Ride an SUB not an SUV

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
.. .

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
billions
of
dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
people.

(and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly
fair
in
LA.)

Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
are
somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?

Your question is nonsensical.

Obviously you don't have an answer then.

No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might
be
more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in
the
news.

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote
"george conklin" wrote
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look
at
probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
"You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
they
were riding.

Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.

She's noticed that Conklin's "refereed source" don't say what he claims they
say.

"Baxter" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.

P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote
"george conklin" wrote
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
"You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
they
were riding.

Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.

Ooh, a man with a gift for restatement. I like (not).

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
.. .

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
billions
of
dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
people.

(and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly
fair
in
LA.)

Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
are
somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?

Your question is nonsensical.

Obviously you don't have an answer then.

No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might
be
more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in
the
news.

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?

That's what I was asking you to do.

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article ,
Clark F Morris wrote:
The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
indefinitely.

I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.

We do have about 21 more months of 'you know who' and his 'hunting'
buddy, so that is how long we will have too many troops there and not at
home.

But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
corporation Haliburton.

Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.

They all hate us, but they damn sure won't stop taking our money.

None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?

Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
work it out.

Yeah,
THEY can work it out, and we get to figure how to re-integrate a lot of
National Guard troops to civilian life. Add tens of thousands of new
amputees' and we have to support them for life if it was serious enough.
How come the National Guard never got to call up Bush Jr.???
Bill Baka

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"george conklin" wrote:

"Amy Blankenship" wrote
"george conklin" wrote
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
"You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
they
were riding.

Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.

Real research takes time. Planners don't do research. They just have
policies. It is really sad.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Baxter" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)

Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.

If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here
posting
stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.

P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.

That's for sure. From a man whose job used to be cutting down our
forests, but seems unemployed now.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article ,
Clark F Morris wrote:

The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
indefinitely.

I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.

But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
corporation Haliburton.

Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.

None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?

Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
work it out.