OT: Edward

Page 2 of 7  
Elrond Hubbard wrote:

The "right" was not involved in the last election.
--
Jack
Got change: Individual Freedom ====> The Collective!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

"Overstated," is that how your dictionary defines something that doesn't exist? Your logic is bizarre. If enough people believe something that isn't true then those who promoted the falsehood and acted on it get a free pass.
I'll say it again: Saddam was always going to be a threat in that given the opportunity he would cause trouble in future. But he was bankrupt, his military was a shadow of its former self, his economy was in ruins, he didn't have the means to pursue WMDs. You don't invade a country based on the fear of what might happen in future if a series of developments perhaps maybe possibly takes place. Well, rational people don't, Bush did--and you're still making excuses for him.

There is such a thing as criminal negligence, in which someone takes actions so reckless that they amount to a disregard for the consequences. Colin Powell was suspicious of the intelligence claiming Saddam's WMD program was being restored, that's why he insisted the director of the CIA sit right behind him when he addressed the UN. And where did much of that intelligence come from? A source code-named Curveball, someone German intelligence had warned was an alcoholic compulsive liar. And how did the Bush administration respond to such warnings? They treated Curveball's claims as pure gold even when there was solid information like satellite photos and eye-witness accounts from weapons inspectors showing his claims were false. That's what happens when an administration chooses to seek out whatever supports a decision that has already been made and ignores whatever information displeases them. "Careless" would be a kind description of how the Bush administration chose to go to war.
BTW sparky, I was pleased at Bush winning the 2000 election and for quite some time I defended his administration because I badly underestimated its capability for corruption and incompetence. But of course you'll continue to paint me as a raving leftist because that's what hopeless ideologues like you do.

Bull, the evidence of it being done under false pretences is mountainous, but you'd jam your own thumbs in your eyes rather than look at it. First you decide what you want to believe, then you cherry-pick what information you take in, rejecting anything that conflicts with your goal. Damn, where have we seen that before?

Gen. Shinseki warned before the invasion that it would take several hundred thousands troops to occupy Iraq precisely because of those ethnic divisions. The result was him being ridiculed and isolated by the administration. Anyone with half a clue knew what the outcome of occupation would be. But you live in a fantasy-land where it's possible to invade a country and then just turn around and leave, as if there was ever a chance of that happening in Iraq. Of course as a libertarian you no doubt would see the U.S. withdraw from those international treaties that require invading powers to ensure civil order and the necessities of life in lands they have defeated in war, mere scraps of paper after all.

One outcome of the invasion is that Iran has been strengthened, with much of Iraq being under the de facto control of pro-Iran forces. The Iranian leadership might be a bit crazy (leaders who claim to be acting on behalf of God--like Mr. Bush--tend to be that way) but they're not stupid. They know the U.S. isn't about to go after them alone, and thanks to the debacle in Iraq most of America's allies aren't about to support another mid-east blunder. "Huge pressure"? Dream on, Iran is thumbing its nose at America, and that isn't about to change.

If you're saying there should be no moral component to U.S. foreign policy, that everything America does abroad should be motivated purely by self-interest, and causing massive death, destruction and misery is not America's concern, then "so what" makes sense. Of course after WWII there was a trial at Nuremburg for national leaders who thought that way....

Incredible, you ignore the point that the decision was justified with false evidence and instead leap to suggesting that the number of people deceived by the bad intelligence somehow white-washes the whole process.

The current administration lacks the will to pursue the matter, so you figure I as a private citizen should do what the Justice Dept. won't?

What color is the sky on your planet?

You'd deny the people of the various states the right to elect whom they please? Doesn't the Constitution mean anything to you?
You'd keep the legislature full of rookies who need half their term just to learn the ropes? All that would accomplish is to hand over power to the bureaucrats who stick around for decades. At least politicians can be voted out; bureaucrats are not so easy to get rid of.

I call 'em like I see 'em, and I don't seem to be the only one here who has correctly identified you as a windbag who is free with insulting characterizations when it suits him.

