Subject:
|
Re: Help me with the math
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:46:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1076 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > However, there are no WoMD
>
> Okay. But I reserve the right to have you eat magpie and admit you were
> wrrrrr if they turn up in Syria or somewhere:-)
I have some comment on the tip of my tongue about what you could be eating in
the meantime, but somehow, (hint, it involves the President's last name) I'm not
sure I can say that on Lugnet.
_
:-0
-
Is it still missing, by the way? (Munch's The Scream)
>
> > and no Al
> > Qaeda connections.
>
> Check <http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=11946 this> out.
I get bored by links in about two sentences. If they don't get to the point by
then, I tend not to read any further. Sorry.
>
> > Bush can believe what he wants, but I am saying he should
> > be held accountable for his mistakes.
>
> And his triumphs, I presume. Fair enough.
Fair enough.
>
> > > > > He could actually be dead. If he weren't, why remain so silent? If he
> > > > > were, why acknowledge that your great leader was killed? Who knows.
> > > >
> > > > You accept that lame explanation? You are satisfied with that? A shrug
> > > > of the shoulders and the thousands of dead rest easier and you can salve
> > > > your conscience about supporting Bush?
> > >
> > > Do you have a better explanation of the disappearance of OBL because I'm
> > > all eyes.
> >
> > He just released a new claim that America is about to retreat out of Iraq
> > and Afghanistan. Seems pretty active for a dead guy. He's released any
> > number of statements that our intelligence people have pronounced as real,
> > so I'm not sure why you are taking this stonewall approach.
>
> Why no video? Especially since he used that medium previously. The whole
> thing is strange, so something is "up" in my view and things aren't what they
> appear.
Okay, then he is dead and so how could there be any connection between Saddam
and Osama. I give up! ;-)
>
> Who died and made you puppetmaster? :-)
I was installed by Dick Cheney without a competing bid.
> > >
> > > Respect scale: Have it = Yes, Have not = No, Didn't have it before, doesn't
> > > have it now = [NO]
> > >
> > > * UK yes
> > > * France no [NO]
> > > * Russia yes
> > > * Germany no
> > > * Poland yes
> >
> > I'm not sure you got any of those right.
>
> Bring it on:-)
Ummm, I just did.
> > >
> > > When {you} say "international standing", about which countries are {you}
> > > speaking?
> >
> > The majority of the planet.
>
> I see. Could you be less specific? :-)
You want a country by country list? That's more effort than it's worth.
> > No, I'm relying on my brain to connect two texas oil men and a country with
> > a lot of oil, as is the rest of the world.
>
> Fine. But I don't buy it.
You pointed out that it was about oil already, so evidentily you do buy it
(lterally as well as figuratively).
> > You seem to have a source that the 9/11 Commision did not. They were [very]
> > emphatic on this point: No connections.
>
> Try <http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm this>.
Zzzzzzz. Sorry. You have to paraphrase these things for me.
> > Shoulda stayed out of the kitchen if he couldn't stand the heat. The
> > commison, by the way, bent over backwards trying to avoid 20/20 hindsight
> > judgments.
>
> If you are so sold on the report, why don't you accept that the failures were
> {not} all by Bush, and not by a long shot.
I thought you agreed that I get to hold Bush responsible for his mistakes. His
administration, his responsiblity.
> > Clinton wasn't in office when the World Trade Center was destroyed
>
> If {that} isn't [dumb luck], I don't know what is! (considering the {first
> attempt)
Dumb luck counts. But so does dumbness.
>
> > (I mean,
> > that's all I have been talking about, and the three year date should have
> > been a Real Big Clue even if you weren't paying attention).
>
> Actually, I thought you were going from 01-04, not 98-01.
I was. You didn't seem to get it. And now you are about to pretend like I
actually meant what you just claimed so that you can make another incredibly
lame link to Clinton.
But you are
> correct. Clinton was a total incompetent WRT the war on terror.
What part of Clinton isn't running for re-election do you absolutely refuse to
understand?
But enough
> about him. BTW, if JFK gets elected and there is an attack in the summer of
> '05, will you nod approvingly when I rip him a new one for allowing it "on
> his watch"? (The question is rhetorical because I wouldn't and moot because
> he won't:-)
You accidentily spelled "ridiculous" as r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l. (talk about a
train of thought headed for a wreck...I don't even want to know where in the
world you were going with that)
>
> > I'd like to hear you spin on that one, but it appears you are going to dodge
> > it forever so I doubt I will.
> >
> > >
> > > > Bush ignored all the warning
> > > > signs regardless of what Clinton did or did not do. Using Clinton as the
> > > > universal excuse is about the lamest defense there is.
>
> All I really want to point out is that even a Democratic Icon can find it
> difficult to read tea leaves. All I'm looking for is equal treatment.
> Unless, of course, you thought Clinton was a total Fumduck (okaaay, just
> kidding-- I was just seeing if Dave! was paying attention;-) in which case we
> can drop the whole comparison thing.
Equal treatment? Alright! Bush is the dumbest lump of clay on the planet!
He's the anti-christ! He's responsible for all the world's problem and his bad
breath to boot. And NOTHING is his fault simultaneously, it's all Bush's
fault!!!
> > Clearly, or you wouldn't have supported my point by stating that no one made
> > any predictions when I claimed that they didn't try.
>
> Well, I was speaking about predictions that actually came to pass, not just
> carefully thought through actions that were completely useless IRL.
I thought you said Bush was brilliant?
> > What would that have to do with expecting Bush to think out the
> > ramifications of his actions?
>
> What I'm saying is that of course he did, but that the ramifications may not
> have ended up being the ones that actually occured.
It didn't occur to him that the only other inherent power structure wouldn't
surface, and had no plan to deal with it? Dumb as a lump of clay.
> > No, where in the world did [you] get that idea? For the two goals not to
> > conflict, there must be enough resources to cover both without one taking
> > from the other. Do they conflict? Do I see the head of Osama bin Laden
> > before me? Of course they conflict.
>
> Well, that is certainly one explanation, but certainly not the only one.
> It's a BIG world out there; there are a LOT of caves in the ME. Look how
> long it took us to find SH and he was practically right under our nose! And
> we needed a narc to boot!
Needed more resources, then, didn't he?
> Yes, but Bruce, I am merely acknowledging the obvious. It doesn't take
> unlimited resources to do what we want and need to do.
So where is the head of Osama bin Laden?
> >
> > > > How many years did you say that the WTC attack took? Disrupting the
> > > > attacks and ending the attacks are two different things.
> > >
> > > So are you implying that OBL is safe somewhere plotting his next attack on
> > > his own terms?
> >
> > I don't think you understand the word "imply". Once again, I'm point-blank
> > telling you that that is the case. If he isn't, then what in the world are
> > we fighting about?
>
> Another explanation would be that he is on the {defensive} and unable to go
> on the offensive. You can't score when you are in the field (talkin'
> baseball).
So you are claiming that he is not making plans when the Bush administration
says that he is?
> > Perhaps if he had used the resources that he diverted to Iraq, he would have
> > found Osama and have the election in hand. I[B]d[u]i[s]o[h]t.
>
> o[B]r[R]a[U]c[C]l[E]e.
Hey, you are the who said he would have the election in hand if he had Osama.
:-)
> > > > That decision wasn't exactly rocket science.
> > >
> > > Ha, Clinton (the Rhode scholar) didn't figure that one out. Gore wouldn't
> > > have had the kahonas to do it, either.
> >
> > Clinton didn't lose the World Trade Center and 3000 civilians in a single
> > go. Neither did Gore. And at least Gore showed up in Viet Nam,
>
> Now that's an interesting comparison. Is it braver to photograph guys who
> had been shot {in Nam}, or fly supersonic jets {at home}?
Evidentily the former, inasmuch as Bush was so terrified of the later he bailed
out, so to speak (a Bush family tradition).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Help me with the math
|
| (...) Fair enough. (...) Okay. But I reserve the right to have you eat magpie and admit you were wrrrrr if they turn up in Syria or somewhere:-) (...) Check (URL) this> out. (...) And his triumphs, I presume. Fair enough. (...) Why no video? (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
