|
|
For my good friend, Ken
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:12:01 -0400, "Wayne Harrison"
wrote: "back there" is mainly the luckiest sonofabitch in the us of a. :) you sweet talkin', see-through drinkin', lawyer sonofabitch, using flattery, which ain't gonna get you anywhere. d;o) You need to come North, you cracker, and catch some of these big brook trout and salmon. Power company upped the flow to 4700 cfs, but I found a little eddy where some nice salmon and a couple of brookies were holding. Caught them after breakfast. Just before lunch, they lowered the river to 2700 cfs. Lots of places now to fish. You're missin' out. My sweet little Russian cabin girl, Elana, says HI! Dave |
For my good friend, Ken
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:55:13 -0600, salmobytes wrote: There was no such thing as pc when I learned to respect a man regardless his color or religion. You do not *need* pc to be respectful. It is taught to you by your parents, and if it takes root, you pass it on to your offspring. I have done that - no pc involved. My definition of pc is to show respect--when deserved--with both your actions and your speech. Do you have a different definition? And if not, how is that different than what your parents taught you? |
For my good friend, Ken
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:47:03 -0600, salmobytes
wrote: My definition of pc is to show respect--when deserved--with both your actions and your speech. Do you have a different definition? And if not, how is that different than what your parents taught you? Your definition doesn't go far enough. It is now PC not to hug at some schools. PC not to even hold hands. Some schools are getting so ridiculous with it that they are thinking of different schools for the boys and girls. I could name a few more that I have encountered, but what's the use? You still wouldn't agree. d;o) |
For my good friend, Ken
http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...al+correctness My favorite is "holiday tree". Right up there with "Happy Holidays" instead of the real reason we celebrate the season, "Christmas". It's a bit early, Sandy, but, Merry Christmas to you. Do you cut your own Christmas Tree? We do. Dave |
For my good friend, Ken
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:26:50 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote: http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...al+correctness My favorite is "holiday tree". Right up there with "Happy Holidays" instead of the real reason we celebrate the season, "Christmas". It's a bit early, Sandy, but, Merry Christmas to you. Do you cut your own Christmas Tree? We do. Um...the reason "we" celebrate "the season"...and go logging....can "we" take it that your "we" doesn't include any Jews...well, except for Jesus Christ hisownself...? HTH, R Dave |
For my good friend, Ken
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Do you cut your own Christmas Tree? We do. Nah, I'm sick of Christmas. Kids are grown and gone. What's the good of it. I'd rather be bonefishing in December. Dave, this is getting really tedious. Can't we fight about something else now? I'll see if I can come up with something better for the both of us. |
For my good friend, Ken
salmobytes wrote:
I'll see if I can come up with something better for the both of us (to fight about). Political Correctness is just too lame ....what about draft card burning? I did that once. On the steps of the Pentagon, with McNamara watching from a second story window. I saw the jackass there, looking out from a window. ....if you look closely at the following 40 year old black and white photo of the Pentagon steps, October 1967, you'll see a white-helmeted US Marshal &^%$sucker mother ^%$%#er about to wack me with a night stick. I'm the guy in the middle of that mess, wearing the white and black checked jacket. Took four of those pricks to get the cuffs on me. The now defunct Washington Star ran two large-format tight-torso shots of two crowd figures the next day. One shot was the now famous photo of the guy (from the NY jug band the Fugs) stuffing flowers down the rifle barrel. The other photo, like Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde, was of me smacking the teeth out of a US Marshal, on the Pentagon steps. I couldn't find that photo online. But I did find this one: http://72.167.122.147/Robopages/Sixt...n/Thats_me.jpg I had an old Honeywell Pentax with threaded, screw-in 105mm lense that day. I took 3-4 rolls of film of the rifle-barrel flower-child seen alone. Maybe had a dozen 35mm rolls all together. I had a good shot of the US Marshals putting the cuffs on Norman Mailer. But the Pentagon stole the film. When I got out of jail (Occaquan) two days later I got my wallet and camera back. But film and what little cash I had was long gone. Those were the good old days--in a way. Real bad rednecks-gone-wild days in a lot of others. 50,000 or more good young men lost their lives for nothing, back then--because of stupid, brain damaged rednecks like you, rednecks who like to say: "we could have won that war." Which isn't true. But even if it was, the outcome would still have been the same in the long run. Vietnam is rapidly abandoning communism now, because they've discovered it just doesn't work. So we could have arrived at the same destination without the war, if it hadn't been for Johnson, Nixon, John Foster Dulles and the John Birch Society. And brain dead redneck morons, of which we still have an abundance. And now, 40 years later, the country is still split down the middle because of this mess. |