That's refreshing, as you often appear to have an open dictionary balanced on your knee you when you post.

I didn't need to be told you were a dweller in the libertarian fantasy-land. That you imagine that means you aren't a right-winger is hilarious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Corruption? Exactly ONE Bush admistration official was persecuted in eight years, and that involved a non-crime.
I think both Clinton had eight casualties for illegal acts during his first month. Obama's had two or three (for tax "irregularities"). Obama would possibly have more, but he's still got over 200 policy positions to fill, including Secretary of the Army, heads of the TSA and Border Security, Director of the BATF, and more.
Incompetence? When Bush came into office, he could rely on the advice of his dad, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and others, each with decades of experience.
Obama has Rohm Emmanuel. That's about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Other than Powell, I see little competence to rely on in that group.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Decisions are made in a context. The fact that they later turn out to be incorrect doesn't make them bad decisions ... unless you're retroactively grinding an axe.

Then why did so many of the world's leaders see it differently? Why did they see him as an imminent threat? Oh, I know! It was the Eeeeeeeeevil George Bush that put him up to it. The same George Bush that was stupid in the eyes of his political opponents manufactured a global conspiracy just so he could invade Iran. You, sir, live in an illusory world.

This is not such an example except for the foaming Bush haters.

Teddy Kennedy was Curveball????

But they still vetted it with the rest of the world. This is the part that has all you spittle types on the ropes. Listen, I was no fan of W's on most fronts, but it was not just him that saw this as a threat - a whole bunch of leaders all over the world saw it that way. This negligence theory that you have manufactured simply does not hold water with the presently available facts. He mad a call based on the data at hand. He was wrong about WMDs. He was indisputably right about Sadaam's support for terror in the form of money for "Palestinian" suicide bombers, and offering safe haven to various terrorist fleabags in Baghadad. He was all right positionally - a US presence in Iraq allows us to now put really bigtime pressure on the worst of the worst in the region: Iran. Oh, wait, we won't, because we have a puerile, power hungry president smoking Hopeium. Bush was not a perfect president by any means. He was replaced by a fool and charlatan.

And I have news for you. I did NOT vote for him in 2000. I disagreed with almost every one of his domestic policy planks (other than his opposition to abortion). He's still light years a better choice than the current Marxist-In-Charge.

Then cite it and make the case in a court for war crimes instead of parroting the anti-Bush venom that flows down your chin. I will stand with anyone who can demonstrate that W consciously mislead the country for malfeasant motives. This, however, requires actual evidence rather than the ranting of Bill Maher, the Huffington Post, and other, similar, political rectal warts. Thus far, such actual evidence is absent.

I "believe" what can be proven, not what you and your fellow travelers choose to believe, whether you get it from Rush Limbaugh or NBC.

This is nonsense. Blow the hell out of their government buildings, neuter their military, kill their leadership, and leave with a warning that we'll be back if further mischief ensues. But Nooooooooo, we have to rehab the region to keep all the warm, drooley types in this country happy. Warriors should make war in the interest of their own nation, not in the interest of rebuilding their enemy unless/until there is compelling reason to do said rebuilding - there was almost none in Iraq other than having a US presence there to wallop Iran as needed.

It's perfectly possible just not practical given the Politically Correct morons that infest the US political landscape.

AS a libertarian, I wish we were not involved at all. I wish there was no emerging nuclear threat in the region and we could let all the players there just kill each other at will. Ditto (especially) Africa, Indonesia, Korea, and all the rest of the world's sewers. The fact is that we cannot ignore such emerging threats and occasionally have to go in and do something about them. Here's a real complex question for you: Would rather have US presence in the region putting pressure on the Saudis, Syrian, and Iranians (the unholy trio of bad acting there), or would you prefer to leave it to the Israelis?

Only because of the innately defective nature of the current US administration.

Or Obama claiming that God wants us to go into multigenerational debt so that he can sell himself as The Messiah Of Healthcare. Far, far worse than anything Bush ever did.

Not with the limp wristed leadership we have currently in place, I agree.

