Is Everybody OK?

Nicely put Ken, the low tone kinda surprised me, you must be mellowing in
your old age. :-)


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. net...
Craig Baugher wrote:
Bob wants to debate this on the board, ...

With all due respect to both of you, no good will
come of this.

A political discussion between fishing buddies is
one thing, but without the moderating effects of
a smile, a gesture, a "get this guy a beer", Usenet
politics almost always degenerates into nastiness.
It's the nature of the beast. Been there, done that.

Save it for the campfire.

Please.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Jerry Barton wrote:
Nicely put Ken, the low tone kinda surprised me, you must be mellowing in
your old age. :-)

I think it's more the "been there, done that", than the
old age, but I guess when you get right down to it there
ain't a whole lot of difference between old age and "been
there, done that". ;-)

And thanks for the nice words Jerry, always good to hear
from the really, really old folks. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

ouch!
lmao...


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...
Jerry Barton wrote:
Nicely put Ken, the low tone kinda surprised me, you must be mellowing in
your old age. :-)

I think it's more the "been there, done that", than the
old age, but I guess when you get right down to it there
ain't a whole lot of difference between old age and "been
there, done that". ;-)

And thanks for the nice words Jerry, always good to hear
from the really, really old folks. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Craig Baugher" wrote in message
. ..
Bob wants to debate this on the board, but he accidently asked me two
questions A & B by email and I responded by email. - This is a copy of my
response so that Bob can now reply publicly...


Ok Buddy, let's address your questions:

A) Bush & Cheney, both filthy rich before 9/11, needed to invade Iraq for
the money?

The real question you need to ask yourself is; why did he attack an
already weaken country, that in the grand scheme of things, regardless of
the intelligence he though he had, was, at best a very minor threat in
comparison to states like Iran, North Korean, Pakistan, Indonesia, and
even Saudi Arabia. Why?
1. To finish the fight his father started (Pretty much a Texian attitude)
2. To boost his slacking ratings (since bin laden kept slipping out of our
grip)
3. To take control of the Iraq oil supply
4. Being good businessman, and both being Texians, where one can never be
rich enough, took advantage of this fight to increase the family's wealth.
Which they did!!!

B) the life-hating, suicide-seeking moslems in Iraq are any different than
those you claim to be willing to defend against elsewhere?

Why? Because Shi'ites and Sunnis' believe in ridding their land of us
(christians) and the jews, but have not, EVER, attacked outside their
land. So while they would love to rid us from the middle east, they have
in no time in history, EVER, attacked us outside the middle east. The
Radical Islamics on the other hand, want to rid the WORLD of us and the
Jews. HUGE difference!

Now a question for you. Why would an intelligent man like yourself,
blindly follow a president, even after it has been proven that everything
he told us was a lie? Hell, I dropped Clinton after he was exposed for
his lies, yet you defend this lair.

--
Craig Baugher



Politics on fishing boards are not good. But the Muslims were knocking on
the doors of Paris at one time. May be doing it again today, but via a
different method. Was one of the reasons the Crusades were launched. They
have attacked outside the mideast.

Maybe we just need to start an over 50 fishing group kinda like the golf
Senior Tour.
Only it wouldn't be like watching grass grow.

"WARREN WOLK" wrote in message
news:N_nKg.721$xh4.551@trnddc04...
ouch!
lmao...


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
m...
Jerry Barton wrote:
Nicely put Ken, the low tone kinda surprised me, you must be mellowing
in your old age. :-)

I think it's more the "been there, done that", than the
old age, but I guess when you get right down to it there
ain't a whole lot of difference between old age and "been
there, done that". ;-)

And thanks for the nice words Jerry, always good to hear
from the really, really old folks. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well Bob, it appears they don't want to read our debate. Back to email,
buddy.

--
Craig Baugher

See the double asterisk (**) below for my replies, and FAR more. BTW, what I
say here is from me personally & has nothing to do in any way with Secret
Weapon Lures or anyone associated with Secret Weapon Lures, except me.

Bob Rickard
.................................................. ............................................

"Craig Baugher" wrote in message
. ..
Bob wants to debate this on the board, but he accidently asked me two
questions A & B by email and I responded by email. - This is a copy of my
response so that Bob can now reply publicly...


Ok Buddy, let's address your questions:

A) Bush & Cheney, both filthy rich before 9/11, needed to invade Iraq for
the money?

The real question you need to ask yourself is; why did he attack an
already weaken country, that in the grand scheme of things, regardless of
the intelligence he though he had, was, at best a very minor threat in
comparison to states like Iran, North Korean, Pakistan, Indonesia, and
even Saudi Arabia. Why?
** I take exception to your premiss that Iraq was weak in any way or just a
minor threat. The weak-kneed appeasers of the left were either terrified of
Saddam or had been paid off by him. Just ask the victims in his prisons and
buried in his huge trenches.

1. To finish the fight his father started (Pretty much a Texian attitude).
** Bush Sr. was a Texan long before George W. Bush (hereafter called "W")
got into politics. Sr. screwed up big time by not going after Saddam, as all
the lefties preached afterwards, but W was not about to back off.

2. To boost his slacking ratings (since bin laden kept slipping out of our
grip)
** W has spent almost no effort on his ratings, & he does not govern by
polls like the dems. He puts the USA first.

3. To take control of the Iraq oil supply
** Lord, I hope so. They owe us a fortune.

4. Being good businessman, and both being Texians, where one can never be
rich enough, took advantage of this fight to increase the family's wealth.
Which they did!!!
** Previously answered.

B) the life-hating, suicide-seeking moslems in Iraq are any different than
those you claim to be willing to defend against elsewhere?

Why? Because Shi'ites and Sunnis' believe in ridding their land of us
(christians) and the jews, but have not, EVER, attacked outside their
land. So while they would love to rid us from the middle east, they have
in no time in history, EVER, attacked us outside the middle east. The
Radical Islamics on the other hand, want to rid the WORLD of us and the
Jews. HUGE difference!
** This entire claim is a crock of BS, & I will not dignify it with an
answer.

Now a question for you. Why would an intelligent man like yourself,
blindly follow a president, even after it has been proven that everything
he told us was a lie? Hell, I dropped Clinton after he was exposed for
his lies, yet you defend this lair.
** Personally I am not in agreement with W's political philosophies, but
that doesn't mean squat today. He & the republicans are the only ones where
I can defend my country without wasting my vote. If it wouln't be a waste of
my vote, I would write in the most impressive person I've ever met or seen:
Rob Storm. Rob & I have far different views on many things, but when I do
something that Rob disagrees with that is pertinent for some reason, he has
a real reason that he is not afraid to explain. In every situation he made a
lot of sense, & in many my opinions were changed. I respect no man more.

--
Craig Baugher

** Thanks for having the cajones to stand up for your beliefs, Craig. Ken
Fortenberry, I would love to go on a camping/fishing trip with you if my
health was up to it. Like Craig, you are a good guy & I think we would have
a ball.

** And, now, a 1...
** And a 2..
** And a 3... to everyone else here, I am breaking all these ROFB rules
because this group needs it bad! IMO, this group has become a total bore and
no fun at all anymore. To a degree, my friend Ken & the others who followed
his practices are partly to blame. The attitude of "You broke a rule & I'm
gonna' tell" has, in most cases, got to be squelched. Lots of things that
may be technically Off Topic are actually on topic if considered with an
open mind. I believe that most people have become afraid to post because of
all the stinking rules. Manufacturers & professioners hold back tons of
valuable bass fishing information because they know they will be accused of
advertising, even though there are not enough people in this group to be
financially meaningful to any real business. But the people here do count
for other really important reasons, because for anyone that ever attended a
group function, the people here are collectively the finest people there
are. Now report me, cuss me or whatever you have to do, but please start
having fun. That is what bass fishing is supposed to be all about.

Bob Rickard
Bass fishing's biggest fan

"Bass_Mr." wrote in news:KmpKg.34331$C6.20092
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

Maybe we just need to start an over 50 fishing group kinda like the golf
Senior Tour.
Only it wouldn't be like watching grass grow.

I'm not 50 yet, but I've been told I'm crotchety well beyond my years.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply