards others. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:28:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 12:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially around the election cycles. He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight. Eisboch He also told us a long, long time ago that it was Mission Accomplished...... Good grief, has that remark ever been stretched out of context and meaning. He wasn't referring to the war on terror. Eisboch As any good linguist or psychologist/psychiatrist will tell you, how words are perceived is often more important than how they are meant. So, when Bush used the term "Pakis" to describe Pakistanis, it didn't matter why he used the term (ignorance, stupidity, a lame attempt to sound cool). The only thing that mattered was that it's an insulting word, as far as many Pakistanis are concerned. That trumps any possible explanation for using the word. Case closed. "Mission accomplished" falls into the same category, along with "This young democracy" (describing Iraq). These tricks might work with kindergarten kids and adults who think like children that age, but not with adults who've been awake for 20 or 40 or 60 years. If he were referring to the war on terror, would that be worse than Obama saying he's going to 'save the planet'? -- John H |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:28:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Feb 7, 12:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially around the election cycles. He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight. Eisboch He also told us a long, long time ago that it was Mission Accomplished...... Good grief, has that remark ever been stretched out of context and meaning. He wasn't referring to the war on terror. Eisboch As any good linguist or psychologist/psychiatrist will tell you, how words are perceived is often more important than how they are meant. So, when Bush used the term "Pakis" to describe Pakistanis, it didn't matter why he used the term (ignorance, stupidity, a lame attempt to sound cool). The only thing that mattered was that it's an insulting word, as far as many Pakistanis are concerned. That trumps any possible explanation for using the word. Case closed. "Mission accomplished" falls into the same category, along with "This young democracy" (describing Iraq). These tricks might work with kindergarten kids and adults who think like children that age, but not with adults who've been awake for 20 or 40 or 60 years. If he were referring to the war on terror, would that be worse than Obama saying he's going to 'save the planet'? -- John H No, it would not be worse. Bush was referring to something which had already happened: 2.7% of the actual goal had been achieved when he said "mission accomplished". |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:20:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: being? Not *needing* the cash flow from us, or being able to overcome us militarily once we've disarmed, of which you folks seem most desirous. -- John H "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? Hell, I thought I saw you and Loogy bemoaning the fact that we had B-52's. -- John H |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:20:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:21:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:56fmq39rj3etdpsd62d4stg15cupdpumeq@4ax .com... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:04:38 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:02emq3hneibhf84ukcc02po3qdkfbrakda@4 ax.com... On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 7, 8:38 am, John H. wrote: On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:06:53 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Feb 6, 5:39 pm, HK wrote: Tim wrote: HK wrote: Their guess is that the GOP nominees will be McCain and Huckabee (their nightmare GOP ticket), and that the best hope is to split off entirely and finally from the GOP and form a third party. And for the Dems, what would be your "nightmare ticket", Harry Either Hillary or Barack in the White House suits me just fine. You like nightmares?? ========================== Choose your favorite nightmare. They're all bought & paid for. There are no exceptions. Hopefully, you can figure out who's the best scumbag of the lot. When you do, come back and explain how you did it. No, you'll have to figure that out on your own. ============================ I have a system of sorts. I know every president since Carter has been on their knees, blowing the Saudi royal family, which is what got us into the **** we're in lately. That eliminates Hillary. Guilt through association. Romney never stops smiling. Give that asshole a pair of tacky white shoes and he could be selling used cars all day long. He's off the list. Huckabee is a disgrace even to some evangelicals. He's off the list. That leaves McCain & Obama. Maybe...just maybe they haven't been fondled by the Saudis, and in the moment of sanity, they'll do the right thing with that country. What would you have them do, oh bright one? Sell oil only to the Chinese and Russians? -- John H- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Why are you so against the Chinese, John? Do you realize they are bailing out the Bush fiasco as we speak? We are borrowing money from them at an amazing rate. Where was the comment against the Chinese? Does implying that they use oil mean I'm 'against' them? Do you think the national interests of the Chinese include the welfare of the USA? -- John H They sure do like our bonds and our manufacturing business. So yes, I'm sure they have an interest in our financial health. For the moment. -- John H What other part of the world do you think is anywhere near being able to replace the cash flow China gets from us? Pertinence? -- John H Yes, there is pertinence. Read the last few messages again. If you don't see the pertinence, nothing I can say will help you. Doug, I've already agreed that the Chinese, for the moment, are interested in our financial welfare, as long as they find it in their national interests to be so interested. -- John H You also said "for the moment". What will change their interest in our well being? Not *needing* the cash flow from us, or being able to overcome us militarily once we've disarmed, of which you folks seem most desirous. -- John H "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? Krauseish. -- John H |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:20:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: being? Not *needing* the cash flow from us, or being able to overcome us militarily once we've disarmed, of which you folks seem most desirous. -- John H "you folks"? John, this sort of paranoia and delusion needs to be treated. How long have you been this way? Is this PTSD, delayed many years after your service? Was typing really that traumatic? Hell, I thought I saw you and Loogy bemoaning the fact that we had B-52's. -- John H No, I like B-52s. I think they're pretty. But you are really strange. You think China's just keeping us around until they can invade? |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... No, it would not be worse. Bush was referring to something which had already happened: 2.7% of the actual goal had been achieved when he said "mission accomplished". What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... No, it would not be worse. Bush was referring to something which had already happened: 2.7% of the actual goal had been achieved when he said "mission accomplished". What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch See how the meaning of words (and even actions) can be received differently than they were sent? A pretty huge chunk of the country read the Shrub's little show differently than you did. There's more, though: The president does NOTHING in public view that wasn't planned for effect. I seriously doubt his minders didn't take into account the various meanings that little show might have to the world. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Here we go again. Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it. The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't tell you until you put your view out here first. To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple number substitution. Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not. The tap table is below. When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key. The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it. 1. 13 11 41 24 34 41 31 32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42 2. 3. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 E A N D W V ? 2 T I R M B . 3 O H U P Z 4 S C Y Q 5 L G X 6 F J 7 K Okay, I only did the first measure. Tap code is a bitch. You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad, and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful. --Vic |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Here we go again. Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it. The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't tell you until you put your view out here first. To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple number substitution. Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not. The tap table is below. When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key. The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it. 1. 13 11 41 24 34 41 31 32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42 2. 3. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 E A N D W V ? 2 T I R M B . 3 O H U P Z 4 S C Y Q 5 L G X 6 F J 7 K Okay, I only did the first measure. Tap code is a bitch. You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad, and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful. --Vic Holy ****. If this is what the military is doing to veterans, we need to divert the entire budget to mental health care for those veterans. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:55:26 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch Well, it's easy to get confused when Bush's speech, given that day, included, "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." While the *final* copy of the speech did not include "mission accomplished", that is due to Rumsfeld, who stated, "I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign." |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Feb 7, 7:00*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Here we go again. Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it. The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't tell you until you put your view out here first. To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple number substitution. Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not. The tap table is below. When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key. The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it. 1. *13 *11 *41 *24 *34 *41 31 * *32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42 2. 3. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 E A N D W V *? 2 T I R M B . 3 O H U P Z 4 S C Y Q 5 L G X 6 F J 7 K Okay, I only did the first measure. *Tap code is a bitch. You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad, and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful. --Vic Holy ****. If this is what the military is doing to veterans, we need to divert the entire budget to mental health care for those veterans.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No, this is what the veteran is doing to you. |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
On Feb 7, 6:27*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Here we go again. Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another attack? You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it. The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't tell you until you put your view out here first. To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple number substitution. Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not. The tap table is below. * When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key. The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it. 1. *13 *11 *41 *24 *34 *41 31 * *32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42 2. 3. 4. *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 E A N D W V *? 2 T I R M B . 3 O H U P Z * 4 S C Y Q * 5 L G X * * 6 F J * * 7 K * Okay, I only did the first measure. *Tap code is a bitch. You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad, and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful. --Vic 52 54 44 34 22 34 51 13 |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... No, it would not be worse. Bush was referring to something which had already happened: 2.7% of the actual goal had been achieved when he said "mission accomplished". What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch See how the meaning of words (and even actions) can be received differently than they were sent? A pretty huge chunk of the country read the Shrub's little show differently than you did. There's more, though: The president does NOTHING in public view that wasn't planned for effect. I seriously doubt his minders didn't take into account the various meanings that little show might have to the world. You obviously know very little about the military. That's ok though. Others take care of it for you. The reason a pretty huge chunk of the country read the Shrub's little show differently is because the media wants them to read it differently. And people like you jump right into line. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
wrote in message ... On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:55:26 -0500, Eisboch wrote: What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch Well, it's easy to get confused when Bush's speech, given that day, included, "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." While the *final* copy of the speech did not include "mission accomplished", that is due to Rumsfeld, who stated, "I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. they fixed the speech, but not the sign." Believe what you want. Doug's in the same line. It doesn't matter. Eisboch |
TV off...bad storms...So, who won what last night?
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... No, it would not be worse. Bush was referring to something which had already happened: 2.7% of the actual goal had been achieved when he said "mission accomplished". What goal? To the crew of the ship, *their* current deployment mission had been accomplished. You still don't get it. Eisboch See how the meaning of words (and even actions) can be received differently than they were sent? A pretty huge chunk of the country read the Shrub's little show differently than you did. There's more, though: The president does NOTHING in public view that wasn't planned for effect. I seriously doubt his minders didn't take into account the various meanings that little show might have to the world. You obviously know very little about the military. That's ok though. Others take care of it for you. The reason a pretty huge chunk of the country read the Shrub's little show differently is because the media wants them to read it differently. And people like you jump right into line. Eisboch And you're obviously assuming "the military", meaning all soldiers, did NOT think the "mission accomplished" statement was premature, or just plain absurd. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright �2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com