|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife.
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242327 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 17:49 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
> Again, not a lie. The intelligence gathered did indicate it. The
> intelligence may have been wrong, but that does not make it a lie.
So if I may understand your position, let me get this straight:
- Leader willingly takes, and is given, responsibility for good deeds done
well when underlings accomplish goals
- Leader directs overall actions of underlings - for that is the dictionary
definition of "Leader"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leader
- Leader creates and guides overall atmosphere
...
- Leader gets information from underlings
- Leader makes statements based upon underlings findings, underlings both
hired and assigned by Leader
- Statements are wrong
- Leader denies all responsibility
- Leader is exonerated of all responsibility
So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
I thought one of "your" - and you haven't spoken your political stand
directly, but have implied it numerous times - party's stand is
"responsibility"?? Well, isn't the LEADER supposed to be RESPONSIBLE?
Or is it "The Buck Stops Here - but only when I can conveniently take the
credit"? This is the pattern the Enron and Tyco execs all took - we do only
good, we're not responsible for the bad - and well, you can see how much it
held up.
So, sir. Which is it? Are your people responsible or not??
No dodging with political bullshit. Yes, or no.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242328 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 18:32 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:49:11 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
>> Again, not a lie. The intelligence gathered did indicate it. The
>> intelligence may have been wrong, but that does not make it a lie.
>
>So if I may understand your position, let me get this straight:
>
>- Leader willingly takes, and is given, responsibility for good deeds done
>well when underlings accomplish goals
And Leader takes responsibility for when mistakes are made and/or
things go wrong.
>- Leader directs overall actions of underlings - for that is the dictionary
>definition of "Leader"
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leader
>
>- Leader creates and guides overall atmosphere
> ...
>
>- Leader gets information from underlings
>
>- Leader makes statements based upon underlings findings, underlings both
>hired and assigned by Leader
>
>- Statements are wrong
The statements are not wrong.
>
>- Leader denies all responsibility
President GW Bush has never denied responsibility.
>
>- Leader is exonerated of all responsibility
President GW Bush has never been exonorated of any responsibility.
>
>So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
Sorry, but Enron and Tyco are democrat problems, have little if any
connection to President GW Bush and his administration.
Nice canard though.
>
>I thought one of "your" - and you haven't spoken your political stand
>directly, but have implied it numerous times - party's stand is
>"responsibility"?? Well, isn't the LEADER supposed to be RESPONSIBLE?
My Leader is responsible.
>
>Or is it "The Buck Stops Here - but only when I can conveniently take the
>credit"?
You are discussing the previous administration here.
> This is the pattern the Enron and Tyco execs all took - we do only
>good, we're not responsible for the bad - and well, you can see how much it
>held up.
>
>So, sir. Which is it? Are your people responsible or not??
>
>No dodging with political bullshit. Yes, or no.
>
Yes, we are responsible. We've taken responsibility and will
continue to do so.
I only wish you and your side would do so as well.
We also want credit for our successes - but you and your side won't
even give us that much.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242329 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 18:43 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:bg4g2215apjf3jeja94ookuh4aif0l5vqi [at] 4ax.com...
>>- Statements are wrong
>
> The statements are not wrong.
I asked you to remove political propaganda from the discussion. The U.N.
said G.W. Bush's stand regarding WMD as wrong. Period. No factual proof
has ever - repeat EVER - been shown to refute this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm\
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134247,00.html
>
>>
>>- Leader denies all responsibility
>
> President GW Bush has never denied responsibility.
Try again loser
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144437,00.html
>
>>
>>- Leader is exonerated of all responsibility
>
> President GW Bush has never been exonorated of any responsibility.
>
>>
>>So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
> Sorry, but Enron and Tyco are democrat problems, have little if any
> connection to President GW Bush and his administration.
>
> Nice canard though.
Ooh, that's rich!! Turning a economic scandal into a political one, and
against anybody you personally don't like at that!
Forget it loser, you've just forfeited the entire debate.
You've lost.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
For all bothering to read this announcement killfile John H. Schneider II
(JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com), for he has proven himself the ultimate waste of time
as he has deceived both himself and anyone who actually bothers to follow
his posts.
<plonk>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242331 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 19:07 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:43:02 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
trolled, lied, and projected:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:bg4g2215apjf3jeja94ookuh4aif0l5vqi [at] 4ax.com...
>>>- Statements are wrong
>>
>> The statements are not wrong.
>
>I asked you to remove political propaganda from the discussion.
I did remove the political propaganda from the discussion.
Wait, that's not entirely correct - I left your posts intact.
> The U.N.
>said G.W. Bush's stand regarding WMD as wrong.
The UN has also put the Sudan on the UN Human Rights Council. The UN
repeatedly paints Israel as the terrorists and the PLO as the good
guys.
> Period. No factual proof
>has ever - repeat EVER - been shown to refute this.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm\
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134247,00.html
>
Sorry, but I have no trust in ANYTHING that the UN says.
My guss is that the same people who put out the reports that you
believe are the same ones who were heavily involved in the UN "Oil for
Palaces" program.
>
>>
>>>
>>>- Leader denies all responsibility
>>
>> President GW Bush has never denied responsibility.
>
>Try again loser
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144437,00.html
I see you still can't accept reality. Remember here that the issue
is "did President GW Bush lie?" You cannot take rsponsibility for
something that never happened.
>
>>
>>>
>>>- Leader is exonerated of all responsibility
>>
>> President GW Bush has never been exonorated of any responsibility.
