VOTE today

G.T. said:

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Where are Bill Sornson and Mark Hickey, now that we need their
interpretation of the GWB machinations? I'm sure there must be more
to the events than what the contributors to this thread have offered.
There must be a positive slant to all this but I haven't heard it.

I was in NYC doing family stuff (which is, coincidentally a lot more
fun than hanging out in here). ;-)

The Republicans pretty much deserved the "thumping" they got. They've
been nearly as bad as the Democrats in most respects (spending, border
security), and need a wake-up call.

Hahahahaha, only spending and border security? That's funny. It was
because of much more than that.

Yeah, I know - but look at the context. Those are traditional
Democrat strongholds. See, Republicans CAN be flexible. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A mess of Iraq they made and altho not a sweeping edict, something
different needs to be done to extract us from this drain of treasure
and blood that does nothing to protect us. IF Iraq is like it is now
IN 2008, and a republican says 'biz as usual, there is no way the US
will elect him/her. THAT much is obvious from this election.

Totally agree.

Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
only things that will turn the tide in the middle east

How is that going to work? How will "success in Iraq" turn the tide in
the Middle East?

Quoted message said:

(hence, the
huge amount of resistance to that success by the same group that
attacked us many times prior to the Iraq war).

But the US public has certainly made it clear that they DO want a
change in Iraq. The Dems said the same thing, though now they're on
the hook to actually come up with a different path. I'm genuinely
hopeful that it works out (long term), and would like nothing better
than to say "they got it right". But it's not going to be easy no
matter who's at the controls.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Where are Bill Sornson and Mark Hickey, now that we need their
> interpretation of the GWB machinations? I'm sure there must be more
> to the events than what the contributors to this thread have
> offered. There must be a positive slant to all this but I haven't
> heard it.

"GWB machinations"? LOL

I can't speak for Mark, Jobst (Brandt at Stanford Alumni Dot Org --
can't leave THAT off), but I'm just sitting back and enjoying the
/class and grace/ of the hard left (you know, the ones who ran a
bunch of God-fearin', gun-totin' CONSERVATIVES AND MODERATES to win
back power). It's quite impressive.

Thanks for your concern. <eg>

It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an election"
retort.

It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person style....

Yo Billy,

What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that contention
doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Johnny Sunset said:

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an election"
retort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
style....

Quoted message said:

Yo Billy,

What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that contention
doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make sense?
HUH?!?)

See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of arguing
with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and integrity would
simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS time, BTW).

Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Mark Hickey said:

...
Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
only things that will turn the tide in the middle east (hence, the
huge amount of resistance to that success by the same group that
attacked us many times prior to the Iraq war)....

Define "ultimate success".

I see Mark Hickey is still clinging to his delusions. Hint, those
affiliated with al Qaeda and their ilk in Iraq are small in number, and
mainly attack Shia's to promote Sunni/Shia strife. The VAST MAJORITY of
the occupation resistance members are Iraqi's that do not want to be
ruled by foreigners (directly or through a client government).

The only way the invasion of Iraq could have worked would have been for
the US to publicly call for a UN peacekeeping force NOT UNDER US
CONTROL in May 2003, followed by rapid withdrawal of ALL US military
forces.

All of King George's tanks and all of his men won't be able to put
Humpty Dumpty, er Iraq, back together again.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Mr. William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an election"
> retort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
style....

Quoted message said:

Yo Billy,

What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that contention
doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make sense?
HUH?!?)

See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of arguing
with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and integrity would
simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS time, BTW).

Mr. Sornson has a rather strange and unconventional view of what is
cowardly.

Quoted message said:

Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Look up the meaning of "ellipses", Mr. Sornson. Note what is at the end
of the quoted text.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Mark Hickey said:

...
I was in NYC doing family stuff (which is, coincidentally a lot more
fun than hanging out in here). ;-)...

I look forward to a good flame war. Wanna talk about bike helmets?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Johnny Sunset said:

Mr. William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an
>> election" retort.

Quoted message said:

> It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
> style....

Quoted message said:

Yo Billy,

What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that
contention doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make
sense? HUH?!?)

See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of
arguing with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and
integrity would simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS
time, BTW).

Mr. Sornson has a rather strange and unconventional view of what is
cowardly.

It's the Usenet equivalent of not looking someone in the eye when talking to
them. It's an indication of fearfulness or dishonesty or poor self esteem
or...lots of icky stuff. (I have a feeling that you're consistent, at the
very least.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Look up the meaning of "ellipses", Mr. Sornson. Note what is at the
end of the quoted text.

But...but...you ALWAYS have an answer to arguments. I'll take your silence
as deep, abiding agreement! LOL

Say G'night, Johnny.

Billy

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mr. William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:

>>> It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an
>>> election" retort.

>> It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
>> style....

> Yo Billy,
>
> What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that
> contention doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make
sense? HUH?!?)

See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of
arguing with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and
integrity would simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS
time, BTW).

Mr. Sornson has a rather strange and unconventional view of what is
cowardly.

It's the Usenet equivalent of not looking someone in the eye when talking to
them. It's an indication of fearfulness or dishonesty or poor self esteem
or...lots of icky stuff.

Is it as cowardly as "plonking" them?

Quoted message said:

(I have a feeling that you're consistent, at the
very least.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Look up the meaning of "ellipses", Mr. Sornson. Note what is at the
end of the quoted text.

But...but...you ALWAYS have an answer to arguments. I'll take your silence
as deep, abiding agreement! LOL

Say G'night, Johnny.

Billy

B. Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mr. William Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset wrote:

>>> It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an
>>> election" retort.

>> It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
>> style....

> Yo Billy,
>
> What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that
> contention doesn't make a damn bit of sense?

Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make
sense? HUH?!?)

See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of
arguing with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and
integrity would simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS
time, BTW).

Mr. Sornson has a rather strange and unconventional view of what is
cowardly.

It's the Usenet equivalent of not looking someone in the eye when talking to
them. It's an indication of fearfulness or dishonesty or poor self esteem
or...lots of icky stuff. (I have a feeling that you're consistent, at the
very least.)

Dude, you have rather strange interpretations of behavior, you know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Look up the meaning of "ellipses", Mr. Sornson. Note what is at the
end of the quoted text.

But...but...you ALWAYS have an answer to arguments. I'll take your silence
as deep, abiding agreement! LOL

When B. Sornson posts something ridiculous, there is not much point in
responding.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Bill Sornson said:

It's the Usenet equivalent of not looking someone in the eye when talking to
them. It's an indication of fearfulness or dishonesty or poor self esteem
or...lots of icky stuff.

Hmmm, you talk about me quite a bit but not directly to me.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Plus Nathalie Portman is hawt.

Having A Wonderful Time?
Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine?
(banned access to Urban Dictionary)

Donga

Johnny Sunset said:

B. Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset said:

Mr. William Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
>>>> It looks like Bill Sornson will have to retire his "win an
>>>> election" retort.
>
>>> It looks like Johnny's still arguing in his cowardly third-person
>>> style....
>
>> Yo Billy,
>>
>> What the hell do you mean by "cowardly third-person" - that
>> contention doesn't make a damn bit of sense?
>
> Johnny doesn't get the obvious, apparently. (And it does too make
> sense? HUH?!?)
>
> See, Mr. Sunset, the above is an example of a chicken-[censored] way of
> arguing with and/or insulting a poster. A person with guts and
> integrity would simply reply directly (like you actually did THIS
> time, BTW).

Mr. Sornson has a rather strange and unconventional view of what is
cowardly.

It's the Usenet equivalent of not looking someone in the eye when
talking to them. It's an indication of fearfulness or dishonesty or
poor self esteem or...lots of icky stuff. (I have a feeling that
you're consistent, at the very least.)

Dude, you have rather strange interpretations of behavior, you know.

See, that's direct communication -- not that evasive and deceptive
third-person [censored]. Keep it up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Bill "and hey, where did all the OTHER stuff I wrote go?!?" S.

Look up the meaning of "ellipses", Mr. Sornson. Note what is at the
end of the quoted text.

But...but...you ALWAYS have an answer to arguments. I'll take your
silence as deep, abiding agreement! LOL

When B. Sornson posts something ridiculous, there is not much point in
responding.

Well, let's see. You posted a (third person) crack about my "win an
election" remark, and I replied:

"By the numbers, I'd suggest that the Republicans lost the election more
than
the Dems won it -- both because of how close so many races were, AND the
fact that your candidates sounded a hell of a lot more conservative than
many RINOs.

So your leaders are hard left (Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Dean, etc etc etc) but
you achieved mid-term power by running people like Ford (even though he
lost), Webb, Tester, etc. Gee, you must be so proud. (Hell, your one real
anti-war candidate, Ed Lamentable, got trounced...in Connecticut of all
places!)

Let's see what happens in 2008. Win a NATIONAL election -- preferably
without a third-party leech weakening your opposition -- and then you'll be
making more than empty noise."

Gee, yeah, that was really /out there/, man.

Whatever... (ellipsis just for you)

Bill Sornson said:

So your leaders are hard left (Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, Dean, etc etc etc)

What is hard left about the democratic leadership? They are
mainstream liberals? What is *hard* left about them? Not being
averse to raising taxes to fund government services? That's hard
left? Caring about a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry
a fetus to term? Being against torture? Being for habeus corpus?

Why do you keep saying this?

One other question. What are your sources of news information? I
really want to know.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
only things that will turn the tide in the middle east

How is that going to work? How will "success in Iraq" turn the tide in
the Middle East?

By removing the pervasive belief that it's Israel and the US that's
the root cause for the poverty and wrecked economies in the region
(rather than backward and corrupt leadership). Let the Iranians see
their next door neighbors enjoying a huge improvement in quality of
life in a free democratic society, and let's see how long the imams
keep control (for example). Also, bringing in new sources of media in
a region where Al Jezeera is considered too LIBERAL to broadcast in
many countries is a very, very good thing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Johnny Sunset said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
I was in NYC doing family stuff (which is, coincidentally a lot more
fun than hanging out in here). ;-)...

I look forward to a good flame war. Wanna talk about bike helmets?

Couldn't I just get a couple molars extracted instead?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Bill Sornson said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A mess of Iraq they made and altho not a sweeping edict, something
different needs to be done to extract us from this drain of treasure
and blood that does nothing to protect us. IF Iraq is like it is now
IN 2008, and a republican says 'biz as usual, there is no way the US
will elect him/her. THAT much is obvious from this election.

Totally agree.

Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
only things that will turn the tide in the middle east (hence, the
huge amount of resistance to that success by the same group that
attacked us many times prior to the Iraq war).

Mission creep. Why did we invade? Threat to the US(and I agree,
premptive attacks to protect the US is a good policy). Threat gone,
Saddam gone, time for us to be gone. Just because Bush decided to
nationbuild, doesn't mean we stay. 300,000+ Iraqi security forces, Iraq
leaders want to US to 'allow' them to clean the place up, which they
say thet'll do in 6 months(today's newspaper), I say let 'em.

Quoted message said:

But the US public has certainly made it clear that they DO want a
change in Iraq. The Dems said the same thing, though now they're on
the hook to actually come up with a different path.

Bush still runs foreign policy BUT it seems he is listening. Changing
to help, not to just change.

I'm genuinely

Quoted message said:

hopeful that it works out (long term), and would like nothing better
than to say "they got it right". But it's not going to be easy no
matter who's at the controls.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Johnny Sunset said:

Peter Chisholm said:

...I think all those running for Pres/VicePres should have
military experience, not just the AirGuard, to stay out of Vietnam but
genuine military service, deployed, 'haze gray and underway' type
service....

Does this include women of the age where military opportunities were
more severely limited when they were at enlistment age?

Military aviation was available in 1973, same year I started flight
school(i was in the same class as the first 8 female naval aviator
candidates). That means any woman 55 or so or younger had almost the
same opportunities I had in the military.

Should all

Quoted message said:

homosexuals of a certain age be disqualified, since they could not be
in the military (or committed the offense of lying in the pre "don't
ask, don't tell era)?

Don't ask, don't tell has worked well. Close confines of a ship, at sea
for many months, creates a unique envionment, not evident when in a
'open' envionment. Anything that affects good order and discipline is a
detrement to war fighting skills. There have been gays in the mlitary
as long as their has been a military. Like women on ships, something
that you deal with, to preserve your ability to 'kill people and break
things', the only two reasons a military exists. NO easy answers for
the military, a very unique way of life. BUT I still think military
service or at least service to the country, SHOULD be mandatory for
every 18 year old. Doesn't have to be military, but 'service', would be
a good idea, IMHO(mission/thread creep, i admit)

Quoted message said:

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Mark Hickey said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
only things that will turn the tide in the middle east

How is that going to work? How will "success in Iraq" turn the tide in
the Middle East?

By removing the pervasive belief that it's Israel and the US that's
the root cause for the poverty and wrecked economies in the region
(rather than backward and corrupt leadership).

IMO, it is the State of Israel's abuse of the Palestinians and the
USA's unwavering support of the State of Israel that is the root cause
of much of the anger in the Middle East. How will "sucess in Iraq"
solve that problem?

Quoted message said:

Let the Iranians see
their next door neighbors enjoying a huge improvement in quality of
life in a free democratic society, and let's see how long the imams
keep control (for example). Also, bringing in new sources of media in
a region where Al Jezeera is considered too LIBERAL to broadcast in
many countries is a very, very good thing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Agree as well, though I disagree that the Iraq war won't do anything
> to protect us. I believe that ultimate success in Iraq is one of the
> only things that will turn the tide in the middle east

How is that going to work? How will "success in Iraq" turn the tide in
the Middle East?

By removing the pervasive belief that it's Israel and the US that's
the root cause for the poverty and wrecked economies in the region
(rather than backward and corrupt leadership).

IMO, it is the State of Israel's abuse of the Palestinians and the
USA's unwavering support of the State of Israel that is the root cause
of much of the anger in the Middle East. How will "sucess in Iraq"
solve that problem?

Because *Freedom!*(tm) will bring western values and pottery barns!
They'll be so busy decorating and eating canapes that there will be no
time for violins!