"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but
the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea
and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

I see, so you're advocating we invade Saudi Arabia.



I meant to say, according to 'his' simplistic thinking, sorry.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:46:55 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but
the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

I see, so you're advocating we invade Saudi Arabia.

I'm just saying that it's odd that you *aren't*.

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this particular
point in history).

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:46:55 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and
what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but
the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea
and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

I see, so you're advocating we invade Saudi Arabia.

I'm just saying that it's odd that you *aren't*.

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this particular
point in history).

Nor am I. Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us. If it becomes
one............

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:19 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this particular
point in history).

Nor am I. Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us. If it becomes
one............

I see. So now you've decided that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Good
for you.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority.
It's
called discrimination. This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of
retribution.


Why not, doesn't free speech extend to 'your' enemies?
If the French have the right to disagree with us, we have the
right to ostracize them for (what we believe tobe) their
arrogance and ignorance. If they decline to participate in the
costs (money and blood) of liberating Iraq, than it is perfectly
reasonable for us to exclude them from prime contracts.

The only discrimination I participate in is the discrimination
between good and evil.


"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make
your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his
lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." -
The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote
perfectly
sums up free speech)


To you, that would be President Bush or Rush Limbaugh.

And if I were to protest to President Bush it would have to be in a "free
speech zone" blocks away from where he could see me (I guess America is no
longer a free speech zone). An I think it's a safe bet that if I called
into Rush's show and displayed a different opinion than he, I would be
called an unpatriotic, left-wing, communist (or something of the sort).
There are conservatives that I know and we have a fair bantor back and
forth, that is what I consider free speech. Being cut-off or forced to be
unseen is not.


[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only
reason
we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us. If I recall
correctly, the British and the French had been fighting on opposite side
of
the war since the early 1000's. The only time they fought together was
WWI.


I would say Pearl harbor was the primary reason, or the reason that
we participated much earlier than we otherwise would have.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

And if I were to protest to President Bush it would have to be in a "free
speech zone" blocks away from where he could see me (I guess America is no
longer a free speech zone).

And that would go for President Clinton, or any other President.
President Clinton was the one who blocked off K Street
in front of the White House.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:19 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this particular
point in history).

Nor am I. Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us. If it becomes
one............

I see. So now you've decided that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Good
for you.

Why do think you win an argument by lying?

Are you stupid or just an asshole? Never mind.

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in
'45

Please stop living in the past.

Things don't look any brighter for the future of France, either.

Why not, gonna blow 'em up? Go right ahead - bunch of horse eatin',
garlic pumpin' truffle waffers.


A waste of a good bomb. The French have already imploded
of their own volition.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:10:23 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:19 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this particular
point in history).

Nor am I. Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us. If it becomes
one............

I see. So now you've decided that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Good
for you.

Why do think you win an argument by lying?

You just said that you aren't advocating invading *anyone* at this
particular point in history.

Make up your mind.

Are you stupid or just an asshole? Never mind.

Hey, I'm not the one who one minute agreed that we shouldn't be
invading anyone and then denying it the next.

Not too bright, are we, failed-speaker-manufacturer.

=(8888)= a écrit :
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :


Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45

Please stop living in the past.

Things don't look any brighter for the future of France, either.


Why not, gonna blow 'em up? Go right ahead - bunch of horse eatin',
garlic pumpin' truffle waffers.


I'm agree but I don't want to suffer. :-(
BTW have you digestion problems ? ;-)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:10:23 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:05:19 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm not. unlike you, advocating invading *anybody* (at this
particular
point in history).

Nor am I. Saudi Arabia is not a threat to us. If it becomes
one............

I see. So now you've decided that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Good
for you.

Why do think you win an argument by lying?

You just said that you aren't advocating invading *anyone* at this
particular point in history.

Make up your mind.

I'm sorry you couldn't make the connection that we've ALREADY invaded Iraq.

Are you stupid or just an asshole? Never mind.

Hey, I'm not the one who one minute agreed that we shouldn't be
invading anyone and then denying it the next.

Neither am I, liar

Not too bright, are we, failed-speaker-manufacturer.

Better to have failed, than to never have tried, waiter.