We should never *initiate* force, but we should feel free to respond to it - against ourselves, our allies, or our interests. Sure, we should pick and choose our spots better than we have in the past, but, no, I don't particularly care about serving the rest of the world's interests in the abstract. There has to be a US interest at stake or it's a waste of time.

You and the rest of the Bush-haters *claim* the evidence was "false" but no such proof has emerged ... and I read lots of idiots claiming otherwise ... they just never quite manage to produce proof that would stand up as legal evidence. Why is that, I wonder?

I think you are full of bile, anger, and opinions, none of which are substantiable by a legally dispassionate third party.

I support only one mechanism to getting there: A Constitutional amendment. Why? Because the Sheeple will always vote themselves whatever largesses they don't personally have to pay for. The best way to at least partly neuter this is never allowing a ruling class to emerge. I'd also like to go back to the early days of this country where only property owners and/or tax payers can vote. That would go a long way to clean up the mess we have today.

Absolutely. An incompetent government doing nothing is vastly preferable to an effective government.

The bureaucrats also need to not be able to make a career of it.

I attack your ideas. You and your homeys attack me. And for all the public cheap shots you folks express here, I get lots of private emails thanking me for for standing up to you bullies and statists that want to tell the rest of us what to think and do.

Not remotely. I oppose all the usual rightwing mantras like laws prohibiting flag burning, morality codes (sex, drugs), their insistence that the Feds should define "marriage", ad infinitum, ad nausem. In fact, the only real common ground I have with today's right is an opposition to abortion and a support for their more-or-less hawkish foreign policy. See, some of us are able to think for ourselves and don't need to wear the t-shirt to know what we actually believe ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

A decision that requires you to cherry-pick only that information that supports making the decision (and reject out of hand any information that argues against the decision) should not result in enormous surprise when it turns out to have been a bad decision. You keep ignoring that the Bush administration did exactly this, at times with data they had been warned was highly suspect. When a dubious source says a particular building is being used to produce WMDs, but your own satellite photos and weapons inspectors say no, it isn't, and you choose to believe the petty criminal your own allies warn you is a liar, then you've made a bad decision and you cannot claim later that you had no way of knowing.
"Context"? The context is the Bush administration decided it wanted to invade Iraq, then it went looking for supporting evidence no matter how weak it was, while kicking dirt over anything that argued against the idea. Colin Powell was one of the few voices arguing against the plan, he eventually realized he'd been played for a fool and resigned. He at least realized why a bad decision led to bad results, while you're still making excuses.

And we're back to a falsehood believed by many people isn't really a falsehood. Not to mention that those who supply the false information have no blame for people believing the falsehood.

As opposed to the see no evil, hear no evil clowns like yourself who studiously ignore any information they'd rather not be aware of. Brilliant in a way, just avoid seeing and hearing what you don't want to believe, then you can deny it exists.

Orin Hatch says one thing he could count on in the Senate was TK sticking to his word, but what does he know. I didn't much care for TK, but I'll admit that among the mediocrities, buffoons and lunatics in Congress he at least cast a long shadow.

And here we are again, the guy who passes on false information gets a free pass. So if I sell you a used car that I know is a piece of junk, you'll have no problem with that provided I'm able to convince a few other people that it's actually a fine automobile--shared deception providing immunity to the deceiver in your books.

There are a couple of books you could profit from reading. Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Thomas Ricks is a good place to start especially given Pulitzer-winner Rick's high reputation in the American military. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn is also pretty good. Both books rely heavily on interviews with people with first-hand knowledge, people who there to see it happen up close.
Of course I realize I'm wasting my breath here, there ain't a chance in hell you'd expose yourself to information that conflicts with what you want to believe happened. You'll just dismiss it all as the work of Bush-haters and go happily on your way, wreathed in ignorance.

There are plenty of nations that support terrorism, with money and with training facilities and with safe havens--do you propose to invade all of them?

