vpFREE2 Forums

Veteran Status

#81

— In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a…>
wrote:
>
> Have you read the Koran ??? Have you read the Bible ???
>
Yes, the Bible was required reading in my youth, and yes, reading
PARTS of the Koran was required reading in one of my jobs. That's
why I have formed the mainstream and proper opinions here, while

you

simply report what you want to be.

I see you used the same level of comprehension that you demonstrate
on this forum. Now, go back and reread them, you obviously have
plenty of time on your hands. This time you may see that both of them
can be interpreted many ways. If you want to infer the Koran is evil
then you are also inferring the Bible is evil. Is this what you mean?

> > A poll of Iraqis?? Huh?? Go on over there and meet them and

THEN

> > you'll find out how overwhelmingly thankful they are to us for
what we did and are now doing.
>
> Didn't I just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit
your preconceived opinion?

Yeah, but you can't seem to grasp onto the fact that I speak with
authority because, unlike you, I was there.

If you were EVER really there I'm sure you preconceived notions were
also in tow.

As I said, you ramble on
with wannabee wishes and make-believe facts, which is also why
you're not making any sense to me.

I simply quoted an actual poll. Facts are a nuisance, aren't they?

>
> > Where've you been? Nothing's changed at all. GWB has said a
million times since the start that it would be a looong, difficult
path,
>
> No, he said that about the war and then he said we won. Didn't I
just mention you will ignore any facts that don't fit your
preconceived opinion?

Hello dufus??!! In case you've been away, we DID win!! What he then
said was that turning the country into a DEMOCRACY would be a long
and dangerous affair. And that's just another reason why he won the
election. Kerry took your stupid position trying to change voter's
minds, and we proved you can't mess with historical truths once
again.

I will let you claim victory when a self-sustaining democratic Iraqi
government is in place and we are on the way home. Until then it's no
different than Vietnam which slipped through our fingers. While the
two situations are different, the bottom line is still the same.

>
> > And that's exactly why Bush won and Kerry did not.
>
> Move on ...

I like it. Each time you show your sour grapes, and each time it
gets more satisfying for me.

Move on ...

>
> NO! You just stated that the media was to blame for ALL the bad
news coming out of Iraq. Is there really fighting going on in
Fallujah?

You moron. That's good news....if you're a true American or
civilized human being from anywhere.

Not the point, your dumbness. We were discussing the accuracy of news
reporting that you claimed was always faulty.

> Did 31 Americans and 100s of Iraqi insurgents die? Did the
insurgents just take back control of Mosul? Was this all made up by
the media as you've asserted? If not, then your assertion was wrong
and it is more evidence you will ignore any facts that don't fit
your preconceived opinion.

Typical scardy-cat liberal. Don't forget to mention the number of

US

deaths all the time!

Last count I saw was 38 Amercian deaths and 1200 insurgents. Are you
saying these numbers are way off?

Guess what yo-yo? Those of us who have put our
lives on the line understand death happens in war, and while we

feel

sorrow for each and every life lost on the battlefield, no one
really cares about the numbers -- right or wrong -- that you and

the

media conjure up for alternative motives.

What "alternative motives"? These are simply facts that you like to
ignore.

You and they try to make
it seem like each death is a mark against GWB. Imagine if we had
nerds and media running around with stats every day in WWI & WWII!
Even hiding up there in Minnesota wouldn't be safe.

I think you're way beyond paranoid. Once again this discussion is
about the accuracy of the Iraqi new reports.

>
> > So why do you never have an answer as to why Saddam would never
> allow inspectors to verify evidence that he dismantled them?
Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange, and contrary to
what common sense dictates?
>
> I already explained it once and I have no plans on repeating
myself to a blithering idiot like you. Go back and read my posts
from the last couple of days. Of course, this is move evidence you
will ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion.

You explained nothing at all, and you can't cover your tracks. The
fact is, you have no answers--only criticizms. As usual.

I knew you wouldn't go back. This is move evidence you will ignore
any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion

>
> > Perhaps if I could be as nebulous on an explanation as
> > you are, you might get it. The WMD's is clear-cut. He had them,
he used them, and there is absolutely no reason not to believe he
had more and would use them again.
>
> I already answered this assertion. Didn't I just mention you will
> ignore any facts that don't fit your preconceived opinion?

Same denial-laced nonsense.