For my good friend, Ken
"salmobytes" wrote in message . .. salmobytes wrote: snip 50,000 or more good young men lost their lives for nothing, back then--because of stupid, brain damaged rednecks like you, rednecks who like to say: "we could have won that war." Which isn't true. But even if it was, the outcome would still have been the same in the long run. Vietnam is rapidly abandoning communism now, because they've discovered it just doesn't work. So we could have arrived at the same destination without the war, if it hadn't been for Johnson, Nixon, John Foster Dulles and the John Birch Society. And brain dead redneck morons, of which we still have an abundance. And now, 40 years later, the country is still split down the middle because of this mess. It would be really interesting to see what course you take if Obama chooses Jim Webb - a distinct possibility - as a running mate. Bob Weinberger La Grande, OR ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
For my good friend, Ken
salmobytes wrote:
... Those were the good old days--in a way. Real bad rednecks-gone-wild days in a lot of others. 50,000 or more good young men lost their lives for nothing, back then--because of stupid, brain damaged rednecks like you, rednecks who like to say: "we could have won that war." Which isn't true. ... You've hit at the core of the Insane McCain problem. McCain is one of those insane jingoes from the '60's who believes we could have, should have, won the Vietnam War if only the politicians had given the military free rein to do so. He is exactly the kind of dangerous nutcase who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. There are lots of folks who survived Vietnam who are not whackjobs, Kerry, Hagel, Webb, Cleland are or were Senate colleagues of McCain's who were in Vietnam and none of them is a dangerous war monger like McCain. Some have suggested that this is because the aforementioned colleagues actually fought in the war while McCain was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. Whatever the reason McCain is nuts and unfit to lead a Boy Scout troop much less the military of the United States. -- Ken Fortenberry |
For my good friend, Ken
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... You've hit at the core of the Insane McCain problem. McCain is one of those insane jingoes from the '60's who believes we could have, should have, won the Vietnam War if only the politicians had given the military free rein to do so. He is exactly the kind of dangerous nutcase who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. There are lots of folks who survived Vietnam who are not whackjobs, Kerry, Hagel, Webb, Cleland are or were Senate colleagues of McCain's who were in Vietnam and none of them is a dangerous war monger like McCain. Some have suggested that this is because the aforementioned colleagues actually fought in the war while McCain was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. Whatever the reason McCain is nuts and unfit to lead a Boy Scout troop much less the military of the United States. -- Ken Fortenberry as a liberal-leaning type, this sort of hyperbole makes me cringe. Way to go, Ken, you've actually made me start to feel sorry for McCain. One cannot decry over-the-top bull**** about Obama and spout the above. People in general, and I suspect McCain personally, are far more subtle, more nuanced than that description. Enough rhetoric like the above and I'll throw my hands up and vote for Barr..... Tom |
For my good friend, Ken
Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: You've hit at the core of the Insane McCain problem. McCain is one of those insane jingoes from the '60's who believes we could have, should have, won the Vietnam War if only the politicians had given the military free rein to do so. He is exactly the kind of dangerous nutcase who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. There are lots of folks who survived Vietnam who are not whackjobs, Kerry, Hagel, Webb, Cleland are or were Senate colleagues of McCain's who were in Vietnam and none of them is a dangerous war monger like McCain. Some have suggested that this is because the aforementioned colleagues actually fought in the war while McCain was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. Whatever the reason McCain is nuts and unfit to lead a Boy Scout troop much less the military of the United States. as a liberal-leaning type, this sort of hyperbole makes me cringe. Way to go, Ken, you've actually made me start to feel sorry for McCain. One cannot decry over-the-top bull**** about Obama and spout the above. People in general, and I suspect McCain personally, are far more subtle, more nuanced than that description. Enough rhetoric like the above and I'll throw my hands up and vote for Barr..... Well, I kinda doubt my Insane McCain rhetoric will be given a lot of coverage in the mainstream media. You have to admit though that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome, and that is a concise summary of Insane McCain's foreign policy. -- Ken Fortenberry |
For my good friend, Ken
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... You've hit at the core of the Insane McCain problem. McCain is one of those insane jingoes from the '60's who believes we could have, should have, won the Vietnam War if only the politicians had given the military free rein to do so. He is exactly the kind of dangerous nutcase who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. There are lots of folks who survived Vietnam who are not whackjobs, Kerry, Hagel, Webb, Cleland are or were Senate colleagues of McCain's who were in Vietnam and none of them is a dangerous war monger like McCain. Some have suggested that this is because the aforementioned colleagues actually fought in the war while McCain was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. Whatever the reason McCain is nuts and unfit to lead a Boy Scout troop much less the military of the United States. -- Ken Fortenberry Ken, I happen to be a great admirer of Jim Webb and totally agree that he is certainly no wackjob and definately not a war monger. He is a man of principal and firm sense of honor. However, you probably should read some of his writings the conduct of theViet Nam War and his opinion of some of the things he believes we could have should have done to win that conflict before you use him as an illustration on this particular point. Bob Weinberger ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On 13-Jun-2008, salmobytes wrote: isn't true. But even if it was, the outcome would still have been the same in the long run. Vietnam is rapidly abandoning communism now, because they've discovered it just doesn't work. So we could have arrived at the same destination without the war, if it hadn't been for Johnson, Nixon, John Foster Dulles and the John Birch Society. And brain dead redneck morons, of which we still have an abundance. And now, 40 years later, the country is still split down the middle because of this mess. Amen to the above I was probably near you at the Pentagon I also was a draft card burning pinko **** Robert McNamara - I hope he's dead Who woulda thunk it? To be in a mess like Iraq 40 yrs later People make money on wars Its called war profiteering and they are responsible fot killing all kinds of innocent people and our own American boys - for what? J'accuse Bush Cheney and their ass hole buddy McCain of being war profiteers and war criminals If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - Gas already $4.00 a gallon - food price wars - a never ending morass in Afghanistan and Iraq and Serious US educational problems - the cracks are growing larger What choice is there?\ My border collie would be better. VBote for Boss Tweed for Prez Hopefully the next administration will hang the ****ers just like they did to Saddam and then we will be rid of some more of these reprobate swine - but I think not! Yet I really care not to think about the political manure we are all wading in esp on a fly fishing ng Which is my reason for the OT post Fred |
For my good friend, Ken
In article , Dave LaCourse
writes Dave, who still thinks PC is bull****. d;o) A lot of it certainly /IS/ To ask for a Black Coffee is non PC...???? -- Bill Grey |
For my good friend, Ken
Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: You've hit at the core of the Insane McCain problem. McCain is one of those insane jingoes from the '60's who believes we could have, should have, won the Vietnam War if only the politicians had given the military free rein to do so. He is exactly the kind of dangerous nutcase who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House. There are lots of folks who survived Vietnam who are not whackjobs, Kerry, Hagel, Webb, Cleland are or were Senate colleagues of McCain's who were in Vietnam and none of them is a dangerous war monger like McCain. Some have suggested that this is because the aforementioned colleagues actually fought in the war while McCain was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton. Whatever the reason McCain is nuts and unfit to lead a Boy Scout troop much less the military of the United States. Ken, I happen to be a great admirer of Jim Webb and totally agree that he is certainly no wackjob and definately not a war monger. He is a man of principal and firm sense of honor. However, you probably should read some of his writings the conduct of theViet Nam War and his opinion of some of the things he believes we could have should have done to win that conflict before you use him as an illustration on this particular point. My point is no matter how misguided Webb may have been (or still is) about Vietnam the experience didn't turn him into a doddering, senile, old warmonger as apparently happened to Insane McCain. -- Ken Fortenberry |
For my good friend, Ken
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:05:10 -0600, salmobytes wrote:
salmobytes wrote: I'll see if I can come up with something better for the both of us (to fight about). Political Correctness is just too lame ...what about draft card burning? I did that once. On the steps of the Pentagon, with McNamara watching from a second story window. I saw the jackass there, looking out from a window. ...if you look closely at the following 40 year old black and white photo of the Pentagon steps, October 1967, you'll see a white-helmeted US Marshal &^%$sucker mother ^%$%#er about to wack me with a night stick. I'm the guy in the middle of that mess, wearing the white and black checked jacket. Took four of those pricks to get the cuffs on me. The now defunct Washington Star ran two large-format tight-torso shots of two crowd figures the next day. One shot was the now famous photo of the guy (from the NY jug band the Fugs) stuffing flowers down the rifle barrel. The other photo, like Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde, was of me smacking the teeth out of a US Marshal, on the Pentagon steps. I couldn't find that photo online. But I did find this one: http://72.167.122.147/Robopages/Sixt...n/Thats_me.jpg I had an old Honeywell Pentax with threaded, screw-in 105mm lense that day. I took 3-4 rolls of film of the rifle-barrel flower-child seen alone. Maybe had a dozen 35mm rolls all together. I had a good shot of the US Marshals putting the cuffs on Norman Mailer. But the Pentagon stole the film. When I got out of jail (Occaquan) two days later I got my wallet and camera back. But film and what little cash I had was long gone. Those were the good old days--in a way. Real bad rednecks-gone-wild days in a lot of others. 50,000 or more good young men lost their lives for nothing, back then--because of stupid, brain damaged rednecks like you, rednecks who like to say: "we could have won that war." Which isn't true. But even if it was, the outcome would still have been the same in the long run. Vietnam is rapidly abandoning communism now, because they've discovered it just doesn't work. So we could have arrived at the same destination without the war, if it hadn't been for Johnson, Nixon, John Foster Dulles and the John Birch Society. And brain dead redneck morons, of which we still have an abundance. And now, 40 years later, the country is still split down the middle because of this mess. Well, now, that explains a lot...what it doesn't explain is why you seemingly think US involvement in "Vietnam"/SE Asia began with Johnson...how did and do feel about JFK? And didya ever notice that "How many kids did you kill today?" sounds about the same with either "LBJ" or "JFK," but doesn't quite go with "RMN"...? HTH, R |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On 14-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: snip If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - Fred, you ignorant slut (and I mean that in the most affectionate way. . .) Do you think as you type, or do you find you kinda fade in and out? ;-) -- TL, Tim Tim: FYI - I can move my arms think, speak and amazingly even play my fiddle as I type In the current political climate It did not take a lot of thinking or feeling with what to do w Bush and Cheney Just some plain common sense! Does the federal government care more for Americans ? or for global world policy and $$$$ in their own pockets? Fred |
OT For my good friend, Ken
typed:
On 14-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: snip If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - Fred, you ignorant slut (and I mean that in the most affectionate way. . .) Do you think as you type, or do you find you kinda fade in and out? ;-) Tim: FYI - I can move my arms think, speak and amazingly even play my fiddle as I type In the current political climate It did not take a lot of thinking or feeling with what to do w Bush and Cheney Just some plain common sense! Does the federal government care more for Americans ? or for global world policy and $$$$ in their own pockets? I'm not questioning your politics - hell, opinions are like assholes, right? Let's look at what you wrote, shall we? If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - 1) If voting is useless, then it would be impossible for anyone's vote to "vote the current ****bags out" simply because the vote is useless. 2) (For the tenth freakin' time) I don't recall a YES/NO checkbox next to anyone's name on the ballot. You vote someone IN, not OUT. 3) Fred, you ignorant slut. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
For my good friend, Ken
W. D. Grey typed:
In article , Dave LaCourse writes Dave, who still thinks PC is bull****. d;o) A lot of it certainly /IS/ To ask for a Black Coffee is non PC...???? Yes. Especially is you ask for black coffee with brown sugar. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
OT For my good friend, Ken
Tim J. typed:
typed: On 14-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: snip If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - Fred, you ignorant slut (and I mean that in the most affectionate way. . .) Do you think as you type, or do you find you kinda fade in and out? ;-) Tim: FYI - I can move my arms think, speak and amazingly even play my fiddle as I type In the current political climate It did not take a lot of thinking or feeling with what to do w Bush and Cheney Just some plain common sense! Does the federal government care more for Americans ? or for global world policy and $$$$ in their own pockets? I'm not questioning your politics - hell, opinions are like assholes, right? Let's look at what you wrote, shall we? If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - 1) If voting is useless, then it would be impossible for anyone's vote to "vote the current ****bags out" simply because the vote is useless. 2) (For the tenth freakin' time) I don't recall a YES/NO checkbox next to anyone's name on the ballot. You vote someone IN, not OUT. 3) Fred, you ignorant slut. ;-) oops. . . 4) The "current ****bags" can't be voted back in, so they're already on their way out. 5) Fred, you ignorant slut. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
For my good friend, Ken
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:03:49 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote: W. D. Grey typed: In article , Dave LaCourse writes Dave, who still thinks PC is bull****. d;o) A lot of it certainly /IS/ To ask for a Black Coffee is non PC...???? Yes. Especially is you ask for black coffee with brown sugar. under your Christmas tree on Christmas morning. (Home for a couple of days to do some business, then back to Lakewood for another week. Fishing was still good when I left, even though the flow was 2700 cfs.) Dave |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On 14-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: Tim: FYI - I can move my arms think, speak and amazingly even play my fiddle as I type In the current political climate It did not take a lot of thinking or feeling with what to do w Bush and Cheney Just some plain common sense! Does the federal government care more for Americans ? or for global world policy and $$$$ in their own pockets? I'm not questioning your politics - hell, opinions are like ass holes, right? Let's look at what you wrote, shall we? If you vote and (I personally believe it to be useless) at least vote the current ****bags out - 1) If voting is useless, then it would be impossible for anyone's vote to "vote the current ****bags out" simply because the vote is useless. 2) (For the tenth freakin' time) I don't recall a YES/NO checkbox next to anyone's name on the ballot. You vote someone IN, not OUT. 3) Fred, you ignorant slut. ;-) -- TL, Tim You calling me an Ignorant slut - That is like the pot calling the kettle black! BTW I am old enough to have also seen SNL First of all in case you did not know that you can vote the ****bags out by voting non republican - DUHHH!!!!!! And #1 Whether it is useless or not to vote - there are obviously many here who believe that it does matter Tho' I am surely not one So - I am imploring them to at least vote for some other ****ball besides McCain A vote for McCain = endorsement of the incumbents #2 Bush and Cheney are Rupublicans and they are the incumbents- DDDUHHHHH! A vote for some other party is certainly a no to them! There may be no checkbox fopr a yes and no but there should be one! #3 Duhhh!!! Again see my opening line Is there any other thing that you do not, will not or do not want to comprehend about my posts They are really not that cryptic. Do you really need to understand anything else or do you just like to pull people's chains? If so Pls go elsewhere pull LaCourse's chain or Wofgang's They like it and need it. I do not! Fred |
OT For my good friend, Ken
|
OT For my good friend, Ken
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... .......oh, but wait, there is no evidence to impeach him, is there? d;o) geez, David...there is ample evidence to impeach him twice over. It's just that no one wants to see Cheney in charge, with Pelosi next in line. Tom |
OT For my good friend, Ken
wrote:
snipped slobbering rebuttal and stuttering duhs Is there any other thing that you do not, will not or do not want to comprehend about my posts They are really not that cryptic. Do you really need to understand anything else or do you just like to pull people's chains? I'd just appreciate it if YOU would read your posts before you hit the send button. It is a bit rude to gush nonsensical crap all over Usenet. Someone has to clean up, you know. ;-) If so Pls go elsewhere Thanks, but I like it here. It's all kinda fuzzy and warm. pull LaCourse's chain or Wofgang's They like it and need it. Dave? Wolfgang? Is this true? I'm always the last to know. :( I do not! Like it or not, it seems to be there for the pulling. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:56:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: geez, David...there is ample evidence to impeach him twice over. It's just that no one wants to see Cheney in charge, with Pelosi next in line. Tom Impeach Cheney too, AND Pelosi. Simple. Got the evidence? Impeach! |
OT For my good friend, Ken
|
OT For my good friend, Ken
On 15-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: I'd just appreciate it if YOU would read your posts before you hit the send button. It is a bit rude to gush nonsensical crap all over Usenet. Someone has to clean up, you know. ;-) Timmy my man! Are you the usenet police again? If so then go after those who post their politics on ROFF without an OT ' Otherwise find something better to do than pull my chain Work on your car? Paint? Pull your own chain? Legthen your acronym list for ROFF or even masturbate. My posts do make a modicum of sense to many in the English speaking world Now if you do NOT like my politics, Timmy , or you do not like me or if you really want to pull my chain - - Don't waste my time I do have better things to do than respond to your BS. so Instead - put your head in the toilet bowl and flush. But really behind all the words what I am saying loud and clear is **** off! Comprende hombre? Es claro? Fred |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:56:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: "Dave LaCourse" wrote in message .. . ......oh, but wait, there is no evidence to impeach him, is there? d;o) geez, David...there is ample evidence to impeach him twice over. Hmmm...to paraphrase Sol Wachtler, if a halfway decent prosecutor can get an average grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, it would seem a bunch of tubesteaks could impeach any President with nothing but baloney...and as with most tubesteaks and bologna, one would be left asking, "where's the beef...?" It's just that no one wants to see Cheney in charge, with Pelosi next in line. Well, yeah, there's that, too... But seriously, I don't think there is enough incontrovertible evidence to impeach him once, much less twice, and therefore, the bar for conviction is not merely too high, but non-existent. To seek indictment while believing that conviction is not supportable is improper. The area in which it seems those interested in impeachment base their argument is the invasion of and war in Iraq, or really, the alleged "manufacturing" of the reason(s) for them. One big problem for the House is that most members supported it and had access to the same basic information, and more importantly, there is no way to prove a negative; the only possible argument would and could be along the general lines of "the official record before the House indicates there was nothing found that the H of R would term 'WMDs'." Unfortunately for such an argument, under various definitions (including those from the UN that the US and many other nations use, that predate both the invasion and war as well as the Bush Presidency), "WMDs" were, in fact, found. IAC, even taking it to the extreme and using "WMDs" to mean only nuked-up ICBMs and high-tech launch and control systems, not finding something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Also, the official record clearly indicates that Saddam/Iraq not only had previously possessed them, but used them, trying to prove that anyone (even Saddam himself) could _know_ what weapon(s) might be where would be impossible. And lastly, there's the numerous potential dangers in it - for example, if something particularly ugly had been found, but kept secret for security reasons, can you imagine the backlash if the House attempted to impeach and had their case totally destroyed? Or worse, suppose the ranking/entitled members already know, yet allow something to move forward? TC, R Tom |
OT For my good friend, Ken
|
OT For my good friend, Ken
|
For my good friend, Ken
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:15:05 -0400, jeff miller
wrote: wrote: On 15-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: I'd just appreciate it if YOU would read your posts before you hit the send button. It is a bit rude to gush nonsensical crap all over Usenet. Someone has to clean up, you know. ;-) Timmy my man! Are you the usenet police again? If so then go after those who post their politics on ROFF without an OT ' Otherwise find something better to do than pull my chain Work on your car? Paint? Pull your own chain? Legthen your acronym list for ROFF or even masturbate. My posts do make a modicum of sense to many in the English speaking world Now if you do NOT like my politics, Timmy , or you do not like me or if you really want to pull my chain - - Don't waste my time I do have better things to do than respond to your BS. so Instead - put your head in the toilet bowl and flush. But really behind all the words what I am saying loud and clear is **** off! Comprende hombre? Es claro? Fred ...and herein is the conundrum. of all the folks i know or have experienced here, and despite his evenly-tempered republican affiliation (which i attribute solely to some cosmic anomaly and for which i forgive him easily), Tim is as fine and welcome a personality and individual on this group as one is likely to find on the internet or anywhere else for that matter. folks i've met, and whose opinion i value and who have spent time with him in person, speak well of him. my own e-mail communications with him also prove to me the incomparable balance and worth of his opinions. frankly, if he said i was full of ****, i'd trust his opinion and reassess my own conduct. Um...if he were to declare you as being full of ****, then your opinion of the folks whose opinions you value would be suspect...further, their opinions would be suspect as they choose to not only associate with, but opine to persons who acknowledge their own full-of-****ness, albeit via proxy...therefore, it would seem that given the above you being full of **** and all, the fact that you trust Tim's opinion based on the afore-demonstrable suspect opinions of others, wouldn't mean **** because Tim's opinion of your full-of-****ness might be full of ****... That said, I don't need to know other folks' opinion(s) about Tim to come right out and say that if he said you were full of ****, well, ****, I'd say that he knew his ****, too...oh, OK...G... based on your writings fred, and only on your writings here (a very, very poor indicator, in my personal experience...but all i have), you're full of **** fred. Yeah, OK, so there is THAT... think about it...or don't. comprendre indeed... PIE A LA MODE! CAFE SIN LECHE! MANGIA, MANGIA! TC, R jeff |
OT For my good friend, Ken
wrote:
On 15-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: I'd just appreciate it if YOU would read your posts before you hit the send button. It is a bit rude to gush nonsensical crap all over Usenet. Someone has to clean up, you know. ;-) Timmy my man! Are you the usenet police again? All I'm saying, Fred, is this place is one where what you write is important. It is the only means anyone here has to judge your stance or understand what you're saying. A typo here or there is not the problem with your posts. Most of the time I have to read them several times before I can even venture a guess at what you're trying to say. Slow down, read what you wrote, adjust it so the points are clear, and THEN hit send. If so then go after those who post their politics on ROFF without an OT ' Posting politics without OT in the subject isn't that big of a deal, and, IMHO just stating OT doesn't make it okay to post anything you want. Go back through all ROFF's posts over the years, and you'll find precious little regarding my politics. I've made enough forays into some of the political threads so my politics aren't a secret, and that's about all. The people here know I dress to the right - so what. I can't help it if all those left-dressers are dead wrong. ;-) Otherwise find something better to do than pull my chain Work on your car? Paint? Pull your own chain? Legthen your acronym list for ROFF DAMN! I should have known you were writing in acronyms. Can you go back and explain them to me? or even masturbate. Hmmmm . . . got a thing for masturbation today, have we? My posts do make a modicum of sense to many in the English speaking world Shall we take a vote? ;-) Now if you do NOT like my politics, Timmy , or you do not like me or if you really want to pull my chain - - Don't waste my time sigh Once again, this has nothing to do with your politics. If you want to damn Dick Cheney to a life of boils and pestilence, go ahead (not that you haven't done this on an almost daily basis), but please make sure I can understand what you wrote. THEN I can tell you you're full of **** for something other than your communication skills. I do have better things to do than respond to your BS. so Instead - put your head in the toilet bowl and flush. But really behind all the words what I am saying loud and clear is **** off! Nope. I'll be right here waiting for your next set of instructions. Comprende hombre? Es claro? Well, I think you made yourself clear (?) to me, and have probably exposed some deep nastiness you didn't intend to others here as well. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
OT For my good friend, Ken
jeff miller wrote:
wrote: On 15-Jun-2008, "Tim J." wrote: I'd just appreciate it if YOU would read your posts before you hit the send button. It is a bit rude to gush nonsensical crap all over Usenet. Someone has to clean up, you know. ;-) Timmy my man! Are you the usenet police again? If so then go after those who post their politics on ROFF without an OT ' Otherwise find something better to do than pull my chain Work on your car? Paint? Pull your own chain? Legthen your acronym list for ROFF or even masturbate. My posts do make a modicum of sense to many in the English speaking world Now if you do NOT like my politics, Timmy , or you do not like me or if you really want to pull my chain - - Don't waste my time I do have better things to do than respond to your BS. so Instead - put your head in the toilet bowl and flush. But really behind all the words what I am saying loud and clear is **** off! Comprende hombre? Es claro? Fred ...and herein is the conundrum. of all the folks i know or have experienced here, and despite his evenly-tempered republican affiliation (which i attribute solely to some cosmic anomaly and for which i forgive him easily), Tim is as fine and welcome a personality and individual on this group as one is likely to find on the internet or anywhere else for that matter. folks i've met, and whose opinion i value and who have spent time with him in person, speak well of him. my own e-mail communications with him also prove to me the incomparable balance and worth of his opinions. frankly, if he said i was full of ****, i'd trust his opinion and reassess my own conduct. based on your writings fred, and only on your writings here (a very, very poor indicator, in my personal experience...but all i have), you're full of **** fred. think about it...or don't. comprendre indeed... Wow. I'm going to have to meet this Tim guy one of these days. He sounds like a great fella! ;-) Thanks, Jeff. It may not all be true, but it was nice to read anyway. . . and, it goes without saying ('tho that never stopped me before) that I've never found you to be full of ****. Wrong-minded, yes, but not full of ****. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