How's that working out, sunshine? Refresh my memory, when did Iran cave in and agree to stop pursuing nuclear technology? When did they decide to stop messing with Israel? When did they stop building up their military?
<crickets>

Let's see: a war that has made the U.S. a pariah around the world, Bin Laden still on the loose, an economy that hit the skids on his watch, a record federal debt on his watch, the supposed good guys using torture on suspected terrorists, the feds monitoring your e-mail and listening to your phone calls without warrants, a fumbled response to a natural disaster that devastated an American city, millions of jobs exported to China--yeah, that Bush did a hell of a job alright, although as you say he wasn't perfect.

"Marxist," too funny.

Start with the books I mentioned above. Fat chance huh?

You believe what suits your biases; that you pretend that evidence of the willful foolishness of the Bush administration in invading Iraq doesn't exist demonstrates that beautifully.

Riiiight, 'cause it's not like leaving a nation ripe for the rise of another violent dictator could *possibly* hurt the U.S. down the road, there's not a trace of evidence that has ever happened. Germany and Afghanistan don't count because, well just because.
Winston Churchill had the right idea, when the war is over the wise policy is to befriend the defeated power to ensure that the next generation doesn't have to fight the same war again. On the other hand there are fools like you who think bombs are the answer to everything.

In other words you don't want to deal with the issue of the U.S. being a signatory to agreements that require an occupying power to ensure civil order and the necessities of life for the occupied population.

Incredible, really. You want the U.S. to occupy Iraq to put pressure on Iran (which so far hasn't worked worth a damn) but you figure that can be done without a thought for the 31 million people who live there, as if ignoring them won't produce a bloody guerilla war that will eat up American lives. Here's a simple question for you, Einstein: how do you plan to keep U.S. forces in Iraq to pressure Iran when suppressing the inevitable insurrection costs two billion dollars a week and kills thousands of U.S. soldiers? How long do you figure America will keep its hand in such a meat-grinder just to satisfy your sophomoric approach to geo-politics?

Oh, I see. So the past six years don't count--the Iranians sticking to their nuke program, having de facto control of much of Iraq via their surrogate militias, and turning loose Hezbollah in Lebanon--no big deal. But somehow in the past eight months it's all become Obama's fault. Prior to him taking office everything was going just fine, those Iranians were jumping to Uncle Sam's tune.
You are truly delusional.

Quote him.
<crickets>

Astonishing, six years of Iran getting away with whatever it wanted was invisible to you, but suddenly everything they've done is attributable to Obama taking office.

The problem with people who think like you is they can't see that today's actions are the source of tomorrow's problems. You're always surprised to discover that bombs you drop today can come back and hurt *you* in years to come. You'll happily do business with brutal regimes if it means cheap bananas or cheap copper or a conveniently located military base, then it's a big shock when the people of those nations come to hate America for its support of the regimes that oppress them. So then it's time to send in the Marines to quiet down the natives, and more American soldiers die because of the short-sighted foolishness of people who think like you.

Once again, the evidence is there for those willing to use their eyes. But you would rather jam your head into the sand and deny it exists. Let me guess, you won't go into a public library for philosophical reasons.

A good indicator of Usenet Psychosis is the use of words like "sheeple." People who are convinced they are among an elite minority and most everyone else is part of an ignorant rabble can be relied on to use language like that.

LOL, I bet you'd like to go back to the early days of this country, back when much of the work was done by indentured servants, convicts, slaves....

Libertarian Fantasyland, a place where the Fire Dept. appears out of thin air when you need them....

Sure, we can all take turns managing the highways and the military and the cops and so on, there's nothing a well-meaning amateur can't handle in Libertarian Fantasyland.

Horsecrap, you make claims you can't defend while demanding everyone else prove their case in a trial-ready format. And you're just as ready to use an insult as those who make fun of you, but you figure somehow when you do it, it doesn't count. Your ideas consist of slogans, nothing more. You're just another Usenet placard-waver.

Oh here we go, why do petty demagogues like you always claim they have legions of admirers who choose to remain unidentified? Is this Usenet Windbag thing some sort of franchise and you all read from the same instruction manual?

The funniest part about people like you (and almost every newsgroup I've ever read has at least one of you) is that you imagine you're free thinkers when in fact your beliefs are painfully predictable. Oh well, at least you provide a certain amusement value.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

You are, no doubt, referring to the aspirin factory that Clinton hit with a Cruise Missle?

That's the way it works. If I have a letter from a lawyer that says a certain tax transaction is lawful, I'm almost always off the hook if it turns out his advice was wrong.

Almost all military adventures are fiascoes. That's not hard to prove. Consider the Normandy Invasion. 300,000 troops go ashore in the largest amphibious landing in history. Guess how many consultations the Allied Forces planning group had with the Marines who had been doing exactly that sort of thing for 200 years? If you guessed zero, you'd win.
Military exercises are graded by exactly one thing and one thing only: Did we prevail? How it could have been done better, number of casualties, cost, and the rest are irrelevant.

Maybe. Those that can't be bombed back to the stone age.

That was the intended consequence.

So what? It was NEVER a goal of the United States to kill or capture OBL. After the first week, the goal of the United States was to prevent another attack on the U.S. or its interests abroad. To do this, strategies were developed to interfere with terrorist training, sanctuaries, financing, communication, travel, and recruiting. If during the course of all this, OBL was killed or captured, that would have been a plus, but IT WAS NEVER A GOAL - except in the minds of the president's opponents.

The deficit during the eight Bush years was just south of $1 trillion. Obama exceeded that by a factor of four in his first month (maybe six weeks - I was abed with shock).

It was never the policy of the US to torture anybody. Several legal findings assert that waterboarding is not torture. You may not agree, but you don't get to make the definition.

The first interception of the enemy's electronic communications took place in our Second War of Independence when both the Union and the Confederacy tapped their adversaries telegraph lines. We broke the Japanese Purple Code and the chaps a Bletchly Park took the Enigma machine apart. You would have us go back to 1929 when Secretary of State Henry Stimson shut down our cryptography bureau with the dismissive "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
That turned out well.

Bombs are admittedly NOT the answer to everything. But they sure are fun.
I was following with some interest the development of the GBU43/B, called the MOAB ("Mother of All Bombs"). It was so massive it could almost open a crack in the earth's crust. An even more powerful bomb is in development, nicknamed the MFOAB.
Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

And you keep skirting the fact that you NO proof they did this, only your repetitive droning without proof. There is no such thing as "Proof By Repeated Assertion", sorry.
<SNIP>

More claims, w/o proof.
<SNIP>

A claim of "Falsehood" is not the same as a fact. You and your fellow travelers really need to read up on what constitutes compelling evidence.

Ad hominem and utterly false. I have said repeated (here and elsewhere) that if actual evidence is brought to light that shows Bush and Co. intentionally mislead the nation with malicious goals (as opposed to the secrecy sometimes required of statecraft and policy) I will stand with my ideological opponents and demand his trial for war crimes. But, see, that's because I actually believe in the rule-of-law, not what I read on the Huffy Post or whatever manifest stupidities came out of Maher or Colbert's mouths the previous night.

More ad hominem - the sign of no defensible argument.

So did Stalin. Influence is not the same thing as virtue.

Solid evidence of all these wild eyed claims of yours will make you a hero of the People's Revolutionary Movement (aka the political Left).

If this stuff is sooooooo veeeeeery compelling why is there no international tribunal to try the Bush kiddies for treason at least, and possibly war crimes???? (Hint: Because most of what you're reading is tilted to find them guilty, just like most of the stuff from the right is designed to exonerate them no matter what. Both are essentially *political* actions, not actions designed to seek justice before the rule-of-law - something you Bush-haters dread.)

I await sane, sensible commentary with actual evidence as opposed to slack-jawed spitting from people's whose entire motive is political not honesty or truth telling.