>>
>>>
>>>So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
>
>> Sorry, but Enron and Tyco are democrat problems, have little if any
>> connection to President GW Bush and his administration.
>>
>> Nice canard though.
>
>Ooh, that's rich!! Turning a economic scandal into a political one, and
>against anybody you personally don't like at that!
>
>Forget it loser, you've just forfeited the entire debate.
>
>You've lost.
Nice claim of victory, it follows perfectly into your denial of
reality.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
>
>For all bothering to read this announcement killfile John H. Schneider II
>(JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com), for he has proven himself the ultimate waste of time
>as he has deceived both himself and anyone who actually bothers to follow
>his posts.
And the troll "snake" proves that he can't engage in an intelligent,
mature conversation and therefore he must:
>
><plonk>
>
Thanks for the insight into a total denial of reality. I'd rather
live in the real world, thank you very much.
Now let's see how long you can keep from the trolling, denial of
reality, and ad hominem attacks.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242336 ] |
Mo, 27 März 2006 22:45 |
|
Clinton lied about the "hundreds of thousands" in mass graves in
Yugloslavia. So, 2,500 Serbian civilians were killed when Clinton
intiated a bombing campaign against Yugoslavia based on this during the
Monica Lewinsky scandel. As a matter of fact He bombed 4 sovereign
nations in the span of 8-months to cover for his "personal" ordeals. The
places he bombed were not always free of people.
When he was President-elect, he said the Haitian boat people could get
asylum in the US. He went back on his word when he came to office. They
came to America by the boatload and had to be turned back. The result
was a lot of people dying at sea because they believed Clinton.
Also, people forget that this lying under oath to Congress happened
during an investigation into serious allegations that he had tried to
force himself sexually on at least one woman (it wasn't about sex, it
was about attempted rape).
Now, I don't believe Bush lied (the recent article about the Saddam
tapes in the NYT back that up more now than ever) but even if you still
believe he lied, using the "Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" slogan is
inaccurate and insulting to the people that did die because of (and to
take attention away from) Clinton's lies.
ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
> When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
|
|
|
| Re: Not Star Trek: OT began by liberal [message #242340 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 00:50 |
|
<bush stew [at] rock ers.net> wrote in message
news:absc2255ravgcok4agisb1sgsrp01enlpq [at] 4ax.com...
>
> Stand stand? I'm for small government, a balanced budget, secure
> borders.
So, you really are NOT democrat.
>Your side stands for "Buy American while we ship your job
> overseas."
"Your" side????
Are you NOT American??
> From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed
> themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not
> bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his
> influence among the people."
>
> Today, we call them Republicans.
No, they are actually called hypocrit democrats.
You complain about the "religious right" and then
you claim to be religious.
What ARE you trying to say?
|
|
|
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek (so why do you haters continue this here?) [message #242341 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:19 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:QeCdnTZ0EpywdrrZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> When Clinton lied, no one died. Bush, OTOH...
Said the loser, since they can't come up with REAL arguments.
Fact: Clinton lied.
Fact: Bush said "according to current reports.........."
Fact: Sadaam has had WMD's because the US gave them to him.
Fact: He put them somewhere. If they haven't been found yet, they
are still SOMEWHERE. Why don't you put your energy into helping
instead of complaining. DO something. At least Bush is doing something.
Right or wrong.
|
|
|
| Re: OT Boy Scouts In Space [message #242342 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:20 |
|
"ToolPackinMama" <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:QeCdnTF0EpzEdrrZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>>>got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>>
>>
>> Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>>
>> More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>
> LOL, yeah, and I am one of them.
And if you haters had your way, you would be killed for admitting it.
Protect your rights, don't argue against protecting them.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242343 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:26 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:ZzSVf.992$ui7.654 [at] trndny09...
> Current America is being torn apart by partisan politics. Why? Mostly
> the party in "power" makes no compromise towards anyone else but
> themselves.
What????
EVERYTHING I've seen reveals exactly the opposite party's guilt in the
separation of America.
> "Freedom of [religion, speech, press, pursuit of happiness]" does not say
> "Freedom of...when interpreted through religious laws that only some
> believe in")
What are you saying? That only those who are religious get freedom
of................?
I say that you have freedom of..................no matter what religion you
profess to believe.
|
|
|
| Re: Liberal Boys In Space [message #242344 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:31 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:U%SVf.332$tZ.155 [at] trndny03...
> But you do nothing but post propaganda and expect everyone to fall in line
> like good little brainwashed ducks.
Little brainwashed Clinton loving liberals??
No thanks.
|
|
|
| Re: In Space [message #242345 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:36 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:XPTVf.546$st.269 [at] trndny05...
> Or is it "The Buck Stops Here - but only when I can conveniently take the
> credit"? This is the pattern the Enron and Tyco execs all took - we do
> only good, we're not responsible for the bad - and well, you can see how
> much it held up.
>
> So, sir. Which is it? Are your people responsible or not??
>
> No dodging with political bullshit. Yes, or no.
Hipocracy rears its ugly head.
|
|
|
| Re: Spaced [message #242346 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 01:43 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:qCUVf.2322$Po1.389 [at] trndny01...
>>>So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
>
>> Sorry, but Enron and Tyco are democrat problems, have little if any
>> connection to President GW Bush and his administration.
>>
>> Nice canard though.
>
> Ooh, that's rich!! Turning a economic scandal into a political one, and
> against anybody you personally don't like at that!
Are you following along, Snake????????
You, Snake, are the unfortunate one to kill your own argument.
You, Snake, originally mentioned Enron and Tyco.
