 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / October 200730-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War
30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 In rec.scuba, on Tue 09 Oct 2007 10:33:00p, RecScubaPoster <recscubaposter@yahoo.com> wrote: > 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War > > http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 Why is it that the Mac seems to attract so many idiots? Is it that the Mac causes them to be idiots or is it because idiots don't know any better and are attracted to Macs? > In rec.scuba, on Tue 09 Oct 2007 10:33:00p, RecScubaPoster > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > causes them to be idiots or is it because idiots don't know any better and > are attracted to Macs? It's the title of an article fuckwit. > 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War > > http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 Your math is a bit off. Aug. 4, 1964 was more than 40 years ago.... gc On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > gc It's the title of an article fuckwit. > It's the title of an article fuckwit. So, if they can't even do simple math correctly, you think that anything else they say would be more accurate?  Signature"I'm Pro-choice, because the last thing I need is more idiots to piss me off." On Oct 12, 1:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:20:55 -0700, RecScubaPoster > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, if they can't even do simple math correctly, you think that > anything else they say would be more accurate? Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. Oh, so it's just an old fuckin' article that you posted without correcting the date / elapsed time on... OK, perhaps their date calculations don't make them an idiot... Unfortunately, you can't use that same excuse... Signature"I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice." > > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. > > Oh, so it's just an old fuckin' article that you posted without > correcting the date / elapsed time on... OK, perhaps their date > calculations don't make them an idiot... Unfortunately, you can't use > that same excuse... I see Carl is back in full bloom. Still hiding in his momma's basement, afraid of the light of day like the other cockroaches. > > > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Still hiding in his momma's basement, afraid of the light of day like the > other cockroaches. When do you arrive in Bagdad bad boy? They have work for badassed bounty hunters like you. Maybe you could retire and not live off your puppies... rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott whined: > I see Carl is back in full bloom. I haven't posted in quite some time, pussy. But it's time to come back and smack you and Fatboy around for a while. Cheap entertainment. But I see that you're still so scared of me that you think that other posters are me. Now, run along and post under my nym, pussy. Don't forget to change the newserver so you aren't posting under your whidbey.com account in the x-headers. > rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott whined: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But I see that you're still so scared of me that you think that > other posters are me. *No one* is "scared" of you little girl. You are zit on the a.s of Usenet. It gives you the chance to be the bully you cant be in real life. > Now, run along and post under my nym, pussy. You don't tell me what to do, dickhead. > Don't forget to change the newserver so you aren't posting under > your whidbey.com account in the x-headers. How's this, you slimy, lying little piece of sh.t? There were several people pounding you like the cheap meat you are, from all over the world. Glad to know it got up your a.s with a candle on it. BTW, I was up diving the Sunshine Coast a couple weeks ago. Too bad the Canadians let sh.t like you breathe their air. pugetsounddiver@gmail.com sexually stimulated me with: > *No one* is "scared" of you little girl. You are, otherwise you would meet me at the local glory hole. > You are zit on the a.s of Usenet. Oh, I love it when you talk dirty to me Scotty. Please! I want to have your love child! > It gives you the chance to be the bully you cant be in real life. I let the little boys bully me while they stick their little dicks up my a.s. Does that count? > There were several people pounding you like the cheap meat you are, > from all over the world. > > Glad to know it got up your a.s with a candle on it. A candle up my a.s? Ooooh, I'm all wet just thinking about it. Posting under my nym, rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott wrote: > pugetsounddiver@gmail.com sexually stimulated himself with: As I predicted, Scotty can't control himself. > Posting under my nym, rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott wrote: > > > pugetsounddi...@gmail.com sexually stimulated himself with: > > As I predicted, Scotty can't control himself. There are at least three people (not discounting every other person who reads this NG) here who know what a complete jackass you are; The person who is actually posting in your name, me and you. Sure is fun watching you flop around though. rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott whined: > On Oct 14, 12:43 pm, Carl Nisarel <hostl.bud...