Same factual data. Either show me a WMD or admit you are wrong.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#82

I see you used the same level of comprehension that you demonstrate
on this forum. Now, go back and reread them, you obviously have
plenty of time on your hands. This time you may see that both of

them can be interpreted many ways. If you want to infer the Koran is
evil then you are also inferring the Bible is evil. Is this what you
mean?

You stumbled once again, professor. Both writings have good & evil
within. Catholics and Christians choose the peaceful interpretations
while Muslims choose hate. It's that simple. Your attempt at
confusion is as primitive as the rest of your baloney.

> Yeah, but you can't seem to grasp onto the fact that I speak with
> authority because, unlike you, I was there.

If you were EVER really there I'm sure you preconceived notions

were also in tow.

So now you're reduced to peeling down yet another layer that your
twisted mind created in order to try to save face once again.

I simply quoted an actual poll. Facts are a nuisance, aren't they?

Ha! Polls again. that's what you base your so-called expertise on??
It's all just as wacky as your video poker theories. They go nowhere,
and certainly cannot get past sharp minds.

> Hello dufus??!! In case you've been away, we DID win!! What he

then said was that turning the country into a DEMOCRACY would be a
long and dangerous affair. And that's just another reason why he won
the election. Kerry took your stupid position trying to change
voter's minds, and we proved you can't mess with historical truths
once again.

I will let you claim victory when a self-sustaining democratic

Iraqi government is in place and we are on the way home. Until then
it's no different than Vietnam which slipped through our fingers.
While the two situations are different, the bottom line is still the
same.

So why criticize when you see it happening? Your comparison to
Vietnam is comical though. That's yet ANOTHER foiled plot that made
Kerry get his lunch handed to him, and why he is so disrespected
today.

NO! You just stated that the media was to blame for ALL the bad

> news coming out of Iraq. Is there really fighting going on in
> Fallujah?
>
> You moron. That's good news....if you're a true American or
> civilized human being from anywhere.

Not the point, your dumbness. We were discussing the accuracy of

news reporting that you claimed was always faulty.

You're trying to slip out of your point again, but I'll help you out
anyway. I never said all of it was faulty--nor that it is always
faulty. You side with those papers that supported anyone but GWB, and
those are where the reporting faults are.

Last count I saw was 38 Amercian deaths and 1200 insurgents. Are

you saying these numbers are way off?

No. I'm saying 'who cares' in wartime about numbers of deaths? It's
the overall objective that's important, not how many were killed. If
it weren't for the papers and news channels, 90%+ of Americans would
all be supporting our efforts there. But once ONE US death is
announced, the newspeople get all over it as if GWB has a lot to
answer for. It's all perception, and most of it is wrong.

What "alternative motives"? These are simply facts that you like to
ignore.

An opportunity to criticize in order to hopefully gain support
for 'their' presidential candidate in the current or nect election.

Same factual data. Either show me a WMD or admit you are wrong.

That shows just how idiotic you are. The ACLU said the same thing. So
didn't Kerry. So didn't Michael Moore. Queers, losers, and fat boys.
Thank God we still have a real man in the White House.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#83

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> I see you used the same level of comprehension that you

demonstrate

> on this forum. Now, go back and reread them, you obviously have
> plenty of time on your hands. This time you may see that both of
them can be interpreted many ways. If you want to infer the Koran

is

evil then you are also inferring the Bible is evil. Is this what

you

mean?

You stumbled once again, professor. Both writings have good & evil
within.

That's exactly what I said.

Catholics and Christians choose the peaceful interpretations
while Muslims choose hate. It's that simple. Your attempt at
confusion is as primitive as the rest of your baloney.

Not so fast. While most Chistians may CURRENTLY be choosing "peaceful
interpretations", they did not do this historically. And, while a few
Muslims CURRENTLY "choose hate", the worldwide majority do not.

>
> > Yeah, but you can't seem to grasp onto the fact that I speak

with

> > authority because, unlike you, I was there.
>
> If you were EVER really there I'm sure you preconceived notions
were also in tow.

So now you're reduced to peeling down yet another layer that your
twisted mind created in order to try to save face once again.

Nope. Just stating the obvious.

>
> I simply quoted an actual poll. Facts are a nuisance, aren't they?
>
Ha! Polls again. that's what you base your so-called expertise on??
It's all just as wacky as your video poker theories. They go

nowhere,

and certainly cannot get past sharp minds.

So now you're reduced to peeling down yet another layer that your
twisted mind created in order to try to save face once again.

