Perspective

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

Me and the Mouse rode up to Eureka Springs AR yesterday.
We're getting married so wish us luck!

Those that know me see that I am very happy about the whole
thing.

On a related topic, I find that just about every road leading north in west
centeral Arkansas is pretty damned nice. I would also like to comment on the
Queen Wilhelmina Lodge (in the similarly named state park). Very nice and
quite resonable. Get the Queen room with the fireplace.

We'll probably head towards the Smoky Mtns tomorrow and
up the range to Hazard Kentucky. I'd like to be able to get to Maggie Vally
NC and see the Wheels Through Time museum there. I'd like to ride some of
the Blue Ridge, but I'll have to see how far away it is.

 

Congrats Wakko !!!

I hope the wedding goes well for you and mouse.

 

I served with quite a few Canadians in Korea and the frontrunning events of
the Viet Nam conflict.. I'll say without reservation that those Canadians
were high calibre ..

I'll add, in conclusion.. they were a far cry from two of the Canadians that
are demonstrating their own calibre on this newsgroup.. Usenet clowns that
have already demonstrated their own qualities, and then have the audacity to
call anyone an embarrassment to their country or otherwise question loyalty
or patriotism to their country, don't really have much going for them..

Bill Walker

 

BRAIN PAUSE. REWIND. STOP. PLAY. FAST FORWARD. STOP. PLAY.

Nope. He warned 'em that there was gonna be a whole lotta shootin' goin' on
and suggested they get out of the line of fire.

cheers

bob

 

I see that you are setting your own sniping record, Bill
That was certainly in range!

 

Yessir.. That beaming smile on her face sure made the room light up when the
toast was lifted to you both.. You are both "keepers".. Many happy returns..
Congratulations to two very nice people.. I wish you both, all the best

Bill Walker

 

In all seriousness, the best thing the Democrats can do in order to stop
losing elections is change their tactics. It should, by now, be clear to
them that defining their opponents as "evil" or "stupid" and spending most
of their time ranting about how everything the Republicans are doing is
wrong with little, if any, suggestions as to what they'd do instead.
Frankly, I think the public is tired of "Vote against him" with a lack of
any real reasons why we should vote for them.

Democrats might want to rethink their rhetoric about "all those Yahoos" that
elected Bush. Insulting the very people you want to vote for you isn't a
tactic that's likely to succeed.

There is much that is admirable in Democratic philosophy. That message,
however, isn't the message that's getting through.

cheers

bob

 

Not proven. ONE of the reasons was, I grant you, wrong.

Debatable.

(just as George

Nonsense. After the fall of the Taliban and the flight of OBL (assuming
he's alive instead of buried under tons of rock) took the problem of finding
him from a military problem to an intel and/or police problem. Those
efforts continue. The only military effort to get him would have involved
invading Pakistan.

A patently false dichotomy. There are other choices.

cheers

bob

 

Maybe because the Republicans are not sore losers??? grin

cheers

bob

 

That isn't the point. I'm sure he had briefings and point papers with all
kinds of information. The point I've repeatedly made is that, in hindsight,
we know things we didn't know at the time. The trick is picking out the
reports ahead of time.

Gee, Brian, I don't know about you, but as best I can remember, every time I
got a blow job I paid attention. grin

grin

bob

 

Hmmmm. Sounds to me as if you're pissed at the Canadians for not joining a
war you oppose. Interesting....

grin

bob

 

Here, here Wakko. I agree, and join you in your laud for the contributions
of our nothern friends in the war on terrorism. I find it odd that Brian is
faulting them for doing exactlly what he was promoting the US to do over the
situation in Iraq. I'm of the 'opinion', that perhaps Brian is upset with a
couple of the Canadians he knows, and is trying to take it out on the whole
country. Wasn't it Brian that suggested, no demanded, that the US do nothing
in Iraq (sit on the fence) until the UN could decide, without a doubt, that
Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Now it seems that Canada, in his
opinion, is some how at fault for following the advice he was promoting.
Although he makes a good point now and then, some times it's a bit hard
to follow Brian's rational when he's trying to make a point. I found his
re-defining what constitutes a lie to be a bit interesting, especially when
doing so, he made himself out as a liar 'if' he were to apply 'his' own
definition to himself, lol.

I'm of the 'opinion' that unless you are in 100% agreememt with Brian,
it's best not to even try and reply to one of his posts. It appears to me,
he's not interested in what anyone else thinks, only in convincing you that
his 'opinions' are the only ones that have merit. It's just not worth it,
and probably just a waste of time.

Best regards,

Vic

 

The only way to make that case would be to read the man's thoughts in their
entirety.. Not on a newsgroup..I'll be the first to agree that a couple of
the Canadians that participate in these groups are certainly not
representative of their country, no more than anyone on here, would be.
Brian and I share a dislike for both of them.. with good reason..

Wasn't it Brian that suggested, no demanded, that the US do nothing

That comment is completely untrue.. There was no fence.. Iraq was under some
of the most severe sanctions, the world has ever seen.. The objection is
that the United States never completed the job to hunt down and either kill
of capture Osama bin Laden, who was perpetrator of the attacks on the United
States..

Now it seems that Canada, in his

His nor My advice was ever offered to Canada or to anyone in that
government..

It's amazing how easy and simple it is, to call someone a "liar" on a usenet
newsgroup, isn't it ? <chuckle> Usually .. the ones that do that a lot,
are the ones that limit those kinds of comments to a newsgroup and would
never offer up a declaration like that in a face to face
discussion/confrontation..

In a previous post.. you expressed a dislike for anyone named Walker that
posts on tx.motorcycles.. Apparently, that would give you leverage of some
sort.. Brian Walker is very active in Texas.. in a motorcyclist advocacy
group that has been the pattern in other states for their own advocacy
groups.. Brian Walker is also active in political groups that are active in
fighting political corruption in our nation and in Texas..

There's quite a few people on newsgroups and around Texas who have different
opinions than Brian Walker.. Quite a few have been stung by us both.. either
on a newsgroup or in person..

Bottom line.. Brian Walker is not a liar and he's better known as a Warrior
for the causes that he believes in..Most noticeably, he doesn't limit the
voicing of his opinions to a newsgroup with anonymous postings to attack
anyone.. Attack him at your own risk ..

Bill Walker

 

Yes, he had the right to his comments but his method left a lot to be
desired on a couple of them. Some of them were more of an attack then
a discussion and that's when the heated replies started. I did not say
he was the one that started the mud slinging.

I didn't say anything about the other guys because I had ignored their
posts and didn't let it get to me. The only reason I commented on
yours (noticed I did not say you started it) was due to your statement
"until some of you shitheads popped back in." You were blaming others
for ruining a good thing when in essence you could have ignored them.
So you didn't help the situation much in your messages to them.

Bryan

 

I didn't say it was a warning to Iraq. It was a warning to the
inspectors...and the UN pulled them out.


cheers

bob

 

Yes, the Republicans filed some of them. ... after the Florida Supreme Court
stepped in and extended the deadline for vote certification.

cheers

bob

 

I've listed them several times.

Saddam didn't live up to his obligations IAW the cease fire.

Saddam ignored 17 consequitive UN Security Council Resolutions.

Saddam kept firing at US planes.

Saddam was a depraved dictator that brutalized his people.

Saddam invaded his neighbors twice and used WMDs on the Kurds and the
Iranians. He was not a nice man. grin

Saddam had ties to, supported and harbored terrorists...Abu Nidal, for
instance. Paying the families of suicide bombers for another.

That 9/11 taught us not to wait until we are attacked to respond to dangers.

One, you don't know it was a lie. That's your opinion.

Two, none of the reasons above have anything to do with WMDs except the
last, where the danger cited was that Saddam might provide WMDs to
terrorists.

We not only can, we did.

There's more to the Middle East than Iraq.

Never heard him say what you reported.

grin. A point.

Reread your own statement.

cheers

bob

 

I'm glad you realize that. Now, if you could just extend that same very
solid reasoning to the contention that "Bush lied", you'd realize that "the
only way to make that case would be to read the man's thoughts in their
entirety...."

grin

bob (stirrin' the pot)


Not on a newsgroup..I'll be the first to agree that a couple of

 

I agree 100% Bill. However, this is a newsgroup, and both you and your son
don't seem to have any trouble imposing your opinions as to what 'intent'
people who respond to you have in mind, do you?

I'll be the first to agree that a couple of

You have every right to voice your opinion about whom ever you like, but
it would seem as if it would have been more effective had Brian had done so,
without including every Canadian north of the border, don't you think?

Correct me if I'm wrong, ok? Brian accused Canada of 'sitting on the
fence, (as if there was something wrong with it) when they decided to wait
and see if the sanctions would help the UN decide, without a doubt, whether
Iraq had WMD. Yet that's exactlly what he was suggesting the US should have
done. All I was pointing out was that he can't have it both ways. It was
either the right thing to do, or it was the wrong thing to do. Just because
there are two people up in Canada he doesn't like, doesn't afford him the
opportunity to get away with arguing both sides of the issue.

I don't believe I said you, or he did, right?

I didn't call him a liar. He gave his defenition of a lie when he was trying
to 'prove' Bush lied. A definition, I must admit, I've never been able to
find anywhere else. All I'm saying is that if "HIS" definition is correct,
he's lied at least four times in defence of his position in the Bush/Iraq
discussion.

It's true, based on what I know of you and your son, you're not going to
make it on to my Christmas card list, lol. All I have to make that judgement
Bill, is what you and your son have shown me on usenet. I commend you and
your son for whatever it is you've done to make this a better world. I think
we all, you and me both forget at times, is that this place (usenet) is
filled with people who make a difference in there own little part of the
world. Just because we don't agree with them on some topic or another is no
reason to assume their intentions are always bad, or that they aren't as
smart as we are. Some times we get so hung up on what we 'think' is right,
that there's no room for a second opinion, you know?

I guess I don't really know what you mean by 'stung'? If what i've seen of
how you deal with people that disagree with you is true, there are probably
a lot more people who disagree with you then you think, lol. I mean in just
the few times I've popped my 2 cents worth into a discussion you're involved
in, it's taken days to make myself clear on the simplest matters. Take this
one for example. You claimed I called Brain a liar. If you read what I
wrote, you'll see I said no such thing.

So my post was an 'attack'? I guess I'd be wrong if I concidered your
last syatement a 'veiled threat', huh? lol. If he wants to take my comments
about his definition of a lie as calling him a liar, I guess I'll have to
live with it. Hopefully he'll take a little more time reading what I
actually wrote then you did. If he doesn't, lol, I guess i'll have to live
with it.

Vic