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > *No one* is "scared" of you You demonstrated it when you ran from meeting me at the Peace Arch. It was hilarious to watch your butt buddies try to help you out. ... > It gives you the chance to be the bully you cant be in real > life. Scotty projects his own inadequacies. >> Now, run along and post under my nym, pussy. > > You don't tell me what to do, Yet you did it anyway. You're such a predictable pussy. .. >> Don't forget to change the newserver so you aren't posting >> under your whidbey.com account in the x-headers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There were several people pounding you like the cheap meat you > are, from all over the world. You're a very confused pussy as well. ... > BTW, I was up diving the Sunshine Coast a couple weeks ago. And you were too frightened to let me know ahead of time so I could travel across Georgia Straight to meet you. Did you remember to tell the Canadian Border guards that you were hiding firearms in your car? Or did you leave them behind because you were too scared of them to 'prove' that you have the right to bear arms? On Oct 12, 3:10 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:00:19 -0700, RecScubaPoster > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > "I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice." It was the title of the article fuckwit. -On Oct 12, 3:10 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- -gmail.com> wrote: -> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:00:19 -0700, RecScubaPoster -> -> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote: -> > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. -> -> Oh, so it's just an old fuckin' article that you posted without -> correcting the date / elapsed time on... OK, perhaps their date -> calculations don't make them an idiot... Unfortunately, you can't use -> that same excuse... -> -> -- -> "I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice." - -It was the title of the article fuckwit. "I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice." - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net -On Oct 12, 1:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- -gmail.com> wrote: -> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:20:55 -0700, RecScubaPoster -> -> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote: -> > It's the title of an article fuckwit. -> -> So, if they can't even do simple math correctly, you think that -> anything else they say would be more accurate? - -Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. right, WitLess - - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > On Oct 12, 1:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- > gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit. You are starting to sound like Carl Nisarel Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ But - there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It's a subtle line, but it exists. >> On Oct 12, 1:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- >> gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You are starting to sound like Carl Nisarel I once had a basic respect for suds/Eric, but lately you can't tell the two of them apart. They're in the hole. I hope the Dems win the next election, or Eric will be as far gone as charliekeys. > On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's the title of an article fuckwit. It's also the subject matter of your post. You chose that after posting an article that is 13 years old. What was the point? Don't get me wrong, I happen to be one who is appalled by the Tonkin lie and everything that followed, but I fail to see the point or context of this posting at this time. You might just as well have posted something about Custer's stupidity at Little Big Horn. gc > > On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > gc Your inability to place it the context of current events doesn't surprise me one little bit fuckwit. > Your inability to place it the context of current events doesn't > surprise me one little bit fuckwit. "I'd like to see it from your viewpoint, but I can't get my head that far up my a.s" On Oct 12, 3:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:05:14 -0700, RecScubaPoster > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "I'd like to see it from your viewpoint, but I can't get my head that > far up my a.s" "Youd hafta pull ya head outta ya c.nt before you cun stick it up ya a.s. Tha ain't hapnin punk." -On Oct 12, 3:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM- -gmail.com> wrote: -> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:05:14 -0700, RecScubaPoster -> -> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote: -> > Your inability to place it the context of current events doesn't -> > surprise me one little bit fuckwit. -> -> "I'd like to see it from your viewpoint, but I can't get my head that -> far up my a.s" - -"Youd hafta pull ya head outta ya c.nt before you cun stick it -up ya a.s. Tha ain't hapnin punk." ... said the anonymous blowhard... - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > > > On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > surprise > me one little bit fuckwit. Look, genius, you are the one who posted the link to a 13 year old article, titled your post "30-Year Anniversary" and made no comment about it. I can see the context very clearly, probably better than you can. I also happen to be very