Loser AND hypocrit
> For all bothering to read this announcement killfile John H. Schneider II
> (JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com), for he has proven himself the ultimate waste of
> time as he has deceived both himself and anyone who actually bothers to
> follow his posts.
Resorting to this instead of actually posting something vaguely resembling
Star Trek? Why don't you haters just find your own group instead of
ruining this one?
|
|
|
| Re: Spaced [message #242353 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 04:00 |
|
"VernonT" <hoopestv [at] silverstar.com> wrote in message
news:122gu4kofj34l9a [at] corp.supernews.com...
> "Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
> wrote in message news:qCUVf.2322$Po1.389 [at] trndny01...
>>>>So, Mr. Enron and Mr. Tyco, you got into the White House how, exactly??
>>
>>> Sorry, but Enron and Tyco are democrat problems, have little if any
>>> connection to President GW Bush and his administration.
>>>
>>> Nice canard though.
>>
>> Ooh, that's rich!! Turning a economic scandal into a political one, and
>> against anybody you personally don't like at that!
>
>
> Are you following along, Snake????????
> You, Snake, are the unfortunate one to kill your own argument.
> You, Snake, originally mentioned Enron and Tyco.
:) I believe you may wish to examine the definition of "allegory", sir. It
must have somewhat blindsided you.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html
Thank you and take care,
Snake
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242361 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 10:56 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:43:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:26:45 -0600, an zi [at] koo ker. net trolled and
>baited:
>
> --brevity--
>
>>
>>Idiots like Schneider who worship Dubai Bush cannot be reasoned with
>>any more than those who worship Slick Willy. If you start with the
>>Republican Kleenex premise that Bush is perfect like the Pope, God,
>>Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, there's no point in telling the truth to a
>>liar like Schneider.
>
> And here we have the next contestant in the "How can I make myself
>look like an idiot".
>
> First, I do not worship President GW Bush. Also, President GW Bush
>is not known as "Dubai Bush. Those two things alone discredit anything
>else in the entire post.
>
> And no, the Dan Rather excuse of "forged but accurate" won't cut it.
>
> Care to go for the next round, or do you actually want to post
>something with a bit of maturity and/or credibility?
>
> John H. Schneider II
Fuck you. Care to spin on that asshole? How about if I go Bush on
you?
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242362 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 11:00 |
|
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:28:33 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:17:35 GMT, "Snake"
><fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>and projected:
>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:pcoe2256k63moqhbv35hsiqgqaae6bvgbm [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:03:47 GMT, "Snake"
>>
>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:oe4e22l9os66j59tsiiop5br2j6p7juo0l [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> It still doesn't cover the fact that in 2004 President GW Bush still
>>
>>>>> got MORE votes than John Kerry.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>Very true that. But it also then allows a converse statement:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>More people than *anyone else in history* wanted Bush ***OUT*** .
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If more people than "anyone else in history" wanted President GW
>>
>>> Bush "out", then why did he get more votes for re-election?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Apparently more people wanted him re-elected than wanted him out.
>>
>>That is very true!
>>
>>All of 5.1% more of the American public did indeed want that...
>>
>>> I doubt you will though.
>>
>>As I said, it's up to you. Apparently being overmatched in a joust of
>>factual wits doesn't disturb you so...the ball of discontinuance is still
>>under your court's control.
>
> I see you're still having those projection problems. That's ok, when
>you can't win you have to claim that you did.
>
>>
>>If you'd like to continue, you may next use the political agenda's spin of
>>having a "mandate" to pursue the current course. Then I will reply "if you
>>consider 5.1% a "mandate", to which you will reply "Since we won the
>>election with the greatest number in history the public spoke with it's
>>votes", to which I will reply "Yes it did. That .9541x (95.14%) of the same
>>number of people you think voted for you voted *against* you, so please
>>don't talk asbout a "mandate"...
>>
>>And it will pleasantly go round and 'round.
>
> Not my arguement at all. All Presidents have a mandate, that's
>generally why they were elected.
>
>>
>>Of course, you are unable to compute that far into this discussion so why
>>bother. A person who manifests themselves in a manner similar to your own
>>shows a distinct inability for actual independent thought processes.
>
> More projection from you. I do admire your way of creating strawmen
>so that you can knock them down while avoiding the actual issues and
>content of my posts. Note that while I do admire your ability, it
>means in no way that I want to follow in your footsteps.
>
>>
>>Hmmm. I believe everyone else does not bother with you because...you are a
>>profound waste of mental energies and time. Keeping myself at your mental
>>level is proving tedious as lowering myself down that far is a stoop that,
>>in the future, I'd rather welcomely avoid.
>
> The reason that most other people don't want to get involved in your
>trolling is because it is precisely that - trolling.
>
> Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back on your supposedly
>superior debating skills and overall greater intelligence. /sarcasm
>>
>>My partner has just suggested that continued mental masturbations at your
>>level of wisdom is like playing limbo at the height of 2 Coca-Cola cans.
>>Same nasty taste, no real benefits. Replies like yours simply goes to prove
>>that Borel's Thousand Monkey Theorem really does work.
>>
>>[toilet flushing sound]
>>
>
> Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
>
> John H. Schneider II
You're one of those hostile faggots who likes to get a newsgroup
hating him, then he masturbates over the face of Bush and in lockstep
with all Republicans, wipes his ass with the American flag when
finished.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242364 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 14:05 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:00:02 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd spewed and
trolled:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:28:33 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
--brevity--
>>>
>>
>> Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>You're one of those hostile faggots who likes to get a newsgroup
>hating him, then he masturbates over the face of Bush and in lockstep
>with all Republicans, wipes his ass with the American flag when
>finished.
I see you're incapable of producing a coherent thought without
resorting to ad hominem attacks and vulgarities.
When you're capable of a mature, intelligent post, you're welcome to
rejoin the conversation.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242365 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 14:09 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:56:26 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:43:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:26:45 -0600, an zi [at] koo ker. net trolled and
>>baited:
>>
>> --brevity--
>>
>>>
>>>Idiots like Schneider who worship Dubai Bush cannot be reasoned with
>>>any more than those who worship Slick Willy. If you start with the
>>>Republican Kleenex premise that Bush is perfect like the Pope, God,
>>>Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, there's no point in telling the truth to a
>>>liar like Schneider.
>>
>> And here we have the next contestant in the "How can I make myself
>>look like an idiot".
>>
>> First, I do not worship President GW Bush. Also, President GW Bush
>>is not known as "Dubai Bush. Those two things alone discredit anything
>>else in the entire post.
>>
>> And no, the Dan Rather excuse of "forged but accurate" won't cut it.
>>
>> Care to go for the next round, or do you actually want to post
>>something with a bit of maturity and/or credibility?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>Fuck you. Care to spin on that asshole? How about if I go Bush on
>you?
And here you try to prove me right. You may not be capable of a
mature, intelligent post.
Now, if you want to "go Bush" on me, that would mean you would post
something that demonstrates that you can think for yourself, have a
command of the issues, and that you don't need vulgarities to get your
point across.
Care to try it?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242367 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 17:41 |
|
"CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143353307.637328.315180 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Wrong analogy again:
>
>
> <<How "big" should we act?
> Should we just appease every tyranny that comes along?>>
>
> This has nothing to do with "appeasement," Iraq was making no
> territorial demands (nor any other kind either) when it was invaded by
> the U.S. in 2003--nor did it have weapons of mass destruction nor was
> it supporting Islamic terrorism.
The only way you can say that is if you are/were an insider and I kind
of doubt that. What is funny is that Saddam WAS an Islamic terrorist
and the best part is that he like to do it to other Islamic people. But
who cares right?
I agree with you. America should adapt a hands off policy. No foregn
aid or support of any kind until we can secure our borders, end our
own poverty, and rebuild our falling down infastructure. But we are too
PC and stupid to do this. We will fall. I just wonder if the next landlords
of the US will be Chinese, Islamic, or Mexican.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242369 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 17:56 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message >> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of
law, your
>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>
>> I see a difference, do you?
>
> When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
> of a supposedly *criminal* investigation - the 6th "investigation" so far
> as it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
> illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
> your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
> manner to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
So, according to you it is ok for our President to lie IF he is trying
to save face. Hmmmm. Better not say that too loud. Some of the
Bush Bashers might not like it.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242370 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 18:29 |
|
"CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> The Federation's Prime Directive (difficult as it is to apply
> consistently) was created primarily to avoid that use of overwhelming
> power, and there are numerous "Trek" episodes (all series) in which the
> use of force is avoided in producing a favorable outcome.
> This doesn't mean that the Federation won't fight effectively to
> defend itself if attacked, but it does mean that the use of military
> force is considered the LAST option.
>
> Which is as it should be...
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
>
Well, they never had to deal with people that have
so little in their lives except for brainwashing and
blood thirst. And, none of the Captains were ever
dumb enough to get the Federation involved in a
3 way, centuries old civil war that will never be
won until all sides lose. Maybe we should stand
back and let things happen over there.
Tell Iran that they can have the nukes. But that
we will Nuke them from one border to the other if they
ever attack us or if any of their buddies do with their
weapons. Same goes to the N. Koreans. Let 'em
blow and blow. Americans are way too passive but
if either one of these countries ever causes us to have
a nuclear 911 we will show them what "the white man"
is capable of.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242371 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 19:10 |
|
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:11dWf.43127$_S7.701 [at] newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> So, according to you it is ok for our President to lie IF he is trying
> to save face. Hmmmm. Better not say that too loud. Some of the
> Bush Bashers might not like it.
No, of course you're right. My real point is that he shouldn't have had to
lie because he never should have been asked the questions to begin with - a
personal question inside the 6th "supposedly" criminal investigation held
continuously, without break, in line from the beginning of the first. For
any other American the entire procedure, after at the most the 3rd level of
investigations, would have been called to a halt by any reasonable court for
violations of the 4th Amendment at the most and prosecutorial abuse of power
& harassment at the least.
After the 3rd level of investigations the entire goings on was quite
obviously nothing more than a circus - both a media circus and a political
circus, at that.
No, he shouldn't have lied. Nobody should lie, especially in court. But
the issue is no American citizen should have been put into that position -
personal inquiry inside a 6th "criminal" investigation - in the first place.
The lie was ugly but one also created by the environment, an environment the
prosecutor himself created with his farce of continuous "investigations".
According to United States law one must have sound proof *before* beginning
an investigation and a reasonable level of surety that the prosecutor will
win the case. Along with those clauses the 4th Amendment has historically
been interpreted as protecting an individual from continuous
"investigations" under the 'assumption' that the longer one looks, one will
"eventually" find /something/. It's not supposed to work that way - at
least in this country.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242376 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 00:16 |
|
<<John H. Schneider II wrote
No spin from my side, and we're not saying that if your side did
it it is ok for us to repeat your actions. >>>>>>>>>
You can't argue with a stooge who makes the 3rd grade reference "My
side says this, your side says that". This guy sounds like he's been
emotionally stunted since he lost his 7th grade campaign for class
president.
|
|
|
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek (so why do you haters continue this here?) [message #242377 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 00:24 |
|
From: VernonT
<<DO something. At least Bush is doing something.
Right or wrong. >>
Oh he's doing something alright. And by your own admission it's better
to do something 'wrong' then to do nothing. Pathetic.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242378 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 00:56 |
|
On 28 Mar 2006 14:16:52 -0800, "Led4Aces" <Led4acs [at] aol.com> trolled:
><<John H. Schneider II wrote
> No spin from my side, and we're not saying that if your side did
>it it is ok for us to repeat your actions. >>>>>>>>>
>
>You can't argue with a stooge who makes the 3rd grade reference "My
>side says this, your side says that". This guy sounds like he's been
>emotionally stunted since he lost his 7th grade campaign for class
>president.
As that's not the arguement that I made, I think you're targeting
your trolling to the wrong person.
Of curse, if you actually read what both sides have said...
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243234 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 11:49 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:56:32 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2006 14:16:52 -0800, "Led4Aces" <Led4acs [at] aol.com> trolled:
>
>><<John H. Schneider II wrote
>> No spin from my side, and we're not saying that if your side did
>>it it is ok for us to repeat your actions. >>>>>>>>>
>>
>>You can't argue with a stooge who makes the 3rd grade reference "My
>>side says this, your side says that". This guy sounds like he's been
>>emotionally stunted since he lost his 7th grade campaign for class
>>president.
>
> As that's not the arguement that I made, I think you're targeting
>your trolling to the wrong person.
>
> Of curse, if you actually read what both sides have said...
>
> John H. Schneider II
The ass Schneider can't even spell because all the dittos ran out of
his head. Don't even waste time arguing with him because when he's
defeated, he just changes the subject like a coward who knows his ass
would have a boot in it in real life for the TREASON he commits.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243235 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 11:50 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:09:15 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:56:26 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:43:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:26:45 -0600, an zi [at] koo ker. net trolled and
>>>baited:
>>>
>>> --brevity--
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Idiots like Schneider who worship Dubai Bush cannot be reasoned with
>>>>any more than those who worship Slick Willy. If you start with the
>>>>Republican Kleenex premise that Bush is perfect like the Pope, God,
>>>>Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, there's no point in telling the truth to a
>>>>liar like Schneider.
>>>
>>> And here we have the next contestant in the "How can I make myself
>>>look like an idiot".
>>>
>>> First, I do not worship President GW Bush. Also, President GW Bush
>>>is not known as "Dubai Bush. Those two things alone discredit anything
>>>else in the entire post.
>>>
>>> And no, the Dan Rather excuse of "forged but accurate" won't cut it.
>>>
>>> Care to go for the next round, or do you actually want to post
>>>something with a bit of maturity and/or credibility?
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>Fuck you. Care to spin on that asshole? How about if I go Bush on
>>you?
>
> And here you try to prove me right. You may not be capable of a
>mature, intelligent post.
>
> Now, if you want to "go Bush" on me, that would mean you would post
>something that demonstrates that you can think for yourself, have a
>command of the issues, and that you don't need vulgarities to get your
>point across.
>
> Care to try it?
>
> John H. Schneider II
To quote Dick Cheney, "Go fuck yourself."
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243236 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 11:50 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:05:40 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:00:02 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd spewed and
>trolled:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:28:33 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>
> --brevity--
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>You're one of those hostile faggots who likes to get a newsgroup
>>hating him, then he masturbates over the face of Bush and in lockstep
>>with all Republicans, wipes his ass with the American flag when
>>finished.
>
> I see you're incapable of producing a coherent thought without
>resorting to ad hominem attacks and vulgarities.
>
> When you're capable of a mature, intelligent post, you're welcome to
>rejoin the conversation.
>
> John H. Schneider II
You're welcome to kiss my ass, you TRAITOR. Ha, it's fun watching
your bush jockstraps go to jail.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243240 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 16:34 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:50:43 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled, lied, and
projected:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:05:40 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:00:02 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd spewed and
>>trolled:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:28:33 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> --brevity--
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean you're going to stop trolling?
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>You're one of those hostile faggots who likes to get a newsgroup
>>>hating him, then he masturbates over the face of Bush and in lockstep
>>>with all Republicans, wipes his ass with the American flag when
>>>finished.
>>
>> I see you're incapable of producing a coherent thought without
>>resorting to ad hominem attacks and vulgarities.
>>
>> When you're capable of a mature, intelligent post, you're welcome to
>>rejoin the conversation.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>You're welcome to kiss my ass, you TRAITOR. Ha, it's fun watching
>your bush jockstraps go to jail.
And here you prove my point - you aren't capable of intelligent,
mature conversation.
I was kind of hoping otherwise, but never got my hopes too high.
Maybe about the level of the tops of my shoes. Then again, maybe not
that far.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243241 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 16:36 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:50:04 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled, lied, and
projected:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:09:15 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
--brevity--
>>
>> And here you try to prove me right. You may not be capable of a
>>mature, intelligent post.
>>
>> Now, if you want to "go Bush" on me, that would mean you would post
>>something that demonstrates that you can think for yourself, have a
>>command of the issues, and that you don't need vulgarities to get your
>>point across.
>>
>> Care to try it?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
>To quote Dick Cheney, "Go fuck yourself."
And you failed.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243242 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 16:39 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:49:32 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled, lied, and
projected:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:56:32 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Mar 2006 14:16:52 -0800, "Led4Aces" <Led4acs [at] aol.com> trolled:
>>
>>><<John H. Schneider II wrote
>>> No spin from my side, and we're not saying that if your side did
>>>it it is ok for us to repeat your actions. >>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>You can't argue with a stooge who makes the 3rd grade reference "My
>>>side says this, your side says that". This guy sounds like he's been
>>>emotionally stunted since he lost his 7th grade campaign for class
>>>president.
>>
>> As that's not the arguement that I made, I think you're targeting
>>your trolling to the wrong person.
>>
>> Of curse, if you actually read what both sides have said...
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>The ass Schneider can't even spell because all the dittos ran out of
>his head. Don't even waste time arguing with him because when he's
>defeated, he just changes the subject like a coward who knows his ass
>would have a boot in it in real life for the TREASON he commits.
And here you attack my spelling, usually the last gasp of a troll
who can't respond to what's actually in a post.
And you do have one thing going for you - a complete and utter
disregard of reality. You might try to look up from the liberal
handbook once ina while and see what's actually going on in the
world. I know it will be hard, but you should at least make the
effort.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek (so why do you haters continue this here?) [message #243257 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 21:37 |
|
"Led4Aces" <Led4acs [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143584666.239808.184320 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Oh he's doing something alright. And by your own admission it's better
> to do something 'wrong' then to do nothing. Pathetic.
What's pathetic is being a complaining, lazy coward.
Nobody can perfectly do everything right every time. If someone
says that if he can't do something right, he shouldn't do
anything...........we would never have had electricity, plumbing
automobiles, computers,..................................................
And you might want to check the difference between
the words "then" and "than".
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243261 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 01:40 |
|
John H. Schneider II wrote:
>
> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>
No, that's simply a false statement. No WMDs have been discovered. They
would have been announced if they had been; they haven't been. If you want
people to believe that statement please state what WMDs were discovered, and
where.
According to recon
> photos and documents still being gone through, most of the WMD's were
> shipped out of the country in the run-up to the war.
The best you have there is a hopeful theory and, based on the past
performance of the US spooks interpreting Iraqi satellite photos (mistaking
fire trucks for "mobile weapons laboratories" etc) it's unlikely. It sure as
hell doesn't even closely approach any kind of truth.
Give it up. There weren't any WMDs. Chimpy and Blair hoped to find some to
justify their war and lost the gamble.
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #243264 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 02:39 |
|
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 00:40:58 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
<jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> trolled and spun:
>John H. Schneider II wrote:
>>
>> The facts are that WMD's have been discovered.
>>
>
>No, that's simply a false statement.
It's a factual statement. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it
doesn't make it false.
> No WMDs have been discovered. They
>would have been announced if they had been; they haven't been.
It was announced.
> If you want
>people to believe that statement please state what WMDs were discovered, and
>where.
Given that you won't believe anything that doesn't fit your
ideology, why should I post a link to you?
>
> According to recon
>> photos and documents still being gone through, most of the WMD's were
>> shipped out of the country in the run-up to the war.
>
>The best you have there is a hopeful theory and, based on the past
>performance of the US spooks interpreting Iraqi satellite photos (mistaking
>fire trucks for "mobile weapons laboratories" etc) it's unlikely. It sure as
>hell doesn't even closely approach any kind of truth.
More unreliable spin by you. You tell me, why is a convoy of 60
semi's leaving an Iraqi WMD storage site heading to Syria just prior
to the war? You believe that they were just trying to get the empty
trailers to safety?
>
>Give it up. There weren't any WMDs. Chimpy and Blair hoped to find some to
>justify their war and lost the gamble.
Chimpy? Why are you involving Al Gore in this conversation?
Fact is that there were WMD's, even though your myopia prevents you
from acknowledging it.
And no, I'm not going to give up posting facts. Unlike you I think
it's better to have removed a terrorist supporter and dictator than to
blindly sit there and hope nothing ever happens.
>
>Ian
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: OT NOT Star Trek (so why do you haters continue this here?) [message #243321 ] |
Mo, 03 April 2006 10:35 |
|
Oh he's doing something alright. And by your own admission it's better
> to do something 'wrong' then to do nothing. Pathetic.
From: VernonT
What's pathetic is being a complaining, lazy coward. >>>>>
Hey man, he's your president!
From: VernonT
Nobody can perfectly do everything right every time.>>>>
I'll settle for once.
From: VernonT
If someone says that if he can't do something right, he shouldn't do
anything...........we would never have had electricity, plumbing
automobiles, computers>>>>>>>>>>>
What's a com - puter?
From: VernonT
And you might want to check the difference between
the words "then" and "than". >>>>
And you might want to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245074 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 14:52 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>>
>
> No problem here being me.
>
> Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
>
> Just a thought.
>
Liberal, LOL
snae and i have had disagreements in the past but you are pretty much the
only one (in about a decade) to accuse him of being a 'liberal'
************************************************************ *******************
One free Cluepon (1)
Not all left wingers are liberals, and not all liberals are left wing
************************************************************ ******************
still it is probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire
thread, the fact that it is completely inaccurate notwitstanding, at least
the other two taking your side (Kweeg and VernonT) are confining themselves
to quantafiable facts and therefore maintaining some integrity for the
debate.
