83% voter turnout in elections

[w0aew]

From http://www.thismodernworld.com/

This one's been making the rounds; chances are you've seen it but I thought I'd post it if only to keep my own inbox from overflowing with copies. I held off when I first saw it because it struck me as one of those too-perfect-to-be-true email forwards, like a Nostradamus prediction that a president named for shrubbery shall sow chaos in Babylon, or some such. But it's legit--it's on the Times' own website, and I've seen a PDF of the original article.

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 (1967)-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

[wd0ct]

And we all know how this election added stability to Vietnam.

I'm sure the neocons on this forum are rejoicing at the numbers from the recent election in Iraq.

I've read posts about how dubya was right all along, yadda yadda.

Let's see what effect it has on the mean streets of Iraq.

[w0aew]

You'd think ol' Georgie would be better at history as often as he repeats it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K8YS]

Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Feb. 01 2005,23:43)]You'd think ol' Georgie would be better at history as often as he repeats it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
do you get paid well for being a troll?

[al2n]

Big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.

The USSR was funding a big portion of the N. Vietnamese war effort. The Iraiq insurgents/terrorists do not have the backing of a world superpower.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (KL1RO @ Feb. 01 2005,23:07)]Big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.

The USSR was funding a big portion of the N. Vietnamese war effort. The Iraiq insurgents/terrorists do not have the backing of a world superpower.
The insurgents/terrorits don't seem to need the big backing.

[KG4CGC]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 02 2005,04:22)]Quote[/b] (KL1RO @ Feb. 01 2005,23:07)]Big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.

The USSR was funding a big portion of the N. Vietnamese war effort. #The Iraiq insurgents/terrorists do not have the backing of a world superpower.
The insurgents/terrorits don't seem to need the big backing.
Uh, People?
CHINA!
They might tell you they have no backing from a superpower and we may not actually call China a superpower but if China wanted to invade us today we'd be sitting ducks! The only thing keeping us alive is that they want to collect more money and more technology from us and weaken us slowly. The Chinese are looking at the long term plan and most of us can't even see past our...

[wd0ct]

I think you are lost in the past. China is making too much money off of us to want to conquer us.

[K6UEY]

I am at a total loss to understand the connection here.

The only thing that VN and Iraq have in common is that neither were fought here on US soil. Other than that there is no similiarty whats so ever.Some one's train got switched to the wrong track!!

What the Iraqi citizens have just done is a first in the Arab World and they should be made proud to have accomplished the task at the possible cost of their lives.

To those who have had their head in a bucket,NOW you understand why G.Dubya insisted the election go as scheduled.

What country is next to step up and decide their own fate with a democratic election?? # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[w8amd]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Feb. 02 2005,05:48)]I am at a total loss to understand the connection here.

The only thing that VN and Iraq have in common is that neither were fought here on US soil. Other than that there is no similiarty whats so ever.Some one's train got switched to the wrong track!!

What the Iraqi citizens have just done is a first in the Arab World and they should be made proud to have accomplished the task at the possible cost of their lives.

To those who have had their head in a bucket,NOW you understand why G.Dubya insisted the election go as scheduled.

What country is next to step up and decide their own fate with a democratic election?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
While I am not a big supporter of Bush Jr. I would have never been a big supporter of Kerry. I am an independent so my thoughts come from that perspective.

There are a core of people so anti Bush that if he found a cure for cancer they would find fault with it. These folks will run down anything they see as connected to Bush in the least. I was not in favor of going into Iraq as I am an isolationist at heart but I will give credit where credit is due.

The Iraq war has gone a lot better than I thought. We have come to the point where elections could be held and the brave people of Iraq have stood firm and voted in numbers seldom if ever seen in this country (US) even though we don't face the threat of death for the simple act of voting.. These brave folks faced off the terrorists and took their chances. Any group that boycotted the elections has only themselves to blame.

