Re: OT: Opt-out part deux

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:24:49 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On 14 Nov 2005 09:43:03 -0600, Jim Blansett
><jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:24:59 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snipped for brevity>
>>>There was no "stream." Only a phony intellectual doing his best to derail
>>>any honest discussion on these important issues.
>>>
>>>What a waste of time.
>>>
>>>Wage Peace
>>>
>>><snip><UNSNIP>
>
>>>>It's no joke. If these people are emphatically against joining the
>>>>military, they should have no problem saying "No!" to a recruiter.
>>>>OTOH, the implicit presumption that they are somehow "damaged" by
>>>>getting [a maximum of five] calls sounds positively silly.
>
>[Silence.]
>
>Shawn has no answer. And neither does Jim. All that Shawn can do is
>SNIP the question.
>

To believe that all a young person would receive is one call from each
of the branches of the military is just plain ignorant, phil. How
many times did you get a call from a single telemarketer before you
registered with the Colorado No Call list? One? Or more than one? I
sincerely doubt it was just a single call. If it had been just one,
you wouldn't have registered because, after all, all you had to do was
say no and hang up.

>>I think I've finally figured it out, Shawn; phil is afraid. phil is
>>afraid that he is going to discover that it is he who "has no
>>clothes."
>
>Yet it is Jim and "Snipper" Shawn who fail to engage. Your theory is a
>No Pass.

Far from it. But, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>
>> While the majority of Americans, many of whom formerly
>>supported "shrub" and his ridiculous and deadly decisions
>
>And an even smaller number of Americans realize: if Bush were "lying",
>then those Democratic senators were also "lying" to the American
>People.

It had no bearing on whether or not we went to war. This president
took us there - not the other people who were duped.

>
>They fail to realize that the onus was exclusively on Saddam to prove
>that he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles -- not the other way around.
>They fail to realize that Saddam never ever complied with any UN
>resolution -- including the Armistice and UNSC 1441.
>

Poor Johnny One-Note....

The call this a "channel change" on FoxNews. It doesn't work there -
it won't work here.


>They fail to remember that the UNSC unanimously promised "serious
>consequences" to Iraq in UNSC 1441 if Saddam failed to comply -- and
>France failed to deliver on that promise.
>

Spanking a child is a serious consequence for misbehaving - so is
killing them. Which step would *you* consider first?

>They fail to realize that we still have no proof that the WMDs were
>simply moved outside of Iraq.

And you and yours fail to demonstrate they were. A No Pass for you.
<$.02 to phil>

>
>I thank God that we don't have a president who is obsessed with the
>polls. Of all of Bill Clinton's sins, that obsession may have been the
>worst thing.
>

No, he's obsessed with working out for several hours a day, avoiding
reading the newspaper, and being sure to appear as an absolute
imbecile when making a "speech" in front of other world leaders.

>>, are running
>>away from him in droves, phil is afraid he is going to be left
>>standing alone. Well, maybe not alone - Sharon and Dan will be there
>>with him. But worse, phil will still be supporting those bad
>>decisions.
>
>I'm pondering a world where Joe Wilson's denials that Saddam was
>shopping for Uranium were rebuked by a 2004 Senate Intelligence
>Report, but only a tiny of fraciton of Americans will listen to that
>truth.

Who cares about Joe Wilson? Joe Wilson didn't take us to war.


>>The Emperor has no clothes, indeed.
>
>If that were really the case, you would really be willing to
>scrutinize those threads -- talk about the issues. But you do not.
>
>> All hail emperor phil.
>
>All hail Jim: the master of the ad hominem attack.
>

I'm not a master, I just play one on television.

>How about talking about the issues, Jim?
>
>--phil

I talk about issues, phil. I talk about the issues I care to discuss,
and not the ones you try and drive the conversation to. Sorry to
disappoint you (not really).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Opt-out part deux
    ... >Their investment is time, phil. ... Jim fails to address the two-faced nature of those Democrat senators. ... You demand that other people answer questions, yet you yourself fail ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT; You want honesty...dont hold your breath
    ... >I wasn't commenting on Shawn, ... Your sin, Jim, is that you're just here to attack. ... >>>Prove that Shawn is a coward, phil. ... >>striving to be as hateful as you can. ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT: Did they lie or not?
    ... >> link to photos of things happening that (according to Phil) did not happen. ... Shawn: I never ever said it did not happen. ... > difference between the activities in Abu Ghraib and Nazi Germany. ... >>> for people in Nazi concentration camps. ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: OT: Did they lie or not?
    ... >link to photos of things happening that (according to Phil) did not happen. ... Shawn Hines: have you ever seen the day-by-day sequence of Abu Ghraib ... difference between the activities in Abu Ghraib and Nazi Germany. ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: Uproarious post for all the Iraqis who expressed their newfound freedom
    ... >>> in article dv79q1t5b61egb66s24rjmj8ro3p45k7tk@xxxxxxx, Phil Earnhardt at ... Or was that a different Shawn Hines? ... You failed to respond in your *first* follow-up posting. ... you make a mockery of your moniker of "waging peace." ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)