Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing
Because We Carry the Fire?
the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial Day? Just
curious.
John R. Carroll
There is no such thing as the "tomb of the unknown soldier ".
--
John R. Carroll
Califbill
> tomb of the unknown soldier
RBnDFW
They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this year.
Decided he needed a vacation instead.
Bastard
Hawke
Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult of
the military. The military has had far too big a role in the country for
decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII. The
U.S. has no real enemies anymore. The actual level of military threat
against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
is defense of our country alone, we'd be a lot better off. A lot
wealthier too. Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
Hawke
Wes
I always thought it was the "Tomb of the unknowns".
I think those that were never found need a memorial.
Wes
RAM�
news:EsudnbXuBNeHOGHW...@giganews.com:
Until the '60s/'70s when unidentified remains from WW2, Korea, and 'Nam
were interred within it, the sole occupant was an unidentified soldier
from WW1 and the tomb was Officially "The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier".
Now it is referred to as "The Tomb of the Unknowns" by the Media although
Congress may not have voted to change the name.
Eregon
RBnDFW
Obviously, whatever portion of their sacrifice was made for your
liberties was a waste of good blood.
If defense of our borders is priority One, we should have a battallion
or two on the Southern border today.
Instead he sends 1200 National Guardsman.
rangerssuck
When you get to be President, you can send the whole friggin army to
Mexico, if that's what you want to do.
Wes
>> If defense of our borders is priority One, we should have a battallion
>> or two on the Southern border today.
>> Instead he sends 1200 National Guardsman.
>
>When you get to be President, you can send the whole friggin army to
>Mexico, if that's what you want to do.
For a while. Congress will object eventually.
Parts of Congress didn't like Iraq but did not have the balls to stop GWB or put on a
serious attempt.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If defense of our borders is priority One, we should have a battallion
>>> or two on the Southern border today.
>>> Instead he sends 1200 National Guardsman.
>>
>>When you get to be President, you can send the whole friggin army to
>>Mexico, if that's what you want to do.
>
>For a while. Congress will object eventually.
>
>Parts of Congress didn't like Iraq but did not have the balls to stop GWB or put on a
>serious attempt.
>
>Wes
This part?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
--
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
John R. Carroll
What's carved and cast reflects the correct name.
You couldn't possibley miss it unless blind.
AFAIK, the official name has always been the "TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS".
"The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" was common usage, not official.
--
John R. Carroll
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Califbill" <bmcke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:TbadnZ5l_aUnK2HW...@earthlink.com...
Known but to God
Strabo
> On 5/26/2010 8:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
>> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
>>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
>>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
>>> Day? Just curious.
>>
>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
>> year.
>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>
>> Bastard
>
>
> Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult of
> the military. The military has had far too big a role in the country for
> decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII. The
> U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
>
Just virtual enemies I suppose.
You have a lot to learn.
Because We Carry the Fire?
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:ooadnUfNP9OfUGDW...@giganews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Unknowns
It was never officially named, so either one is correct. Read the words for
yourself and then pick the name that best fits.
The Tomb of the Unknowns (also known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,
although it has never been officially named) is a monument dedicated to
American servicemen/women who have died without their remains being
identified.
On November 11, 1920 the United Kingdom had buried one of its unknown
warriors in Westminster Abbey. The same day, France buried the Unknown
Soldier beneath the Arc de Triomphe, and on March 4, 1921, the United States
Congress approved the burial of an unidentified American soldier from World
War I in the plaza of the new Memorial Amphitheater. The tomb's design was
selected in a competition won by architect Lorimer Rich. The sculpture was
by Thomas Hudson Jones.
The white marble sarcophagus has a flat-faced form and is relieved at the
corners and along the sides by neo-classical pilasters, or columns, set into
the surface. The stone was quarried in Marble, Colorado. Sculpted into the
east panel which faces Washington, D.C., are three Greek figures
representing Peace, Victory, and Valor. Inscribed on the western panel of
the Tomb are the words:
“ HERE RESTS IN HONORED GLORY AN AMERICAN SOLDIER KNOWN BUT TO GOD ”
On Memorial Day, 1921, four unknowns were exhumed from four World War I
American cemeteries in France. U.S. Army Sgt. Edward F. Younger, who was
wounded in combat, highly decorated for valor and received the Distinguished
Service Cross in "The Great War" selected the Unknown Soldier of World War I
from four identical caskets at the city hall in Châlons-en-Champagne,
France, on October 24, 1921.[6]
Younger selected the unknown by placing a spray of white roses on one of the
caskets. He chose the third casket from the left. The chosen unknown soldier
was transported to the United States aboard USS Olympia. Those remaining
were interred in the Meuse Argonne Cemetery, France.
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:htjqjj$s84$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I guess Obama would rather just smoke his crack pipe with his homies.
Edward A. Falk
RBnDFW <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this year.
>Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>
>Bastard
Read Snopes. Presidents don't always attend the ceremony personally.
All of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II skipped it from time to time.
In fact, Bush I *never* attended the ceremony.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
Hawke
> Hawke wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 8:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
>>> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
>>>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
>>>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
>>>> Day? Just curious.
>>>
>>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
>>> year.
>>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>>
>>> Bastard
>>
>>
>> Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult
>> of the military. The military has had far too big a role in the
>> country for decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever
>> since WWII. The U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
> >
>
> Just virtual enemies I suppose.
>
> You have a lot to learn.
Perhaps, but nothing in comparison to you. If you had any knowledge of
anything to do with military's around the world you would know what I
said is true. The level of military might that any other nation has is
insignificant compared to the U.S. Had people thought this for one
second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
third rate military organization. The point is compared to the U.S. no
one has a capable military. Our enemies these days are on the level of
sand arabs waving AK-47 in the air. To you that amounts to an enemy. To
anyone who knows anything about the military they don't amount to a sand
flea. They're a joke, which you should understand well.
Hawke
Hawke
Just like you'd rather sit around the yard in a lawn chair drinking 40s
all day long, watching TV, snorting meth, and bitching about how shitty
your life turned out to be.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <htjfpr$pln$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, RBnDFW
> <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
>>year. Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>
>>Bastard
>
> Read Snopes. Presidents don't always attend the ceremony personally.
> All of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II skipped it from time to time. In
> fact, Bush I *never* attended the ceremony.
*Bastard*
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP: Martin Gardner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:htl11d$k31$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
LOL, that wasn't me, that was your mirror!
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:htl1vt$orn$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 05:01:22 +0000, fa...@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <htjfpr$pln$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, RBnDFW
>> <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
>>>year. Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>>
>>>Bastard
>>
>> Read Snopes. Presidents don't always attend the ceremony personally.
>> All of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II skipped it from time to time. In
>> fact, Bush I *never* attended the ceremony.
>
> *Bastard*
>
So that makes 0bama the Rat Bastard.
Lewis Hartswick
> Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult of
> the military. The military has had far too big a role in the country for
> decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII. The
> U.S. has no real enemies anymore. The actual level of military threat
> against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
> has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
> military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
> is defense of our country alone, we'd be a lot better off. A lot
> wealthier too. Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
> graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
> young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> Hawke
Now if I could remember how I "plonked" ol whatisname a while
ago I need to do another one right here. :-(
...lew...
Hawke
Luckily for me I don't need to plonk you. I just recognize your name and
know that you are one of those right wing dorks that doesn't know jack
shit about anything. That means I don't bother reading what you write,
because it's always just what you hear coming out of the mouths of from
right wing media demagogues.
Hawke
RBnDFW
> In article <htjfpr$pln$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> RBnDFW <burkh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this year.
>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>
>> Bastard
>
> Read Snopes. Presidents don't always attend the ceremony personally.
> All of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II skipped it from time to time.
> In fact, Bush I *never* attended the ceremony.
Bush 1, a decorated war hero, was entitled to miss some.
Bush 2 missed 2002, when he substituted the D-Day cemetery at Normandy.
Jeff M
Both Bushes skipped wreath-laying ceremonies at the Tomb, and Reagan
missed fully half of the eight occasions during his presidency.
pyotr filipivich
<NoS...@NoThanks.org> reported Elvis on Fri, 28 May 2010 10:04:08
-0500 in misc.survivalism:
And ...? There wasn't any real question in the minds of those to
whom the Arlington ceremony was important, that Reagan or the Bushes
took it seriously.
But the Obama has gone from being one who can do no wrong, to
someone who can do nothing right. [Old joke: Person A is on fishing
trip, walks out on the lake to retrieve a hat. Newspaper Headline "A
can't swim"]
But in this case, the Obama has demonstrated a long list of
choices which show that he is not concerned with the sort of things
that those outside the beltway, or outside his world view, consider
important. Jobs, growing the economy, stopping the oil slick from
getting into the marshlands of the gulf coast. Or remembering and
respecting those who have served and died to protect the country.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Jeff M
No, it shows that many of these criticisms of Obama are utterly
hypocritical. Even on major issues such as deficit spending or the
growth of federal power, these rightards remained mute for eight years
as Bush ran wild, but apparently re-discovered their consciences only
after Obama was elected, and so suddenly began piously and strenuously
objecting to that which had left them unruffled previously, between
their ridiculous shouts of "death panels!" and "where's the birth
certificate?!" These criticisms of Obama for skipping the Memorial day
ceremony are just more of the same sort of petty, hypocritical,
ideologically motivated crap we expect from that type.
Ray Keller
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:OtednUU5tbqLYmLW...@giganews.com...
> same sort of petty, hypocritical, ideologically motivated crap we expect
> from that type.
Typical leftard coolaid drinker
All mouth and no balls
William Wixon
"Ray Keller" <rayk...@rnsmte.com> wrote in message
news:4c0014a0$0$6166$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
just curious, how does one demonstrate on a usenet discussion group that
they have balls? is it he who hurls the most effective insults?
b.w.
Hawke
Typical rightard response; no balls, a big mouth, and supports every war
but never fights in any.
Hawke
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:IpSdnd237Ij0RmLW...@giganews.com...
Why is Obama always striving to be just like Bush? I thought he was about
hope and change, or some such nursery rhyme.
Jeff M
Yep, in the more substantial ways that really matter, Obama is turning
out to be pretty much "Bush Lite." I think the awesome responsibilities
of the office, combined with the particularly nasty sh*t sandwich handed
over to him in his first days, have chastened him and made him shy away
from trying for anything more than incremental change. Even the much
ballyhooed and feared health care reform was just minor tinkering at the
margins, not anything new, visionary or reformative.
Michael A. Terrell
Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
down everyone's throat.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Jeff M
That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
Michael A. Terrell
Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
Gunner Asch
So you are then claiming that the Democrats are responsible for the
Health Care Reform and the Republicans had no hand in it.
We shall rememember your admission of guilt when the People come to kill
you and all the rest of the Democrats.
<VBG>
Gunner
--
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Jeff M
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>>> down everyone's throat.
>>
>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>
>
> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
Gee, a non sequiter and a personal jibe. I guess that's what passes for
debate or discussion these days. Oh well.
Michael A. Terrell
I'm sorry if you can't find a three year old to debate.
Gunner Asch
It appears that you are unable to handle the truth.
But then..you are a Leftwinger.
Shrug
Hawke
They didn't know that. They thought they were supposed to have things
the way they wanted no matter who won the election. Much to their
surprise and distaste Obama is doing things a lot different than the way
Bush did them. Say what you will about Obama but the accomplishments are
starting to accumulate. First health care reform passes, then the
economic stimulus bill passes, and now a financial reform bill is going
to pass by July 4th. Those are concrete accomplishments that are going
up on the scoreboard. Obama is on his way to being a very good
president. Compare him all you like with Bush. Bush comes out on the
bottom every way you slice it. But then Bush was a republican so you
expect a lousy record, after all that is their record, over promising
and under delivering. Time after time after time.
Hawke
Hawke
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>>> down everyone's throat.
>>
>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>
>
> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
Here's another guy who is going to need the reforms that Obama passed
very, very badly. But is crying and whining about how awful it is that
Obama made things better...for him. That's the definition of dumb.
Hawke
Hawke
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 5/29/2010 2:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>>>>> down everyone's throat.
>>>>
>>>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>>>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>>>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>>>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>>>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>>>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
>>> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
>>
>> Gee, a non sequiter and a personal jibe. I guess that's what passes for
>> debate or discussion these days. Oh well.
>
>
> I'm sorry if you can't find a three year old to debate.
Close enough. He found you, an old man with the brain of a three year old.
Hawke
Hawke
> So you are then claiming that the Democrats are responsible for the
> Health Care Reform and the Republicans had no hand in it.
>
> We shall rememember your admission of guilt when the People come to kill
> you and all the rest of the Democrats.
>
> <VBG>
>
> Gunner
>
Yeah, we'll be anxiously waiting for that day. But by then we'll have
been dead of old age in our graves for years.
Hawke
Jeff M
>
> Jeff M wrote:
>>
>> On 5/29/2010 2:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>>>>> down everyone's throat.
>>>>
>>>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>>>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>>>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>>>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>>>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>>>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
>>> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
>>
>> Gee, a non sequiter and a personal jibe. I guess that's what passes for
>> debate or discussion these days. Oh well.
>
>
> I'm sorry if you can't find a three year old to debate.
No, you found me instead.
Gunner Asch
As he said...a three year old...
Shall not be infringed
> RAM³ wrote:
> > "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in
> >news:EsudnbXuBNeHOGHW...@giganews.com:
>
> >> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
> >>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
> >>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
> >>> Day? Just curious.
>
>
> > Until the '60s/'70s when unidentified remains from WW2, Korea, and
> > 'Nam were interred within it, the sole occupant was an unidentified
> > soldier from WW1 and the tomb was Officially "The Tomb of the Unknown
> > Soldier".
>
> > Now it is referred to as "The Tomb of the Unknowns" by the Media
> > although Congress may not have voted to change the name.
>
> What's carved and cast reflects the correct name.
> You couldn't possibley miss it unless blind.
> AFAIK, the official name has always been the "TOMB OF THE UNKNOWNS".
> "The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" was common usage, not official.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
Attention All Hands!
Attention All Hands!
Common usage is to be used no more. Only official usage is condoned.
By order of John Caroll, Commandant, Misc.Survivalism
Shall not be infringed
> On 5/26/2010 8:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
>
> > Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
> >> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
> >> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
> >> Day? Just curious.
>
> > year.
> > Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>
> > Bastard
>
> the military.
You sound just like a former Secy of State, Madeleine not All so
bright. Her Diplomacy failed so often that Clinton had to keep the
military constantly deployed.
> The military has had far too big a role in the country for
> decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII.
Huh? As a former instrument of national policy I could only do as my
civilian masters wished.
Do you know something I don't know?
> The
> U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
Is that so?
> The actual level of military threat
> against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
> has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
> military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
> is defense of our country alone, we'd be a lot better off.
But we would have to break a lot of treaties our democrat presidents
have gotten us into.
And you leftists don't like breaking treaties, do you?
> A lot
> wealthier too.
The savings would be squandered on social programs like was with the
Peace Dividend that Reagan provided the world.
> Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
> graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
> young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> Hawke
How about the ceremony many of us through every April 15th? Or
wouldn't you know anything about that?
Shall not be infringed
> Hawke wrote:
> > On 5/26/2010 8:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
> >> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
> >>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
> >>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
> >>> Day? Just curious.
>
> >> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
> >> year.
> >> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>
> >> Bastard
>
> > Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult of
> > decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII. The
> > U.S. has no real enemies anymore. The actual level of military threat
> > against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
> > has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
> > military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
> > wealthier too. Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
> > graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
> > young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> liberties was a waste of good blood.
>
> If defense of our borders is priority One, we should have a battallion
> or two on the Southern border today.
> Instead he sends 1200 National Guardsman.
They'll spend the 1st week looking for the PX that 0bama didn't
provide.
Shall not be infringed
> On 5/26/2010 9:20 PM, Strabo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hawke wrote:
> >> On 5/26/2010 8:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
> >>> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
> >>>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
> >>>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
> >>>> Day? Just curious.
>
> >>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
> >>> year.
> >>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>
> >>> Bastard
>
> >> Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult
> >> of the military. The military has had far too big a role in the
> >> country for decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever
> >> since WWII. The U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
>
>
> > You have a lot to learn.
>
> Perhaps, but nothing in comparison to you. If you had any knowledge of
> anything to do with military's around the world you would know what I
> said is true.
I thought smoking opium was illegal in America?
> The level of military might that any other nation has is
> insignificant compared to the U.S.
Is that a bad thing?
> Had people thought this for one
> second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
> danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
> of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
> third rate military organization.
So how come Hans Blix was deterred from his mission?
Mission Unaccomplished!
> The point is compared to the U.S. no
> one has a capable military.
Your ignorance is astounding. Are you truly homo sapien?
> Our enemies these days are on the level of
> sand arabs waving AK-47 in the air. To you that amounts to an enemy. To
> anyone who knows anything about the military they don't amount to a sand
> flea. They're a joke, which you should understand well.
>
> Hawke
How conveniently you forget the missing Los Alamos hard drives, and
the Clinton/Loral transfer of MIRV technology to the Chinese for a
campaign contribution.
Shall not be infringed
Oh, bullshit. He spent money like a drunken sailor. And 0bama spends
it like the entire drunken 7th Fleet.
Shall not be infringed
Indeed. 0bama passed them very, very badly.
And you complain about my ability to read.
Shall not be infringed
> Yeah, we'll be anxiously waiting for that day. But by then we'll have
> been dead of old age in our graves for years.
>
> Hawke
So 0bama isn't going to let you live forever?
Hawke
Nope. But he is going to make sure that regardless of my financial
condition I'll be able to get a good quality of health care. That's good
enough for me. If I have plenty of money then I can purchase a higher
level of health care but at least I will be able to count on a good
level of care and won't have to worry about being bankrupted because of
a health problem.
Hawke
Hawke
>>> You have a lot to learn.
>>
>> Perhaps, but nothing in comparison to you. If you had any knowledge of
>> anything to do with military's around the world you would know what I
>> said is true.
>
> I thought smoking opium was illegal in America?
It is, which is why I don't have any. You probably think that's okay.
While you claim you don't, in reality you want big government. If you
were really against it you would not think it was right the government
telling me I can't do what I want with my own body. Wish I did have some
though. I've been having a lot of aches and pains. A bit of opium would
probably help a lot.
>> The level of military might that any other nation has is
>> insignificant compared to the U.S.
>
> Is that a bad thing?
I thought you understood the military. But you ask a question that
proves you don't. So the answer is yes it is a bad thing to have a
military that makes all others insignificant. You want a military that
is like the three bears, just the right amount. Not big enough and you
invite attack. Too big and you waste money and wind up going to war
unnecessarily. Our military is a giant. We're wasting our tax money,
actually our borrowed money, going into debt to have a military we can't
afford. That's stupid.
>> Had people thought this for one
>> second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
>> danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
>> of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
>> third rate military organization.
>
> So how come Hans Blix was deterred from his mission?
>
> Mission Unaccomplished!
Hans Blix had nothing to do with the size and capability of the Iraqi
military. Iraq's military was seriously degraded after the Gulf War and
it was not a threat to anyone. Especially not to the U.S.
>> The point is compared to the U.S. no
>> one has a capable military.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding. Are you truly homo sapien?
You're the one who has no clue about the military. Know how much the
next ten biggest nations spend on their military's? All you know is what
you hear from other uninformed folk.
>> Our enemies these days are on the level of
>> sand arabs waving AK-47 in the air. To you that amounts to an enemy. To
>> anyone who knows anything about the military they don't amount to a sand
>> flea. They're a joke, which you should understand well.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> How conveniently you forget the missing Los Alamos hard drives, and
> the Clinton/Loral transfer of MIRV technology to the Chinese for a
> campaign contribution.
How foolish of you to think that I don't know all about that story.
China is still years behind the U.S. when it comes to missile technology
and nuclear arms. The best they can hope for it parity with us and that
would leave them in the same place as the Russians, having enough
nuclear weapons to get themselves destroyed but unable to accomplish
anything of value. Every time you write something you show that you know
very little about the military but you keep trying to contradict someone
who clearly knows a lot more than you. Which explains why you aren't
learning.
Hawke
Hawke
> You sound just like a former Secy of State, Madeleine not All so
> bright. Her Diplomacy failed so often that Clinton had to keep the
> military constantly deployed.
At least we weren't at war and getting a lot of people killed. I just
saw we passed the 1,000 dead mark in Afghanistan this week. In Iraq the
casualties were over 4,000 dead and 25,000 wounded. That adds up to
30,000 casualties in that war. Add up the dead and wounded in both wars
and it's a lot of dead and hurt young people. Now how many did Albright
and Clinton get killed?
>> The military has had far too big a role in the country for
>> decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII.
>
> Huh? As a former instrument of national policy I could only do as my
> civilian masters wished.
>
> Do you know something I don't know?
Of course I do. You don't know that the military plays a rather large
role in the course our civilian leaders take? I guess you didn't know
that the Pentagon is one of the biggest influences on our government.
When the military recommends we take military action you think that
doesn't have any effect on what the commander and chief decides? Like I
said, the military is way too big and way too influential on the
civilian government.
>> The
>> U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
>
> Is that so?
Yes it is. Russia has only 135 million people. It's military can't
compete with ours. Our economy dwarfs theirs. They don't have the money
to buy the military to go against ours. China spends less than half what
we do. Their military is puny compared to ours. The other nations with
big military's are all allies. So there you go. We have no one of any
size to even fight anymore. Iran? They fought Iraq for eight years and
it was a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq the first time in a week. So you
see, it's like I said. No real enemies.
>> The actual level of military threat
>> against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
>> has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
>> military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
>> is defense of our country alone, we'd be a lot better off.
>
> But we would have to break a lot of treaties our democrat presidents
> have gotten us into.
>
> And you leftists don't like breaking treaties, do you?
In the last 30 years most of them we've had republican presidents so
more treaties are the work of republicans. Treaties are just like laws
and when they become obsolete they should be ended. I can tell you we
could end our treaties where we keep troops in Okinawa, in Germany, and
in South Korea, and they would be just fine without us there.
>> A lot
>> wealthier too.
>
> The savings would be squandered on social programs like was with the
> Peace Dividend that Reagan provided the world.
Since we would squander the savings by not spending it on the military
then we should just go on spending it on a military that we don't
actually need? Is that your logic? Waste it on the military if we're
going to waste it? What you overlook is that if we stopped spending on
the military we could simply collect less in taxes. I would think you
would be for that.
>> Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
>> graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
>> young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> How about the ceremony many of us through every April 15th? Or
> wouldn't you know anything about that?
You expect to pay for your country's infrastructure that you use don't
you? I know you use the services of fire, police, sewage treatment,
roads, bridges, dams, schools, parents on Medicare, Social Security,
food safety, oil company regulation, etc. etc. That is what April 15 is
about. Paying your country's bills. If you didn't pay for those things
collectively you would just spend your money on them individually, and
you would spend more and get less. So you have no argument there. Don't
want to pay your share for the country? Move to Mexico. It doesn't take
until April 15 for them to pay for what the government does for their
people. It probably takes them less than a month. But then you see what
you get for such a cheap price.
Hawke
pyotr filipivich
<gunne...@gmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 29 May 2010 17:48:12
-0700 in misc.survivalism:
>On Sat, 29 May 2010 18:03:57 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On 5/29/2010 4:23 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2010 2:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>>>>>>> down everyone's throat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>>>>>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>>>>>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>>>>>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>>>>>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>>>>>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
>>>>> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, a non sequiter and a personal jibe. I guess that's what passes for
>>>> debate or discussion these days. Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry if you can't find a three year old to debate.
>>
>>No, you found me instead.
>
>As he said...a three year old...
I have more respect for a three year old. They also have an
excuse - they really do not know.
>
>
>Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Ray Keller
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1i1306tkvsic8aol5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:11:11 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
>>On 5/29/2010 2:50 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform'
>>>>> package
>>>>> down everyone's throat.
>>>>
>>>> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
>>>> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
>>>> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
>>>> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
>>>> the final bill. No "ramrodding," just democracy, and a bunch of sore
>>>> losers. Losing an election has consequences, you know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yawn. A lie by any other name is still a lie. I'll bet you can't
>>> wait for your Obamacare lobotomy.
>>
>>Gee, a non sequiter and a personal jibe. I guess that's what passes for
>>debate or discussion these days. Oh well.
>
>
> It appears that you are unable to handle the truth.
>
> But then..you are a Leftwinger.
>
> Shrug
>
> Gunner
>
Soon to be a dead leftwinger
pyotr filipivich
infringed <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 29
May 2010 18:54:58 -0700 (PDT) in misc.survivalism:
Now you take that back. That is very insulting. For starters
Drunken Sailors are spending their own money, and for seconds, they
are a) getting what they perceive to be of value and b) really doing
something to stimulate the economy.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
<VBG>
There is that, isnt there......<VBG>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFi7bWkyRpA
Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt7fRYpf2ys&feature=related
<VBG>
Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mte8wxp3_nE
Michael A. Terrell
Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
Jeff M
[snip]
> Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
The juvenile name calling and other displays of immaturity on this NG by
alleged adults are tiresome. I suppose there are right wingers capable
of sustaining and expressing a coherent thought or two; there just
aren't many such here. Instead, we are too often treated to the
inanities of the troglodyte branch of that family, who are capable of
little more than inarticulate grunting. Their object, to the extent
they can be said to have the capacity to actually form one, is merely to
prevent and derail any meaningful discussion through personal insults.
In the dim recesses behind their low, sloping foreheads, they sense that
there are things going on that they cannot really grasp and certainly
cannot meaningfully participate in, whenever normal people discuss
actual ideas with the least hint of complexity or subtlety. Any such
normal display of basic intellectual capacity is beyond their ken, and
it triggers their primal fear/aggression response, usually resulting in
primitive attempts at verbal lashing out, typically in a
childish-sounding insult that a normal seven year old might be expected
to use (scatological or crudely sexual references). Occasionally, it
even escalates to implications of violence (death threats, "culling").
However, the fear component of the response usually inhibits any actual
or extreme violence.
This pattern emerges whenever schoolyard bullies target the smart or
nerdy kid for applying himself to his studies, or when protesters shout
down a speaker at a political event. The intentional triggering of the
fear/aggression response within the intellectually weak has even been
adopted as a strategy by political consultants, to manipulate and
control the troglodytes who still walk among us. It also explains why
so many here are so quick to try to trash meaningful any discussion and
degenerate them into exchanges of personal insults, instead. In short,
they sense that they can't keep up, and they are more comfortable
reacting with insults rather than ideas. Also, they are stoopid
poopy-heads.
Ray Keller
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:P7ydnTdZbtFMxJ_R...@giganews.com...
> On 5/30/2010 5:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> [snip]
>> Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
>
> The juvenile name calling and other displays of immaturity on this NG by
> alleged adults are tiresome.
So When are you going to show up in Arizona pussyboi
Jeff M
Huh? What makes you think I'm going to Arizona? I've got orders for a
week of training in California next month, but no plans to visit
Arizona. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
Shall not be infringed
> >>> You have a lot to learn.
>
> >> Perhaps, but nothing in comparison to you. If you had any knowledge of
> >> anything to do with military's around the world you would know what I
> >> said is true.
>
> > I thought smoking opium was illegal in America?
>
> It is, which is why I don't have any. You probably think that's okay.
> While you claim you don't, in reality you want big government. If you
> were really against it you would not think it was right the government
> telling me I can't do what I want with my own body. Wish I did have some
> though. I've been having a lot of aches and pains. A bit of opium would
> probably help a lot.
It's like this: We have a few libertarians in our country. They want
to fuck themselves up, and that's fine with me. Then we have quite a
few liberals in our country. Some of them are very much like
libertarians and want to put things in their bodies that will hurt
them. And most liberals pity the folks who fuck themselves up with
drugs, and want to send them all to the Betty Ford clinic. Then we
have some conservatives. They tend to go to work, pay their bills,
and mind their own business. But the liberals want the conservatives
to pay the Betty Ford Clinic to repair the fucked up druggies. You
see?
So until we live in that libertarian utopia where if you fuck yourself
up you have no one to blame but yourself, and no one to fix it but
yourself, we that pay the bill will just have to outlaw opium. Sorry.
Can't you use your health care system for those aches and pains?
> >> The level of military might that any other nation has is
> >> insignificant compared to the U.S.
>
> > Is that a bad thing?
>
> I thought you understood the military.
Intimately.
> But you ask a question that proves you don't.
Huh?
> So the answer is yes it is a bad thing to have a
> military that makes all others insignificant. You want a military that
> is like the three bears, just the right amount. Not big enough and you
> invite attack. Too big and you waste money and wind up going to war
> unnecessarily.
Thank you for explaining your ignorance.
The first job, and some say the only job, of the federal government is
the protection of our nation. Therefore the tax money spent on
defense is a mandate, not a waste. It can be said that all other
federal spending not condoned in the Constitution is the waste. Do
you want to go down that road?
We have a state department. They are charged with diplomacy. And
when they fail at their job...
War. Whether war is necessary or not is >entirely< the decision of
our civil masters, not the military.
Your claim that the American military runs rogue around the plantet
starting wars is an outright lie.
More often than not, our Democrat masters are the ones to start
international fights. The military will do as ordered.
Finally, I've distilled your thoughts and desiresof having a military
that is "just the right size" as absurd. This is typical Democrat
meddling so as to give the other side a "fair fight." You didn't use
those exact words, but if that is not what you meant you can reply
saying so. For example, 0bama telegraphs our rules of engagements to
the Jihadis so that they can counter our efforts. Thanks a lot
Barak. You just killed more of our soldiers. Vietnam should stand as
a testament to political meddling. The politicians forgot to realize
that it was their diplomacy that failed. Then they meddle and make
the military fail, too.
> Our military is a giant. We're wasting our tax money,
> actually our borrowed money, going into debt to have a military we can't
> afford. That's stupid.
Then tax only the amount needed for our standing Army of whatever the
desired size. And tax no more.
Can you do that?
Or do you want to give away clean needles for heroin users? Do you
want clean heroin, doctor or nurse administered, for addicted pregnant
females so that they and their babies don't have to go through
withdrawal?
Do you want Medicaid to pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for sex
offenders?
I'd rather be taxed for the next generation stealth fighter, smart
bombs, and armor for our troops.
I'd rather be taxed for a fence on our southern border and military to
defend it.
> >> Had people thought this for one
> >> second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
> >> danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
> >> of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
> >> third rate military organization.
>
> > So how come Hans Blix was deterred from his mission?
>
> > Mission Unaccomplished!
>
> Hans Blix had nothing to do with the size and capability of the Iraqi
> military. Iraq's military was seriously degraded after the Gulf War and
> it was not a threat to anyone. Especially not to the U.S.
So Hans just pushed right past the seriously degraded Iraqi military
that wasn't a threat to anyone and accomplished all of his UN
sanctioned inspections???
I must have missed all that. Kindly provide the cite. I really,
really, really would like to know.
> >> The point is compared to the U.S. no
> >> one has a capable military.
>
> > Your ignorance is astounding. Are you truly homo sapien?
>
> You're the one who has no clue about the military.
WHAT???
> Know how much the
> next ten biggest nations spend on their military's? All you know is what
> you hear from other uninformed folk.
Then correct me.
List them here, and list the foreign military aid paid for you and me.
I'm waiting.
> >> Our enemies these days are on the level of
> >> sand arabs waving AK-47 in the air. To you that amounts to an enemy. To
> >> anyone who knows anything about the military they don't amount to a sand
> >> flea. They're a joke, which you should understand well.
>
> >> Hawke
>
> > How conveniently you forget the missing Los Alamos hard drives, and
> > the Clinton/Loral transfer of MIRV technology to the Chinese for a
> > campaign contribution.
>
> How foolish of you to think that I don't know all about that story.
Story???
It's History. We're in an arms race and 0bama doesn't know it.
> China is still years behind the U.S. when it comes to missile technology
> and nuclear arms. The best they can hope for it parity with us and that
> would leave them in the same place as the Russians, having enough
> nuclear weapons to get themselves destroyed but unable to accomplish
> anything of value.
Bullshit. All they have to do is hold us at bay while they take
Korea, Japan or anything else they want in Asia or Australia or the
Indian sub-continent.
> Every time you write something you show that you know
> very little about the military but you keep trying to contradict someone
> who clearly knows a lot more than you.
Who would that be?
> Which explains why you aren't learning.
>
> Hawke
Teach me about China's sub capabilities.
Shall not be infringed
> On 5/27/2010 7:27 AM, Lewis Hartswick wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hawke wrote:
> >> Good move by Obama. It's about time we stopped the homage to the cult
> >> country for decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever
> >> military threat against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we
> >> start. No country has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we
> >> stop making everything military so important and return the military
> >> to it's proper role, which is defense of our country alone, we'd be a
> >> laying wreaths on graves is a good first step. An even better one
> >> would be to stop sending young men and women to die for nothing like
> >> they are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> >> Hawke
>
> > ago I need to do another one right here. :-(
> > ...lew...
>
> Luckily for me I don't need to plonk you. I just recognize your name and
> know that you are one of those right wing dorks that doesn't know jack
> shit about anything. That means I don't bother reading what you write,
> because it's always just what you hear coming out of the mouths of from
> right wing media demagogues.
>
> Hawke
I wish you could be so lucky with me.
Ray Keller
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:9dudnc0r_c7AGJ_R...@giganews.com...
ROTFLMAO
Pussyboi elitest leftard coward cant be that smart if he doesn't remember
Jeff M
>
>
> "Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
> news:9dudnc0r_c7AGJ_R...@giganews.com...
>> On 5/30/2010 10:20 AM, Ray Keller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
>>> news:P7ydnTdZbtFMxJ_R...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 5/30/2010 5:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> The juvenile name calling and other displays of immaturity on this NG
>>>> by alleged adults are tiresome.
>>>
>>> So When are you going to show up in Arizona pussyboi
>>
>> Huh? What makes you think I'm going to Arizona? I've got orders for a
>> week of training in California next month, but no plans to visit
>> Arizona. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
>
> ROTFLMAO
> Pussyboi elitest leftard coward cant be that smart if he doesn't remember
Obviously, there is something you'd like me to remember, if you're not
suffering from confusion yourself. Apparently, it's important enough to
you that you keep mentioning it, and so trivial to me that, assuming it
has anything to do with me at all to begin with, I've long since
forgotten whatever it was. So let's have it. What's on your mind? WTF
does Arizona have to do with me?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> China spends less than half what we do. Their military is puny compared
> to ours.
"Less than half???" 11.7429949% for the official figures. The U.S.
spends more than the next largest budgeted 11 nations on earth for our
military...
"The Chinese government's published 2010 military budget is US$77.95
billion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People%
27s_Republic_of_China
"For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department
of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas
contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP: Art Linkletter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
>On 5/30/2010 5:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>[snip]
>> Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
>
>The juvenile name calling and other displays of immaturity on this NG by
>alleged adults are tiresome.
Indeed it is.
However...as long as you and the rest of your mentally ill Leftwing
jerkoffs keep it up...you will continued to be treated the way you are.
The rest of your sniveling buffoonery is nothing more than ass
scratching and whimpering that we dont give your idiocy more credit.
Frankly old chump....we have had nearly 50 yrs of control of our
government by Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks and look at where its
has gotten us. We are in the Great Depression Part 2, swirling around
the toilet bowl and about to go down the drain...thankyouveddyveddymuch.
Your never ending incrimental bits and nibbles have caused both the
nation to be at serious serious risk..and the People to finally start to
open their eyes and wonder what the fuck happened as they are evicted
from their homes, or their now unemployed and foreclosed on children and
families are forced to move back in with Grandma and Grandpa because
they now have no place to live..or work.
Sonny...there is a tipping point to every motion..and we are fast
approaching it. In less than 2 yrs..it will happen..and the People will
arm themselves and simply come out and kill you and yours.
You have ruined their dreams, their nation and their lives..and they are
becoming really really really pissed.
Yet you keep blithering on and on like a deaf and blind old person who
has stepped out into the street in front of an oncoming bus.
When it arrives..there will be no pity, no angst, no "compromise". It
will kill you and pass on.
Think Im crazy for saying this? <VBG>.
Time will indeed tell..and you have less than 24 months to live.
You may hide, you may run, but when the People finally get tired of your
shit..and the shit of your fellow Leftwingers...all bets are off.
Shrug. And frankly...I dont care if you live or die, anymore.
Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
> After your boy gunner didn't show up for a meeting that he called, do
> you really think that anyone takes you guys silly threats seriously
> anymore? Grown-ups think that such behavior is childish and don't waste
> much time on children. Hence...
>
> Plonk
http://www.cracked.com/article_16605_8-most-obnoxious-internet-
commenters.html
#7. The Macho Man
This guy shows up commenting on any video or news story that involves a
fist fight or confrontation. He's quick to remind us of what a badass he
is in the real world, and is quick to make physical threats ("You want to
come to Jersey and say that to my face??!?!?!").
Shall not be infringed
> > You sound just like a former Secy of State, Madeleine not All so
> > bright. Her Diplomacy failed so often that Clinton had to keep the
> > military constantly deployed.
>
> At least we weren't at war and getting a lot of people killed. I just
> saw we passed the 1,000 dead mark in Afghanistan this week. In Iraq the
> casualties were over 4,000 dead and 25,000 wounded. That adds up to
> 30,000 casualties in that war. Add up the dead and wounded in both wars
> and it's a lot of dead and hurt young people. Now how many did Albright
> and Clinton get killed?
Clinton almost got them all killed. His guy, Wesley Clark got
outmaneuvered by the Russians in the FY, and Clark wanted to attack
the Russians starting WW-III. A British officer made him sit down and
shut up. We had absolutely no business in the FY.
> >> The military has had far too big a role in the country for
> >> decades. It has kept us in a virtual state of war ever since WWII.
>
> > Huh? As a former instrument of national policy I could only do as my
> > civilian masters wished.
>
> > Do you know something I don't know?
>
> Of course I do. You don't know that the military plays a rather large
> role in the course our civilian leaders take? I guess you didn't know
> that the Pentagon is one of the biggest influences on our government.
> When the military recommends we take military action you think that
> doesn't have any effect on what the commander and chief decides? Like I
> said, the military is way too big and way too influential on the
> civilian government.
Huh? Curly Suckmudgeon ad Winston Smith say only all of the congress
can declare war. And you lay it all at the feet of the commander in
chief.
Yeh, I guess you do know things I don't know. You know wrong things.
> >> The
> >> U.S. has no real enemies anymore.
>
> > Is that so?
>
> Yes it is. Russia has only 135 million people.
They don't have open borders, do they?
> It's military can't compete with ours.
So why sign a treaty?
> Our economy dwarfs theirs.
Our consumer debt dwarfs theirs.
> They don't have the money
> to buy the military to go against ours.
When they decide to, they'll curtail domestic spending just as they've
always done.
> China spends less than half what we do.
Their military manufacturers are state owned. Of course if 0bama were
to nationalize Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrup
Grumman, Raytheon, Honeywell, ITT, and AM General, he could make the
profit component of the cost go away, but then, he couldn't afford
unions wages, either. I wonder if the unions would like to be
enslaved as the chinese workers are?
> Their military is puny compared to ours.
Puny? Perhaps you should define new terms, or at least as you
understand them.
Active Reserve Para Total
TotPerCap ActivePerCap
China A 3,440,000 1,200,000 4,100,000 8,740,000
6.5 2.6
USA A 1,473,900 1,458,500 453,000 3,385,400
10.9 4.8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
> The other nations with big military's are all allies.
Like Israel? 0bama is seeing to it that they are not allies much
longer.
> So there you go. We have no one of any
> size to even fight anymore. Iran? They fought Iraq for eight years and
> it was a stalemate. We destroyed Iraq the first time in a week. So you
> see, it's like I said. No real enemies.
Of course, you are correct in your own mind.
> >> The actual level of military threat
> >> against us is minor. The only wars we have are ones we start. No country
> >> has been militarily hostile to us in years. If we stop making everything
> >> military so important and return the military to it's proper role, which
> >> is defense of our country alone, we'd be a lot better off.
>
> > But we would have to break a lot of treaties our democrat presidents
> > have gotten us into.
>
> > And you leftists don't like breaking treaties, do you?
>
> In the last 30 years most of them we've had republican presidents so
> more treaties are the work of republicans. Treaties are just like laws
> and when they become obsolete they should be ended. I can tell you we
> could end our treaties where we keep troops in Okinawa, in Germany, and
> in South Korea, and they would be just fine without us there.
Let 0bama know. He's got troops in Iraq, too.
> >> A lot
> >> wealthier too.
>
> > The savings would be squandered on social programs like was with the
> > Peace Dividend that Reagan provided the world.
>
> Since we would squander the savings by not spending it on the military
> then we should just go on spending it on a military that we don't
> actually need? Is that your logic? Waste it on the military if we're
> going to waste it? What you overlook is that if we stopped spending on
> the military we could simply collect less in taxes. I would think you
> would be for that.
The Peace Dividend was less spending on the military. And it was
squandered on domestic social programs that merely perpetuate
dependent people.
I guess I should define each new term as I introduce it to our new
found military expert.
> >> Not going through ceremonies like laying wreaths on
> >> graves is a good first step. An even better one would be to stop sending
> >> young men and women to die for nothing like they are doing in Afghanistan.
>
> >> Hawke
>
> > How about the ceremony many of us through every April 15th? Or
> > wouldn't you know anything about that?
>
> You expect to pay for your country's infrastructure that you use don't
> you? I know you use the services of fire, police, sewage treatment,
> roads, bridges, dams,
I do not object to spending on infrastructure that is available for
everyone.
> schools, parents on Medicare, Social Security,
I am capable of paying for my children's education. I am capable of
getting health care for myself and my family. My mother had
healthcare until Medicare made it redundant and expensive.
> food safety, oil company regulation, etc. etc.
My father worked in food safety. I used to get a kick out of reading
his manuals, especially the ingredients allowable in bologna, hot
dogs, franks, weiners, brats, sausage, etc, and some of the
distinctions between them.
> That is what April 15 is
> about. Paying your country's bills. If you didn't pay for those things
> collectively you would just spend your money on them individually, and
> you would spend more and get less. So you have no argument there. Don't
> want to pay your share for the country? Move to Mexico. It doesn't take
> until April 15 for them to pay for what the government does for their
> people. It probably takes them less than a month. But then you see what
> you get for such a cheap price.
>
> Hawke
You move to Mexico.
You ignore the crisis in births to unwed mothers where the entire bill
is footed by the taxpayers, often for life, often creating multi-
generational welfare families.
You ignore the crisis in agriculture where the largest single spending
bill is ag welfare.
You ignore the crisis in union member health-care, where union bosses
took money and promised to use it to pay for member health care but
instead used it to pay for 0bama's election. Now you will pay again
for their health care that you already payed for in the purchase price
of your vehicle.
Shall not be infringed
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 22:37:54 -0700, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net>
> wrote:
>
> > China spends less than half what we do. Their military is puny compared
> > to ours.
>
> "Less than half???" 11.7429949% for the official figures. The U.S.
> spends more than the next largest budgeted 11 nations on earth for our
> military...
>
> "The Chinese government's published 2010 military budget is US$77.95
> billion"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People%
> 27s_Republic_of_China
>
> "For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department
> of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas
> contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> RIP: Art Linkletter
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squirelly, remove the profit component and the union wage component of
our military contractors as China has.
Shall not be infringed
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Shall not be
> infringed <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Sat, 29
Dammit! I hate it when I'm wrong.
I take it back.
> --
> pyotr filipivich.
> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shall not be infringed
Ah, wrong. Bankruptcy has not been taken off of the table. Just like
now, you have to spend everything you've made over your life time
before the gov't pays for your end of life care.
Hawke
> It's like this: We have a few libertarians in our country. They want
> to fuck themselves up, and that's fine with me. Then we have quite a
> few liberals in our country. Some of them are very much like
> libertarians and want to put things in their bodies that will hurt
> them. And most liberals pity the folks who fuck themselves up with
> drugs, and want to send them all to the Betty Ford clinic. Then we
> have some conservatives. They tend to go to work, pay their bills,
> and mind their own business. But the liberals want the conservatives
> to pay the Betty Ford Clinic to repair the fucked up druggies. You
> see?
I do, but not what you see. For one thing what makes you think that
"conservatives" have less problems with substance abuse than anybody
else? They don't. Conservatives are fat, they are alcoholic, they use
illegal drugs, and they cheat on their wives just as often as anyone
else does. The only difference is that liberals want the issue of
substance abuse treated by medical professionals instead of police. We
have tried police for 30 years and it didn't work. We like to try
something else when we see a clear failure. Not you guys.
> So until we live in that libertarian utopia where if you fuck yourself
> up you have no one to blame but yourself, and no one to fix it but
> yourself, we that pay the bill will just have to outlaw opium. Sorry.
Can't see the forest for the trees, huh? Most people drink but aren't
alcoholics. Most people aren't obese. Most people that use illegal drugs
don't fuck themselves up on them. In my world we provide medical
treatment for people who have problems. We don't lock them up and pay
50,000. a year to do it.
> Can't you use your health care system for those aches and pains?
Yeah, but the legal drugs are not very effective. If you tried opium for
pain you would be a believer.
>>>> The level of military might that any other nation has is
>>>> insignificant compared to the U.S.
>>
>>> Is that a bad thing?
>>
>> I thought you understood the military.
>
> Intimately.
>
>> But you ask a question that proves you don't.
>
> Huh?
>
>> So the answer is yes it is a bad thing to have a
>> military that makes all others insignificant. You want a military that
>> is like the three bears, just the right amount. Not big enough and you
>> invite attack. Too big and you waste money and wind up going to war
>> unnecessarily.
>
> Thank you for explaining your ignorance.
What I had to explain and you still don't seem to get it that a nation
creates a military that is the right size for its defense and no more.
You seem to think that too much isn't a bad thing. Experience shows that
too much of even a good thing isn't good. Ever hear the saying "less is
more"? Can't you see that the U.S. military isn't the size it is for
defending our country? It's huge for other reasons.
> The first job, and some say the only job, of the federal government is
> the protection of our nation. Therefore the tax money spent on
> defense is a mandate, not a waste. It can be said that all other
> federal spending not condoned in the Constitution is the waste. Do
> you want to go down that road?
What the job of the government is happens to be a matter of opinion.
Mandate, waste, crucial, it's all a matter of someone's opinion of what
the government should do. Defending the country, yeah, that's important.
But so's feeding the people, providing transportation, jobs,
infrastructure. Lots of things are important. You just want to elevate
the military over all. Just like I said. Look around the world. Who else
does that. Japan, Germany, the UK, China, do any of them make the
military the most important thing in their nation? No. It's just us.
> We have a state department. They are charged with diplomacy. And
> when they fail at their job...
>
> War. Whether war is necessary or not is>entirely< the decision of
> our civil masters, not the military.
Naive aren't you. So the military has no say so in whether we have a war
or not? Sure. They sit around like little Bo Peep and have no say so in
going to war. I'm sure they never recommend that we fight to the
president. Yeah, right.
> Your claim that the American military runs rogue around the plantet
> starting wars is an outright lie.
I never said that. The civilian government is more responsible for the
wars than the military. Bush wanted the war in Iraq. Do you think he had
to twist a lot of arms in the Pentagon to get them to go along with it?
> More often than not, our Democrat masters are the ones to start
> international fights. The military will do as ordered.
They work together.
> Finally, I've distilled your thoughts and desiresof having a military
> that is "just the right size" as absurd. This is typical Democrat
> meddling so as to give the other side a "fair fight." You didn't use
> those exact words, but if that is not what you meant you can reply
> saying so. For example, 0bama telegraphs our rules of engagements to
> the Jihadis so that they can counter our efforts. Thanks a lot
> Barak. You just killed more of our soldiers. Vietnam should stand as
> a testament to political meddling. The politicians forgot to realize
> that it was their diplomacy that failed. Then they meddle and make
> the military fail, too.
You misinterpret just about everything. Nowhere did I even hint that it
was proper for our defense forces to have the right size to provide a
fair fight for enemies. The right size means the right size to capably
defend our interests. It has nothing to do with being equal to enemies.
Being superior to them is what you want. But does Israel's military need
to be bigger than necessary to defend against the threats in the region?
That's what I mean. Big enough to fight and win against possible
opponents. We're way beyond that.
>> Our military is a giant. We're wasting our tax money,
>> actually our borrowed money, going into debt to have a military we can't
>> afford. That's stupid.
>
> Then tax only the amount needed for our standing Army of whatever the
> desired size. And tax no more.
What if that means our military will be half as big as it is now? Can
you live with that?
> Can you do that?
Hey, I'm only for deficit spending in two cases, for emergencies and for
capital investment. Borrow for a huge defense when no one is threatening
us. In a word, no.
> Or do you want to give away clean needles for heroin users? Do you
> want clean heroin, doctor or nurse administered, for addicted pregnant
> females so that they and their babies don't have to go through
> withdrawal?
What policy costs us less and which one is the most effective. That's
what I'm for. I'm never for doing it your way, which is this, we do it
this way because that's the way we have always done it. I don't do that.
> Do you want Medicaid to pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for sex
> offenders?
I haven't given that any thought. To me it's a trivial issue.
> I'd rather be taxed for the next generation stealth fighter, smart
> bombs, and armor for our troops.
That's fine but other Americans have different ideas on what we should
spend our money on. Is your want so much more important that everyone
else's?
> I'd rather be taxed for a fence on our southern border and military to
> defend it.
Surprise! I'm all for that too. No more Mexicans is my motto.
>>>> Had people thought this for one
>>>> second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
>>>> danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
>>>> of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
>>>> third rate military organization.
>>
>>> So how come Hans Blix was deterred from his mission?
Seriously, A few cops could prevent the UN from doing anything in a
country they don't want them to do. It doesn't take the Navy SEALS to
keep the UN out.
>>> Mission Unaccomplished!
>>
>> Hans Blix had nothing to do with the size and capability of the Iraqi
>> military. Iraq's military was seriously degraded after the Gulf War and
>> it was not a threat to anyone. Especially not to the U.S.
>
> So Hans just pushed right past the seriously degraded Iraqi military
> that wasn't a threat to anyone and accomplished all of his UN
> sanctioned inspections???
In case you didn't know it the UN people are always unarmed so stopping
them is a breeze. Even a Mexican military can stop them.
> I must have missed all that. Kindly provide the cite. I really,
> really, really would like to know.
>
>>>> The point is compared to the U.S. no
>>>> one has a capable military.
>>
>>> Your ignorance is astounding. Are you truly homo sapien?
>>
>> You're the one who has no clue about the military.
>
> WHAT???
You probably have personal experience in the military but know little
else. I never was in the military myself but have been a student of war
and the military my whole life. I know about war in general and the U.S.
wars in particular.
>> Know how much the
>> next ten biggest nations spend on their military's? All you know is what
>> you hear from other uninformed folk.
>
> Then correct me.
Curly has provided the numbers but it just reinforces what I said, we
spend more than the next ten largest countries, and we need that why?
> List them here, and list the foreign military aid paid for you and me.
With our military we need aid?
>>> How conveniently you forget the missing Los Alamos hard drives, and
>>> the Clinton/Loral transfer of MIRV technology to the Chinese for a
>>> campaign contribution.
>>
>> How foolish of you to think that I don't know all about that story.
>
> Story???
Story, meaning I know what went on. Nothing more.
> It's History. We're in an arms race and 0bama doesn't know it.
We're in an arms race with who? We are ten times stronger than anyone
else so who are we racing? Don't you mean others would like to catch up?
>> China is still years behind the U.S. when it comes to missile technology
>> and nuclear arms. The best they can hope for it parity with us and that
>> would leave them in the same place as the Russians, having enough
>> nuclear weapons to get themselves destroyed but unable to accomplish
>> anything of value.
>
> Bullshit. All they have to do is hold us at bay while they take
> Korea, Japan or anything else they want in Asia or Australia or the
> Indian sub-continent.
Oh brother, what is the likelihood of that happening? One in a million.
Risk nuclear destruction so they can take over Korea? Yeah, China would
do that. Tell me how many times in the last 50 years has China taken
over any other country? I think you've been reading too many Tom Clancy
novels.
>> Every time you write something you show that you know
>> very little about the military but you keep trying to contradict someone
>> who clearly knows a lot more than you.
>
> Who would that be?
You already know the answer to that question.
>> Which explains why you aren't learning.
> Teach me about China's sub capabilities.
All you need to know is that it's less than ours and they have less of
them. The only reason China is building its military is to keep us from
interfering in their sphere of influence. If we left them alone they
would not build up a disproportionately large military. What would it
get them? They're already on the way to being the richest country in the
world and that is without fighting any wars. Look at us. We're fighting
all the time and are going down hill and into mucho debt. But you think
our way is superior.
Hawke
Hawke
I'm not talking about end of life care. I'm talking about something that
could happen at any time in your life that now puts you in the
poorhouse. Example, yesterday my Dad told me a guy from his gym had to
go to the hospital for a procedure. He had a stint put in. He was in the
hospital for one day. The bill from just the hospital came to 50
thousand dollars. You have 50K in case of a medical emergency? Oh no,
you probably have health insurance. But what if you have a problem and
they pay for it. Then do they say it's a pre-existing condition and deny
any more coverage? Obama is planning on that not happening anymore. End
of life issues are a different story.
Hawke
Michael A. Terrell
D- for your rant. Come back any time you think you can do better.
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> Shrug. And frankly...I dont care if you live or die, anymore.
Good. There is no reason to provide long term care for the brain
dead.
Shall not be infringed
> > It's like this: We have a few libertarians in our country. They want
> > to fuck themselves up, and that's fine with me. Then we have quite a
> > few liberals in our country. Some of them are very much like
> > libertarians and want to put things in their bodies that will hurt
> > them. And most liberals pity the folks who fuck themselves up with
> > drugs, and want to send them all to the Betty Ford clinic. Then we
> > have some conservatives. They tend to go to work, pay their bills,
> > and mind their own business. But the liberals want the conservatives
> > to pay the Betty Ford Clinic to repair the fucked up druggies. You
> > see?
>
> I do, but not what you see. For one thing what makes you think that
> "conservatives" have less problems with substance abuse than anybody
> else? They don't. Conservatives are fat, they are alcoholic, they use
> illegal drugs, and they cheat on their wives just as often as anyone
> else does. The only difference is that
The only difference is that libertarians and liberals see nothing
wrong with it, and conservatives do. EVEN if they fall prey to it
themselves.
> liberals want the issue of
> substance abuse treated by medical professionals instead of police.
I would rather they all OD so that it doesn't become my problem
through medical care, home break-ins, or people jumping from windows.
> We
> have tried police for 30 years and it didn't work. We like to try
> something else when we see a clear failure. Not you guys.
Police work has been tried for 30 years and group therapy and clean
needles have been tried for 30 years.
Now what?
> > So until we live in that libertarian utopia where if you fuck yourself
> > up you have no one to blame but yourself, and no one to fix it but
> > yourself, we that pay the bill will just have to outlaw opium. Sorry.
>
> Can't see the forest for the trees, huh?
I do every day. Why?
> Most people drink but aren't
> alcoholics.
Most people don't drink and most drinkers aren't alcoholics.
> Most people aren't obese.
Yet everyone eats.
> Most people that use illegal drugs
> don't fuck themselves up on them.
Those are the ones noone notices. Bravo!!! Responsible illegal drug
use. I'm so proud of them. Ya-Hooo!
> In my world we provide medical
> treatment for people who have problems.
Same here.
> We don't lock them up and pay
> 50,000. a year to do it.
$38,000.
> > Can't you use your health care system for those aches and pains?
>
> Yeah, but the legal drugs are not very effective. If you tried opium for
> pain you would be a believer.
Had some Tylenol III when I had my wisdom teeth out. Something about
a worldwide commitment for mobility.
That shit wrecked my stomach. I'd rather taste blood and deal with
the pain.
> >>>> The level of military might that any other nation has is
> >>>> insignificant compared to the U.S.
>
> >>> Is that a bad thing?
>
> >> I thought you understood the military.
>
> > Intimately.
>
> >> But you ask a question that proves you don't.
>
> > Huh?
>
> >> So the answer is yes it is a bad thing to have a
> >> military that makes all others insignificant. You want a military that
> >> is like the three bears, just the right amount. Not big enough and you
> >> invite attack. Too big and you waste money and wind up going to war
> >> unnecessarily.
>
> > Thank you for explaining your ignorance.
>
> What I had to explain and you still don't seem to get it that a nation
> creates a military that is the right size for its defense and no more.
Yes. That's the part you don't understand.
> You seem to think that too much isn't a bad thing.
That is the part I know about. Even you liberals praised Colin Powell
when he said to use overwhelming power.
> Experience shows that
> too much of even a good thing isn't good.
Like opium?
> Ever hear the saying "less is
> more"?
Of course I have. It was an often used phrase by those in the counter-
culture of the late 60's through the early 80's.
What about it?
Tell you what. You to be in the little military. I'll stay in the
big one. Let me know how it works out when the shit hits the fan.
OK?
> Can't you see that the U.S. military isn't the size it is for
> defending our country? It's huge for other reasons.
The Swiss enlist EVERY able bodied male in the military. Not 5%. Not
2%. All of them.
Is that too big or is it about the right size?
> > The first job, and some say the only job, of the federal government is
> > the protection of our nation. Therefore the tax money spent on
> > defense is a mandate, not a waste. It can be said that all other
> > federal spending not condoned in the Constitution is the waste. Do
> > you want to go down that road?
>
> What the job of the government is happens to be a matter of opinion.
It isn't.
> Mandate, waste, crucial, it's all a matter of someone's opinion of what
> the government should do. Defending the country, yeah, that's important.
Really???
> But so's feeding the people, providing transportation, jobs,
> infrastructure. Lots of things are important. You just want to elevate
> the military over all. Just like I said. Look around the world. Who else
> does that. Japan, Germany, the UK, China, do any of them make the
> military the most important thing in their nation? No. It's just us.
You are so full of shit.
> > We have a state department. They are charged with diplomacy. And
> > when they fail at their job...
>
> > War. Whether war is necessary or not is>entirely< the decision of
> > our civil masters, not the military.
>
> Naive aren't you. So the military has no say so in whether we have a war
> or not? Sure. They sit around like little Bo Peep and have no say so in
> going to war. I'm sure they never recommend that we fight to the
> president. Yeah, right.
Did diplomacy fail? Awww. All our little Neville's running around
failing. So sad.
Maybe we could legalize happy smoke and you and 0bama and Al Sadr can
do bong hits and everything will be OK.
> > Your claim that the American military runs rogue around the plantet
> > starting wars is an outright lie.
>
> I never said that. The civilian government is more responsible for the
> wars than the military.
Finally an ounce of insight from your pie in the sky nonsense.
> Bush wanted the war in Iraq.
I wanted Saddam dealt with. I wanted Saddam dealt with under
Clinton. Does that make me a bad person?
Well, that's something I can live with.
> Do you think he had
> to twist a lot of arms in the Pentagon to get them to go along with it?
Ummm, since the military kept having to deal with Saddam's shenanigans
while Clinton disgraced his office...
> > More often than not, our Democrat masters are the ones to start
> > international fights. The military will do as ordered.
>
> They work together.
Like in Vietnam? Politicians figuring out ways to hamstring the
military and get our people killed?
You bet they work together.
> > Finally, I've distilled your thoughts and desiresof having a military
> > that is "just the right size" as absurd. This is typical Democrat
> > meddling so as to give the other side a "fair fight." You didn't use
> > those exact words, but if that is not what you meant you can reply
> > saying so. For example, 0bama telegraphs our rules of engagements to
> > the Jihadis so that they can counter our efforts. Thanks a lot
> > Barak. You just killed more of our soldiers. Vietnam should stand as
> > a testament to political meddling. The politicians forgot to realize
> > that it was their diplomacy that failed. Then they meddle and make
> > the military fail, too.
>
> You misinterpret just about everything. Nowhere did I even hint that it
> was proper for our defense forces to have the right size to provide a
> fair fight for enemies. The right size means the right size to capably
> defend our interests.
Bravo. You've butched up. You're learning.
> It has nothing to do with being equal to enemies.
> Being superior to them is what you want.
That is certainly what I want.
> But does Israel's military need
> to be bigger than necessary to defend against the threats in the region?
Doesn't hurt.
> That's what I mean. Big enough to fight and win against possible
> opponents. We're way beyond that.
You're biggest problem is that you see no enemies. Therefore you
support only 0bama's desire for Americorps or some stupid shit like
that.
> >> Our military is a giant. We're wasting our tax money,
> >> actually our borrowed money, going into debt to have a military we can't
> >> afford. That's stupid.
>
> > Then tax only the amount needed for our standing Army of whatever the
> > desired size. And tax no more.
>
> What if that means our military will be half as big as it is now? Can
> you live with that?
What if that means that every able bodied person, guys and gals, were
pressed into the service, trained, and given only room and board for
two years after HS? And had a lifetime commitment to serve, unpaid?
Would that military be too big? Would it cost too much?
> > Can you do that?
>
> Hey, I'm only for deficit spending in two cases, for emergencies and for
> capital investment. Borrow for a huge defense when no one is threatening
> us. In a word, no.
Agreed.
> > Or do you want to give away clean needles for heroin users? Do you
> > want clean heroin, doctor or nurse administered, for addicted pregnant
> > females so that they and their babies don't have to go through
> > withdrawal?
>
> What policy costs us less and which one is the most effective. That's
> what I'm for. I'm never for doing it your way, which is this, we do it
> this way because that's the way we have always done it. I don't do that.
Personally, I don't care if we've been doing it since FDR. If it's
not Constitutional I say we dump it.
> > Do you want Medicaid to pay for erectile dysfunction drugs for sex
> > offenders?
>
> I haven't given that any thought. To me it's a trivial issue.
You've never been a victim of an abuser?
> > I'd rather be taxed for the next generation stealth fighter, smart
> > bombs, and armor for our troops.
>
> That's fine but other Americans have different ideas on what we should
> spend our money on. Is your want so much more important that everyone
> else's?
I'm with them, as long as it is Constitutional.
> > I'd rather be taxed for a fence on our southern border and military to
> > defend it.
>
> Surprise! I'm all for that too. No more Mexicans is my motto.
I don't care if they're Mexicans or not. I care that they are legal
and we know who we're letting in. Our southern border is also a
gateway for terrorists. Ditto our northern border, but the Canadians
work with us. The Mexican gov't doesn't.
> >>>> Had people thought this for one
> >>>> second when Bush was proposing we attack Iraq because of the "gathering
> >>>> danger" no one would have taken the idiot seriously. Iraq had had most
> >>>> of its military capacity destroyed in '91 and had nothing left but a
> >>>> third rate military organization.
>
> >>> So how come Hans Blix was deterred from his mission?
>
> Seriously, A few cops could prevent the UN from doing anything in a
> country they don't want them to do. It doesn't take the Navy SEALS to
> keep the UN out.
And what was Clinton's response?
> >>> Mission Unaccomplished!
>
> >> Hans Blix had nothing to do with the size and capability of the Iraqi
> >> military. Iraq's military was seriously degraded after the Gulf War and
> >> it was not a threat to anyone. Especially not to the U.S.
>
> > So Hans just pushed right past the seriously degraded Iraqi military
> > that wasn't a threat to anyone and accomplished all of his UN
> > sanctioned inspections???
>
> In case you didn't know it the UN people are always unarmed so stopping
> them is a breeze. Even a Mexican military can stop them.
And so the USA sends soldiers to keep the UN sissies safe. See how it
works?
> > I must have missed all that. Kindly provide the cite. I really,
> > really, really would like to know.
>
> >>>> The point is compared to the U.S. no
> >>>> one has a capable military.
>
> >>> Your ignorance is astounding. Are you truly homo sapien?
>
> >> You're the one who has no clue about the military.
>
> > WHAT???
>
> You probably have personal experience in the military but know little
> else. I never was in the military myself but have been a student of war
> and the military my whole life. I know about war in general and the U.S.
> wars in particular.
Your studies have failed you.
> >> Know how much the
> >> next ten biggest nations spend on their military's? All you know is what
> >> you hear from other uninformed folk.
>
> > Then correct me.
>
> Curly has provided the numbers but it just reinforces what I said, we
> spend more than the next ten largest countries, and we need that why?
>
> > List them here, and list the foreign military aid paid for you and me.
>
> With our military we need aid?
Oh, geez! I thought you studied the military.
We send military aid to lots and lots of countries.
Didn't you know that? Hell, you're paying for it.
> >>> How conveniently you forget the missing Los Alamos hard drives, and
> >>> the Clinton/Loral transfer of MIRV technology to the Chinese for a
> >>> campaign contribution.
>
> >> How foolish of you to think that I don't know all about that story.
>
> > Story???
>
> Story, meaning I know what went on. Nothing more.
>
> > It's History. We're in an arms race and 0bama doesn't know it.
>
> We're in an arms race with who? We are ten times stronger than anyone
> else so who are we racing? Don't you mean others would like to catch up?
Do you really want them to catch up? I thought you were aainst a
"fair fight?"
> >> China is still
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Keller
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:qPadnV20acKFA5_R...@giganews.com...
Here you go pussyboi
like gunner pointed out....usenet never forgets.
Curly Surmudgeon
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>> Shrug. And frankly...I dont care if you live or die, anymore.
>
>
> Good. There is no reason to provide long term care for the brain
> dead.
How'd Gummer get a quarter million in public services then?
Because We Carry the Fire?
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:k6g606lgpv4gqo1se...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:13:10 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:39:46 -0400, Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 08:20:20 -0700, "Ray Keller" <rayk...@rnsmte.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:P7ydnTdZbtFMxJ_R...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 5/30/2010 5:00 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote: [snip]
>>>>>> Sorry, you're dumber than any three year old I've ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> The juvenile name calling and other displays of immaturity on this NG
>>>>> by alleged adults are tiresome.
>>>>
>>>>So When are you going to show up in Arizona pussyboi
>>>
>>> After your boy gunner didn't show up for a meeting that he called, do
>>> you really think that anyone takes you guys silly threats seriously
>>> anymore? Grown-ups think that such behavior is childish and don't waste
>>> much time on children. Hence...
>>>
>>> Plonk
>>
>>http://www.cracked.com/article_16605_8-most-obnoxious-internet-
>>commenters.html
>>
>>#7. The Macho Man
>>
>>This guy shows up commenting on any video or news story that involves a
>>fist fight or confrontation. He's quick to remind us of what a badass he
>>is in the real world, and is quick to make physical threats ("You want to
>>come to Jersey and say that to my face??!?!?!").
>
> That pretty much sums them up. The little turd is filtered now. In
> retrospect, I'm not sure why he wasn't filtered before. He never
> caught my notice I guess.
Hey look everybody, it's the Douche Bag! How you doing Douchebag? Do you
remember how you pussied out of visiting California to carry out your threat
against Gunner? He gave you a proper invitation with a real address and
contact info, not some made up bullshit. Did you ever post a real address to
your North Carolina shitbox? Google doesn't forget! LOL!
Jeff M
[snip]
>> Obviously, there is something you'd like me to remember, if you're not
>> suffering from confusion yourself. Apparently, it's important enough
>> to you that you keep mentioning it, and so trivial to me that,
>> assuming it has anything to do with me at all to begin with, I've long
>> since forgotten whatever it was. So let's have it. What's on your
>> mind? WTF does Arizona have to do with me?
>
> Here you go pussyboi
> like gunner pointed out....usenet never forgets.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_thread/thread/91d2c0fcf8fefc53/9a71a16b11c9e2fc?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=ray+keller+jeff+mccann#9a71a16b11c9e2fc
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_thread/thread/557ab7dc5708e4ff/ab16fb4ffbdfabd1?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=raykeller+jeff+mcann#ab16fb4ffbdfabd1
Oh, yeah. I'm not so good with names, but now I remember. That's where
we definitively established that you are both a blowhard little twinkie
and a physical coward. But you aren't the first little coward I've come
across, and you won't be the last, so you'll understand why you are so
forgettable.
After you called me a whore, a liar and various other insults, I made
the following proposal, which you repeatedly evaded. Note that I never
threatened you in any way, but merely offered you the chance to act on
all your tough talk, free of any adverse consequences and in complete
safety, and you backed down and ran away. Too bad, it would have made a
nice diversion on that trip. But don't try to pretend that I ever
threatened you somehow. I didn't, and that's plain enough from the
following exchange:
Jeff-
"Ok, Ray. My theory is that you are like many ignorant, half-wit
blowhards on this NG, i.e., talking tough, and being generally rude,
arrogant and insolent to your betters by typing away with one hand while
your other hand describes an endless loop between bag of Doritos, your
mouth, and your crotch. So I'm willing to bet that you haven't got the
guts to say to my face what you write so easily from the safety of your
mother's basement.
What I propose is that we pick us out a nice piece of remote desert, and
see if its really "no problem" for you to gratuitously insult me to my
face, by means of a wholly voluntary and mutual exercise.
Specifically, I propose that we mutually agree to the following:
We meet freely and voluntarily for the sole and exclusive purpose of
practicing, demonstrating and learning the art of unarmed self-defense,
which is certainly a skill of interest within our mutual interests as
survivalists. No weapons or objects of any kind whatsoever, and no
protective equipment. All parts of the body are legitimate strike
zones, and all parts of the body may be used to strike with.
The match continues until one party signals a halt, or becomes
incapacitated. No complaints, no regrets, no cops, no lawsuits. Each
party is solely responsible for any and all consequences and agrees to
hold the other party blameless. No gratuitous infliction of injury.
The match, being strictly for training purposes, gets videotaped and
posted to MS or any other use by either party with no further consent or
compensation required.
How about it? Sound fair to you? The Nevada desert can be quite lovely
in early March"
But you, coward that you are, promptly declined the offer:
Ray-
"> Bullshit
> I have only one "rule" for combat
> I win by whatever means necessary"
Still tying to sound tough, even while running, though.
Jeff -
"You really are a twinkie, Ray, aren't you? This is about an
old-fashioned lesson in good manners, not criminal assault. Nice
pose, though. Nonetheless, we have now established that you were
completely full of BS when you wrote that you would have "no problem"
insulting me to my face in the same manner you did from the safety of
your mama's basement, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
Having declined essentially the only voluntary and lawful available
means to demonstrate that you actually possess the courage you attempt
to portray, you have thereby proved that you are a coward. Take a good
look in the mirror, Ray. Do you disgust yourself as much as you disgust
me? You should."
Ray -
"> Come on over and I will tell you what I think of you and lawyers in
>general at great length."
Jeff -
"Is that all you want? I have a toll free phone number. would you like
to tell me at my expense? I don't doubt that you can speak much more
articulately than you can write. Let me know and I'll set it up. All I
ask in return is that you confine your future posts to the actual
contents of what I write."
Ray, though, was apparently still feeling threatened, although by now I
was offering nothing more than a free phone call, since he had declined
my offer of a free swing:
Ray -
"> Take swing at me and you will either be arrested for assault or shot
> depending on circumstances."
Jeff -
"Ray, you know, and are relying upon, the fact that I would never take a
swing at you except with your consent or in self defense. Actually, I
was volunteering more or less to let you take a free swing at me, or
several, which you declined. End of story. Now here's a free legal
tip: you better not shoot anybody just for taking a swing at you. I am
no threat to you whatsoever, except by what I write here. Regardless of
what I think about you as a man, you are still a human being, and I
don't harm people without good reason. If I found you hurt or in need,
I would try to help you if you let me. I would even give you free legal
advice if you were in a jam, just because I know you from here on M.S.
(not that you would ever ask a scumbag lawyer, especially me, for
advice)"
I'd say that I was reasonably gracious, and graciously reasonable,
considering the circumstances. I never threatened, or even pressed the
point. Ray, on the other hand, I'd say you were obviously made quite
nervous by the mere possibility of being called on all your tough talk.
Frankly, I'm surprised you'd drag this up, since it does rather nicely
highlight your cowardly tendencies, after all.
RBnDFW
> On 5/29/2010 1:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Jeff M wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/28/2010 10:43 PM, Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff M"<NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
>>>>> On 5/26/2010 10:47 AM, RBnDFW wrote:
>>>>>> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
>>>>>>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
>>>>>>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
>>>>>>> Day? Just curious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> year.
>>>>>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bastard
>>>>>
>>>>> Both Bushes skipped wreath-laying ceremonies at the Tomb, and Reagan
>>>>> missed fully half of the eight occasions during his presidency.
>>>>
>>>> about hope and change, or some such nursery rhyme.
>>>
>>> Yep, in the more substantial ways that really matter, Obama is turning
>>> out to be pretty much "Bush Lite." I think the awesome responsibilities
>>> of the office, combined with the particularly nasty sh*t sandwich handed
>>> over to him in his first days, have chastened him and made him shy away
>>> from trying for anything more than incremental change. Even the much
>>> ballyhooed and feared health care reform was just minor tinkering at the
>>> margins, not anything new, visionary or reformative.
>>
>>
>> Yet he ramrodded that 'shit for brains' 'Health Care Reform' package
>> down everyone's throat.
>
> That's the rightard spin. But, in reality, it was duly passed by
> Congress, after only the second longest debate in Senate history and
> record spending by lobbyists and interest groups, with the Republicans
> foolishly choosing to chant "NO!" instead of participating in shaping
> the final bill.
The bill was "Shaped" in committees where Republicans were powerless and
their input ignored. That bill was written behind closed doors with no
bipartisan participation. Alternative bills were never allowed onto the
floor. Final vote was straight down party lines. The democrats own it,
as they will be reminded come November.
Good riddance.
RBnDFW
>> On 5/28/2010 11:13 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Jeff M
>>> <NoS...@NoThanks.org> reported Elvis on Fri, 28 May 2010 10:04:08
>>> -0500 in misc.survivalism:
>>>>> Because We Carry the Fire? wrote:
>>>>>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
>>>>>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
>>>>>> Day? Just curious.
>>>>> They said on the news this morning that he isn't going to do that this
>>>>> year.
>>>>> Decided he needed a vacation instead.
>>>>> Bastard
>>>> Both Bushes skipped wreath-laying ceremonies at the Tomb, and Reagan
>>>> missed fully half of the eight occasions during his presidency.
>>> whom the Arlington ceremony was important, that Reagan or the Bushes
>>> took it seriously.
>>> But the Obama has gone from being one who can do no wrong, to
>>> someone who can do nothing right. [Old joke: Person A is on fishing
>>> trip, walks out on the lake to retrieve a hat. Newspaper Headline "A
>>> can't swim"]
>>> But in this case, the Obama has demonstrated a long list of
>>> choices which show that he is not concerned with the sort of things
>>> that those outside the beltway, or outside his world view, consider
>>> important. Jobs, growing the economy, stopping the oil slick from
>>> getting into the marshlands of the gulf coast. Or remembering and
>>> respecting those who have served and died to protect the country.
>> No, it shows that many of these criticisms of Obama are utterly
>> hypocritical. Even on major issues such as deficit spending
>
> Oh, bullshit. He spent money like a drunken sailor. And 0bama spends
> it like the entire drunken 7th Fleet.
I object strenuously on behalf of drunken sailors all over the globe.
Ray Keller
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:B9ydncf2Ko0IHp7R...@giganews.com...
Nice creative snipage
I see you hope no one follows the link and reads the original thread?
Should I repost the whole thread?
I posted my real address
I'm still waiting pussyboi
John R. Carroll
> "Because We Carry the Fire?" <southbound@down_the_road.xyz> wrote:
>
>> Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the
>> wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial
>> Day? Just curious.
>
> afraid of lightning and rain. Maybe next year.
>
>
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/09/does_mrs_obama_care_more_about_vegetables_than_about_soldiers_wives
> Does Mrs. Obama care more about vegetables than about soldiers' wives?
Speaking of vegetables, remember Terry Schiavo and the Act of Congress
passed and signed by Bush?
--
John R. Carroll
Michael A. Terrell
Winston_Smith wrote:
>
> "Because We Carry the Fire?" <southbound@down_the_road.xyz> wrote:
>
> >Anybody know what color tie Obama will be wearing when he lays the wreath at
> >the tomb of the unknown soldier at Arlington this Memorial Day? Just
> >curious.
>
> Apparently war rememberance was canceled today because Bam Bam is
> afraid of lightning and rain. Maybe next year.
>
> http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/09/does_mrs_obama_care_more_about_vegetables_than_about_soldiers_wives
> Does Mrs. Obama care more about vegetables than about soldiers� wives?
Melbourne, Florida veterans had to cancel their Memorial Day parade
after the city of Melbourne raised the fee from $460 last year to $3800
this year. May the greedy bastards be voted out of office and die a
slow, diseased death.
John R. Carroll
Not really.
>That was
> insupportable. Many things Bush did were insupportable. That in no
> way let's Bam Bam off the hook for his actions and inactions.
Well, it's Mrs. "Bam Bam" not "Bam Bam" actual so there isn't anything to
let him, or her either really , off the hook for.
We'd be lucky if trivial crap like this was all that anyone had to
contemplate.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> are "trivial crap" ?
I doubt that military wives even notice or care very much, I'm sure of it in
fact, and Schiavo is dead.
The article was a complaint that Michelle Obama doesn't have an aid detailed
exclusively as her liason to wives of American service members. Crap, in
other words.
I remember when Ricks writing about much more important things than this.
He and Gunner must have shared the same stroke or something.....
--
John R. Carroll
Because We Carry the Fire?
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:kOWdnUFU8NqZv5nR...@giganews.com...
But, but, but...Bush!
Lib loser. Obama would have had them all aborted.