Does this mean we should go home now as a certain murderer who got off because of his Kennedy name seems to think? I think not. As opposed as I was to our involvement there I also believe that once you start a job you see it through to the end. To pull out now would be the act of a coward. Overall I would have never gone in because of my isolationist views but we did so.......Finish the job!

And my admiration goes out to all those brave souls who made the choice to vote. They showed more guts than most people in today's world would.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (KL1RO @ Feb. 01 2005,23:07)]Big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.
Local bumper sticker: "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam"

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Feb. 02 2005,06:36)]Quote[/b] (KL1RO @ Feb. 01 2005,23:07)]Big difference between Vietnam and Iraq.
Local bumper sticker: "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam"
OES:

Great comeback!

People here discuss the real differences between the 1960s and the 2000s, and between Vietnam and Iraq, and you shoot back with a bumper sticker!

I am truly astounded by the depth of your thought.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (K8YS @ Feb. 01 2005,22:52)]do you get paid well for being a troll?
Not that well, but I'm comfortable. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W8EFA]

To UEY - #you better open up your history books.

There is no basic incompatibility between Islam and democracy. Well over half of the world’s Muslims live in democracies, in Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Turkey, Mali, and the Balkans. #

Iraq had free elections 45 years ago.
Even with Sadaam they had elections - just one candidate. #Actually just one candidate less than us.

Everybody is happy that they came out to vote - The problem is they will not vote on their leaders for another year! #Meanwhile every day more of our troops get killed. The problem is the Sunnis didn't participate, some experts are predicting this could be the start of a civil war. #The problem is we havn't trained the Iraquis to handle their own security. #The problem is they have no infastructure or electricity.. All this after we have been there almost 2 years with still no end in sight. #The problem is Iraq is now a gathering place for terrorists which it wasn't before we invaded.

Will the U.S. government freely let them set up their own government that may be against us? #I seriously doubt it.

While the vote is encouraging it is a small step with a long way to go. #Is it really worth losing 1500 of our young so Iraq can be free? #To me no, to you maybe yes. #If they wanted freedom they could have overthrown Sadaam themselves like every other country that really wants freedom.

Bottom line is we were told we needed to invade because Iraq had Nuclear weapons and WMD's and were a threat which was false. #We did not invade to install a democracy. #So if you want to be happy and go along with the bait and switch fine, I am not falling for it!

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,07:56)]Everybody is happy that they came out to vote - The problem is they will not vote on their leaders for another year!
Oh, gee, it is such a hardship to have to stumble along with their newly elected National Assembly for a whole year! And we have to put up with our elected leaders for two, four or six years, depending on where they serve... yeah, a whole year is really rough, isn't it?

Quote[/b] ]If they wanted freedom they could have overthrown Sadaam themselves like every other country that really wants freedom.

They tried that under the First President Bush... that's probably where a lot of those bodies in the mass graves came from.

See, in Iraq, the government had all the weapons, the people didn't. It's very hard to revolt when all they have to do is mow the rebels down with machine guns. In our case, the Colonists had pretty much the same arms as the British, so it was more or less a fair fight. The Iraqis were hopelessly outgunned, tho.

Hmmm... sheds new light on the continuing attempts by the liberals to disarm Americans, doesn't it?

Quote[/b] ]Bottom line is we were told we needed to invade because Iraq had Nuclear weapons and WMD's and were a threat which was false.

Perhaps it was, but it was the best intelligence we had at the time. Senator Kerry said Iraq had WMDs. Senator Edwards said Iraq had WMDs. The British said Iraq had WMDs. The French said Iraq had WMDs. So, if Bush had turned away from that possible threat, I'm sure you'd be attacking him for that!

And, if you think that was the only reason, you're dead wrong, again.

Quote[/b] ]H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq

Authorizing use of military force in dealing with Iraq

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Straight from the Library of Congress! (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107sAPws4::)

Voting in favor were Senators Kerry, Edwards,, Daschle, Reid, and Schumer, Democrats all, among others.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

[W8EFA]

Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations # #

You just proved my previous point.

I am not going over this again David. #Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! #We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. #Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! #They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. #Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration[B] was being truthful. #They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. #As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,06:41)]I am truly astounded by the depth of your thought.
Sir, are you casting asparagus on my succinct rhetorical style?

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations # #

You just proved my previous point. #

I am not going over this again David. #Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! #We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. #Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! #They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. #Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. #They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. #As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (K8YS @ Feb. 01 2005,22:52)]Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Feb. 01 2005,23:43)]You'd think ol' Georgie would be better at history as often as he repeats it. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
do you get paid well for being a troll?
Pull up his Qrz BIO, Bob. #That symbol is the FOOTPRINT of the Great American CHICKEN! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]David, N7AAO
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!
Harping? Duh... that was the reason given to Congress and the American people as justification to unilaterally invade another country!
What were those other reasons? #Oh... enforcing U.N. Resolutions, which the U.N. body asked us not to invade! How can you #reason that we invaded to enforce U.N. resolutions that they asked us not to enforce.

Quote[/b] ]Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

You have to be very mis-informed to state that Senators get exactly the same inteligence that the President gets! The CIA etc. report directly to the President"s office #daily, the Congress get's disseminated information.
Quote[/b] ]In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti..

Somalia was started by Bush Senior. #How in the world can you compare Somalia, Bosnia , and Haiti to Iraq? They were all Multinational NATO supported PEACEKEEPING missions with no casualties!

Somalia - Operation Restore Hope :: 1992 through 1994
President :: George H.W. Bush
Purpose :: To alleviate famine suffering and political instability as the result of civil war that began in 1988.
Mission :: 30,000 US troops engage in multinational peacekeeping and humanitarian supply mission through 1994.

American Casualties: 45 Hostile KIA

Invasion of Haiti :: 1994 through 1995
President :: William J. Clinton
Purpose :: To reinstate Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristede.
Mission :: US troops undertook in guerilla-style engagements in an effort to oust anti-Aristede rebels. Aristede was returned to power and the UN officially took command under UNC multinational forces in March 1995.

American Casualties: Unsatisfactory Accounting. Officially - 4 noncombat deaths


Bosnia-Hercegovina :: 1995
President :: William J. Clinton
Purpose :: To end civil war and genocide in the name of a Greater Serbia.
Mission :: With the secession of Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croats and Slovenia from Yugoslavia, war erupted and a Serbian program of ethnic cleansing through mass murders of Bosnian Muslims and expulsions of non-Serbs began. As the result of the Dayton Peace Accords, the US committed 20,000 US troops as part of a multinational NATO force. The NATO troops were to enforce the agreement and reign in Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the result of air strikes on Bosnia, USAF Captain Scott O'Grady's F-16 was downed on 2 June 1995. He escaped and evaded until the US Marines effected a rescue 6 days later. Semper Fi. The Balkan region remained critically unstable.

American Casualties: Officially - none

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,10:32)]
Somalia - Operation Restore Hope :: 1992 through 1994
President :: George H.W. Bush
Purpose :: To alleviate famine suffering and political instability as the result of civil war that began in 1988.
Mission :: 30,000 US troops engage in multinational peacekeeping and humanitarian supply mission through 1994.

American Casualties: 45 Hostile KIA


Ah, EFA, and who was ultimately responsible for the 45 American's KIA? #None other than Clinton's first Secretary of Defense. #How can this be? #American commanders asked for more Abrams and Bradleys, which he denied. #The result was 45 of our finest perishing - making the ultimate sacrifice!

[W8EFA]

Ah, EFA, and who was ultimately responsible for the 45 American's KIA?

George H.W. Bush

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,10:57)]Ah, EFA, and who was ultimately responsible for the 45 American's KIA?

George H.W. Bush
Well, I can see you know how to give credit where it's due. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W8EFA]

Well he was the Commander in Chief was he not?

Better than trying to Blame Clinton who's only connection (according to you) was his Sec Defense did something wrong previously with a former administration

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,11:05)]Well he was the Commander in Chief was he not? #

Better than trying to Blame Clinton who's only connection (according to you) was his Sec Defense did something wrong previously with a former administration
No, Clinton WAS commander-in-chief at the time. #It WAS the Secretary's decision to NOT send the armor. #Clinton had plenty of time to pull 'em out. #He chose not to. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,10:01)]Quote[/b] (K8YS @ Feb. 01 2005,22:52)]Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Feb. 01 2005,23:43)]You'd think ol' Georgie would be better at history as often as he repeats it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
do you get paid well for being a troll?
Pull up his Qrz BIO, Bob. That symbol is the FOOTPRINT of the Great American CHICKEN! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
And darn proud of it!

Buck buck buck buck...buckawwwwh!!!

[KA7RRA]

Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Feb. 02 2005,02:34)][if China wanted to invade us today we'd be sitting ducks!
How!!!! would China invade Could you tell us on how they would do that? I have heard that before on the Art Bell Show.

At the 1st sign of a invadtion all we would have to do is drop a bomb or 2 and it would be over with
not A chance

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,11:10)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,11:05)]Well he was the Commander in Chief was he not? #

Better than trying to Blame Clinton who's only connection (according to you) was his Sec Defense did something wrong previously with a former administration
No, Clinton WAS commander-in-chief at the time. #It WAS the Secretary's decision to NOT send the armor. #Clinton had plenty of time to pull 'em out. #He chose not to. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Actually, the buck stops at the President. So those deaths can be laid at Mr. Clinton's door.

Now, tell me this. How did Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti contribute to American security?

Iraq is contributing to our securty in at least one fundamental way... we are killing the terrorists over there instead of over here. The more we kill there, the fewer there are to menace us here.

Maybe you'd like terrorist squads roaming through Fairfield, but I would not like them roaming through Spokane, and I think most Americans would agree with me.

[KA7RRA]

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,08:13)][, the government had all the weapons, the people didn't. It's very hard to revolt when all they have to do is mow the rebels down with machine guns.
Thats why we should never give up are rights to guns. Has soon has we do then the goverment well be in total control..

Dave
KA7RRA

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,11:10)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,11:05)]Well he was the Commander in Chief was he not? #

Better than trying to Blame Clinton who's only connection (according to you) was his Sec Defense did something wrong previously with a former administration
No, Clinton WAS commander-in-chief at the time. #It WAS the Secretary's decision to NOT send the armor. #Clinton had plenty of time to pull 'em out. #He chose not to. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
EFA, Clinton became President in Jan 1993 and the massacre in Somalia occured on Oct 3 1993. Clinton held the office for over 9 months so I would say that the event lies squarely on his watch.

[W8EFA]

Yes but Bush was the ones that sent the troops there.

Spinning who's fault it was that 45 troops were killed in a worldwide supported NATA multinational peacekeeping mission is in no way comparable to Iraq.

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,12:40)]Yes but Bush was the ones that sent the troops there.

Spinning who's fault it was that 45 troops were killed in a worldwide supported NATA multinational peacekeeping mission is in no way comparable to Iraq.
You act like our guys were the only ones killed. #I memory serves me, the entire Pakistani contribution was killed or, at least, made ineffective. #Whether Bush SR. sent the troops there is not of concern. #Clinton had a couple of years to pull them out.

I think you are the one that is spinning, here! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,13:22)]I think you are the one that is spinning, here! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quick, hook him up to a generator and get some free electricity! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,13:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,12:40)]Yes but Bush was the ones that sent the troops there.

Spinning who's fault it was that 45 troops were killed in a worldwide supported NATA multinational peacekeeping mission is in no way comparable to Iraq.
You act like our guys were the only ones killed. #I memory serves me, the entire Pakistani contribution was killed or, at least, made ineffective. #Whether Bush SR. sent the troops there is not of concern. #Clinton had a couple of years to pull them out.

I think you are the one that is spinning, here! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Iraq is not anything like Somalia was the point. #I pointed out it was again a peacekeeping mission sponsored by NATO with world support. #Can you argue that fact? No, you have to "spin" off into - #well some of the deaths that occured were after Clinton took office!
What does that have to do with anything?

Only a conservative would try to somehow blame Clinton anyway for deaths that occured while he was President.

With your logic then whoever will be president in 2008 will then be responsible for the deaths in Iraq after that.

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,14:24)]Quote[/b] (KB8VNP @ Feb. 02 2005,13:22)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,12:40)]Yes but Bush was the ones that sent the troops there.

Spinning who's fault it was that 45 troops were killed in a worldwide supported NATA multinational peacekeeping mission is in no way comparable to Iraq.
You act like our guys were the only ones killed. #I memory serves me, the entire Pakistani contribution was killed or, at least, made ineffective. #Whether Bush SR. sent the troops there is not of concern. #Clinton had a couple of years to pull them out.

I think you are the one that is spinning, here! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Iraq is not anything like Somalia was the point. #I pointed out it was again a peacekeeping mission sponsored by NATO with world support. #Can you argue that fact? No, #you have to "spin" off into - #well some of the deaths that occured were after Clinton took office!
What does that have to do with anything?

Only a conservative would try to somehow blame Clinton anyway for deaths that occured while he was President.

With your logic then whoever will be president in 2008 will then be responsible for the deaths in Iraq after that.
No, I think it is fair to say that the buck stopped with the president. #However, weren't the Marines ashore first? #The rest of the world only comes aboard when it looks good for them. #And as for Clinton - he was in office. #He needs to take the blame. #He was the commander-in-chief!

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,09:58)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations

You just proved my previous point.

I am not going over this again David. Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.
Davie, are you starting your bi-weekly public implosion again?

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,14:24)]Only a conservative would try to somehow blame Clinton anyway for deaths that occured while he was President.
What does one say to that. There is absolutely no way to reason with that kind of logic.

That doesn't even make a lick of sense!

Someone PUL-EESE tell me there is a typo in that.

[KA7RRA]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Feb. 02 2005,17:09)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,14:24)]Only a conservative would try to somehow blame Clinton anyway for deaths that occured while he was President.
Only a liberal would try to somehow blame Bush

for deaths that occured while he was President.

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Feb. 02 2005,17:09)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,14:24)]Only a conservative would try to somehow blame Clinton anyway for deaths that occured while he was President.
What does one say to that. There is absolutely no way to reason with that kind of logic.

That doesn't even make a lick of sense!

Someone PUL-EESE tell me there is a typo in that.
No typo. #Just the twisted logic that is common to liberals! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 02 2005,15:50)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,09:58)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations # #

You just proved my previous point. #

I am not going over this again David. #Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! #We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. #Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! #They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. #Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. #They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. #As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.
Davie, are you starting your bi-weekly public implosion again?
He's overdue! He's gotten himself pretty wound up with his pre State of the Union spin a thon...Commence meltdown!

[kc7jty]

Iraq is coming along great, (forget that Georgie's carrier Lincoln speech was premature). Now we will be able to hit Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and whoever else needs it on schedule. Hip hip.......

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Feb. 02 2005,18:01)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 02 2005,15:50)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,09:58)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations

You just proved my previous point.

I am not going over this again David. Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.
Davie, are you starting your bi-weekly public implosion again?
He's overdue! He's gotten himself pretty wound up with his pre State of the Union spin a thon...Commence meltdown!
Typical... respond with attacks, not with substantive consideration of the points raised.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,17:19)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Feb. 02 2005,18:01)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 02 2005,15:50)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,09:58)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations # #

You just proved my previous point. #

I am not going over this again David. #Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! #We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. #Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! #They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. #Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. #They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. #As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.
Davie, are you starting your bi-weekly public implosion again?
He's overdue! He's gotten himself pretty wound up with his pre State of the Union spin a thon...Commence meltdown!
Typical... respond with attacks, not with substantive consideration of the points raised.
Typical, whine about attacks when your posts have been substantially answered with facts...Typical whining from the chief cliche and spin meister on this board.

Go ahead, AAO. Let's see your usual tired rhetoric about "lefties" and your "why is it ok for you but not conseerrrvattiiivvvvess whining".

I'm not answering any of your posts today, no matter how ridiculous. I've reached my nonsense quotient for today.

Dave WX7B

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Feb. 02 2005,18:26)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,17:19)]Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Feb. 02 2005,18:01)]Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Feb. 02 2005,15:50)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 02 2005,09:58)]Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 02 2005,08:29)]Did you read what you posted?

Quote[/b] ] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations

You just proved my previous point.

I am not going over this again David. Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice all stood up and said they had absolute evidence of WMD's and even Nuclear weapons! We now know they had just as much evidence probably more that they didn't. Dick Clark and other reports showed that they didn't! They didn't want to listen there minds were made up! They also tried to tie Sadaam to Al Queida which there is no connection.

You and everyone else knows that they wanted to go in Iraq from the start and weren't truthful with the evidence!

[/B]This Administration said they had WMD, this administration was wrong. Kerry and the rest of the people you are talking about assumed this administration was being truthful. They gave the OK to go in as a last resort based on the wrong intelligence this administration was passing off. As soon as Bush got the OK all negotiations stopped and we invaded.

And yes it concerns me we are going to be there for another year or two - what will that be another 1500 americans dead?
Talk about not reading what is posted... you keep harping on the WMDs, there were many other reasons to go in!

Also, the Senate gets exactly the same briefings from the intelligence community as the President does. So don't go off on that Bush lied bravo-sierra again, Kerry, Edwards, Reid, et al had the opportunity to read the exact same intelligence that the President did, and apparently they came to the same conclusion.

In fact, the reasons for going into Iraq were much more numerous, and stronger, than the reasons for going into Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti... did you carp about Clinton keeping troops in Bosnia well after the time he said they'd be home?

Interesting point... only two conflicts in US history have had an "exit strategy." They were [b]Vietnam and Somalia. Did either one end well? Was General Washington worried about his "exit strategy" from the Revolutionary War? Was President Lincoln worried about the "exit strategy" from the Civil War? Were the Allies concerned about an "exit strategy" from WWII? NO! They were concerned about winning, not about getting out... and so they won! On the two occasions when we were more worried about getting out than winning, we got our butts kicked.

But lefties always have a hard time learning from history, so I dunno why I am wasting my time.
Davie, are you starting your bi-weekly public implosion again?
He's overdue! He's gotten himself pretty wound up with his pre State of the Union spin a thon...Commence meltdown!
Typical... respond with attacks, not with substantive consideration of the points raised.
Typical, whine about attacks when your posts have been substantially answered with facts...Typical whining from the chief cliche and spin meister on this board.

Go ahead, AAO. Let's see your usual tired rhetoric about "lefties" and your "why is it ok for you but not conseerrrvattiiivvvvess whining".

I'm not answering any of your posts today, no matter how ridiculous. I've reached my nonsense quotient for today.

Dave WX7B
Where, sir, have they been answered?

[K6UEY]

N7AAO,
David did I miss a post?? Why would you be whinning your party DID NOT LOSE. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 02 2005,18:44)]N7AAO, Is there ever a Time that you DON'T try to pick an argument with someone? I see your posts in almost every thead and you are always trying to incite some sort of argument with other members here. How about giving it a rest for say 6 months???
Just a thought you might consider.
I know you or your aged sidekick will Attack me for this Post, but it needed to be said!

Gordon
Hmmm... let's see... there's this thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=68874), and this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=44203), and this one I started (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=82287), and then there's this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=80808), oh, and don't forget this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82460), this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=76720), this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82103), this one paying homage to a great man (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82009), and of course this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=77753).

Is that enough for you, or should I go back even further?

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 02 2005,18:44)]N7AAO, #Is there ever a Time that you DON'T try to pick an argument with someone? # I see your posts in almost every thead and you are always trying to incite some sort of argument with other members here. #How about giving it a rest for say 6 months???
Just a thought you might consider.
I know you or your aged sidekick will Attack me for this Post, but it needed to be said!

Gordon
Aged sidekick? #Why Gordon, that smells of a Personal Attack! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 02 2005,19:23)]Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 03 2005,02:59)]Hmmm... let's see... there's this thread (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=5;t=68874), and this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=44203), and this one I started (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=82287), and then there's this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=80808), oh, and don't forget this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82460), this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=76720), this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82103), this one paying homage to a great man (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=82009), and of course this one (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=77753).

Is that enough for you, or should I go back even further?
Well, lets see, the first one says "please Ignore".. ok easy enough. I'll Ignore it!
the second one, you tried to start an Argument, but Nobody took the bait.
The third one you mention being on the Nazi list. What is that all about??
the Forth one, was a SILLY word association thread.
the Fifth one I'll give that one to you.
the Sixth one, stated "No Seriousness allowed, so it doesn't count.
the Seventh one was about Collecting, so not much to Argue about there.
The Eigth one, I guess it doesn't matter. So you do have a few where you didn't argue with someone. Now go and dig out the ones where you do start an Argument and see what the percentage is. It is about 100 to 1 in favor of you Arguing!!

Botom Line, You Like to argue and when someone says enough, you still continue on like a pesty little knat or mesquito.
I will ask again, how about giving up starting arguments or engaging in them for about 6 months?? Are you up to it?
I am willing to bet that you CAN NOT do it!

Gordon
There is no way he can do it. He couldn't even keep his last promise for 30 days!

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ Feb. 02 2005,19:23)]I will ask again, how about giving up starting arguments or engaging in them for about 6 months?? Are you up to it?
I am willing to bet that you CAN NOT do it!

Gordon
Will you agree to the same thing, or is this for conservatives only?

[K6UEY]

N7AAO,
Don't do it David it is a sucker bet,you know how he does,he already stated he likes to troll the bait to see if anyone will bite,then he denies that he did it,and will put the blame on you and defame your name even further than he has already.
If you carry a snake in your pocket,sooner or later you will be bitten!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KB8VNP]

Quote[/b] (WX7B @ Feb. 02 2005,18:26)]I'm not answering any of your posts today, no matter how ridiculous. I've reached my nonsense quotient for today.

Dave WX7B
Typed like a true liberal. #Didn't you just ANSWER his post? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ Feb. 03 2005,03:07)]N7AAO,
Don't do it David it is a sucker bet,you know how he does,he already stated he likes to troll the bait to see if anyone will bite,then he denies that he did it,and will put the blame on you and defame your name even further than he has already.
If you carry a snake in your pocket,sooner or later you will be bitten!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Well, Orv, it doesn't matter if I do or not. If I agree to it, the next post I make, he will claim that I have "broken" my promise. If I don't, he will try to make that into a big promotion. Also, even if I was to delete this bookmark for the next 6 months, his political views wouldn't win any more arguments here. People like you, FOY, QQL, and Bob VNP, among others would take up the baton and run with it if I was suddenly silenced. He wants to silence me because I am currently the loudest voice for common-sense conservatism, but he forgets that I didn't start out that way, I moved into this role when Chuck K3FT was taken from us. If I am taken away, someone else will move into the role. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (N7AAO @ Feb. 03 2005,06:24)]If I am taken away, someone else will move into the role. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Perish the thought. You provide too much amusement. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif