Perspective

LOL... Silly assertations are about what all these inane posts of yours are
representing.. You are arguing for the sake of arguing .. There also seems
to be a point that you are trying to make which has nothing to do with the
issues that you are trying to debate..

That became quite apparent after the first few exchanges that I had with you
and here we are, a few days later, with you still going round and round..
and round.. The Republican "talking points" which you keep repeating over
and over.."means nothing"..

Bill Walker

 

Sumpin' wrong, I think. If you made a response, my newsreader didn't catch
it. All I got was a repetition of my comment.

cheers

bob

 

Both Bob Thomas and Ruppster have been baiting for the past week.. Theirs is
not the posts that are offensive, but the ones who jump at any opportunity
to engage someone they don't like, are.. Ruppster has obviously got himself
a quandry with anything posted by anyone named Walker.. Bob Thomas has used
his same arguments repeatedly, only worded and phrased with some degree of
alteration..

That is why I stopped responded to all their posts.. Neither man will admit
to the baiting, but it is apparent and obvious .. Not too impressive for
either of them..

Bill Walker

 

This is a joke, right? You cannot possibly be so naive as to think you
listed everything that was known on both sides. And, you cannot possibly be
so simple as to believe that I can list teh results of years of intelligence
work.

You have your opinions. You have picked out a few things that seem to
support those opinions. Fine. You may even be right. But (and there's
always a but) surely you cannot possibly believe that you know ANY
significant percentage of the data.

No. let's turn that around. There was only ONE document that was forged, to
the best of my knowledge, and that pertained to the yellow cake story. As
it turned out, according to the Brits, that document had nothing to do with
their conclusions.

You have some information from some source or other that pertains to ONE
factor and catagorize the entirety of the case on the basis of it. Again,
you're pulling my leg, right?

I see some things that, after the fact, appear to have been the truth.

And, your point is???

I could say the same thing about the Democrats with EXACTLY the same message
about Saddam's WMDs in 1998. Were all of them lying? And, please, don't
play dumb on this. You KNOW this is true.

cheers

bob

 

There's a difference between speaking up about it versus jumping on
the bandwagon and slinging bullshit back in spades. I did not fault
you for speaking up about it but you went beyond that. It makes it
hard to act innocent when you are just as guilty for dishing it out in
return.

Bryan

 

ROTFL... I doubt that anything is wrong with your reader.. Actually.. this
discussion has become repetitious and monotonous.. Nothing more than the
Republican talking points to excuse the incompetence of George Bush..
Re-posting your comments seem to be the most appropriate way to terminate
all the baiting that you've been doing ..

You seem to be fascinated and absorbed by any post made by anyone named
Walker.. Theirs seem to be the only ones which you are responding to.
Although that is most flattering, it really doens't have much interest to
me..

Bill Walker

 

Bill, I'm sorry you think that. The only point I'm trying to make is that
it is not a FACT that "Bush lied".

You and I evidently do not share the same reality.

The Republican "talking points" which you keep repeating over

"Republican talking points"???? I speak to the facts of which I'm aware. I
use the logic with which I'm endowed. I've quoted no talking head or
Republican point paper. I've never even seen a "talking point".

I'm not even a Republican. I'm an Independent. I didn't really vote FOR
Bush. I voted Against Gore because I couldn't figure out who he was.
Seemed to me that he didn't know who he was, or at least couldn't make up
his mind who he wanted us to think he was. I voted AGAINST Kerry because I
just didn't like him or his message.

It seemed to me that your comments were rather personal. No name calling
but pretty disdainful. Sorry to see that.

cheers

bob

 

Oh no, my life is ruined! Bill don't like me know more. How will I
ever make it through the day?

Guess that's what I get for trying to treat you as an equal, Bill.
Sorry to hear you're not impressed with me but guess what? Ask me if I
give a rat's ass. <g>

And if sharing opinions back and forth is considered baiting then I
guess I was really wrong for trying to have a conversation with you.
Guess I will go back to my "simple minded" ways and leave the bs up to
you. Enjoy.

Bryan

 

You might want to check your facts. According to the constitution, the
choice of Electors is the sole province of each state's legislature. A
state supreme court has NO ROLE. It may surprise you to know that there is
not even anything calling for an election for the choice of Electors. The
legislature can, and did for a helluva long time, just pick 'em themselves.
It's only in the past century that elections became the universal practice..

An added point, the election rules of the state of Florida had been in
existence for decades. The Florida Supreme Court took upon itself the
"power" to change those rules, AFTER THE ELECTION TOOK PLACE. And, they got
struck down by SCOTUS.

It wasn't until the

Which might tell you something about the makeup of the Florida Supreme
Court.

cheers

bob

 

No sir. It is NOT a fact that it was a lie. It certainly appears to be a
fact that the conclusion they existed was WRONG. I'm astounded that you
don't know the difference.

NONE of them, with the exception of the last have anything to do with WMDs.

Well, one incident in Egypt.

Nope. Try again. His reason was that it was not part of the agreement that
made up the coalition. The agreement specifically precluded going in and
taking out Saddam. We could not have gotten the cooperation of the Arab
states without it. The Saudis in particular were quite content with a
secular government in Iraq, which has a majority of Shiites. The last thing
they wanted was to overthrow that government and end up with another
Iran....

"Because it divided the country........" wasn't your statement? Who's was
it??? Now I'm confused.

In my opinion, btw, what has "divided the country" is partisanship. It
seems to me that those who support the war, or most of Bush's policies, and
those who oppose the war, and most of Bush's policies do so because of
partisan politics.

Seems to me that much/most of what I see both on the web and in the media
that opposes Bush starts out with the assumption that he's stupid, a liar or
just downright evil. Since I disagree with it, I am perhaps not qualified
to judge those supporting him. grin

Maybe it's because I'm an Independent that I see this. Maybe I'm dead
wrong. Maybe I'm not.

cheers

bob

 

OK...........and the point is? I'm getting confused about what you're
trying to say.

grin

bob

 

"Baiting"???? I disagreed with you. And, if my arguments are similar it's
because there's only so many ways to express a couple of very simple
principles.....that WRONG does not necessarily equate to LYING.,,,,and that
you don't know if a man is lying if you don't know what he knew or thought
at the time he made the statement.

Bill, I accept the sincerity with which you express your beliefs and
opinions. I simply do not agree with all of them. I do not think that you
have some agenda or ulterior motive in your posts. Can you not extend to me
the same courtesy???

If my disagreement with you is offensive, that's unfortunate. I'm not sure
what to do with that. I assure you that I'm neither trying to pick a fight
nor am I bugging you just for the fun of it.

????????

bob

 

I disagree with much of what you have to say on this subject. If you see
that as "baiting", whatever that means to you, I can't help that.

bob

 

Hank is especially "inflammatory" in regards to Albert Nurick.. Albert
Nurick, however is especially "inflammatory" with a superiority complex that
causes him to contribute such obviously juvenile and infantile opinions
about which he evidently knows little or nothing..

 

Seems to me that I recall Hank as being mature and an adult that is grown
up, enough.. There isn't any indication that Hank has ever embraced Marxism
or any other anti American "ism".. Nurick on the other hand, has become so
affected by his own sense of self, that his approach to anyone in real life
has obviously made him a pariah to the very ones which he'd like to
emulate..

In every newsgroup which Albert Nurick has engaged, there has been someone
that called him what he is. An insignificant pretender..

Bill Walker

 

I failed to understand it because you never said it. Instead of critisizing
my reading skills, you might want to work on your writing skills. Here is a
quote from you from the post I was refering to:

BRIAN: (Quote)
No one gives a shit what you think. Each time I hear one of you wankers up
there talking about "if the United States was more like us..." I want to
laugh (actually, I *do* laugh). Your country had it's chance to take a stand
and be heard, and it chose instead to ride the fence and take the advantages
that might come it's way....on either way it went. Even Mexico took a stand
and told Bush real quick to remove it's name from the "coalition of the
willing"! (Un-Quote)

Show us all where it says you were refering specifically about the Canadian
Government when you said, "Your country had a chance, etc." While you're at
it, explain what's wrong with their decision to, as you say, 'ride the
fence', when that's exactlly what you wanted the US to do? We can't read
your mind Brian, If you mispoke yourself, a simple statement to the fact
would clear it up. There's no need to question some one elses reading
ability when they read some thing you wrote, exactlly as your wrote it.

I didn't see that, could you show me?

I can see it bothers you, yup.

I'm sure not gonna lose any sleep over it. Just glad you clarified what you
'meant' to write, that's all

I guess I missed it, what 'stand' did you want the United States to take?
From what I read, I get the feeling you would have liked to have let the
santions stand, and let the UN inspectors decide whether there was WMD in
Iraq. Then it appeared as if you were critisizing Canada for doing just what
you were proposing. I found it a bit inconsistant. My biggest mistake was
reading exactlly what you wrote, and takeing it as what you meant. Sorry,
lol

Yup, after all, this is just a news group.

 

You've heard there are 3 "rings" in a marriage???

 

seems someone can't do math either. there's been more than clinton pass
through the oval office in the years before the current administration.

 

Yes, that's true. However it is the choice of the state legislatures to
hold those elections. It is completely the pervue of state legislatures to
pick the methods of selection or election.

Electors are voted by the people in the

This is usually the case, but they are not required to do so.

The courts in

Actually, that isn't true. They ruled that the deadline of 27 Nov was
extended to 12 Jan, and permitted counting methods to go on that did not
meet federal guidelines.

Check your "facts". You are dead wrong.

Check your "facts".

bob