I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have
>> to be in the office to get anything done
>
> Politics is about face-to-face.
>
> Crawford ain't D.C.
>
> So, take those two, and figure out that yes, indeed, Crawford is a
> vacation. Maybe not compared to *your* vacation, but a politician's
> vacation.

3 days shorter than Congress', BTW.

 

[G.T.]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have
> >> to be in the office to get anything done
> >
> > Politics is about face-to-face.
> >
> > Crawford ain't D.C.
> >
> > So, take those two, and figure out that yes, indeed, Crawford is a
> > vacation. Maybe not compared to *your* vacation, but a politician's
> > vacation.
>
> 3 days shorter than Congress', BTW.
>

Oranges and apples.

Greg

 

[Bill Sornson]

G.T. wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have
>>>> to be in the office to get anything done
>>>
>>> Politics is about face-to-face.
>>>
>>> Crawford ain't D.C.
>>>
>>> So, take those two, and figure out that yes, indeed, Crawford is a
>>> vacation. Maybe not compared to *your* vacation, but a politician's
>>> vacation.
>>
>> 3 days shorter than Congress', BTW.
>>
>
> Oranges and apples.

You're right. The President actually has to WORK during his "vacation"; not
so for Congressional types.

 

[Shaun aRe]

"Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > To me, it DOES add some credence to the piece that the author is
actually an
> > experienced rider, and not just some fairly fit reporter who got an
invite
> > to tag along or something. When this guy says that W rides at a pretty
> > strong pace, it likely means just that.
> >
> > Cool.
>
> And if it's to be believed, 20 mph on a mtb is pretty damn fast. I
> wonder how long Shrub was able to *maintain* 20 mph.

Until the cocaine ran out - duh.





Shaun aRe

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have to
>> be in the office to get anything done
>
>Politics is about face-to-face.

In a perfect world, yes. But this is a big world, and the vast
majority of people Bush or any other president meets with are NOT in
the same room. Those meetings aren't affected by Bush being in
Crawford.

>Crawford ain't D.C.

Neither is Camp David.

>So, take those two, and figure out that yes, indeed, Crawford is a
>vacation. Maybe not compared to *your* vacation, but a politician's
>vacation.
>
>Get real.

Like any of us could handle the "vacation workload" a president
manages... ever notice how presidents (all of 'em) age at 2-3x the
rate the rest of us do? Must be all those "vacations", huh?

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

 

[cc]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cc wrote:
>> "JohnH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> I would be very happy if he just took the whole rest of his term
>>> off, and keep the hell away from a microphone!
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, or five minutes to talk to a distressed mother of a soldier who
>> died in the unjust invasion of Iraq, who is camped outside of his
>> ranch.
>
> You mean the mother he already met with over a year ago, and who praised
> him afterwards? The one who USED to have a photo of the President
> kisssing her on the cheek on her website? The one who now tells a
> completely different account of all that, while posing for pics with
> impeachment and chickenhawk signs all around her, and yet claims she just
> wants to meet with him? The one who said:
>

<snip>

Yes, that's the one, Bill. Thanks for that article; I hadn't seen that.
Regardless, it doesn't change the very important questions that she has to
ask, and the right she has to ask them. I don't much care for the spin put
on her case, but bushie needs to answer to somebody. Here is another bit
that might help a bit:

The president -- who is spending a nearly five-week-long working vacation at
his Texas ranch -- said in a speech Wednesday that the sacrifices of U.S.
troops were "made in a noble cause." (Full story)

Sheehan said she found little comfort in his comments.

"I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told
reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what
that noble cause is."

Sheehan said hers was one of a group of about 15 families who each met
separately with the president one day last June.

"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's
name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how
much we missed him, he would change the subject."

Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the
questions she now wants answered.

"I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately,"
Sheehan told reporters Saturday. "I don't want him to use my son's name or
my name to justify any more killing."

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >>
> >> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have to
> >> be in the office to get anything done
> >
> >Politics is about face-to-face.
>
> In a perfect world, yes.

:roll eyes:

Yeah, all those treaties signed over the years - "just fax that to me."

E.P.

 

[JD]

gree-c quoted someone else:
> "I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately,"
> Sheehan told reporters Saturday.


That quote could only make one wonder if her son would feel honor in
his name being used to desert a mission he sacrificed his life for
before it was completed.

JD

 

[Bill Sornson]

cc wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> cc wrote:
>>> "JohnH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>> I would be very happy if he just took the whole rest of his term
>>>> off, and keep the hell away from a microphone!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, or five minutes to talk to a distressed mother of a soldier
>>> who died in the unjust invasion of Iraq, who is camped outside of
>>> his ranch.
>>
>> You mean the mother he already met with over a year ago, and who
>> praised him afterwards? The one who USED to have a photo of the
>> President kisssing her on the cheek on her website? The one who now
>> tells a completely different account of all that, while posing for
>> pics with impeachment and chickenhawk signs all around her, and yet
>> claims she just wants to meet with him? The one who said:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes, that's the one, Bill. Thanks for that article; I hadn't seen
> that. Regardless, it doesn't change the very important questions that
> she has to ask, and the right she has to ask them. I don't much care
> for the spin put on her case, but bushie needs to answer to somebody.
> Here is another bit that might help a bit:
>
> The president -- who is spending a nearly five-week-long working
> vacation at his Texas ranch -- said in a speech Wednesday that the
> sacrifices of U.S. troops were "made in a noble cause." (Full story)
>
> Sheehan said she found little comfort in his comments.
>
> "I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told
> reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask
> him what that noble cause is."

Well, um, 'c'... President Bush didn't kill her son (who volunteered to be
there, of course). An insurgent killed her son while he tried to help his
buddies caught in a firefight (story I heard anyway). He was a true hero,
and deserves better.

The noble cause is millions (MILLIONS) of people freed from oppression and
tyranny. Guess that's too corny for you. On a "practical" level,
transforming Iraq (and Afghanistan) will, if successful, lessen and perhaps
even defeat the forces that create and foster terrorism in generations to
come.

> Sheehan said hers was one of a group of about 15 families who each met
> separately with the president one day last June.
>
> "He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know
> Casey's name," she told CNN Sunday. "Every time we tried to talk
> about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject."

That's not what she said then or right after.

> Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask
> the questions she now wants answered.

So then she went home and put up pics with the prez on her website? Hmm.

> "I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately,"
> Sheehan told reporters Saturday. "I don't want him to use my son's
> name or my name to justify any more killing."

Like the slaughter that would immediately follow an abrupt pull-out? Then
her son's death WOULD have been in vain (although still "for a noble
cause").

No one's giving air time to the parents of lost soldiers who DO support the
president, even though they far outnumber the ones who feel like Ms.
Sheehan. Gotta wonder why that is...

 

[cc]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> gree-c quoted someone else:
>> "I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home immediately,"
>> Sheehan told reporters Saturday.
>
>
> That quote could only make one wonder if her son would feel honor in
> his name being used to desert a mission he sacrificed his life for
> before it was completed.
>

The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died for
terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt that way too.

 

[Bill Sornson]

cc wrote:
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> gree-c quoted someone else:
>>> "I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home
>>> immediately," Sheehan told reporters Saturday.
>>
>>
>> That quote could only make one wonder if her son would feel honor in
>> his name being used to desert a mission he sacrificed his life for
>> before it was completed.
>>
>
> The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died
> for terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt
> that way too.

That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi Jew-killing
thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.

No wonder you post anonymously...

 

[Bill Sornson]

cc wrote:

He sees no difference between "the SS" and US soldiers, so whatever he
writes has zero credibility or weight.

You bias is hanging out; don't trip on it!

 

[cc]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cc wrote:
>
> He sees no difference between "the SS" and US soldiers, so whatever he
> writes has zero credibility or weight.
>

Did I write "I see no difference" ?

No.

I'm just saying there is emotion involved in the loss of a loved one, and
that - regardless of who is right or wrong - there is a desire to believe
that there is a greater cause and that the death was not in vain.

> You bias is hanging out; don't trip on it!
>

 

[cc]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cc wrote:
>> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> gree-c quoted someone else:
>>>> "I want him to honor my son by bringing the troops home
>>>> immediately," Sheehan told reporters Saturday.
>>>
>>>
>>> That quote could only make one wonder if her son would feel honor in
>>> his name being used to desert a mission he sacrificed his life for
>>> before it was completed.
>>>
>>
>> The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died
>> for terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt
>> that way too.
>
> That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi
> Jew-killing thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.

Bill, find a better point to argue here. You know the point that I'm making,
and it has nothing to do with calling the soldiers in Iraq Nazis. I'm just
saying that the logic of sending soldiers "in honor" of those that died and
using that to justify the completion of said "mission" is totally faulty.

That said, the United States is just that: a thug. We spit in the face of
the United Nations, or any other civilized law-making body. If you read the
excerpt from Bolton (now our UN ambassador) that I posted earlier, you would
know that. What makes us so special as to start an occupation of a country
that has not provoked our attack? You really think that - given the choice -
the majority of Iraqis would have voted for us to come and demolish their
country, kill thousands of their citizens, and incite the development of
terrorist forces under the guise of democracy? Yeah right.

>
> No wonder you post anonymously...

It makes absolutely no difference to you or anyone on this newsgroup whether
or not my identity is known. I don't care if I know you as Bill or um,
anything else.

You are also quite aware of the super, fun people that show up on this group
that I wouldn't want knowing my location. Not to mention those -- clearly
exceptionally skilled at rational argument -- use my current school as a
reason to insult.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"cc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>> cc wrote:

>>> The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died
>>> for terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt
>>> that way too.
>>
>> That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi
>> Jew-killing thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.
>
>Bill, find a better point to argue here. You know the point that I'm making,
>and it has nothing to do with calling the soldiers in Iraq Nazis. I'm just
>saying that the logic of sending soldiers "in honor" of those that died and
>using that to justify the completion of said "mission" is totally faulty.

Too late - Godwin's law has been invoked (and yes, your example is
more than just a bit over the top - it shows either a desire to
inflame or a near total lack of historical perspective).

>That said, the United States is just that: a thug. We spit in the face of
>the United Nations, or any other civilized law-making body.

Wait - which is it - the UN or a "civilized law-making body". I'm
amazed at those who still trust the UN to do anything other than
funnel around graft and bribes. It's about time someone DID hold the
UN's feet to the fire - the alternative is to simply let it die the
slow and awful death it's experiencing now. Perhaps you ARE happy
with the current state of the UN (see note above about "lack of
historical perspective).

> If you read the
>excerpt from Bolton (now our UN ambassador) that I posted earlier, you would
>know that. What makes us so special as to start an occupation of a country
>that has not provoked our attack? You really think that - given the choice -
>the majority of Iraqis would have voted for us to come and demolish their
>country, kill thousands of their citizens, and incite the development of
>terrorist forces under the guise of democracy? Yeah right.

Most Iraqis want us there now, and most are really, really glad that
Saddam is gone. They'll be much more happy when the insurgents
finally run out of gullible people (though this thread proves there
are some left). ;-)

>> No wonder you post anonymously...
>
>It makes absolutely no difference to you or anyone on this newsgroup whether
>or not my identity is known. I don't care if I know you as Bill or um,
>anything else.

OK, "c". It's always been my experience that an anonymous opinion is
one without conviction, but that's just me I guess.

>You are also quite aware of the super, fun people that show up on this group
>that I wouldn't want knowing my location. Not to mention those -- clearly
>exceptionally skilled at rational argument -- use my current school as a
>reason to insult.

Methinks you worry too much, but again - that's just me.

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> These days it should be pretty obvious that you don't actually have to
>> >> be in the office to get anything done
>> >
>> >Politics is about face-to-face.
>>
>> In a perfect world, yes.
>
>:roll eyes:
>
>Yeah, all those treaties signed over the years - "just fax that to me."

The fact remains that the vast majority of statesmanship is done over
the phone. Bush has made lots of trips elsewhere in the middle of his
"vacations" to do the necessary face-to-face stuff that couldn't be
done at his ranch. I should also remind you that he DOES entertain
many heads of state at his ranch, so it's quite possible that he will
(has?) signed treaties in Texas.

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

 

[cc]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "cc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> cc wrote:
>
>>>> The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died
>>>> for terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt
>>>> that way too.
>>>
>>> That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi
>>> Jew-killing thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.
>>
>>Bill, find a better point to argue here. You know the point that I'm
>>making,
>>and it has nothing to do with calling the soldiers in Iraq Nazis. I'm just
>>saying that the logic of sending soldiers "in honor" of those that died
>>and
>>using that to justify the completion of said "mission" is totally faulty.
>
> Too late - Godwin's law has been invoked (and yes, your example is
> more than just a bit over the top - it shows either a desire to
> inflame or a near total lack of historical perspective).

Talk to those who understand our total disrespect and disregard for other
cultures, and to the families of victims of violence, murder and genocide
that we have caused - directly or through assasinations or pure ignorance -
around the world. One doesn't have to look too far to see closer parallels
than you'd like.

>>That said, the United States is just that: a thug. We spit in the face of
>>the United Nations, or any other civilized law-making body.
>
> Wait - which is it - the UN or a "civilized law-making body". I'm
> amazed at those who still trust the UN to do anything other than
> funnel around graft and bribes. It's about time someone DID hold the
> UN's feet to the fire - the alternative is to simply let it die the
> slow and awful death it's experiencing now. Perhaps you ARE happy
> with the current state of the UN (see note above about "lack of
> historical perspective).

The point is that we are not the ONLY nation in the world, and we shouldn't
act like it. Just because our military is manyfold any other country doesn't
mean we should act the bully.

>
>> If you read the
>>excerpt from Bolton (now our UN ambassador) that I posted earlier, you
>>would
>>know that. What makes us so special as to start an occupation of a country
>>that has not provoked our attack? You really think that - given the
>>choice -
>>the majority of Iraqis would have voted for us to come and demolish their
>>country, kill thousands of their citizens, and incite the development of
>>terrorist forces under the guise of democracy? Yeah right.
>
> Most Iraqis want us there now, and most are really, really glad that
> Saddam is gone. They'll be much more happy when the insurgents
> finally run out of gullible people (though this thread proves there
> are some left). ;-)

Says who? They will never run out of "gullible people." The stock of Iraqi
citizens that live below the poverty line, have to struggle for day-to-day
survival, and who no longer have any of the benefits offered by the
now-defunct government is endless. With American soldiers occupying their
homeland after destroying (and not repairing) vital infrastructure,
murdering thousands of innocent civilians, and stealing Iraqi money openly,
do you think it's that hard to point the finger? It's not like this is the
first offense. . .

You are all simply too inebriated with the wine of our corporate-owned
media. Try reading a book sometime. Seriously.

>
>>> No wonder you post anonymously...
>>
>>It makes absolutely no difference to you or anyone on this newsgroup
>>whether
>>or not my identity is known. I don't care if I know you as Bill or um,
>>anything else.
>
> OK, "c". It's always been my experience that an anonymous opinion is
> one without conviction, but that's just me I guess.

Does it sound like I lack conviction? Stick to the point.

>
>>You are also quite aware of the super, fun people that show up on this
>>group
>>that I wouldn't want knowing my location. Not to mention those -- clearly
>>exceptionally skilled at rational argument -- use my current school as a
>>reason to insult.
>
> Methinks you worry too much, but again - that's just me.

Again, irrelevant.

 

[Corvus Corvax]

MTBlood wrote:
>
> Damn I can't stand your type...

Right. Is this you?

http://tinyurl.com/bpvy6

CC (the other one)

 

[MTBlood]

">> nope...can't stand hippies...
>
> you can stop proving you're ignorant now. go back to watching television.

Wow...what a great comeback! I'm disappointed...I thought my ignorant ass
would be awed with your infinite wisdom...

This is a mountain bike newsgroup..take your anti-war, anti-American ****
where it belongs. I made great sacrifices for this country and I did so with
my head high and with honor that can only be bestowed upon a U.S. service
member. Your statements are a disrespect to every man and women in uniform.
It's simply easy to judge and have opinions from the comfort of your living
room being influenced by what the media wants you to believe. Put your boots
on the ground, dodge a few bullets, and see the progress made by your
efforts and then come back with your story. Only then will I listen to your
ramblings....

 

[MTBlood]

>>>>> The sacrifice of life does not make it a just mission. Many have died
>>>>> for terrible causes. I'm sure some of the families of the SS felt
>>>>> that way too.
>>>>
>>>> That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi
>>>> Jew-killing thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.
>>>
>>>Bill, find a better point to argue here. You know the point that I'm
>>>making,
>>>and it has nothing to do with calling the soldiers in Iraq Nazis. I'm
>>>just
>>>saying that the logic of sending soldiers "in honor" of those that died
>>>and
>>>using that to justify the completion of said "mission" is totally faulty.
>>
>> Too late - Godwin's law has been invoked (and yes, your example is
>> more than just a bit over the top - it shows either a desire to
>> inflame or a near total lack of historical perspective).
>
> Talk to those who understand our total disrespect and disregard for other
> cultures, and to the families of victims of violence, murder and genocide
> that we have caused - directly or through assasinations or pure
> ignorance - around the world. One doesn't have to look too far to see
> closer parallels than you'd like.
>
>>>That said, the United States is just that: a thug. We spit in the face of
>>>the United Nations, or any other civilized law-making body.
>>
>> Wait - which is it - the UN or a "civilized law-making body". I'm
>> amazed at those who still trust the UN to do anything other than
>> funnel around graft and bribes. It's about time someone DID hold the
>> UN's feet to the fire - the alternative is to simply let it die the
>> slow and awful death it's experiencing now. Perhaps you ARE happy
>> with the current state of the UN (see note above about "lack of
>> historical perspective).
>
> The point is that we are not the ONLY nation in the world, and we
> shouldn't act like it. Just because our military is manyfold any other
> country doesn't mean we should act the bully.
>
>>
>>> If you read the
>>>excerpt from Bolton (now our UN ambassador) that I posted earlier, you
>>>would
>>>know that. What makes us so special as to start an occupation of a
>>>country
>>>that has not provoked our attack? You really think that - given the
>>>choice -
>>>the majority of Iraqis would have voted for us to come and demolish their
>>>country, kill thousands of their citizens, and incite the development of
>>>terrorist forces under the guise of democracy? Yeah right.
>>
>> Most Iraqis want us there now, and most are really, really glad that
>> Saddam is gone. They'll be much more happy when the insurgents
>> finally run out of gullible people (though this thread proves there
>> are some left). ;-)
>
> Says who? They will never run out of "gullible people." The stock of Iraqi
> citizens that live below the poverty line, have to struggle for day-to-day
> survival, and who no longer have any of the benefits offered by the
> now-defunct government is endless. With American soldiers occupying their
> homeland after destroying (and not repairing) vital infrastructure,
> murdering thousands of innocent civilians, and stealing Iraqi money
> openly, do you think it's that hard to point the finger? It's not like
> this is the first offense. . .
>
> You are all simply too inebriated with the wine of our corporate-owned
> media. Try reading a book sometime. Seriously.
>
>>
>>>> No wonder you post anonymously...
>>>
>>>It makes absolutely no difference to you or anyone on this newsgroup
>>>whether
>>>or not my identity is known. I don't care if I know you as Bill or um,
>>>anything else.
>>
>> OK, "c". It's always been my experience that an anonymous opinion is
>> one without conviction, but that's just me I guess.
>
> Does it sound like I lack conviction? Stick to the point.
>
>>
>>>You are also quite aware of the super, fun people that show up on this
>>>group
>>>that I wouldn't want knowing my location. Not to mention those -- clearly
>>>exceptionally skilled at rational argument -- use my current school as a
>>>reason to insult.
>>
>> Methinks you worry too much, but again - that's just me.
>
> Again, irrelevant.

Holy ****..now I have it..you were reminding me of someone and now I know
who...you're the political version of Vandeman