opposed to the current war. And I'm embarrassed by anonymous little tourette's patients like you. I guess you would be the left's version of scott. gc > Look, genius, you are the one who posted the link to a 13 year old > article, titled your post "30-Year Anniversary" and made no comment > about it. I can see the context very clearly, probably better than you > can. I also happen to be very opposed to the current war. And I'm > embarrassed by anonymous little tourette's patients like you. I guess > you would be the left's version of scott. Certainly the same vocubulary and temperment. > > Look, genius, you are the one who posted the link to a 13 year old > > article, titled your post "30-Year Anniversary" and made no comment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Certainly the same vocubulary and temperment. Another cheapo drive by. You people are simply amazing. > > > > On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > gc Oh goodie, more cheap shots from the cheap seats. It's Scott, a.shole. And "Carl" doesn't have the balls to use his real name. I pegged you dead on long ago. On Oct 14, 5:25 pm, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Oh goodie, more cheap shots from the cheap seats. I bet I paid as much for my seat as you did for yours. > It's Scott, a.shole. You left out "aka" gc rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott whined: > And "Carl" doesn't have the balls to use his real name. Aww, poor Scotty. He's still hurting after running away from my invitation to meet at the Peace Arch. BTW, pussy, how do you know whether or not I use my real name since you've never met me? -On Oct 10, 10:45 am, George Cathcart <george.cathc...@gmail.com> -wrote: -> -> > 30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War -> -> >http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 -> -> Your math is a bit off. Aug. 4, 1964 was more than 40 years ago.... -> -> gc - -It's the title of an article fuckwit. hey yourself, fuckwitless. the number is still wrong. your choice of authors shows your standards, or lack thereof. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net <chop the typical Nisarel vomit> > -It's the title of an article fuckwit. > > hey yourself, fuckwitless. > the number is still wrong. > > your choice of authors shows your standards, or lack thereof. Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004: 1980 .......... 2,392 1981 .......... 2,380 1982 .......... 2,318 1983 .......... 2,465 1984 .......... 1,999 1985 .......... 2,252 1986 .......... 1,984 1987 .......... 1,983 1988 .......... 1,819 1989 .......... 1,636 1990 .......... 1,508 1991 .......... 1,787 1992 .......... 1,293 1993 .......... 1,213 1994 .......... 1,075 1995 .......... 1,040 1996 .......... 974 1997 .......... 817 1998 .......... 826 1999 .......... 795 2000 .......... 774 2001 .......... 890 2002 .......... 1007 2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534* 2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900* 2005 .......... 919* 2006 .......... 920* * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only. Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency? Were we at war? Now, are you confused when you look at these figures? Especially look at 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel Peace Prize, Jimmy Carter" himself, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting. Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong again - The latest census shows the following: European descent (white) ... 69.12% Hispanic .. 12.5% African American ..... 12.3% Asian ..... 3.7% Native American ..... 1.0% Other ..... 2.6% Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are: European descent (white) ..... 74.31% Hispanic ..... 10.74% African American ..... 9.67% Asian ..... 1.81% Native American ... .. 1.09% Other ..... 2.33% These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf > What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal > politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts > that support their agenda driven reporting. Exactly. For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ natsec/RL32492.pdf) It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284 wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire Korean War. And that was a real war. At least the kids in that war lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex. "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight" -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ret., former commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq. > > What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal > > politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire > Korean War. And that was a real war. Hmmm . . as I understood it, mayhap the Koreans called it a war, but the 'mercans called it a police action or the Korean conflict to avoid polictical ramifications. >At least the kids in that war > lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea > stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring > down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex. > "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end > in sight" -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ret., former commander of all > U.S. forces in Iraq. >> What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal >> politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire > Korean War. Liberal logic at it's finest. Ah.... do you know how long the Korean Conflict was, or are you trying to make Scott's argument for him? Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an excursion that was half as long. We lost about 6600 Marines in 36 days on Iwo. Good luck with the election. > And that was a real war. At least the kids in that war > lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea > stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring > down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex. > Liberal logic at it's finest. Talk about "mutually exclusive"; Liberal Logic Finest > Ah.... do you know how long the Korean Conflict was, or are you trying to > make Scott's argument for him? Like always... > Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an > excursion that was half as long. > > We lost about 6600 Marines in 36 days on Iwo. Dont bore him with petty details, he is busy spinning another lie. > Good luck with the election. I cant wait. Wonder what they'll blame it on this time... > > Good luck with the election. > > I cant wait. > > Wonder what they'll blame it on this time... So which one of the four conservative rich white guys are you rooting for, the corrupt pro-choice Italian, the flip-flopping Mormon, the Arizona guy running for his 15th time or so, or the guy who plays a real politician on TV? "Without reservation or any hesitation I am proud to endorse Hillary Clinton to be the next Democratic nominee to be president of the United States" -- Rep. John Lewis. (The son of sharecroppers, Lewis, 67, rose to fame as one of the "Freedom Riders" promoting civil rights in the South. He was badly beaten by police during a nonviolent civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., in 1961, and still bears scars from the experience. Lewis also served as director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, one of the major civil rights organizations of the era. He was elected to Congress in 1986.) Will Republicans rally aroud a pro-choice pro-gay candidate with serious family values issues in his own family and hauntings of shady business dealings in his past? Will they choose a Mormon instead, someone who used to be pro-gay when it was politically expedient, but now is anti-gay because it's politically expedient? What about John McCain who's run in every single presidential primary since George Washington's time? Naw, it will probably be the standard Republican default candidate: when in doubt, choose an actor. Worked for Reagan, worked for Arnie, why not Thompson? As Dan Bartlett put it, the campaign's biggest dud. The most recent poll is by NPR (Oct. 4-7), showing Hillary over Rudy 47 to 44, Hillary over Fred 50 to 42. The generic "Democrat" over the generic "Republican" by an overwhelming 49 to 36 with 13% unsure, and other polls have already indicated the undecideds are leaning Democrat these days. Rudy is already down by 3 and that's before the national campaign publicizes all the dirt against him. That's the best thing about Hillary - all the dirt's already out there and she's still ahead. Madam President in 2008! > So which one of the four conservative rich white guys are you rooting > for, the corrupt pro-choice Italian, the flip-flopping Mormon, the > Arizona guy running for his 15th time or so, or the guy who plays a > real politician on TV? Here's a nice review of them: http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/index.html From Huckabee's page, he doesn't look that bad... If he wasn't from Arkansas, he would be better though... > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in >> Good luck with the election. > > I cant wait. > > Wonder what they'll blame it on this time... They'll petrify, or supernova... "charleykeys syndrome"... On Oct 14, 2:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an > excursion that was half as long. But that was a real war. We're not fighting anyone in Iraq now. The war part is over, Bush declared victory, we got Saddam. And they've stressed over and over again there's no civil war going on, just a little bit of insurgency. We're merely occupiers of occupied territory, dying for the "cause" whatever that is. > Good luck with the election. Thanks. Congratulations on your fellow Tennesseean winning the Peace Prize. > On Oct 14, 2:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an >> excursion that was half as long. > > But that was a real war. We're not fighting anyone in Iraq now. Brilliant psywar. They're killing each other at breakneck speed. Better 'n free beer. >The war part is over, Bush declared victory, we got Saddam. Like he said, yup. > And they've > stressed over and over again there's no civil war going on, just a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks. Congratulations on your fellow Tennesseean winning the Peace > Prize. Like Arafat, right? ;-) Douglas W. "Fatboy" Frederick sputtered: rec.scuba's resident pussy Scotty Koplin whined: >> But that was a real war. We're not fighting anyone in Iraq now. Yet US military troops are engaged in fighting and US military troops are getting killed. Scotty's rather confused. > Brilliant psywar. > > They're killing each other at breakneck speed. It figures you'd support genocide. > Douglas W. "Fatboy" Frederick sputtered: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yet US military troops are engaged in fighting and US military > troops are getting killed. Not real good at attribution, are you? > Scotty's rather confused. Scotty's not the only one, apparently. "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Better 'n free beer. When's the next time you're going come over and get some? >> Better 'n free beer. > When's the next time you're going come over and get some? Speaking of which, Doug spent the night here last night and, between us, we didn't drink a drop of alcoholic beverage. Where did my host skills go? By the way, Doug, you left your Streets & Trips software sitting on the couch. Let me know how and how quickly to bet get it back to you. Lee >>> Better 'n free beer. > >> When's the next time you're going come over and get some? > > Speaking of which, Doug spent the night here last night and, between us, > we didn't drink a drop of alcoholic beverage. We were so full, it woulda had to be taken intravenously. Blows a lotta pre-conceived notions around here, tho... ;-) >Where did my host skills go? Perfect as always! > By the way, Doug, you left your Streets & Trips software sitting on the > couch. Let me know how and how quickly to bet get it back to you. > > Lee Keep it and I'll git me a nuthern ('08, when she's ready). It's worth it's weight in gold. Thanks for dinner, and everything!!! > Blows a lotta pre-conceived notions around here, tho... ;-) Not completely. ;-) Curtis >> Blows a lotta pre-conceived notions around here, tho... ;-) > > Not completely. ;-) > > Curtis Maaaan, I'm right up in your neighborhood again! And thanks for dinner, too! > Maaaan, I'm right up in your neighborhood again! Looking for the blonde barmaid? :-D > And thanks for dinner, too! NP, enjoyed the surprise visit. Curtis > Keep it and I'll git me a nuthern ('08, when she's ready). > It's worth it's weight in gold. Thanks. > Thanks for dinner, and everything!!! Anytime. It was our pleasure. Lee > >> Better 'n free beer. > > When's the next time you're going come over and get some? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee That was Nisarel posting in my name. > That was Nisarel posting in my name. I know, but I'm still married and still had to decline. Lee On Oct 15, 8:19 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They're killing each other at breakneck speed. They're getting better at what they do and they're recruiting more and more anti-Americans each day. If Bush's purpose in invading Iraq was to sustain world terrorism sufficiently to keep the money flowing into his supporters' coffers, he did a great job. > Better 'n free beer. Unfortunately it ain't free. Bush's little war to promote terrorism has cost us patriotic taxpayers hundreds of billions, going on a trillion. So much for Social Security. We should send our future retirees to Iraq where it's nice and sunny - they sure won't be able to afford Scottsdale or Boca. > > Thanks. Congratulations on your fellow Tennesseean winning the Peace > > Prize. > > Like Arafat, right? ;-) What do you expect from a guy who made his money blowing stuff up? > On Oct 15, 8:19 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > retirees to Iraq where it's nice and sunny - they sure won't be able > to afford Scottsdale or Boca. Ha, like social security is supposed to be a retirement plan... that's pretty funny. Maybe you actually *should* consider giving up your day job. >> We should send our future retirees to Iraq where it's nice and sunny - >> they sure won't be able >> to afford Scottsdale or Boca. You mean all the Mexicans you think should get social security and other public benefits without ever having paid into them? Sounds like a plan to me. Lee > >> We should send our future retirees to Iraq where it's nice and sunny - > >> they sure won't be able [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sounds like a plan to me. When did I ever suggest Mexicans should get Social Security without having paid into it? They should be treated exactly like other employees: if they pay into it, they should be eligible for benefits. If not, not. Many, if not most, illegal Mexicans have FICA deducted from their paychecks. It's one thing for an employer to risk tangling with whatever they're calling INS nowadays, but quite another to try to thwart the IRS from payroll tax obligations. However, since most illegal Mexicans are smart enough to not raise a red flag (preferring the orange, green, and white of their own flag), they don't ever try to collect Social Security that they've paid into the system. Hence a windfall for us rich white Americans who not only get our strawberries picked for us, but we get to keep their Social Security checks as well. > They're getting better at what they do and they're recruiting more and > more anti-Americans each day. Including you. > If Bush's purpose in invading Iraq was > to sustain world terrorism sufficiently to keep the money flowing into > his supporters' coffers, he did a great job. How many attacks by terrorists on American soil and embassies during Clinton's administration? How many under Bush? On Oct 17, 5:13 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > They're getting better at what they do and they're recruiting more and > > more anti-Americans each day. > > Including you. My AQ card sits right next to the the NRA one on my mantle under the stuffed groundhog heads. I have the guns pictured on both cards aimed at each other. > > If Bush's purpose in invading Iraq was > > to sustain world terrorism sufficiently to keep the money flowing into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many under Bush? If you can call American embassies "American soil" then why not call American-occupied territory "American soil" and do the math again. Certain the Green Zone at least should be considered equivalent to embassy soil. How many Americans killed by terrorists during Clinton's reign? How many Americans killed by terrorists during Bush's reign? That's a real fun equation. Shouldn't a President keep Americans safe from harm wherever they may be? > > How many attacks by terrorists on American soil and embassies during > > Clinton's administration? > > How many under Bush? <Chop the typical bullshit, partisan bigot, non answer> Thanks for making my point. Love to stay and help you make a bigger a.s of yourself, but I am going to the range with an MIT grad who just turned 21, bought a new pistol, his first firearm ever. His concealed carry permit is in the works too. On Oct 17, 1:09 pm, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > Love to stay and help you make a bigger a.s of yourself, but I am > going to the range with an MIT grad who just turned 21, bought a new > pistol, his first firearm ever. His concealed carry permit is in the > works too. Maybe he can help you answer my intelligent questions that you're obviously struggling with. > Maybe he can help you answer my intelligent questions that you're > obviously struggling with. Say something remotely intelligent or honest once and we'll see. On Oct 18, 4:55 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Maybe he can help you answer my intelligent questions that you're > > obviously struggling with. > > Say something remotely intelligent or honest once and we'll see. Why bother? You'll just ignore it and pretend I'm in your killfile like usual. But if you like, go back and answer the previous question for starters. > On Oct 17, 5:13 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stuffed groundhog heads. I have the guns pictured on both cards aimed > at each other. Are they expired? Or did you re-up your NRA membership. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ But - there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It's a subtle line, but it exists. On Oct 17, 1:48 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > > On Oct 17, 5:13 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are they expired? Or did you re-up your NRA membership. They sent me a new card anyway. Apparently they're so crazed to keep Hillary out of the White House that they're giving memberships away. I am the NRA. > > Are they expired? Or did you re-up your NRA membership. > > They sent me a new card anyway. Apparently they're so crazed to keep > Hillary out of the White House that they're giving memberships away. > > I am the NRA. Up kind of late aren't ya? Are you polishing your guns/hakapik? > > > Are they expired? Or did you re-up your NRA membership. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Up kind of late aren't ya? Are you polishing your guns/hakapik? Google is on a time delay again, posting everything a few hours after I've already headed to bed. > On Oct 17, 1:48 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I am the NRA. Next time you come to Chicago, let me know and plan for an extra day. We'll take you to the range and see ifyou are the NRA.... It'll be fun. Give me some notice so I can make sure all the brass is loaded and ready. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ But - there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It's a subtle line, but it exists. > It'll be fun. Give me some notice so I can make sure all the brass is > loaded and ready. Let me know if you're running short. For that, I'd crank up the reloading equipment for a couple of hours. Lee > > It'll be fun. Give me some notice so I can make sure all the brass is > > loaded and ready. > > Let me know if you're running short. For that, I'd crank up the reloading > equipment for a couple of hours. What do you think, I'm a dummy? I ain't getting in shooting range of none of y'all. I've heard all about those "accidents" at the gun range. Killfiles only go so far: we all know there's only one way to make a killfile permanent! And all you have to do is claim you thought I was some sort of terrorist that the T department is seeking and you yelled "stop police!" and shot me, exactly which order you now forget, and you feel very sorry that you got the wrong guy but your damn contact lenses have been acting up. Either that, or claim you thought I was a runaway groundhoug. I think the former excuse is more believable. I still think it's funny that you took my DWG II threat to surreptitiously swim back to the boat, grab one of your guns, and plink away at all of you as you were ascending, seriously enough to ascend on the wrong line way out of shooting range. Next time, I'll simply shoot the captain (the dummy forgot to refill the water!?!) and run y'all down, claiming dehydration psychosis made me do it. I am the NRA! > What do you think, I'm a dummy? I ain't getting in shooting range of > none of y'all. Awh, 'ell, you wouldn't even go on a little ol' swamp dive with me when you were in New Orleans... <evil-grin> Actually, you've been within shooting range of many of us quite a few times and you're still alive... Signature"Sure you can trust the government! Just ask an Indian!" >>What do you think, I'm a dummy? I ain't getting in shooting range of >>none of y'all. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, you've been within shooting range of many of us quite a few > times and you're still alive... And well within shooting range of me at least once. And I was armed, IIRC. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. > What do you think, I'm a dummy? I ain't getting in shooting range of > none of y'all. I think you already know the answer to that one. On Oct 17, 5:13 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > They're getting better at what they do and they're recruiting more and > > more anti-Americans each day. > > Including you. My AQ card sits right next to the the NRA one on my mantle under the stuffed groundhog heads. I have the guns pictured on both cards aimed at each other. > > If Bush's purpose in invading Iraq was > > to sustain world terrorism sufficiently to keep the money flowing into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many under Bush? If you can call American embassies "American soil" then why not call American-occupied territory "American soil" and do the math again. Certain the Green Zone at least should be considered equivalent to embassy soil. How many Americans killed by terrorists during Clinton's reign? How many Americans killed by terrorists during Bush's reign? That's a real fun equation. Shouldn't a President keep Americans safe from harm wherever they may be? -On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote: - -> What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal -> politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts -> that support their agenda driven reporting. - -Exactly. - -For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ -natsec/RL32492.pdf) - -It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and -number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284 -wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth -of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire -Korean War. And that was a real war. actually, no. it was a police action. - - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <1192340705.377730.295...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > actually, no. it was a police action. Sure it was. Lots of police served in that war. Firemen too. -On Oct 14, 4:20 pm, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <1192340705.377730.295...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, -> moss...@qnet.com says... -> -On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote: -> - -> -> What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal -> -> politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts -> -> that support their agenda driven reporting. -> - -> -Exactly. -> - -> -For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ -> -natsec/RL32492.pdf) -> - -> -It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and -> -number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284 -> -wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth -> -of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire -> -Korean War. And that was a real war. -> -> actually, no. it was a police action. - -Sure it was. Lots of police served in that war. Firemen too. farmers, too. that does not make it a farm action. - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <1192405733.961133.234...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > farmers, too. > that does not make it a farm action. But it would be if that's what the politicians wanted to call it. > But it would be if that's what the politicians wanted to call it. Kinda like banging the office help isn't sex? On Oct 16, 4:44 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > But it would be if that's what the politicians wanted to call it. > > Kinda like banging the office help isn't sex? Or a killfile that really isn't a killfile. > On Oct 16, 4:44 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or a killfile that really isn't a killfile. Google groups doesn't offer the feature. On Oct 16, 12:09 pm, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Oct 16, 4:44 am, pugetsounddi...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Google groups doesn't offer the feature. Looks like you'll have to put up with me. Sorry. rec.scuba's resident pussy Scott whined: > 1992 .......... 1,293 > 1993 .......... 1,213 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of > military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency? Look at the astrick's, pussy. The 2003-2006 figures do not include fatalities outside of the Iraq war. I predict that you'll be too stupid to comprehend your error. >30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War > >http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 Seems it was a Democrat that did it, too. Signaturedillon Elvis is still dead > >30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War > > >http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 > > Seems it was a Democrat that did it, too. The lesson is: Fuckwit buckaroos from Texas do not belong in the oval office regardless of party affiliation. >> >30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The lesson is: Fuckwit buckaroos from Texas do not belong in the oval >office regardless of party affiliation. Seems that a very Democrat controlled Congress did it, too. Signaturedillon Elvis is still dead |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.