> > Hello dufus??!! In case you've been away, we DID win!! What he
then said was that turning the country into a DEMOCRACY would be a
long and dangerous affair. And that's just another reason why he

won

the election. Kerry took your stupid position trying to change
voter's minds, and we proved you can't mess with historical truths
once again.
>
> I will let you claim victory when a self-sustaining democratic
Iraqi government is in place and we are on the way home. Until then
it's no different than Vietnam which slipped through our fingers.
While the two situations are different, the bottom line is still

the

same.

So why criticize when you see it happening? Your comparison to
Vietnam is comical though. That's yet ANOTHER foiled plot that made
Kerry get his lunch handed to him, and why he is so disrespected
today.

In other words, you have no comeback. Ever time you mention Kerry it
is obvious that you have no legitimate response. It "is comical
though".

>
NO! You just stated that the media was to blame for ALL the bad
> > news coming out of Iraq. Is there really fighting going on in
> > Fallujah?
> >
> > You moron. That's good news....if you're a true American or
> > civilized human being from anywhere.
>
> Not the point, your dumbness. We were discussing the accuracy of
news reporting that you claimed was always faulty.

You're trying to slip out of your point again, but I'll help you

out

anyway. I never said all of it was faulty--nor that it is always
faulty.

Actually, you did. I suspect it was just one of your endless
generalizations that you really didn't mean. You should be more
careful what you write.

>
> Last count I saw was 38 Amercian deaths and 1200 insurgents. Are
you saying these numbers are way off?

No. I'm saying 'who cares' in wartime about numbers of deaths?

Most Americans and even GWB himself.

It's
the overall objective that's important, not how many were killed.

If

it weren't for the papers and news channels, 90%+ of Americans

would

all be supporting our efforts there.

So, if we Americans were kept in the dark, like in Communist or
Dictatorship countires where there is NO free press, you'd be much
happier.

But once ONE US death is
announced, the newspeople get all over it as if GWB has a lot to
answer for. It's all perception, and most of it is wrong.

Not at all. By reelecting GWB the American people showed that SOME
deaths are acceptable.

>
> Same factual data. Either show me a WMD or admit you are wrong.

That shows just how idiotic you are. The ACLU said the same thing.

So

didn't Kerry. So didn't Michael Moore. Queers, losers, and fat

boys.

Thank God we still have a real man in the White House.

Hmmm. Didn't I mention that everytime you mention Kerry shows you
have no actual response? Proven once again.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#84

. > You stumbled once again, professor. Both writings have good &
evil within.

That's exactly what I said.

Not exactly, and you know that.

> Catholics and Christians choose the peaceful interpretations
> while Muslims choose hate. It's that simple. Your attempt at
> confusion is as primitive as the rest of your baloney.

Not so fast. While most Chistians may CURRENTLY be

choosing "peaceful interpretations", they did not do this
historically. And, while a few Muslims CURRENTLY "choose hate", the
worldwide majority do not.

If you knew your Christian history better, you'd realize their
warmongering had much more to do with land and territory than direct
religion. And the Bible has NEVER taught any of them to kill over
religious beliefs. Muslims--whom you so readily coddle--are taught to
hate, to kill, and to maim those of other religions because some nut-
author Mohammed tells them it's righteous. Put into the hands of the
millions of slob paupers around the world in Muslim countries, and
it's easy to see why many of them choose to follow a crazed person
like OBL.

> So now you're reduced to peeling down yet another layer that your
> twisted mind created in order to try to save face once again.

Nope. Just stating the obvious.

To you, the obvious is a product of envy.

> So why criticize when you see it happening? Your comparison to
> Vietnam is comical though. That's yet ANOTHER foiled plot that

made Kerry get his lunch handed to him, and why he is so disrespected

> today.

In other words, you have no comeback. Ever time you mention Kerry

it is obvious that you have no legitimate response. It "is comical

though".

If you followed the campaign, you'd know right away. If not, you
wouldn't be so irate at GWB's extraordinary victory.

> You're trying to slip out of your point again, but I'll help you
out
> anyway. I never said all of it was faulty--nor that it is always
> faulty.

Actually, you did. I suspect it was just one of your endless
generalizations that you really didn't mean. You should be more
careful what you write.

Please write something that means something.

> No. I'm saying 'who cares' in wartime about numbers of deaths?

Most Americans and even GWB himself.

Wrong. Here's a clue: Soldiers are led into battle over an objective
given them. THAT's what's important - it transcends all else. They
obviously know some will die in the fight. We all "care" about death,
but it's not the driving force in war. The news will sensationalize a
soldier or two's death, sure, but that's because of their liberal
agenda.

So, if we Americans were kept in the dark, like in Communist or
Dictatorship countires where there is NO free press, you'd be much
happier.

WWI kept 'we Americans' in the dark. WWII kept us there too. One of
the weaknesses of Vietnam was that we began to actually SEE death as
soon as it could be transmitted to the TV stations, where they were
free to put their own spin on how and why it happened--just like
Dan 'communist' Rather does today.

Not at all. By reelecting GWB the American people showed that SOME
deaths are acceptable.

I should hope so!

> > Same factual data. Either show me a WMD or admit you are wrong.
>
> That shows just how idiotic you are. The ACLU said the same

thing.

So
> didn't Kerry. So didn't Michael Moore. Queers, losers, and fat
boys.
> Thank God we still have a real man in the White House.

Hmmm. Didn't I mention that everytime you mention Kerry shows you
have no actual response? Proven once again.

And why don't I see anything about our still having a 'real man' in
the White House??? Hmmmm....Seems just like the NY Times.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#85

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

. > You stumbled once again, professor. Both writings have good &
evil within.
>
> That's exactly what I said.

Not exactly, and you know that.

Yes exactly, and you know that.

>
> > Catholics and Christians choose the peaceful interpretations
> > while Muslims choose hate. It's that simple. Your attempt at
> > confusion is as primitive as the rest of your baloney.
>
> Not so fast. While most Chistians may CURRENTLY be
choosing "peaceful interpretations", they did not do this
historically. And, while a few Muslims CURRENTLY "choose hate", the
worldwide majority do not.

If you knew your Christian history better, you'd realize their
warmongering had much more to do with land and territory than

direct

religion. And the Bible has NEVER taught any of them to kill over
religious beliefs.

If any more evidence of your ignorance were reguired ... you have
provided a final proof positive.

Muslims--whom you so readily coddle--are taught to
hate, to kill, and to maim those of other religions because some

nut-

author Mohammed tells them it's righteous.

More BS. Nothing could be further fromn the truth.

Put into the hands of the
millions of slob paupers around the world in Muslim countries, and
it's easy to see why many of them choose to follow a crazed person
like OBL.

And some more racism to make your position perfectly clear ...
  

>
> > You're trying to slip out of your point again, but I'll help

you

> out
> > anyway. I never said all of it was faulty--nor that it is

always

> > faulty.
>
> Actually, you did. I suspect it was just one of your endless
> generalizations that you really didn't mean. You should be more
> careful what you write.

Please write something that means something.

I did. I realize that's difficult for you to understand.

>
> > No. I'm saying 'who cares' in wartime about numbers of deaths?
>
> Most Americans and even GWB himself.

Wrong. Here's a clue: Soldiers are led into battle over an

objective

given them. THAT's what's important - it transcends all else.

For the soldiers, yes, for everyone else, NO.

They
obviously know some will die in the fight. We all "care" about

death,

but it's not the driving force in war. The news will sensationalize

a

soldier or two's death, sure, but that's because of their liberal
agenda.

Wrong again. It's because that's what their readers care about.

>
> So, if we Americans were kept in the dark, like in Communist or
> Dictatorship countires where there is NO free press, you'd be

much

> happier.

WWI kept 'we Americans' in the dark. WWII kept us there too. One of
the weaknesses of Vietnam was that we began to actually SEE death

as

soon as it could be transmitted to the TV stations,

That's the world today. It's called technology. Get used to it.

>
> > > Same factual data. Either show me a WMD or admit you are

wrong.

> >
> > That shows just how idiotic you are. The ACLU said the same
thing.
> So
> > didn't Kerry. So didn't Michael Moore. Queers, losers, and fat
> boys.
> > Thank God we still have a real man in the White House.
>
> Hmmm. Didn't I mention that everytime you mention Kerry shows you
> have no actual response? Proven once again.

And why don't I see anything about our still having a 'real man' in
the White House??? Hmmmm....Seems just like the NY Times.

You should probably quit reading the NY Times if it bothers you so
much.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#86

> If you knew your Christian history better, you'd realize their
> warmongering had much more to do with land and territory than
direct
> religion. And the Bible has NEVER taught any of them to kill over
> religious beliefs.

If any more evidence of your ignorance were reguired ... you have
provided a final proof positive.

??? More poop when you don't know much about what you are trying to
say.

> Put into the hands of the millions of slob paupers around the

world in Muslim countries, and it's easy to see why many of them
choose to follow a crazed person like OBL.

And some more racism to make your position perfectly clear ...

I hate to make you look insignificant again, but just how many
countries have you been to worldwide for the specific purpose of
talking to Muslims and trying to figure them out?

  
> Wrong. Here's a clue: Soldiers are led into battle over an
objective given them. THAT's what's important - it transcends all

else.

For the soldiers, yes, for everyone else, NO.

So now you, as part of 'everyone else' becomes more important than
the objective.

> They obviously know some will die in the fight. We all "care"

about death, but it's not the driving force in war. The news will
sensationalize a soldier or two's death, sure, but that's because of
their liberal agenda.

Wrong again. It's because that's what their readers care about.

And I see it much clearer now. The US seeks objectives for the
purpose of worrying what armchair quarterbacks will say after reading
about it from liberal publications. That ought to give you a hint as
to why you're misled on the issue here....and likely many others.

> WWI kept 'we Americans' in the dark. WWII kept us there too. One

of the weaknesses of Vietnam was that we began to actually SEE death

as soon as it could be transmitted to the TV stations,

That's the world today. It's called technology. Get used to it.

The technology is fine. The mutated interpretations by most of the
media and many (but obviously not enough to change the righteous
outcome of the world's most important election) readers is the
problem. Thankfully, America has overcome that....this time around.

> And why don't I see anything about our still having a 'real man'

in the White House??? Hmmmm....Seems just like the NY Times.

You should probably quit reading the NY Times if it bothers you so
much.

Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#87

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > If you knew your Christian history better, you'd realize their
> > warmongering had much more to do with land and territory than
> direct
> > religion. And the Bible has NEVER taught any of them to kill

over

> > religious beliefs.
>
> If any more evidence of your ignorance were reguired ... you have
> provided a final proof positive.

??? More poop when you don't know much about what you are trying

to

say.

I suspect any readers of this thread have a much better understanding
of history then you demonstrate. I'll leave it for them to decide.

>
> > Put into the hands of the millions of slob paupers around the
world in Muslim countries, and it's easy to see why many of them
choose to follow a crazed person like OBL.
>
> And some more racism to make your position perfectly clear ...

I hate to make you look insignificant again, but just how many
countries have you been to worldwide for the specific purpose of
talking to Muslims and trying to figure them out?

None. Your point? However, reading can overcome personal experience
and, in fact, goes way beyond personal experience since NO ONE can
experience EVERYTHING. For the record, please tell us how many
countries in the world have Muslim populations and how many of these
you have you visited trying to figure them out?

>
> > Wrong. Here's a clue: Soldiers are led into battle over an
> objective given them. THAT's what's important - it transcends all
else.
>
> For the soldiers, yes, for everyone else, NO.

So now you, as part of 'everyone else' becomes more important than
the objective.

Your reply, once again, has nothing to do with the current topic. Not
all wars/battles are RIGHT. The German soldiers in WWII still had to
focus on their objectives. It did not make the objectives RIGHT.
Others have to make those interpretations and not blindly believe in
their commanders. In fact, in democracies it's one of the peoples'
responsibilities.

>
> > WWI kept 'we Americans' in the dark. WWII kept us there too.

One

of the weaknesses of Vietnam was that we began to actually SEE

death

> as soon as it could be transmitted to the TV stations,
>
> That's the world today. It's called technology. Get used to it.

The technology is fine. The mutated interpretations by most of the
media and many (but obviously not enough to change the righteous
outcome of the world's most important election) readers is the
problem. Thankfully, America has overcome that....this time around.

In other words, the media is not that liberal after all ... In fact,
it presents issues on both sides. It's always up to the readers to
decide for themsleves. It sounds like you want the media to present
ONLY information that supports your position. This is undemocratic
and un-American.

>
> > And why don't I see anything about our still having a 'real

man'

in the White House??? Hmmmm....Seems just like the NY Times.
>
> You should probably quit reading the NY Times if it bothers you

so

> much.

Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.

And, more likely, NOT. I doubt very much you subscribe to the NY
Times. You probably don't subscribe to any newspaper. They would
provide information counter to your preconceived ideas.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#88

> ??? More poop when you don't know much about what you are trying
to say.

I suspect any readers of this thread have a much better

understanding of history then you demonstrate. I'll leave it for them
to decide.

And I'll let you walk out on that one, because I don't think anyone
can take any more of your clueless assumptions any longer.

> I hate to make you look insignificant again, but just how many
> countries have you been to worldwide for the specific purpose of
> talking to Muslims and trying to figure them out?

None. Your point? However, reading can overcome personal experience
and, in fact, goes way beyond personal experience since NO ONE can
experience EVERYTHING. For the record, please tell us how many
countries in the world have Muslim populations and how many of

these you have you visited trying to figure them out?

I'd have to get and go thru all the stamps and VISA's in my 3
passports, and I don't want to waste tthe time. It was my JOB 'trying
to figure them out', so I did get involved in EVERYTHING. Trying to
say reading gives more is like trying to convince someone that
hegotiating over the phone is more effective than a face-to-face.
Sorry for making you look so stupid and irrelevant, but you asked for
it.

> So now you, as part of 'everyone else' becomes more important

than the objective.

Your reply, once again, has nothing to do with the current topic.

Not all wars/battles are RIGHT.

This one obviously is, as supported by the election! Liberal nonsense
such as "Gee, that doesn't make it right" are of no value.

The German soldiers in WWII still had to focus on their objectives.
It did not make the objectives RIGHT. Others have to make those
interpretations and not blindly believe in their commanders. In fact,
in democracies it's one of the peoples' responsibilities.

Duh! Read up a little on WWII before spewing. German soldiers who
disobeyed were shot. Their leader was a well-known fanatic hated by
the world. Germany was not a democracy. People like you who live in
one can cry all you want, but it's always the right way that wins
out. The objectives of evil are far different than those of good.

In other words, the media is not that liberal after all ... In

fact, it presents issues on both sides.

You're unsuccessfully trying to spin the spin out of the newscasts.
95% of all news is given by liberal stations.

> Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.

And, more likely, NOT. I doubt very much you subscribe to the NY
Times. You probably don't subscribe to any newspaper. They would
provide information counter to your preconceived ideas.

What else could you say when beaten down??

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#89

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

>
> > I hate to make you look insignificant again, but just how many
> > countries have you been to worldwide for the specific purpose

of

> > talking to Muslims and trying to figure them out?
>
> None. Your point? However, reading can overcome personal

experience

> and, in fact, goes way beyond personal experience since NO ONE

can

> experience EVERYTHING. For the record, please tell us how many
> countries in the world have Muslim populations and how many of
these you have you visited trying to figure them out?

I'd have to get and go thru all the stamps and VISA's in my 3
passports, and I don't want to waste tthe time. It was my

JOB 'trying

to figure them out', so I did get involved in EVERYTHING. Trying to
say reading gives more is like trying to convince someone that
hegotiating over the phone is more effective than a face-to-face.
Sorry for making you look so stupid and irrelevant, but you asked

for

it.

In other words, zip. Nothing here but worthless words. Either provide
evidence or no one will believe the garbage you post.

>
> > So now you, as part of 'everyone else' becomes more important
than the objective.
>
> Your reply, once again, has nothing to do with the current topic.
Not all wars/battles are RIGHT.

This one obviously is, as supported by the election! Liberal

nonsense

such as "Gee, that doesn't make it right" are of no value.

Nope, elections have nothing to do with right or wrong. Using your
logic, Bill Clintons' immoral actions were right. Only history will
determine the "rightness" and even that is sometimes swayed.

The German soldiers in WWII still had to focus on their

objectives.

It did not make the objectives RIGHT. Others have to make those
interpretations and not blindly believe in their commanders. In

fact,

in democracies it's one of the peoples' responsibilities.

Duh! Read up a little on WWII before spewing. German soldiers who
disobeyed were shot.

Do you ever remember the topic of a subthread before posting? Your
response is idiotic.

Their leader was a well-known fanatic hated by
the world. Germany was not a democracy. People like you who live in
one can cry all you want, but it's always the right way that wins
out. The objectives of evil are far different than those of good.

I think "evil objectives" describes your position pretty accurately.
However, your response still have nothing to do with what we were
discussing. By the way, just so you'll remember for next time, we
were discussing soldiers' focusing on their objectives vs. others.

>
> In other words, the media is not that liberal after all ... In
fact, it presents issues on both sides.

You're unsuccessfully trying to spin the spin out of the newscasts.
95% of all news is given by liberal stations.

BS. However, I will concede that, compared to you, AT LEAST 95% are
probably more liberal.

> > Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.
>
> And, more likely, NOT. I doubt very much you subscribe to the NY
> Times. You probably don't subscribe to any newspaper. They would
> provide information counter to your preconceived ideas.

What else could you say when beaten down??

Looks like I was right ... again.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#90

> I'd have to get and go thru all the stamps and VISA's in my 3
> passports, and I don't want to waste tthe time. It was my
JOB 'trying
> to figure them out', so I did get involved in EVERYTHING. Trying

to say reading gives more is like trying to convince someone that

> hegotiating over the phone is more effective than a face-to-face.
> Sorry for making you look so stupid and irrelevant, but you asked
for it.

In other words, zip. Nothing here but worthless words. Either

provide evidence or no one will believe the garbage you post.

When you try to get around the face-to-face issue, it's obvious you
are reaching for words that just won't come. then, asking for proof
of what is the question. You want to see my passports? Meet me in
Scottsdale (OK, I know you're not used to being in such nice
neighborhoods, but you'll get by with my help), pay me $20,000, and
I'll give you my passports to copy. But you also have to agree with
posting the truth here. And don't get into "But gee Rob, asking for
money is a con man's way out" because all you have to do is show me
the money to shut me up.

> This one obviously is, as supported by the election! Liberal
nonsense such as "Gee, that doesn't make it right" are of no value.

Nope, elections have nothing to do with right or wrong. Using your
logic, Bill Clintons' immoral actions were right. Only history will
determine the "rightness" and even that is sometimes swayed.

Elections agree or disagree with a president's actions. Looks like we
agreed--even though you didn't! I.E.--We were RIGHT, and the war is
RIGHT. Try harder. BTW: Your pal Clinton didn't get caught until his
2nd term.

I think "evil objectives" describes your position pretty

accurately.

However, your response still have nothing to do with what we were
discussing. By the way, just so you'll remember for next time, we
were discussing soldiers' focusing on their objectives vs. others.

Typical. Trying to derail the discussion when you got lost. That's
pathetic.

> > > Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.
> >
> > And, more likely, NOT. I doubt very much you subscribe to the

NY

> > Times. You probably don't subscribe to any newspaper. They

would

> > provide information counter to your preconceived ideas.
>
> What else could you say when beaten down??

Looks like I was right ... again.

Ha! you finally agree that you've gotten clobbered. Hooray!!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#91

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> > I'd have to get and go thru all the stamps and VISA's in my 3
> > passports, and I don't want to waste tthe time. It was my
> JOB 'trying
> > to figure them out', so I did get involved in EVERYTHING.

Trying

to say reading gives more is like trying to convince someone that
> > hegotiating over the phone is more effective than a face-to-

face.

> > Sorry for making you look so stupid and irrelevant, but you

asked

> for it.
>
> In other words, zip. Nothing here but worthless words. Either
provide evidence or no one will believe the garbage you post.

When you try to get around the face-to-face issue, it's obvious you
are reaching for words that just won't come. then, asking for proof
of what is the question. You want to see my passports? Meet me in
Scottsdale (OK, I know you're not used to being in such nice
neighborhoods, but you'll get by with my help), pay me $20,000, and
I'll give you my passports to copy.

Like anyone would pay to see your passports. Using this approach is
more proof that you are lying.

But you also have to agree with
posting the truth here. And don't get into "But gee Rob, asking for
money is a con man's way out"

If the shoe fits ...

>
> > This one obviously is, as supported by the election! Liberal
> nonsense such as "Gee, that doesn't make it right" are of no

value.

>
> Nope, elections have nothing to do with right or wrong. Using

your

> logic, Bill Clintons' immoral actions were right. Only history

will

> determine the "rightness" and even that is sometimes swayed.

Elections agree or disagree with a president's actions. Looks like

we

agreed--even though you didn't!

No, elections pick one candidate over another. In most cases voters
pick the candidate that supports MORE of their views than the other
candidate. A few voters pick a candidate on a single issue. It is
very rare to see a voter agree 100% with a particular candidate. So,
in most cases all "president's actions" aren't completely agreed with
even by voters that cast their ballot his way.

>
> I think "evil objectives" describes your position pretty
accurately.
> However, your response still have nothing to do with what we were
> discussing. By the way, just so you'll remember for next time, we
> were discussing soldiers' focusing on their objectives vs. others.

Typical. Trying to derail the discussion when you got lost. That's
pathetic.

Nope, you went off on a tangent and now your trying to cover up.
Won't work. However, this is not the first time you've done this and
it probably won't be the last. This behavior on your part shows that
you will lie whenever you are "caught in the act".

>
> > > > Maybe that's WHY I know so much, professor.
> > >
> > > And, more likely, NOT. I doubt very much you subscribe to the
NY
> > > Times. You probably don't subscribe to any newspaper. They
would
> > > provide information counter to your preconceived ideas.
> >
> > What else could you say when beaten down??
>
> Looks like I was right ... again.

Ha! you finally agree that you've gotten clobbered. Hooray!!

Now the panic is setting in here. Whenever I see you making
ridiculous statements like this I can only smile.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#92

Like anyone would pay to see your passports. Using this approach is
more proof that you are lying.

I've seen nerds like you take their pants down in the girl's gym
during a class, on challenges from the real men in the school. So
here's your chance to step up to the plate. You say something so be
ready to back it up. You asked for proof, did you not?? When you call
someone a liar and there's actual hard proof to the contrary, you pay
for it.

No, elections pick one candidate over another. In most cases voters
pick the candidate that supports MORE of their views than the other
candidate. A few voters pick a candidate on a single issue. It is
very rare to see a voter agree 100% with a particular candidate.

So, in most cases all "president's actions" aren't completely agreed
with even by voters that cast their ballot his way.

Not with this election, and even with your creative feel-good
position, that's not the way it happened.

Nope, you went off on a tangent and now your trying to cover up.
Won't work. However, this is not the first time you've done this

and it probably won't be the last. This behavior on your part shows
that you will lie whenever you are "caught in the act".

Do you ever tire of copying??

> > Looks like I was right ... again.
>
> Ha! you finally agree that you've gotten clobbered. Hooray!!

Now the panic is setting in here. Whenever I see you making
ridiculous statements like this I can only smile.

The 'hooray' continues!

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#93

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> Like anyone would pay to see your passports. Using this approach

is

> more proof that you are lying.

I've seen nerds like you take their pants down in the girl's gym
during a class, on challenges from the real men in the school.

Appears you never moved on from your high school days. Let's see,
that's at least 33 years of living in the past. Kind of puts
everything in prospecitve.

So
here's your chance to step up to the plate. You say something so be
ready to back it up. You asked for proof, did you not?? When you

call

someone a liar and there's actual hard proof to the contrary, you

pay

for it.

You are the one doing the "claiming". Either back it up or admit that
you lied. For an honest man it's that simple.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#94

> I've seen nerds like you take their pants down in the girl's gym
> during a class, on challenges from the real men in the school.

Appears you never moved on from your high school days. Let's see,
that's at least 33 years of living in the past. Kind of puts
everything in prospecitve.

Typical of you to run right past the subject when you get ridiculed.

You are the one doing the "claiming". Either back it up or admit

that you lied. For an honest man it's that simple.

Let's see....I claimed something, you called me a liar. In the old
days I'd have to challenge you to a single-shot duel. You're getting
off easy here, but I'll wait until you hit 10 more royals to get your
$20k together....barring, of course, a losing streak.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#95

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>

wrote:

> You are the one doing the "claiming". Either back it up or admit
that you lied. For an honest man it's that simple.

Let's see....I claimed something, you called me a liar.

In this case, I asked you provide supporting evidence.

In the old
days I'd have to challenge you to a single-shot duel.

I believe I'd get to choose the weapon in most cultures. Duels
existed long before gunpowder.

You're getting
off easy here, but I'll wait until you hit 10 more royals to get

your

$20k together....barring, of course, a losing streak.

You completely back off from providing evidence of your
assertions ... I think everyone can see you have NO evidence. Your
attempted smokescreen is beyond obvious.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:

#96

> Let's see....I claimed something, you called me a liar.

In this case, I asked you provide supporting evidence.

After saying I lied. Get your facts straight, or else your slide rule
will whack you a few times.

>In the old
> days I'd have to challenge you to a single-shot duel.

I believe I'd get to choose the weapon in most cultures. Duels
existed long before gunpowder.

No. You challenged me, i.e., challenged my honor, so I get to choose.

> You're getting
> off easy here, but I'll wait until you hit 10 more royals to get
your
> $20k together....barring, of course, a losing streak.

You completely back off from providing evidence of your
assertions ... I think everyone can see you have NO evidence. Your
attempted smokescreen is beyond obvious.

Once again, blabbering your way through to that same old dead end.
Come up with the cash or I'll get one of the warriors to scalp you
the next time you waste your time in a smokey Minn. casino.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote: