Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said. "This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating. The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know what's "best" for them? Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ... What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said. "This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating. The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know what's "best" for them? Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol *************************************** Yeah, isn't that the most priceless thing? The Iraqi's want us out on a logical schedule....... The American populace wants us out on a logical schedule...... George Bush and John McCain think that is DEFEAT and not to be tolerated....we must stay until we have VICTORY (which I'm beginning to feel is synonymous on their part with (psst.) DOMINION over the oil fields. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 7, 11:30*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. *Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On 7 Iul, 19:21, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable � an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said. "This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating. The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know what's "best" for them? Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol *************************************** Yeah, isn't that the most priceless thing? The Iraqi's want us out on a logical schedule....... The American populace wants us out on a logical schedule...... George Bush and John McCain think that is DEFEAT and not to be tolerated....we must stay until we have VICTORY (which I'm beginning to feel is synonymous on their part with (psst.) DOMINION over the oil fields. But first we need to ask the insurgents to provide their input as to a logical schedule. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. Sounds like Vietnamization. In both cases, biocentrically irrational in the extreme. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered: Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. Stephen, what's this game called again? |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 9, 7:14*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up there, one whole post ago. What an imbecile. I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day one. I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus and Dubik formulating the plan and timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709 That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in Chief" means and get back to me. bushie liked being CinC when the mission was "accomplished". He's been trying to delegate CinC duties ever since. The commanding generals take the mission from bushie and formulate potential courses of action. They may recommend COA one over the others, but the final call is bushie's. As Harry Truman once said, "The buck stops here". We once went all throught the military planning cycle. I even gave you official planning doctrine. I'm not surprised that you still don't get it. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote: San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered: Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. Stephen, what's this game called again? It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni Mitchell. Stephen |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
On Jul 9, 9:25*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *George M. Middius wrote: San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered: Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. Stephen, what's this game called again? It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni Mitchell. Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 9, 7:08*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"RapidRonnie" wrote in message ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. *Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. Sounds like Vietnamization. In both cases, biocentrically irrational in the extreme. Vietnamization was working until we pulled the plug on military aid. No, it wasn't. Read some history, 2pid. You'll perhaps seem less stupid maybe. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
Shhhh! said: San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered: Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. Stephen, what's this game called again? It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni Mitchell. Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity. Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes, self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a 747 through. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said: San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered: Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. Stephen, what's this game called again? It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni Mitchell. Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity. Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes, self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a 747 through. Do you think Clyde is right? |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)
Shhhh! said: Stephen, what's this game called again? It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni Mitchell. Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity. Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes, self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a 747 through. Do you think Clyde is right? Hardly.™ (I already gave my response to his apologia for Witless.) |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up there, one whole post ago. What an imbecile. I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. :You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day ne. I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus and Dubik formulating the plan and timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709 That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in Chief" means and get back to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama. http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit... OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol Obama is indeed correct: the President sets the mission. But that's where you break down, 2pid. The commander also approves the plan. So, for example, the President might say, "Your mission is to get the troops out of Iraq within 180 days". The generals may come back with "plans" (usually in the form of several different COAs for the commander to choose from). The commander then accepts or alters the plan, discards it and tells them why or how it must be changed, or integrates elements from several COAs. Once the President (actually the National Command Authority, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority) sets the mission, control does not shift over to the generals. If that was the case civilian control of the military would cease at that point. That is not the case. Apparently you have a problem with that. I think civilian control over the military is generally a very good thing. I think bushie and crew misused that power. Anyway, the Iraqis want a timetable and bushie doesn't. I think the Iraqis are treasonous. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 15, 1:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:12*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up there, one whole post ago. What an imbecile. I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. :You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day ne. I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus and Dubik formulating the plan and timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709 That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in Chief" means and get back to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama. http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit.... OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol *No. I think you don't know what I know. Perhaps, but you always make it pretty obvious. You also don't know what you don't know. You forgot that I know what I know. That's a fatal exclusion on your part. If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go. Another go at your stupidity? You don't have to "let" me do that. That comes naturally. So since you indicate that you know how it works, why don't you enlighten me? Lol And BTW, using quotes from Rumsfeld makes you look even dumber: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." So do you agree that there is civilian control over the military, dum- dum? And that it's a good thing? |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On 15 Iul, 14:56, ScottW wrote:
*No. I think you don't know what I know. You also don't know what you don't know. If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go. ScottW- I think you think you know what you don't know I know you think you think what you know I know what I don't think you know I know what I know I think you know I don;t know what I think you know I know. I don't know what I think I don't know I know I don't think you know what I think you know |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 15, 4:17*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 15, 1:40*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 15, 1:56*pm, ScottW wrote: On Jul 14, 11:12*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself? BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush. He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al- Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security. bushie agrees with the need for a timetable? I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a timetable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military? Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up there, one whole post ago. What an imbecile. I didn't realize you admired his capability that much. :You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day ne. I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus and Dubik formulating the plan and timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709 That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in Chief" means and get back to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama. http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit... OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol *No. I think you don't know what I know. Perhaps, but you always make it pretty obvious. You also don't know what you don't know. You forgot that I know what I know. That's a fatal exclusion on your part. *No proof of that. *Some of the things you think you know are actually things you don't know. So tell me: how does it work, 2pid? The President sets the mission. Now what? If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go. *No go for you. Do tell. As Ross Perot said, "I'm all ears". |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote:
*Confusion will be your epitaph..... Irony will be yours. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote: *Confusion will be your epitaph..... Irony will be yours. no, hypocricy will be his |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On Jul 15, 5:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote: *Confusion will be your epitaph..... Irony will be yours. no, hypocricy will be his Let's compromise on "hypocritical irony". |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So what matters more, 2pid?
On 15 Iul, 18:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 15, 5:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote: *Confusion will be your epitaph..... Irony will be yours. no, hypocricy will be his Let's compromise on "hypocritical irony". No way!!!! "ironical hypocricy" RIP |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
GOIA's "Expertise" in Miltary Matters 'Rivals' 2pid's! | Audio Opinions | |||
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 4. PINKERTON LIES ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS FOR PERSONAL REASONS | Audio Opinions | |||
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 4. PINKERTON LIES ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS FOR PERSONAL REASONS | Vacuum Tubes | |||
hearing, frequency, BBE process, and all related matters | Pro Audio |