I propose that - for those that are a credible threat to the US, its interests, or its allies - we need to be prepared to interdict as needed. "Interdict" could mean anything from putting diplomatic pressure on them to invasion and every option in between - on *our* schedule as *we* deem necessary.
My personal preference, BTW, would be to NEVER actually invade any such nation (assuming the target is indeed a nation). I would deal with the Iraqs an Irans of the world quite simply: Destroy their infrastructure - cell towers, sewage plants, electricity generation facilities - and their capacity to produce wealth - their oil facilities for example. See how much energy they have for mischief when there is no A/C, no flushing toilets, no air travel, no commerce, no communications, and thus no wealth. It's relatively benign, can easily be reversed, and does a minimum amount of damage to the civilian population.

And just WHO is president there, Sparky? A limp wristed quasi-Marxist whose never run a thing other than his big mouth. Who's first step in office viz foreign policy was to apologize to the very populations that have made war on innocents for decades. He's an idiot and a menace to liberty.

Oh dear, the radical Muslims used to love us before the war.

Just as we was when Clinton repeatedly refused to even go after him. At least Bush tried.

A pittance compared to the much larger debt in only 8 months that Dear Leader Obama Messiah has inflicted up on the half of us that still pay taxes (more like on our children and grandchildren, actually).

Just because you wouldn't like it done to you does not make it "torture". Torture is listening to the recipients of liberty like you attack the very means of liberty.

Than one I am 100% with you ... if you could just prove they actually listening to me.

A devastated American city that: a) Is not supposed to be the ward of the Federal government and b) Through massive corruption and vast stupidity never took care of its own business to prevent what happened in the first place.

Since I cannot possibly read every single book in print, I breathlessly await these books' "evidence" leading to war crimes charges. Absent that, the authors (and folks who share your views) are just pumping out hot air and venom.

I simply disagree that invading Iraq was prima facia a bad idea. I think there were a number of good reasons to go there beyond WMDs. It frankly would not have been *my* first choice, but I don't think it was a horrible choice. But the only way to get to your desired political outcomes (the promotion of collectivist swine and the other piglets that feed at their trough) is to villify Bush.
Again, all I want is proof in an open court of law that all these wild accusations of yours have merit. If you're right, I'll say so publicly and join your little party of outrage.

I didn't say we should never go back - maybe even the next week - but staying solely to rebuild what we never broke in the first place is sheer lunacy - i.e., Normal left policy.

To the extent this is necessary, of course I support it. But we've gone so much further than this in the Iraq situation. Civil order does not require building schools and getting the A/C running. It requires training a functioning police force and leaving.

Because of our current Idiot President.

A) By using bases in Iraq to do the aforementioned destruction of Iran's infrastructure. Just start "killing" a building a day and see how long it takes the vile Iranian leadership to cave.
B) By using the common border of Iran/Iraq to exfiltrate Iranians to teach them how to overthrow their government and to infiltrate weapons for them to do exactly that.

Not yet, but it can become a big deal, at which time it will be necessary to "adjust" them.

What is Obama's fault is unwillingness to use the very strong lever handed to him by Bush. Worse still, the little weasel is actually apologizing to the very people that are the central problem in the region. It's just unbelievable.

You may have notice that the Democrat Pigs - with the full open support of El Presidente' - are set upon the task of trying to spend trillions on healthcare "reform". This constitutes multi-generational debt lunacy far worse than anything Bush ever did.

Going from strategy to tactics takes time. Bush had to prepare the way - and he did. Pity that his replacement is sitting in his office flying paper airplanes smirking "I won! I won!"

So are today's inactions. All decisions have consequences a no one - not even you self-anointed special thinkers - have exhaustive understanding of whether action- or inaction is more dangerous.

Oh, I dunno. The little multi-kiloton wakeup calls we delivered to Imperial Japan haven't particularly come back to us.

On this we agree. There has to be more to US policy than economic expediency.
<More Droning Snipped>

It still is - we're called "tax payers" and our per capita presence in the nation is declining.

The fire department is not a Federal facility. I have been VERY specific that my objections lie at the Federal level. The states and local municipalities have far more room to act ... and I can move to where things suit me best. This is entirely Constitutional, which the Federal intrusions into our lives is not.

In a Constitutional government, there wouldn't be all that much to "manage" at the federal level.

Oh dear, another carefully reasoned retort.

I have not said they are my "admirers" merely that people have expressed appreciation for my willingness to take on the statists, the collectivists, the Bush haters, and all the other irrational loons that post as you do - because taking you on takes a fairly thick skin.

Yes, my views are ENTIRELY predictable. Start with Locke, go through Smith, Jefferson, Adams (both of them), and Adams. End with Von Hayek and Hazlitt and you'll pretty much be able to predict my response to your silliness.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, your views and actions are entirely predictable, not with who you read or quote, but by your actions. Or, in your case, your non-actions and refusing or inability to contribute.
As usual, you sit by the sidelines and stir up controversy, but aren't willing to do anything else. Coupled with your incessant complaining about how the powers that be are screwing you out of money and continually whining about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket, you personify the epitome of a mouthpiece.
What's entirely ridiculous about your life is that you do absolutely nothing else. You don't vote, didn't vote, for anybody in the last US election and you don't give an iota of your time to trying to change any of the things you complain about. That would involve risk of some type and you're not capable of putting yourself on the line in any way.
You don't contribute anything in the way of woodworking knowledge, content or conjecture and so, it all comes down to the same question. What are you doing here? What kind of man (if you are one) are you? The only time you appear is when there's more political controversy to stir up. Yup, I've said all this before, but I say it for the people that get involved in your inane arguments. If my words can help them remove themselves from your crapola, then I'm satisfied.
Have a lousy day, you flake.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

<SNIP>
In thinking about your (and other Bush-haters') constant venom that old George concocted the whole business because of his Eeeeeeeeevil motives, I wonder how you explain this away:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Clearly, to hold your view, the entire far left, center, and far right where all in cahoots, right? They all conspired to make up a false story just to let W get away with his malicious actions, right? It was the CFR, the Bildenbergs, the Illuminati, the <Conspiracy Theory Of The Moment> that all entered into unholy union to see to it that the US could get some target practice against poor old innocent Sadaam, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, the people that had access to intel from around the world - people of all political persuasions - saw a common theme of threat and real danger. Maybe, just maybe, those stories about Speznaz burying Sadaam's toys in the Bekaa Valley so they would remain unfound by the occupying troops have some merit. Maybe, just maybe, when many people, from many different political persuasions come to more-or-less the exact same conclusions, there is a significant element of truth to the business. Naw, The Messiah and his minions have it right after all - it was a right wing plot so that Bush/Cheney could wantonly invade an country with lilly white leadership to further their oligarchic goals. It's good that Our Dear Leader has thus appropriately apologized....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Hardly a statist on domestic policy. Remember his ill-fated attempts at Social Security and immigration policy? After those two got slapped down he probably said: "Gosh darn it, I'll stick with foreign policy." Except for the Patriot Act of course.

The left, too, has its shibboleths. We on the right object to burning the American flag. Our colleagues on the left object to burning crosses. We don't like abortions, they don't like capital punishment. We think it's a good idea to spit on Iran, they think it's a good idea for Iran to spit on us. We are principled, they are insane.
Diametric differences on a number of issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/g1_think.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Uhhhh, what do you call $700B for the Viagra-For-Elders program? National defense?

No, you on the right are pushy and they are insane ;)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Most people I know on the right don't like burning crosses much either. The Klan has few friends on either side of the aisle.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:46:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"

You mean like Robert Byrd?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apostrohphe's and they're use's, fuck-nozzle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A Fly wrote:

Not interested, dick head.
But if I were interested, its uses not use's, Frog bait!
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Learn to spell it's, fuck-nozzle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A Fly wrote:

His spelling of "its" is correct. Your use of "they're" is wrong.
But don't despair. The law of apostrophes states that "For every inappropriate use of an apostrophe, somewhere in the universe there is another inappropriate use."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the sentence:

it's. Its is possessive. You're best to keep your corrections accurate. There is no way to change their minds, They're just too ...whatever..
...and I keep on teaching.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.