11 Sept

Robert Chung said:

RonSonic said:

The only credible claims I've seen that Bush was not active in
his ANG duty all came after his plane was being removed from service
and he was redundant or would require retraining and reassignment.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kool_aid.jpg

The F-102 was still in TANG service when he stopped flying.

If you could move beyond logic, common sense, and facts you would have a
better chance of winning this argument.

--
Bill Asher

Robert Chung said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

Robert Chung said:

I recognize my responsibility to give back.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kool_aid.jpg

Pretty useful, huh?

Sure. I drink it every day!

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> A veteran, with a brother, father, and uncle who've all served, but
> who does not consider myself as coming from a military family. A
> patriotic family, yes. A family that recognizes it's responsibility
> to give back, to serve, to earn it's perks of citizenship, but not a
> military family.

I recognize my responsibility to give back. I just had other priorities
than military service.

What, are you the senator's son?

Not exactly. http://tinyurl.com/llh75

I know who you were quoting, dumbass. You're so damn busy being a
smart-ass you apparently missed the reference to CCR's 'Fortunate
Son'... I ain't no senator's son, It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no
fortunate one, no, Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, ...

Fred

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What, are you the senator's son?

Not exactly. http://tinyurl.com/llh75

I know who you were quoting, dumbass. You're so damn busy being a
smart-ass you apparently missed the reference to CCR's 'Fortunate
Son'... I ain't no senator's son, It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no
fortunate one, no, Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, ...

Dumbass,

Of course I knew about the song -- I (peripherally) know John Fogarty and
I live not far from Cosmo's Factory. My mistake was thinking you're more
clever than you are: I thought you were making a double reference not only
to the CCR song but also to http://tinyurl.com/ps954. That's why I said
"not exactly."

Bill C said:

The scale of greed, stupidity, callousness, and wanton disregard for
the Country's best interests, rather than those of Haliburton,
Blackwater, and the rest is unbelievable.

That isn't as silly as the excuses that we are liberating the Iraqis,
or getting rid of WMDs... but there is more than a money grab going on
here.

Ron Ruff said:

Bill C said:

The scale of greed, stupidity, callousness, and wanton disregard for
the Country's best interests, rather than those of Haliburton,
Blackwater, and the rest is unbelievable.

That isn't as silly as the excuses that we are liberating the Iraqis,
or getting rid of WMDs... but there is more than a money grab going on
here.

I used to think so too. If I had to add anything today these are the
things I'd add, arrogance, conviction that they have a devine mission,
revenge, and a lust for a place in history.
Bill C

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... or the nutbar stuff about
the WTC being blown up from inside (which I think is
even too crazy for Lafferty).

Unfortunately this does not exactly seem to
be nutbar stuff.

This guy is a Mormon and physics professor
at BYU for 21 years until he was recently put
on leave for publishing this paper:

http://tinyurl.com/e6u6f

"We start with the fact that large quantities
of molten metal were observed in basement areas
under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin
Towers and WTC7."

Stupid is as stupid does.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> A veteran, with a brother, father, and uncle who've all served, but
> who does not consider myself as coming from a military family. A
> patriotic family, yes. A family that recognizes it's responsibility
> to give back, to serve, to earn it's perks of citizenship, but not a
> military family.

I recognize my responsibility to give back. I just had other priorities
than military service.

What, are you the senator's son?

Not exactly. http://tinyurl.com/llh75

One of the first items that pops up there is this:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073772

You know slate that right-wing talking-points memo.

Ron

RonSonic said:

One of the first items that pops up there is this:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073772

You know slate that right-wing talking-points memo.

Well, first of all, you've accurately described Hitchens: he's the
right-wing TPM. Second, Slate actually does try to print a variety of
views and opinions--though I'm not particulary surprised that you wouldn't
know that since you obviously only frequent the nutbar echo chamber (or
you'd know that Kerry's DD-214 was on-line and that the F-102 was still in
service when Bush walked out of TANG). But third of all, you're the one
who called into question Kerry's and Gore's military qualifications as not
being up to snuff. And now you're pointing to Hitchens, whose chicken hawk
credentials are unassailable?

Your kook-fu is very powerful.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Robert Chung" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

One of the first items that pops up there is this:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073772

You know slate that right-wing talking-points memo.

Well, first of all, you've accurately described Hitchens: he's the
right-wing TPM.

Hitchens is a Yoosta-Bee. He used to be a liberal. Now he can't get enough of
telling us why that's so.

See: http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16482

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... or the nutbar stuff about
the WTC being blown up from inside (which I think is
even too crazy for Lafferty).

Unfortunately this does not exactly seem to
be nutbar stuff.

This guy is a Mormon and physics professor
at BYU for 21 years until he was recently put
on leave for publishing this paper:

http://tinyurl.com/e6u6f

"We start with the fact that large quantities
of molten metal were observed in basement areas
under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin
Towers and WTC7."

Believing this paper enters into the realm of fairly serious
gullibility. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Allow
me to pick at just the stuff in this paper that is really stupid on the
first reading.

Page 17: I don't have a degree in physics or anything, but I have taken
a few photographs. Apparently our author has not, because he thinks that
these two photos show glowing metal, when they are in fact exactly like
the reflections back of very bright light sources in an otherwise
low-light situation, where the photographer is sensibly shooting to
properly expose the low-light part of the scene. Though this isn't a key
part of his hypothesis, it speaks to a certain mindset that is looking
for one kind of conspiracy where another explains the situation well.

As to why the towers collapsed, almost uniquely among tall buildings on
fire, most building fires don't start with a flaming impact that
devastates the sprinkler system. The hypothesis that the fire was
fuelled by paper in the offices, unquenched by sprinklers, and
subsequently overheated the structural steel in the concrete is
considerably more reasonable.

As for the whole argument that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, isn't
the better question why malign force would deliberately target WTC 7?
Does the author have any idea how much trouble it is to wire a building
for demolition? It's a project. It's a lot of trouble. Having brought
down WTC 1 and 2, who on earth would bother with WTC 7?

A quote:

"Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded ³top-down²
rather than proceeding from the bottom which is unusual for controlled
demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which
explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on
higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have
early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower.
Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an
independent investigation using all available data."

In other words, the evidence makes their "demolition" hypothesis
improbable, but they'll keep looking for evidence to the contrary,
because it's more probable to the "truth movement" that The Man blew it
up.

On this subject, part of the "reality movement,"

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Ron Ruff said:

Bill C said:

The scale of greed, stupidity, callousness, and wanton disregard for
the Country's best interests, rather than those of Haliburton,
Blackwater, and the rest is unbelievable.

That isn't as silly as the excuses that we are liberating the Iraqis,
or getting rid of WMDs... but there is more than a money grab going on
here.

I used to think so too. If I had to add anything today these are the
things I'd add, arrogance, conviction that they have a devine mission,
revenge, and a lust for a place in history.
Bill C

Here's what some of their cheerleaders are saying:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/09/post_1403.html#006340

Every time they say "Islamofascism" and talk about how dangerous Muslims are,
they alienate the moderate segments of the Islamic world. And those sections are the
overwhelming majority. If they keep alienating the moderates, the moderates won't
care about what the radical segments do, as long as it doesn't have too much impact
on them.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

fred.garvin said:

I ain't no senator's son, It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no
fortunate one, no, Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, ...

And some are born to the endless night.

Ryan Cousineau said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What, another doping thread.

in message <[email hidden]>, Donald Munro

(') said:

fred.garvin said:

I ain't no senator's son, It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no
fortunate one, no, Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, ...

And some are born to the endless night.

Some are born to sweet delight. Your point is?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

Robert Chung said:

RonSonic said:

One of the first items that pops up there is this:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073772

You know slate that right-wing talking-points memo.

Well, first of all, you've accurately described Hitchens: he's the
right-wing TPM. Second, Slate actually does try to print a variety of
views and opinions--though I'm not particulary surprised that you wouldn't
know that since you obviously only frequent the nutbar echo chamber (or
you'd know that Kerry's DD-214 was on-line and that the F-102 was still in
service when Bush walked out of TANG). But third of all, you're the one
who called into question Kerry's and Gore's military qualifications as not
being up to snuff. And now you're pointing to Hitchens, whose chicken hawk
credentials are unassailable?

Hitchens is a leftist who realizes that the mullahs are more illiberal than
George Bush and not by a little bit. Hitchens has just happened to notice that
militant Islam represents everything any sensible liberal will have been
opposing all along.

Ron

RonSonic said:

Hitchens is a leftist who realizes that the mullahs are more illiberal than
George Bush and not by a little bit. Hitchens has just happened to notice that
militant Islam represents everything any sensible liberal will have been
opposing all along.

There are a multitude of sensible ways to oppose militant Islam.
Invading a Muslim country without cause or a plan isn't among them.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

In article <[email hidden]>,

RonSonic said:

Robert Chung said:

RonSonic said:

One of the first items that pops up there is this:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2073772

You know slate that right-wing talking-points memo.

Well, first of all, you've accurately described Hitchens: he's the
right-wing TPM. Second, Slate actually does try to print a variety of
views and opinions--though I'm not particulary surprised that you wouldn't
know that since you obviously only frequent the nutbar echo chamber (or
you'd know that Kerry's DD-214 was on-line and that the F-102 was still in
service when Bush walked out of TANG). But third of all, you're the one
who called into question Kerry's and Gore's military qualifications as not
being up to snuff. And now you're pointing to Hitchens, whose chicken hawk
credentials are unassailable?

Hitchens is a leftist who realizes that the mullahs are more illiberal than
George Bush and not by a little bit. Hitchens has just happened to notice that
militant Islam represents everything any sensible liberal will have been
opposing all along.

Sorry for the slow response on this, Ron - cable modem died...

Anyway, liberals have long known how illiberal the radical, militant mullahs are.
For example, in the early '90s, there was an outcry by feminists and various
liberals about the treatment of women in Afghanistan by the Taliban. We've known
that there is a lot of repressive ideology being pushed by the militant members of
Islam, but we've also known that they aren't going to end up ruling us anytme soon
and that there's no reason to do things that play into the hands of the radical,
militant elements of Islam, such as the rhetoric that was bandied about in the weeks
after 9-11 that demonized all Islam or invading Iraq.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?