Anyone with half a brain would know we would be in for the long
haul, I was sent Germany thirty years after the war to keep those ****
in line.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Stephen Cowell wrote:
>
>
> Believe it or not, it's not a humanitarian mission.
> It was never sold as such.
>
> If it *was* to be a war of liberation, there were plans
> drawn up that would have taken much better care of
> the populace... these plans were chucked by Wolfowitz
> et al because they would have cost more than was
> politically sellable at the time.
>
> I don't believe in selling the troops short... they're
> our kids, and deserve our support. But I'm *not*
> going to let all this distract me from the big problem...
> the US people were lied to in a systematic way.
> Blindly following Bush is getting us in deeper...
> the truth about the occupation has to come out.
> I'm sorry if returning troops don't like what they
> read... but it's not lies.
> __
> Steve
> .

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11akjrla842hkb9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Vraqe.2334$751.107@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > If you really cared about rape, instead of just
> > trying to save your face
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of iraq.
> i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my agenda
> does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any
> manner".

'Bush liberating the women of Iraq'... pure
excrement. Read below... you'd have nuked
the whole damn place anyway.

> stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at least
> respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce of
> integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort this
> one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push your own
> agenda.

Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity... am *I*
the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
their women'? The whole frickin' population needed
liberation, and you want to go on about women?
Would you rather be raped, or gassed and buried
by a bulldozer? Children, with bullets to the head?
Raped women is not good... but you lack perspective,
Nate. And as I said... Sudan is much more ripe for
saving people, if that's what you want to do.
We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
was too high, and will be too high.... don't forget
that the price included lying to the American people.
Treason... Bush committed High Crimes. Makes
all that flap about Clinton's pecker look downright
amusing...

> > Nate... you have to be willing to look at
> > the wide screen. And don't try to buy
> > sympathy for a failed invasion with
> > cloying talk about 'young girls'
>
> the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one single
> bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man im
> talking to. im sadly disappointed.

No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
The discussion is about the ozone layer... I posted
NOAA information. You went off about 'young
girls raped'... evidently in your Conservative Clusterf*cks
they teach this debate tactic. That crap don't wash here.
Nobody believes that you give a damn about any
Iraqi civilians... you're a Libertarian! It's their problem!
Let them deal with it!

> > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police?
>
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up to me
> we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-)

I think we all get that from you... not a pretty
picture. And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

> 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals.

Then you're one f*cked up confused mess...
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11akjrla842hkb9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Vraqe.2334$751.107@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > If you really cared about rape, instead of just
> > trying to save your face
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of iraq.
> i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my agenda
> does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any
> manner".

'Bush liberating the women of Iraq'... pure
excrement. Read below... you'd have nuked
the whole damn place anyway.

> stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at least
> respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce of
> integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort this
> one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push your own
> agenda.

Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity... am *I*
the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
their women'? The whole frickin' population needed
liberation, and you want to go on about women?
Would you rather be raped, or gassed and buried
by a bulldozer? Children, with bullets to the head?
Raped women is not good... but you lack perspective,
Nate. And as I said... Sudan is much more ripe for
saving people, if that's what you want to do.
We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
was too high, and will be too high.... don't forget
that the price included lying to the American people.
Treason... Bush committed High Crimes. Makes
all that flap about Clinton's pecker look downright
amusing...

> > Nate... you have to be willing to look at
> > the wide screen. And don't try to buy
> > sympathy for a failed invasion with
> > cloying talk about 'young girls'
>
> the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one single
> bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man im
> talking to. im sadly disappointed.

No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
The discussion is about the ozone layer... I posted
NOAA information. You went off about 'young
girls raped'... evidently in your Conservative Clusterf*cks
they teach this debate tactic. That crap don't wash here.
Nobody believes that you give a damn about any
Iraqi civilians... you're a Libertarian! It's their problem!
Let them deal with it!

> > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police?
>
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up to me
> we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-)

I think we all get that from you... not a pretty
picture. And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

> 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals.

Then you're one f*cked up confused mess...
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11akjrla842hkb9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Vraqe.2334$751.107@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > If you really cared about rape, instead of just
> > trying to save your face
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of iraq.
> i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my agenda
> does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any
> manner".

'Bush liberating the women of Iraq'... pure
excrement. Read below... you'd have nuked
the whole damn place anyway.

> stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at least
> respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce of
> integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort this
> one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push your own
> agenda.

Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity... am *I*
the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
their women'? The whole frickin' population needed
liberation, and you want to go on about women?
Would you rather be raped, or gassed and buried
by a bulldozer? Children, with bullets to the head?
Raped women is not good... but you lack perspective,
Nate. And as I said... Sudan is much more ripe for
saving people, if that's what you want to do.
We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
was too high, and will be too high.... don't forget
that the price included lying to the American people.
Treason... Bush committed High Crimes. Makes
all that flap about Clinton's pecker look downright
amusing...

> > Nate... you have to be willing to look at
> > the wide screen. And don't try to buy
> > sympathy for a failed invasion with
> > cloying talk about 'young girls'
>
> the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one single
> bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man im
> talking to. im sadly disappointed.

No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
The discussion is about the ozone layer... I posted
NOAA information. You went off about 'young
girls raped'... evidently in your Conservative Clusterf*cks
they teach this debate tactic. That crap don't wash here.
Nobody believes that you give a damn about any
Iraqi civilians... you're a Libertarian! It's their problem!
Let them deal with it!

> > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police?
>
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up to me
> we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-)

I think we all get that from you... not a pretty
picture. And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

> 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals.

Then you're one f*cked up confused mess...
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11akjrla842hkb9@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Vraqe.2334$751.107@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > If you really cared about rape, instead of just
> > trying to save your face
>
> TRANSLATION --> "i cannot give bush credit for liberating the women of iraq.
> i cannot even recognize they are no longer being raped because my agenda
> does not allow for credit where due if it speaks good of bush in any
> manner".

'Bush liberating the women of Iraq'... pure
excrement. Read below... you'd have nuked
the whole damn place anyway.

> stephen, you sir are ignorant. not because we disagree.....i could at least
> respect you for your beliefs....but because you havent a single ounce of
> integrity for if you had, you would have at least given the war effort this
> one single small credit. instead you spin off it in order to push your own
> agenda.

Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity... am *I*
the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
their women'? The whole frickin' population needed
liberation, and you want to go on about women?
Would you rather be raped, or gassed and buried
by a bulldozer? Children, with bullets to the head?
Raped women is not good... but you lack perspective,
Nate. And as I said... Sudan is much more ripe for
saving people, if that's what you want to do.
We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
was too high, and will be too high.... don't forget
that the price included lying to the American people.
Treason... Bush committed High Crimes. Makes
all that flap about Clinton's pecker look downright
amusing...

> > Nate... you have to be willing to look at
> > the wide screen. And don't try to buy
> > sympathy for a failed invasion with
> > cloying talk about 'young girls'
>
> the point in mentioning that was not to justify the war. it was one single
> bit of irrefutable credit that was thrown out to see what kind of man im
> talking to. im sadly disappointed.

No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.
The discussion is about the ozone layer... I posted
NOAA information. You went off about 'young
girls raped'... evidently in your Conservative Clusterf*cks
they teach this debate tactic. That crap don't wash here.
Nobody believes that you give a damn about any
Iraqi civilians... you're a Libertarian! It's their problem!
Let them deal with it!

> > The Libertarian Ideal, being world police?
>
> 1) we arent trying to police world. we removed a threat. were it up to me
> we would simply nuke the entire arab world. :-)

I think we all get that from you... not a pretty
picture. And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

> 2) nothing could be farther from libertarian ideals.

Then you're one f*cked up confused mess...
__
Steve
..

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity

i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.


>... am *I*
> the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> their women'?

thats NOT what i said. get it right.

> The whole frickin' population needed
> liberation

indeed.


> We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> was too high

and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?


> don't forget
> that the price included lying to the American people.
> Treason

what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never "lied" to the american
people.

1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.


> Bush committed High Crimes.

and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.


> No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.

lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)


> And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity

i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.


>... am *I*
> the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> their women'?

thats NOT what i said. get it right.

> The whole frickin' population needed
> liberation

indeed.


> We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> was too high

and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?


> don't forget
> that the price included lying to the American people.
> Treason

what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never "lied" to the american
people.

1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.


> Bush committed High Crimes.

and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.


> No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.

lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)


> And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity

i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.


>... am *I*
> the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> their women'?

thats NOT what i said. get it right.

> The whole frickin' population needed
> liberation

indeed.


> We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> was too high

and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?


> don't forget
> that the price included lying to the American people.
> Treason

what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never "lied" to the american
people.

1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.


> Bush committed High Crimes.

and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.


> No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.

lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)


> And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RDvqe.2519$751.1794@newssvr30.news.prodigy.co m...
> Go ahead, try and impugn my integrity

i dont need to. youve done that one all on your own.


>... am *I*
> the one that asserts we went into Iraq to 'liberate
> their women'?

thats NOT what i said. get it right.

> The whole frickin' population needed
> liberation

indeed.


> We're all glad Saddam is gone... but the price paid
> was too high

and what price was that? what would have been an "acceptable" price?


> don't forget
> that the price included lying to the American people.
> Treason

what typical seminar liberal --------! bush never "lied" to the american
people.

1) WMD's have not been found but we know they exist. going into the whole
iraq issue your boy kerry acknowledged them. your boy clinton acknowledged
them just before he bombed iraq in '98.
2) even if they no longer existed there is a great difference in being wrong
about something and in lying about it. bush acted on the best intelligence
he was given and right or wrong, that doesnt make him a liar.


> Bush committed High Crimes.

and what crimes were those? BE SPECIFIC.


> No, it's a red herring, used to try and save face.

lol what pitiful (and most ironic!) horse ----. :-)


> And you can stick that smiley up your ***.

i know you liberal celebrate diversity and all that crap but ill thank you
in advance to get off the topic of my ***. :-)


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11akjtojsid50d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jD9qe.2327$751.676@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com ...
> > It is a science of probabilities
>
> horseshit. your beliefs are unproven.

How the hell would you know?

>
>
> > EPA? Read further down! You have an EPA
> > cert? How ironic! NATE is an EPA partner...
>
> nate is abiding by the LAW and nothing more.

I'll just bet you abide by the law.. when someone's
looking, anyway.

>
> > are you the Site Manager?
>
> im a service tech, that is just one of many multi million dollar rack
> systems that i am solely responsible for.

Oh, are you the only person on site? Not that
it matters... one viewing of that film has convinced
me that I wouldn't be able to stand your job
for lots more than you're making... asphalt
plants were a lot more fun than that. I have
a creative job now... I make about half what
you make, and I love it. Wouldn't trade places
for the world.

> > You never gave a link
> > supporting your assertion, btw... that's a little telling,
> > don't you think?
>
> <SIGH>.....fine. my statement is that refrigerants cannot make it to the
> stratosphere because they are heavier than air therefore they fall. when
> attempting to detect a refrigerant leak using an electronic leak detector
> you run your probe BENEATH where you suspect the leak. why? because the
> refrigerant FALLS!

You don't get it, and I'm not going to
waste much more breath trying to make you
get it... after this post, it's ridicule, buddy.

>
> from http://www.bacharach-training.com/methods.htm near the bottom under
> electronic leak detectors:
> "Refrigerant has a higher specific volume than air, therefore refrigerants
> will fall when exposed to atmospheric pressures. This means leak detecting
> on the bottom sides of the piping or components will be more effective in
> detecting a leak and will save you time."
>
> from http://tif.com/manuals/TIFZX1.pdf (operating manual of the electronic
> leak detector that i personally use)
> "Be aware that refrigerants are invariably heavier than air and will tend to
> fall from or collect below actual leak points/sources. Searching below
> areas of potential leaks is invariably the most effective and reliable way
> of finding such."
>
> now stephen, tell me again all about how the hvac industry agrees with you?
> tell me again how refrigerants rise above the air.
>
> of course, we already know you simply cannot admit to it.

For you, your technical training manuals are the Bible,
and carry incontrovertible information that cannot be wrong.
You imagine that your special status as an HVAC tech
gives you an insight that countless scientists and engineers
don't have. Think about that one... *engineers*, Nate, the
ones that design and build the systems you are only qualified
to leak-check. They use science... you are like the altar-boy,
whereas the *engineer* is the Priest. Whatever the Priest
tells you, you must do... because you don't posess the
Higher Knowlege. Engineers write the dumbed-down tomes
you refer to when repairing your systems... rest assured
that they understand partial pressures, and probabilities
of distribution, much better than you do. Don't you see
what an idiot you look like, saying that Freon can't be
in the upper atmosphere at all, since it's heavier than
air? Hell, Nate, when it's released, it becomes *part*
of air... air is a mixture of gasses, some of which are
heavy, and some of which are light. You say the reason
is 'concentration'... if all the argon fell out of the air
right now, we'd die! We'd be in a layer of argon
%1 as high as the (normalized) atmosphere! When you
climb a mountain, why don't you reach the oxygen
layer, then the nitrogen layer, then the helium layer?
'Concentration'!! you say. This implies mixing,
does it not? All these gasses... differing weights,
*mixed* up? Well, I can assure you that Freon
*mixes* just like all the others.
__
Steve
gloves off
..