In case you are wondering, yes I am a lefty myself, and no im not a liberal
either despite the fact that im probably further to the left than anyone in
this group other than snake. Incidentally I did and do support the war in
Iraq, I also am a strong supporter of the ANZUS Alliance which leads me too
************************************************************ ***************
One free Cluepon (2)
Not all right wingers support the war, nor are all leftwingers against it
************************************************************ ***************
cheers
fozzi
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245075 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:15 |
|
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:52:36 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
>
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>>>
>>
>> No problem here being me.
>>
>> Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>
>
>
>Liberal, LOL
>
>snae and i have had disagreements in the past but you are pretty much the
>only one (in about a decade) to accuse him of being a 'liberal'
When one quotes from the liberal handbook...
>
>
> ************************************************************ *******************
>
>One free Cluepon (1)
>
>
>Not all left wingers are liberals, and not all liberals are left wing
>
>
> ************************************************************ ******************
>
>still it is probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire
>thread, the fact that it is completely inaccurate notwitstanding, at least
>the other two taking your side (Kweeg and VernonT) are confining themselves
>to quantafiable facts and therefore maintaining some integrity for the
>debate.
I see you haven't been reading what I've been posting. That's ok,
you might want to cash in your "Cluepon" for yourself.
>
>In case you are wondering, yes I am a lefty myself, and no im not a liberal
>either despite the fact that im probably further to the left than anyone in
>this group other than snake. Incidentally I did and do support the war in
>Iraq, I also am a strong supporter of the ANZUS Alliance which leads me too
>
>
>
> ************************************************************ ***************
>
>One free Cluepon (2)
>
>
>Not all right wingers support the war, nor are all leftwingers against it
As you don't appear to be from the USA, you might want to keep
up-to-date on what we here use as definitions - that is, if you're
going to be responding to something that is characteristically
American.
You should cash in your second "Cluepon" for yourself as well.
>
>
> ************************************************************ ***************
>
>
>cheers
>fozzi
>
The issue is actually bigger than the tactical campaign that is
Iraq. Most people miss it though, because they want to miss it.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245077 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 19:37 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:4s2532l6bsql9vr80p4cug0uevmdm4ktq1 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:52:36 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>>>>
>>>
>>> No problem here being me.
>>>
>>> Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Liberal, LOL
>>
>>snae and i have had disagreements in the past but you are pretty much the
>>only one (in about a decade) to accuse him of being a 'liberal'
>
> When one quotes from the liberal handbook...
>
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************ *******************
>>
>>One free Cluepon (1)
>>
>>
>>Not all left wingers are liberals, and not all liberals are left wing
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************ ******************
>>
>>still it is probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire
>>thread, the fact that it is completely inaccurate notwitstanding, at least
>>the other two taking your side (Kweeg and VernonT) are confining
>>themselves
>>to quantafiable facts and therefore maintaining some integrity for the
>>debate.
>
> I see you haven't been reading what I've been posting. That's ok,
> you might want to cash in your "Cluepon" for yourself.
>
>>
nope, been reading exactly what you have been posting, i've heard it all
before, except usually it is coming out of newts mouth rather than from your
keyboard, if you really want me to go back and deal with thye stuff point by
point I am extremely happy to do so,
>>In case you are wondering, yes I am a lefty myself, and no im not a
>>liberal
>>either despite the fact that im probably further to the left than anyone
>>in
>>this group other than snake. Incidentally I did and do support the war in
>>Iraq, I also am a strong supporter of the ANZUS Alliance which leads me
>>too
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>
>>One free Cluepon (2)
>>
>>
>>Not all right wingers support the war, nor are all leftwingers against it
>
> As you don't appear to be from the USA, you might want to keep
> up-to-date on what we here use as definitions - that is, if you're
> going to be responding to something that is characteristically
> American.
>
> You should cash in your second "Cluepon" for yourself as well.
>
Just because YOU decide to narrow your mind into knee-jerk cliches doesnt
obligate anyone else is obligated to, incidentally politics is not an
american monopoly and i suggest you check which country I do come from, you
might just be able to look out from your jingoism long enough to realise
that the Iraq war is as much an Australian issue as it is a british or
american one (you know A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A the smallish continent betwwen the
indian and pacific oceans)
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>
>>
>>cheers
>>fozzi
>>
>
> The issue is actually bigger than the tactical campaign that is
> Iraq. Most people miss it though, because they want to miss it.
>
No the key issue is Iraq, trouble is many people (mainly, but not confined
to US citizens) are too caught up in partisanship issues to understand that
the world doesn't begin and end at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
Cheers
Fozzi
> John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245078 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 20:01 |
|
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:37:38 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
>
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:4s2532l6bsql9vr80p4cug0uevmdm4ktq1 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:52:36 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
>>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No problem here being me.
>>>>
>>>> Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Liberal, LOL
>>>
>>>snae and i have had disagreements in the past but you are pretty much the
>>>only one (in about a decade) to accuse him of being a 'liberal'
>>
>> When one quotes from the liberal handbook...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ *******************
>>>
>>>One free Cluepon (1)
>>>
>>>
>>>Not all left wingers are liberals, and not all liberals are left wing
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ******************
>>>
>>>still it is probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire
>>>thread, the fact that it is completely inaccurate notwitstanding, at least
>>>the other two taking your side (Kweeg and VernonT) are confining
>>>themselves
>>>to quantafiable facts and therefore maintaining some integrity for the
>>>debate.
>>
>> I see you haven't been reading what I've been posting. That's ok,
>> you might want to cash in your "Cluepon" for yourself.
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>nope, been reading exactly what you have been posting, i've heard it all
>before, except usually it is coming out of newts mouth rather than from your
>keyboard, if you really want me to go back and deal with thye stuff point by
>point I am extremely happy to do so,
>
>
>>>In case you are wondering, yes I am a lefty myself, and no im not a
>>>liberal
>>>either despite the fact that im probably further to the left than anyone
>>>in
>>>this group other than snake. Incidentally I did and do support the war in
>>>Iraq, I also am a strong supporter of the ANZUS Alliance which leads me
>>>too
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>>
>>>One free Cluepon (2)
>>>
>>>
>>>Not all right wingers support the war, nor are all leftwingers against it
>>
>> As you don't appear to be from the USA, you might want to keep
>> up-to-date on what we here use as definitions - that is, if you're
>> going to be responding to something that is characteristically
>> American.
>>
>> You should cash in your second "Cluepon" for yourself as well.
>>
>
>Just because YOU decide to narrow your mind into knee-jerk cliches doesnt
>obligate anyone else is obligated to, incidentally politics is not an
>american monopoly and i suggest you check which country I do come from, you
>might just be able to look out from your jingoism long enough to realise
>that the Iraq war is as much an Australian issue as it is a british or
>american one (you know A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A the smallish continent betwwen the
>indian and pacific oceans)
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>fozzi
>>>
>>
>> The issue is actually bigger than the tactical campaign that is
>> Iraq. Most people miss it though, because they want to miss it.
>>
>
>No the key issue is Iraq, trouble is many people (mainly, but not confined
>to US citizens) are too caught up in partisanship issues to understand that
>the world doesn't begin and end at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
>
You're thinking of the Addams family.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245079 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 20:43 |
|
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:37:38 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
trolled:
>
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:4s2532l6bsql9vr80p4cug0uevmdm4ktq1 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:52:36 GMT, "Fozzi" <efor6920 [at] bigpond.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>news:cuvf22t1arrhc37mbgn6gvcsj0soun8bo5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:53:40 GMT, "Snake"
>>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No problem here being me.
>>>>
>>>> Liberalism does not equal intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Liberal, LOL
>>>
>>>snae and i have had disagreements in the past but you are pretty much the
>>>only one (in about a decade) to accuse him of being a 'liberal'
>>
>> When one quotes from the liberal handbook...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ *******************
>>>
>>>One free Cluepon (1)
>>>
>>>
>>>Not all left wingers are liberals, and not all liberals are left wing
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ******************
>>>
>>>still it is probably the most accurate thing you've said in this entire
>>>thread, the fact that it is completely inaccurate notwitstanding, at least
>>>the other two taking your side (Kweeg and VernonT) are confining
>>>themselves
>>>to quantafiable facts and therefore maintaining some integrity for the
>>>debate.
>>
>> I see you haven't been reading what I've been posting. That's ok,
>> you might want to cash in your "Cluepon" for yourself.
>>
>>>
>
>
>
>nope, been reading exactly what you have been posting, i've heard it all
>before, except usually it is coming out of newts mouth rather than from your
>keyboard, if you really want me to go back and deal with thye stuff point by
>point I am extremely happy to do so,
My mistake. I apparently confused "reading" with "comprehending".
>
>
>>>In case you are wondering, yes I am a lefty myself, and no im not a
>>>liberal
>>>either despite the fact that im probably further to the left than anyone
>>>in
>>>this group other than snake. Incidentally I did and do support the war in
>>>Iraq, I also am a strong supporter of the ANZUS Alliance which leads me
>>>too
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>>
>>>One free Cluepon (2)
>>>
>>>
>>>Not all right wingers support the war, nor are all leftwingers against it
>>
>> As you don't appear to be from the USA, you might want to keep
>> up-to-date on what we here use as definitions - that is, if you're
>> going to be responding to something that is characteristically
>> American.
>>
>> You should cash in your second "Cluepon" for yourself as well.
>>
>
>Just because YOU decide to narrow your mind into knee-jerk cliches doesnt
>obligate anyone else is obligated to,
Sorry, I don't respond like your troll friends.
> incidentally politics is not an
>american monopoly
I never said that it was. I commented on the terms used in American
politics.
> and i suggest you check which country I do come from, you
>might just be able to look out from your jingoism
No "jingoism" from me. I thought you said that you were reading my
posts?
> long enough to realise
>that the Iraq war is as much an Australian issue as it is a british or
>american one (you know A-U-S-T-R-A-L-I-A the smallish continent betwwen the
>indian and pacific oceans)
I have been discussing the entire War on Terror, not just the Iraqi
theater of the war.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************ ***************
>>>
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>fozzi
>>>
>>
>> The issue is actually bigger than the tactical campaign that is
>> Iraq. Most people miss it though, because they want to miss it.
>>
>
>No the key issue is Iraq, trouble is many people (mainly, but not confined
>to US citizens) are too caught up in partisanship issues to understand that
>the world doesn't begin and end at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
No, the key issue is the entire War, of which the Iraqi theater is
only one part. If you think that the war only includes Iraq, then you
have a narrower view of things than you accuse others of having.
>
>
>Cheers
>Fozzi
>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #245087 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 08:42 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:t3d5321cpj3qg6gd8c0n4rl7b98ptciqst [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>No the key issue is Iraq, trouble is many people (mainly, but not
>>confined
>>to US citizens) are too caught up in partisanship issues to understand
>>that
>>the world doesn't begin and end at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave.
>>
>
>
> You're thinking of the Addams family.
>
LOL, fair enough, didnt notice the error till after i posted, then couldn't
be bothered correcting it
another fair swipe
cheers
fozzi
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 10:40:45 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,16073 Sekunden |