For my good friend, Ken
"salmobytes" wrote in message . .. Dave LaCourse wrote: I spent 20 years in the Navy with blacks, some of them very dear friends. There are other stories in my life concerning the N word, but why should I repeat them? You wouldn't believe me, would you? And the use of African American, or Black, or Negro, or Colored is but a change in the way we address African Americans. It has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with how you were brought up and your own actions as an adult.. Dave I do believe you Dave. I believe you hate the n-word the same way I do. Which means you practice PC. That was my point. Are you sure you are not confusing PC and non-bigot? john |
For my good friend, Ken
salmobytes wrote:
salmobytes wrote: ........Too much off topic stuff about the war. This is pretty hot stuff. I still get smoke coming out of my ears now, some 40 years later, when ever I think about it. And yet a lot of readers managed to weigh in and say what they think without resorting to flames and insults. That part was gratifying. I respect Dave LaCourse. I don't agree with much he has to say politically. But I do respect him (redneck mf that he is). |
OT For my good friend, Ken
wrote in message ... Hmmm...to paraphrase Sol Wachtler, if a halfway decent prosecutor can get an average grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, it would seem a bunch of tubesteaks could impeach any President with nothing but baloney...and as with most tubesteaks and bologna, one would be left asking, "where's the beef...?" that was my thinking.....sort of. And lastly, there's the numerous potential dangers in it - for example, if something particularly ugly had been found, but kept secret for security reasons, can you imagine the backlash if the House attempted to impeach and had their case totally destroyed? Or worse, suppose the ranking/entitled members already know, yet allow something to move forward? Rick, you're overanalyzing here, I think.....still and all, there certainly IS a track record for impeaching with a shaky, almost non-existent chance for conviction. When all is said and done, though, any talk of impeachment 7 1/2 years into an 8 year term is political theater, and all concerned here know it. Tom |
OT For my good friend, Ken
wrote in message ... Timmy my man! Are you the usenet police again? If so then go after those who post their politics on ROFF without an OT ' Otherwise find something better to do than pull my chain if there are Usenet rules of ANY type, number 1 might be: Don't tell others what to do or not do. It's asking for trouble. My posts do make a modicum of sense to many in the English speaking world ahh, here's where the problem lies. You believe the above. Sadly, you are mistaken. Many of your posts are nonsensical gibberish that either annoys, insults or bores those attempting to give you the respect required to read it. Sorry if that statement cuts, but go back and call up your own posts and try to read them cold. But really behind all the words what I am saying loud and clear is **** off! Comprende hombre? Es claro? nice touch. Extra points for gibberish in more than one language! Tom |
OT For my good friend, Ken
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:07:30 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: wrote in message .. . Hmmm...to paraphrase Sol Wachtler, if a halfway decent prosecutor can get an average grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, it would seem a bunch of tubesteaks could impeach any President with nothing but baloney...and as with most tubesteaks and bologna, one would be left asking, "where's the beef...?" that was my thinking.....sort of. And lastly, there's the numerous potential dangers in it - for example, if something particularly ugly had been found, but kept secret for security reasons, can you imagine the backlash if the House attempted to impeach and had their case totally destroyed? Or worse, suppose the ranking/entitled members already know, yet allow something to move forward? Rick, you're overanalyzing here, I think Maybe, but see below... .....still and all, there certainly IS a track record for impeaching with a shaky, almost non-existent chance for conviction. When all is said and done, though, any talk of impeachment 7 1/2 years into an 8 year term is political theater, and all concerned here know it. Talk of impeachment at any point in Bush's time in office thus far would have been "political theater" (which is not the same thing as me offering any opinion on Bush's Presidency beyond the evidence required to impeach). But are you suggesting that most members of the House are above political theater? I'd offer that if the Dems thought they had a decent script, they'd have happily struck up the band and began singing "Springtime for Hussein" (with all the Dem Reps doing the can-can, forming a big spinning Scud launcher). Unfortunately for them, the script they have would make "Showgirls Go To Ishtar" (A Bialystock/Bloom Production, Directed by Roger De Brise) look like "To Kill A Mockingbird." TC, R Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter