Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
toopid, you've been doing pretty well recently keeping the OT crap off
of RAO.
Is everything OK?
For christ's sake. There has been a blissful several days without a lot
of OT political ****.
Why would you want to **** that up? Are you unwell?
Don't be a dick.
I meant
Ooops...you didn't say what you meant? I'm shocked!
that it looked like you were slipping and bringing more OT crap
to RAO. And you are...
and Merry Xmas.
Please have a Blessed Holiday, Celebrating the Birth of Our (and all
the rest of the sheep on Earth's) Lord.
But just to make you feel better....the berglar got away with one.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Documents.html
Well, OK.
What do you mean OK? Thats it? Berglar paid his due and its ok?
"Well, OK: you're wanting to open up more OT crap and get your ass
kicked... again."
Only thing you've left on my ass resembles a hickey
.
Let's talk about a few things that you've given me **** about
then:
See, toopid? You need to keep reading, moron.
You called Murtha and I both names over this one, even though senior
Pentagon officials had been quoted as saying it was pretty bad:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12342625/
It doesn't look good, but unlike you and Murtha...I don't convict
prematurely which at the time was was I opposed Murtha doing.
Even when it was true, using this incident for political purposes
as Murtha did was truly slimy.
So even when Murtha tells the truth, he's wrong.
Yeah...it is wrong for a politician in his position to declare
guilt before trial. BTW...Murtha hasn't been proven right..yet.
And when bushie lies,
it's OK.
No... and that assertion is simply that...an assertion.
Wild 'morals' ya got there, son.
Some ass kicking so far.
But after seeing Murthas video, anyone can see what a slime
he is.
"I was proven wrong... again. I will now shift to what a slime that I
think Murtha is to avoid admitting that I was wrong... again."
Delusion noted..... so when does a rant become
an ass kicking?
Speaking of BS cases...this one sucks.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
And you told me I had no idea what I was talking about on this one. I
think that you said I had to "get out of the box."
You need to provide a link as the context of this article
and that comment don't seem to connect.
The AD Army is breaking. You told me to to "think outside of the box"
regarding adding another mission, which we could not currently do.
Still no link or message ID.... why do I feel misrepresented and
taken out of context? BTW...I'm curious. How does our deployment
policy of today compare to say WWII? Compare all these readiness
policies of today to yesteryear when we could really mount a
campaign and see it through.
Once again, your 'military genius' is lying in tatters.
Getting repititious....aren't you? Assertion over substance
seems to make you happy.
Why is it the senior military officers have never agreed with you?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html
His statements are bizarre.... The army will break if we don't get
more troops implying a dire situation....
It is a dire situation. Which is what I said months ago. And you seem
to think that we could add new missions to an already overtaxed
military.
Schoomaker better start "thinking outside of the box," eh?
Yup.
....but it will take significant time and commitment by the nation
and we can only add about 6 to 7k per year....
The point he made is this: If we are to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan,
we need more AD troops AND more access to more frequent RC
mobilizations. The AD Army is close to breaking.
How close? He does not say.
BTW, more frequent RC
mobilizations will end up breaking the RC as well.
Seems to be a contradiction in play here.
Safe the AD by breaking the RC......
But thats you....your life is a contradiction.
ScottW