Bicylist shot and killed for thrill



Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Bill Sornson writes:

> {WHY DO YOU ALWAYS DELETE PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS?!?}
>
> snipz
>
>>>>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully
>>>>>>>> recounted with no spin. {JB}

>
>>>>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to
>>>>>>> see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
>>>>>>> sources not "controlled" by the CIA. {MH}

>
>>>> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who
>>>> admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you
>>>> don't want to believe. {JB}

>
>>> Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted
>>> that "Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the
>>> CIA"?!? Come on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!) {BS}

>
>> He stop lying! Your quote marks claim that those are my words. I
>> never said that. That is a classic ploy for someone who cannot
>> defend a position. Attribute something you can attack to the person
>> with whom you disagree and shoot at him for it. It seems you and
>> Mark went to the same indoctrination camp by the rude style and
>> devious argumentation used to defend a lost cause.

>
> Um, WOW. Let's look again, shall we? (It's still right up there but
> I'll go to the trouble of cutting and pasting.)
>
> You wrote, "Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
> press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin."
>
> Mark replied, "Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd
> like to see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
> sources not "controlled" by the CIA."
>
> TO WHICH YOU REPLIED: "I just hear{d} an interview with an
> administration spokesman who admitted that this was the case. I
> guess you don't hear what you don't want to believe."
>
> So tell me again how I "lied" and misrepresented what you said. (The
> quote marks were NOT misleading, as the original posts to which they
> referred were left intact right above. It was obvious they weren't
> YOUR words but rather quoting that about which you were making
> claims.)
> Talk about dishonesty! (I KNOW you're not that stupid to not
> understand what was being said/meant.)
>
> {rest snipped cuz you just evaded and added nuthin'}


PS, JOBST: YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID WHO THIS "ADMINISTRATION SPOKESMAN" IS
AND EXACTLY WHAT HE OR SHE SAID THAT AFFIRMS THAT IRAQIS GET NO NEWS THAT'S
NOT CONTROLLED BY THE CIA (paraphrasing so you don't use "misquoting" as an
evasive excuse not to answer...AGAIN).

Put up or retract!
 
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:13:06 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Snooty Putz wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:41:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Quit your sniveling, *****.

>
>>> Snoot! That's twice you've gone to the sexual orientation flame
>>> card before my first cup (manly mug) of coffee!

>
>> That's just plain old kennel talk, *****.
>>
>> I'd tell you to "suck my ass" but you'd probably also interpret that
>> to satisfy your fantasies.

>
>Ah, gotta love that Lefty Gentility. Class act today, Putzster.
>

Croak, toady.
--
zk
 
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:43:36 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>EXACTLY WHAT HE OR SHE SAID THAT AFFIRMS THAT IRAQIS GET NO NEWS THAT'S
>NOT CONTROLLED BY THE CIA


Look, you stupid toady, reporters in Baghdad no longer leave their
hotel rooms. They can't check sources because those sources are
military spokespersons.

Truth is the first casualty in war.
--
zk
 
Snoot-full o' SOMETHIN' wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:43:36 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> EXACTLY WHAT HE OR SHE SAID THAT AFFIRMS THAT IRAQIS GET NO NEWS
>> THAT'S NOT CONTROLLED BY THE CIA


{nice quoting -- WTF does that even mean?!?}

> Look, you stupid toady, reporters in Baghdad no longer leave their
> hotel rooms. They can't check sources because those sources are
> military spokespersons.
>
> Truth is the first casualty in war.


Look, you God-damned lying snipper, my issue is with Jobst's claim that an
"administration spokesman" /admitted/ that the CIA controls all the news
available to Iraqis. (Hint: even if that were true, I highly doubt a White
House official would say so on the record. JB said he heard an interview;
with whom???)

Are you ALWAYS this dishonest? New meds lately?!?

Bill "at least the style is familiar" S.
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:13:06 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Snooty Putz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:41:56 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Quit your sniveling, *****.

>>
>>>> Snoot! That's twice you've gone to the sexual orientation flame
>>>> card before my first cup (manly mug) of coffee!

>>
>>> That's just plain old kennel talk, *****.
>>>
>>> I'd tell you to "suck my ass" but you'd probably also interpret that
>>> to satisfy your fantasies.

>>
>> Ah, gotta love that Lefty Gentility. Class act today, Putzster.
>>

> Croak, toady.


Break a leg, Clumso.
 
In article <[email protected]>, The Wogster
([email protected]) wrote:

> WW-I was actually started by Germany retaliating to French greed, and
> Britain, then betraying an old friend (Germany) to back up an old enemy
> (France)


Eh? In my history lessons it was started by Germany declaring war on
Russia as a retaliation against Russian mobilisation, this latter a
reaction to the repeated urgings from Germany to Austria-Hungary that
the latter whack Serbia for having nationalist tendencies, assassinating
passing Archdukes and bearing an unsympathetic aspect in the presence of
of the Emperor.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
([email protected]) wrote:

> How about "brutal dictators [...] who's ignored 14 UN
> sanctions


I'm not sure how one ignores sanctions, but if you actually mean
"resolutions" then on those grounds there is a far stronger case for
military action against Israel and Turkey than against Saddam Hussein.
Except that they're on "our" side, and buy lots of expensive weapons
from the "right" people...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Krankieburgh): Would the Prime Minister care to
comment on a report in today=3Fs Guardian that he: =3Farrived late for a
meeting with Jacques Chirac, smelling of alcohol, and with body language
suggesting a total disregard for the rights of ethnic minorities, lone
parents and laboratory animals=3F?
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I don't know what you mean by "it works". Personally, I think the war is
>>already a failure since the cost has exceeded the benefit.

>
>
> The cost is now - the potential benefit is long-term.


No one can prove "potential". We know the costs to date (more or less),
they have been staggering -- thousands dead, thousands maimed, our
military resources exhausted, a price tag likely to be at least $1T.

It's anyone's guess what the long-term impact will be. I don't see the
likelihood that it will be positive, and it would have to be *very*
positive to justify even the current costs. I think it's fair to say
that the costs were significantly underestimated and the probability of
positive outcome significantly overestimated -- I hold our leadership
(all of them) responsible.

At this level of the debate we're characterizing the gamble as shrewd or
incompetent. We have always followed a "realpolitik" course in the
Middle East, backing those who support our current needs (including SH).
The Iran/Iraq war was very much in our strategic interest, so we
supported it, selling weapons to both sides. While previous
administrations have made their blunders, the Middle East has pretty
much gone our way for decades, without very large gambles. At the
realpolitik level, this dog doesn't hunt -- huge cost, dicey future.


>>In the same way, I don't understand "GWB being right". He has already
>>been wrong about everything, what is there left to be right about?

>
>
> History will tell whether he's right or not. If the democracies in
> Afghanistan and Iraq "work", they're going to cause profound changes
> throughout the entire region. If so, like it or not, the man will go
> down as a visionary. If he's wrong, he is a goat forever.
>
> I do hope you'd rather him be right.


I really don't give a damn about the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I
figure they made their beds, let them lie in them. I wouldn't risk my
own son for their benefit, so I won't ask others to risk theirs.

Saddam was widely admired in the Arab world. For all its problems, Iraq
was perhaps the most modern Arab state. Look what happened in Iran after
a regime change, I don't think most would regard that as progress. My
point is not to defend the legacy of Saddam, but just to illustrate what
a **** shoot the Middle East is. The track record on predictions in
this latest adventure hasn't been good, I'm disinclined to give benefit
of the doubt to further claims about the future.


>>In even the most rosy scenario, the US has done damage to the prospects
>>of of a world governed by international law, through its unilateral
>>actions, that is the greatest loss.

>
> Prior to the war, the "international law" was the UN.
>
> Now the rest of the world knows what a joke THAT was.


Pretty imperfect, I'd agree, but I think it has more long-term potential
than unilateralism. Because of globalization, and the impact of
technology, to think that the US can go it alone in any sphere -- trade,
environment, crime, etc. is really a dangerously out of date mindset.
The oil economy present a unique problem in that it creates huge
transfers of wealth which tend to create "banana republics" on a grand
scale. Manufacturing economies, like those emerging in India and China,
can't help but grow a large, educated middle class -- the real source of
social progress, and the real spawning grounds of democracies.

The sanctions were a blunt tool, creating a great deal of hardship for
the people of Iraq, but they did prove to be effective in containing
SH's ambitions. Likewise, the first Gulf War was a flawed, but
reasonably effective, exercise in multilateral ism. We should have built
on our successes rather than fall back to outmoded approaches.


>>In the Middle East, the neo-cons misunderstand the "enemy" the same way
>>their comrades misunderstood SE Asia during Vietnam. Islamic
>>fundamentalism is on the rise, and it will not be stopped militarily. To
>>understand why Iraq will never "work" (in the neo-con sense), you have
>>to understand why Arabs danced in the street after 9/11. History teaches
>>that the only thing that will unite traditional enemies is the presence
>>of a greater common enemy. We are fulfilling that role (again) --
>>remember China and Vietnam.

>
>
> And I disagree. We are at war with a ideology, and the only way to
> beat it is by making it impossible for that ideology to have state
> sponsorship or access to WMD.


In Vietnam we made the mistake of thinking we were "at war with an
ideology" (communism) when we were really dealing with the legacy of
colonialism, we are making the same mistake. The animosity in the Arab
world towards the West is for being dominated militarily for decades. We
are currently fighting a coalition of fascists from the old regime and
Islamic theocrats. Politics has made strange bedfellows, as it always
will. We are creating our enemies, not defeating them.

As we've seen in Iran, the only solution to containment of WMD (a very
real problem) is to multilaterally control the dissemination of those
technologies. The invasion/occupation strategy doesn't scale. The oil
consuming nations should disarm the oil producing nations, up until now,
we've all been arming them to the teeth.


>>The ultimate irony in all of this is how the fundamentalists in this
>>country -- a group to which GWB belongs and owes his presidency -- don't
>>grasp the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. They expect the Arabs to
>>behave "rationally" and embrace a secular democracy, while they maintain
>>their own irrational positions and attempt to de-secularize their own
>>government. Extremism begets extremism.

>
>
> The government that Iraq will end up with will be considerably less
> secular than the one it replaced. That in itself will be seen by the
> Arab street as a significant point.


This is a likely outcome, and a bad one for social progress -- witness
Iran.

>>The ultimate fallacy of this war is that were are attempting to
>>determine Iraqi self-determinism for them -- such folly cannot end well.

>
>
> And I disagree again - I think the political process is well-designed
> to have less and less foreign influence with every step taken. By the
> time the elections take place on the 15th, the government will be very
> representative of the Iraqi people. Give it a few more years, and it
> will be more so.


Democracies are very fragile things. A large part of the populations of
both Iraq and Afghanistan were complicit in prior oppressive regimes. I
don't think either society is a good candidate for democracy. The real
test of worthiness for democracy is whether the people themselves can
throw off tyranny. I think both of these societies have failed that test
miserably -- "evangelical democracy" is wishful thinking, and
dangerously so.
 
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:38:19 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>History will tell whether he's right or not. If the democracies in
>Afghanistan and Iraq "work", they're going to cause profound changes
>throughout the entire region. If so, like it or not, the man will go
>down as a visionary. If he's wrong, he is a goat forever.
>


>
>Mark Hickey


Why stop at visionary, why not make him a saint? Your blind
allegiance is really something to behold.

My guess is that history will not be kind to the Shrub and his
cronies.

Jeff
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote re: Office of Special Plans,
> >for example:
> >
> >> Oooh, a secret cabal of the only guys
> >> on the planet who knew (violin
> >> riff) the REAL TRUTH.... (cue Twilight
> >> Zone music). I'm sure they had
> >> lots of spies in Iraq that no one
> >> knew about too, right?

> >
> >This is another classic "You're cute, Mark, but..." line of yours.
> >
> >Math lesson, and--as others have said--I'll reduce the fractions for
> >your intelligibility:
> >
> >1) Liddy + Mitchell + Haldeman + Dean + Hunt = CREEP
> >
> >2) Ronny RayGun + Robert McFarlane + Cap Weinberger + Colin Powell +
> >Michael Ledeen, et al = Iran-Contra
> >
> >3) Tricky **** + Kennedy + Allen Dulles + Charles Cabell (close!) +
> >Richard Bissell, et al = Bay of Pigs.
> >
> >You know, Mark: I've been giving you far too much credit for cerebral
> >horsepower.

>
> Yeah, I should have realized that all those things from decades ago
> make your point about the current administration crystal clear...
>
> ... NOT.
>
> Of course, it is kind of fun to play connect the dots without having
> to worry about any REAL connection. If Kerry had won, he'd
> automatically be a womanizer if I were to remind you about Kennedy and
> Clinton. How cool is that?


Nice try, but the judges awarded 0 points there. A particular person
with a particular personality trait is just a TAD less likely than
corrupt, self-serving politicians making end-runs around the public.

Hm. "Decades ago." Another reason I think your historical perspective
is lacking. Reagan's administration ended in--what--'89?? I can't
believe you think that's "old news."

I guess I'll have to invoke your words again: "intentionally obtuse?"
The premise here is your assertion (see Rod Serling reference above)
that the idea of Administrations having "secret cabals" is ludicrous.
My position--amply proved--is that it is far from ludicrous, and
that--just because you don't wish it to be so ... doesn't mean it
didnt' happen ... or, admittedly, that it did ... but there are many
questions that need to be asked and (satisfactorily) answered.

Stop for a second. Review the history of the last 40 years. Allow the
possibility that it may have happened--despite your wishes, faith, and
disbelief--and encourage the full investigation (currently called Phase
II).

> >Perhaps you're more like GWB than I thought--a member of the "My
> >mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, unwilling to
> >acknowledge the Emperor's obvious lack of clothing, and more than a
> >bit ignorant of history.

>
> Hey, I'm not the one making claims for which I have no proof, you are.
> You're claiming that the current administration was MUCH smarter and
> in touch than the CIA, UNMOVIC, and the rest of the world's
> intelligence agencies.


Not my claim. It looks to ME as though a group of people spun,
colored, and cherry-picked--all the while ignoring the many vociferous
caveats from the Intel community--to create a 'justification' for this
war, then.

Actually, from what you've said, you reserve "claims for which you have
no proof" for Sunday mornings--something that I _don't_ do. I look for
smoke and then look for fire. This is not an insult, but it is *my*
belief that it takes a different kind of thought process to be devout
in one's faith ("faith" being defined as 'belief that does not rest on
logical proof or material evidence.') I want the evidence. History is
chock full of examples of corrupt dealings stemming all the way from
the top, active support of brutal dictators, propping up coups,
toppling leaders, etc., etc.

Your ability to summarily dismiss smoke from countless sites will,
doubtless, never lead to finding the fire, even if it's a barn-burner.
Your summary dismissal of the questionable nature--at the very
*least*--of the Office of Special Plans--well documented (see, even,
FoxNews: http://snipurl.com/kfhe . Hint: why do you think Feith is
under the microscope now ... and, of course, resigned 'to spend more
time with his family?') astounds me, but--again--I can only attribute
it to a comfort level that you may have reached with "faith" that I
never did ... or that notion of looking at mommie and daddy the way a
kid does vs. how an adult does.

Do you have enlistment-aged kids? Are you willing to send them to
battle this noble cause? The justifications that you use are at least
as 'noble' as the ones GWB used to take us to this war. Your kids?
Your nephews and nieces? Your secretary's 19 year-old?? I have a
21yr. old neighbor that I don't even care for (loud drunk), but I
wouldn't want him to die for this. Are you still young enough to
enlist? Would the Guard take you?

Or is this the closely held belief of somebody with no skin in the
game? I think it's a reasonable question.

I think that a lot of foul play took this country to war. It was
either that or a colossal phuque-up (since WMD's WERE the justification
for the what, when, and where). Which would you rather believe. I
don't actually care (hear my parental voice talking?) what Billy, and
Jimmy, and Dennis (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) thought. They didn't
throw the first punch. We did. That should mean something.

In the end, it reminds me of a former co-worker. He was either evil or
stupid ... and I prefer to think he was evil. In this corporation, if
the Administration wasn't evil, then they were at least colossally
stupid ... and thousands and thousands and thousands are dead ... and
we've, apparently, used chemical weapons and torture ... and may be
running gulags around the world ... and the strength of the resistance
seems to be rising ... and we have no end in sight.

And it seems that there were scores of home-grown detractors in the
Intel community, trying to get us not to do this.

I give you the last word.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote re: Office of Special Plans,
>>> for example:
>>>
>>>> Oooh, a secret cabal of the only guys
>>>> on the planet who knew (violin
>>>> riff) the REAL TRUTH.... (cue Twilight
>>>> Zone music). I'm sure they had
>>>> lots of spies in Iraq that no one
>>>> knew about too, right?
>>>
>>> This is another classic "You're cute, Mark, but..." line of yours.
>>>
>>> Math lesson, and--as others have said--I'll reduce the fractions for
>>> your intelligibility:
>>>
>>> 1) Liddy + Mitchell + Haldeman + Dean + Hunt = CREEP
>>>
>>> 2) Ronny RayGun + Robert McFarlane + Cap Weinberger + Colin Powell +
>>> Michael Ledeen, et al = Iran-Contra
>>>
>>> 3) Tricky **** + Kennedy + Allen Dulles + Charles Cabell (close!) +
>>> Richard Bissell, et al = Bay of Pigs.
>>>
>>> You know, Mark: I've been giving you far too much credit for
>>> cerebral horsepower.

>>
>> Yeah, I should have realized that all those things from decades ago
>> make your point about the current administration crystal clear...
>>
>> ... NOT.
>>
>> Of course, it is kind of fun to play connect the dots without having
>> to worry about any REAL connection. If Kerry had won, he'd
>> automatically be a womanizer if I were to remind you about Kennedy
>> and Clinton. How cool is that?

>
> Nice try, but the judges awarded 0 points there. A particular person
> with a particular personality trait is just a TAD less likely than
> corrupt, self-serving politicians making end-runs around the public.
>
> Hm. "Decades ago." Another reason I think your historical
> perspective is lacking. Reagan's administration ended
> in--what--'89?? I can't believe you think that's "old news."
>
> I guess I'll have to invoke your words again: "intentionally obtuse?"
> The premise here is your assertion (see Rod Serling reference above)
> that the idea of Administrations having "secret cabals" is ludicrous.
> My position--amply proved--is that it is far from ludicrous, and
> that--just because you don't wish it to be so ... doesn't mean it
> didnt' happen ... or, admittedly, that it did ... but there are many
> questions that need to be asked and (satisfactorily) answered.


As usual with you, you (purposely?) miss Mark's main point and instead tear
down your own straw man. (Hint: the issue wasn't whether there was a
"secret cabal"; it was whether those {most likely fictional} cloak & dagger
dudes KNEW STUFF THAT NO ONE ELSE DID.)

> Stop for a second. Review the history of the last 40 years. Allow
> the possibility that it may have happened--despite your wishes,
> faith, and disbelief--and encourage the full investigation (currently
> called Phase II).
>
>>> Perhaps you're more like GWB than I thought--a member of the "My
>>> mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, unwilling
>>> to acknowledge the Emperor's obvious lack of clothing, and more
>>> than a bit ignorant of history.

>>
>> Hey, I'm not the one making claims for which I have no proof, you
>> are. You're claiming that the current administration was MUCH
>> smarter and in touch than the CIA, UNMOVIC, and the rest of the
>> world's intelligence agencies.

>
> Not my claim. It looks to ME as though a group of people spun,
> colored, and cherry-picked--all the while ignoring the many vociferous
> caveats from the Intel community--to create a 'justification' for this
> war, then.


Prove it. Is that so unreasonable?

{rest snipped; life's too short}
 
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:

> Prove it. Is that so unreasonable?


Gosh, Nuck ... what a staggeringly great idea! I'm honored and humbled
to be corresponding with one of the true deep thinkers of our times.

Um, how shall I say this: that's what I've been advocating, but it
requires

- less stonewalling by the majority party

- less "Let's delay Phase II 'til /after/ the elections so it doesn't
look quite so partisan"

- less "Uh, yeah: Phase II. It's only been 20 months since we promised
to look it. What's your rush?

> {rest snipped; life's too short}


Another size reference? Is there something about you (that we hadn't
already surmised) that you'd like us to know?
 
Bill Sornson writes:

> {WHY DO YOU ALWAYS DELETE PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS?!?}


I'm responding to what you wrote, not what to those to whom you
responded. I suppose it takes time to understand the process. The
reason for including the history is to bring context. Don't be so up
tight about who it was that previously said what.

> snipz


>>>>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully
>>>>>>>> recounted with no spin. {JB}


>>>>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to
>>>>>>> see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
>>>>>>> sources not "controlled" by the CIA. {MH}


>>>> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who
>>>> admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you
>>>> don't want to believe. {JB}


>>> Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted
>>> that "Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the
>>> CIA"?!? Come on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!) {BS}


>> Hey, stop lying! Your quote marks claim that those are my words.
>> I never said that. That is a classic ploy for someone who cannot
>> defend a position. Attribute something you can attack to the
>> person with whom you disagree and shoot at him for it. It seems
>> you and Mark went to the same indoctrination camp by the rude style
>> and devious argumentation used to defend a lost cause.


> Um, WOW. Let's look again, shall we? (It's still right up there
> but I'll go to the trouble of cutting and pasting.)


> You wrote, "Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
> press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no
> spin."


That's not the same as what you put in quotes. Besides, I see you've
never heard the NYT slogan about "All the news that's fit to print"

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /AllNewsFit_Herman.html

> Mark replied, "Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact.
> I'd like to see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news
> from sources not "controlled" by the CIA."


It is a fact that the US has injected such stories into the Iraqi
media. As I said, the garbage bags can't hold all the dirt in and
it's being investigated currently to determine how much and at what
cost thse items were created.

> TO WHICH YOU REPLIED: "I just hear{d} an interview with an
> administration spokesman who admitted that this was the case. I
> guess you don't hear what you don't want to believe."


> So tell me again how I "lied" and misrepresented what you said.
> (The quote marks were NOT misleading, as the original posts to which
> they referred were left intact right above. It was obvious they
> weren't YOUR words but rather quoting that about which you were
> making claims.)


You lied!

> Talk about dishonesty! (I KNOW you're not that stupid to not understand
> what was being said/meant.)


Apply that to yourself.

> {rest snipped cuz you just evaded and added nuthin'}


Nothing in your estimation and that's just fine with me.

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:


{Totally snipped main argument about yet another Brooks Straw Man; probably
wise.}

>> Prove it. Is that so unreasonable?


> Gosh, Nuck ... what a staggeringly great idea! I'm honored and
> humbled to be corresponding with one of the true deep thinkers of our
> times.
>
> Um, how shall I say this: that's what I've been advocating, but it
> requires
>
> - less stonewalling by the majority party
>
> - less "Let's delay Phase II 'til /after/ the elections so it doesn't
> look quite so partisan"
>
> - less "Uh, yeah: Phase II. It's only been 20 months since we
> promised to look it. What's your rush?


Yet that doesn't stop you and countless others on the left from STATING AS
FACT that Bush lied/manipulated/cherry picked/etc. ***** about the stalling
if you want, but stop making reckless accusations with NO PROOF.


>> {rest snipped; life's too short}

>
> Another size reference? Is there something about you (that we hadn't
> already surmised) that you'd like us to know?


This from a guy who said stuff about "masturbating from the sidelines" and
then invited me to "fellate {him} at great length" (you doubtless flatter
yourself). Then JUST YESTERDAY you said something to "di" about his "li'l
head" and then to Mark about "taxing his little brain".

But because I snipped umteen lines of your /further/ rambling dribble and
say "life's too short" to bother with such long-winded blather, you call
that a "size reference". Bwahahahahahahaha! Good stuff, thanks!

At least you're consistent.

N&F
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson writes:
>
>> {WHY DO YOU ALWAYS DELETE PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS?!?}

>
> I'm responding to what you wrote, not what to those to whom you
> responded. I suppose it takes time to understand the process. The
> reason for including the history is to bring context. Don't be so up
> tight about who it was that previously said what.
>
>> snipz

>
>>>>>>>>> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in
>>>>>>>>> their own press... directly from the CIA and truthfully
>>>>>>>>> recounted with no spin. {JB}

>
>>>>>>>> Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to
>>>>>>>> see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from
>>>>>>>> sources not "controlled" by the CIA. {MH}

>
>>>>> I just hear an interview with an administration spokesman who
>>>>> admitted that this was the case. I guess you don't hear what you
>>>>> don't want to believe. {JB}

>
>>>> Name and citation please? (An "administration spokesman" admitted
>>>> that "Iraqis can't get news from sources not 'controlled' by the
>>>> CIA"?!? Come on, JB! That's rich, even for you!!!) {BS}

>
>>> Hey, stop lying! Your quote marks claim that those are my words.
>>> I never said that. That is a classic ploy for someone who cannot
>>> defend a position. Attribute something you can attack to the
>>> person with whom you disagree and shoot at him for it. It seems
>>> you and Mark went to the same indoctrination camp by the rude style
>>> and devious argumentation used to defend a lost cause.

>
>> Um, WOW. Let's look again, shall we? (It's still right up there
>> but I'll go to the trouble of cutting and pasting.)

>
>> You wrote, "Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
>> press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no
>> spin."

>
> That's not the same as what you put in quotes. Besides, I see you've
> never heard the NYT slogan about "All the news that's fit to print"
>
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /AllNewsFit_Herman.html
>
>> Mark replied, "Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact.
>> I'd like to see any evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news
>> from sources not "controlled" by the CIA."

>
> It is a fact that the US has injected such stories into the Iraqi
> media. As I said, the garbage bags can't hold all the dirt in and
> it's being investigated currently to determine how much and at what
> cost thse items were created.


Not the same as ALL the news Iraqis get is controlled by the CIA. Your
logic has flown the truing stand.

>> TO WHICH YOU REPLIED: "I just hear{d} an interview with an
>> administration spokesman who admitted that this was the case. I
>> guess you don't hear what you don't want to believe."

>
>> So tell me again how I "lied" and misrepresented what you said.
>> (The quote marks were NOT misleading, as the original posts to which
>> they referred were left intact right above. It was obvious they
>> weren't YOUR words but rather quoting that about which you were
>> making claims.)

>
> You lied!


Horse ****. (And of course you STILL are evading the question.)

>> Talk about dishonesty! (I KNOW you're not that stupid to not
>> understand what was being said/meant.)

>
> Apply that to yourself.
>
>> {rest snipped cuz you just evaded and added nuthin'}

>
> Nothing in your estimation and that's just fine with me.


So who was this "administration spokesman", Jobst? Put up or retract!
(Sound familiar?)
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> Hmmmm. 40 countries = "unilateral". I'm using Websters - you?


I'd prefer using numbers.

Review for us, Mark. Of your 40 countries, how much did each
contribute to the effort to invade, conquer and "secure" Iraq? Why not
list them in order of contributions?

Actually, it would be best to do it by percentages.

Let's see, Lower East Remotistan sent in a jeep with two privates and a
big jug of water. That's _one_ ally...

- Frank Krygowski
 
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Nuck 'n Futz wrote:

>
> {Totally snipped main argument about yet another Brooks Straw Man; probably
> wise.}


Nuck: if YOU think I'm guilty of logical fallacies, that's all the
confirmation I need that I'm not. Mark thought "conspiracy theory" was
whacko. I showed very relevant, very recent examples that prove
they're all too real, generally. We COULD have another one on our
hands now. I think it's worth investigating.

> >> Prove it. Is that so unreasonable?

>
> > Gosh, Nuck ... what a staggeringly great idea! I'm honored and
> > humbled to be corresponding with one of the true deep thinkers of our
> > times.
> >
> > Um, how shall I say this: that's what I've been advocating, but it
> > requires
> >
> > - less stonewalling by the majority party
> >
> > - less "Let's delay Phase II 'til /after/ the elections so it doesn't
> > look quite so partisan"
> >
> > - less "Uh, yeah: Phase II. It's only been 20 months since we
> > promised to look it. What's your rush?

>
> Yet that doesn't stop you and countless others on the left from STATING AS
> FACT that Bush lied/manipulated/cherry picked/etc. ***** about the stalling
> if you want, but stop making reckless accusations with NO PROOF.


Uh, pointing toward the smoke and *****ing about the stalling IS what
I've been doing. Where are my 'reckless accusations with NO PROOF?" or
is that simply your reckless accusation with no proof.

> >> {rest snipped; life's too short}

> >
> > Another size reference? Is there something about you (that we hadn't
> > already surmised) that you'd like us to know?

>
> This from a guy who said stuff about "masturbating from the sidelines" and
> then invited me to "fellate {him} at great length" (you doubtless flatter
> yourself).


Oh, no. A very objective assessment, indeed ... and the offer still
stands.

>Then JUST YESTERDAY you said something to "di" about his "li'l
> head" and then to Mark about "taxing his little brain".
>
> But because I snipped umteen lines of your /further/ rambling dribble and
> say "life's too short" to bother with such long-winded blather, you call
> that a "size reference". Bwahahahahahahaha! Good stuff, thanks!


You dish it out readily (if poorly), but you don't like your own
sentiments turned against you, do you?

> At least you're consistent.


A quality to which you ought to strive.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:

>
> >To be simplistic, for your benefit: What if _we_ had spent 1/10 that
> >on bribes? If money is all it took for Saddam to control the UN, we
> >could certainly have outbid him. Do you disagree? That money could
> >have come in the form of direct payments, or in subtler forms such as
> >promised market deals, research aid, medical supplies, campaign
> >contributions, etc. Whatever could be done legally.

> <snipped other similar text>
>
> Frank, I really can't imagine a world where we reward such horrendous
> behavior by paying them off. Can you REALLY suggest that without
> following that approach to its logical conclusion? We'd only have to
> pay off every despot in the world, since they'd have a) no fear of
> reprisal, and b) a profit motive for outrageous behavior.


Mark, what are we doing with China? (In fact, what are _you_ doing
with China?)

What are we doing with Saudi Arabia?

What are we doing with North Korea?

What are we doing with Iran?

The list goes on and on. There are many despots in the world, some
worse than others. We don't invade them all. We use an entire range
of tactics to try to influence behavior. Those tactics include things
like those I listed, and more.

Well, in _some_ cases we try to influence behavior, anyway. In other
cases, we just shovel money at them for their oil, or for their cheap
labor in welding titanium, and we pretend their citizens are treated
well enough. We ignore their anti-western ideologies, we ignore their
oppression of other countries (like Tibet). Basically, money trumps
morality. If they have the titanium tubes we can make money off of, we
ignore their terrible records.


> Besides, you're never going to convince me that Saddam (who had
> literally billions of dollars in cash, and a string of ornate palaces)
> was "bribable". Saying that "research aid" or "medical supplies"
> would be meaningful to Saddam is laughable. "Campaign
> contributions"???!!! You HAVE to be kidding me. Surely you have to
> know more about prewar Iraq than that...


Sometimes I don't know if you're deliberately trying to misunderstand,
or just hoping to deflect ideas that hurt your cause.

You were claiming Saddam bribed UN members. I was saying we could
easily out-bribe Saddam. We could give the French more contracts for
canned escargot and Citroens than Saddam could ever dream of. We could
buy billions of dollars of African products. We could set up "trade
partnerships" with every nation he'd ever bribed, and give personal
perks to the leaders of those nations. We could have bought them away
from Saddam, and left him sitting alone in the desert.

Then we could have had one minor nation offer him an exile deal. Even
if it took and incredible fortune to pay for enough "allies," the cost
in dollars would be FAR less than the cost of this invasion and
conquest. And the cost in lives lost and our lost reputation abroad
would be zero.

But to you, it's better to spend trillions to invade Iraq - while,
simultaneously, it's somehow better to trade with China.

It's actually a combination of "might makes right" and "money makes
right."

- Frank Krygowski
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >> Bush manipulated the intel going into the war, but you somehow can't
> >> manage to find any evidence of that "fact" either.

> >
> >Wow. Speaking of lying!
> >
> >First, please replace "Bush" by "The Bush administration," because
> >that's what's most often claimed. George W's radio link usually works
> >well, and the words fed to him usually contain enough wiggle room to
> >let him strongly imply what the administration wants, without having
> >the cardboard president actually make specific, accountable statements.
> > (In his defense, this is common among politicians - although most
> >politicians are not figureheads to the degree George W is).
> >
> >But evidence of the administration's misleading statements has been
> >posted many times. Of those posting here, there have been only about
> >four people who are capable of pretending "We know where the weapons of
> >mass destruction are" means something else.
> >
> >Or you can refer to the famous Downing Street Memo (actually, minutes
> >of a top-level security meeting in Britain), containing this paragraph
> >(and much more detail on the Bush administration's plans):
> >
> >"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
> >shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
> >wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
> >conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
> >being fixed around the policy."

>
> The OPINION of ONE British officer visiting Washington becomes the
> only gospel? Hooo boy.


You said there wasn't _any_ evidence, remember?

I provided evidence. They were notes taken during a high-level British
security meeting. The meeting took place in London, not Washington.

Don't say "no evidence." Say "No evidence Mark HIckey will believe."

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Nuck 'n Futz wrote:


>>>> {rest snipped; life's too short}
>>>
>>> Another size reference? Is there something about you (that we
>>> hadn't already surmised) that you'd like us to know?

>>
>> This from a guy who said stuff about "masturbating from the
>> sidelines" and then invited me to "fellate {him} at great length"
>> (you doubtless flatter yourself).

>
> Oh, no. A very objective assessment, indeed ... and the offer still
> stands.
>
>> Then JUST YESTERDAY you said something to "di" about his "li'l
>> head" and then to Mark about "taxing his little brain".
>>
>> But because I snipped umteen lines of your /further/ rambling
>> dribble and say "life's too short" to bother with such long-winded
>> blather, you call that a "size reference". Bwahahahahahahaha! Good
>> stuff, thanks!

>
> You dish it out readily (if poorly), but you don't like your own
> sentiments turned against you, do you?
>
>> At least you're consistent.

>
> A quality to which you ought to strive.


Let's stroll down memory lane, shall we?

Brooks whines:

"I do, however, resent when the tactic becomes disparagement (calling
people emotional because you don't like their positions, trying to
undermine credibility by attacking their perceived sources (again,
blogs)) rather than staying with the discussion."

Futz replies:

"So saying your reading comprehension skills seem to diminish due to an
apparent emotional stake in political arguments is "disparagement", but your
saying your opponent is masturbating from the cheap seats and should fellate
you is "staying with the discussion".

Got it. You're not only illogical; you're a hypocrite. (And a crude one at
that.)"

Sure SOUNDS consistent! ROTFL