In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <TM9ub.174022$275.554498@attbi_s53>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?
>>
>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.
>>
>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!
>>
>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>needing to perform for those funds?

> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>instead.

> Bought how?

You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>hand stuff over for cash.

 

In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?

>>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.

>>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!

>>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>needing to perform for those funds?

>>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

>>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

No response from parker.

>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>instead.

>>> Bought how?

>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

> I accepted none of your lies.

Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying
instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
someone else did something worse in your opinion.

Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
money.


>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>hand stuff over for cash.

 

In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?

>>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.

>>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!

>>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>needing to perform for those funds?

>>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

>>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

No response from parker.

>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>instead.

>>> Bought how?

>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

> I accepted none of your lies.

Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying
instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
someone else did something worse in your opinion.

Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
money.


>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>hand stuff over for cash.

 

In article <bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <bpdcio$l1i$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bpb4mp$13m$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>>>>> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for them
>>>>>>to help groups try to overthrow the US government?

>>>>>>Kind of like China illegally donating money to AlGore's campaign and the
>>>>>>Democrats. I keep forgetting there wasn't any controlling authority and Al
>>>>>>had to take a leak from too much tea at the temple.

>>>>> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on the payroll!

>>>>Interesting, you consider being infiltrated by a chinese spy, having
>>>>a mole in the organization who is really there working for someone
>>>>else to be far worse than taking payment from the chinese and then
>>>>needing to perform for those funds?

>>> I consider it about equal to lying like you're doing.

>>In other words you have no response and attack me by claiming I am
>>'lying' but not defining about what. Lame Lloyd.

No response from parker.

>>>>What you are saying is that in order to find out what republicans
>>>>were doing the Chinese had to use traditional spying techniques and have
>>>>a mole work its way in. But the democrats, all the chinese had to do was
>>>>go to the top guys and give them some money. So the democrats were
>>>>easily bought, but the republicans couldn't be and had to be spied on
>>>>instead.

>>> Bought how?

>>You accepted that the democrats were bought by the chinese via campaign
>>donations a couple posts ago with your 'but there wasn't a spy' response.

> I accepted none of your lies.

Same tatic as the one before. Attack me with a vague acusation of lying
instead of responding. The quoted material is at the top of this post.
Your response is not that what the person you were responding to was
lying, it was a 'not as bad as'. That is response that accepts what
the previous person had written but saying it doesn't matter because
someone else did something worse in your opinion.

Funny thing is, I would consider being infiltrated by a spy to be far
less serious than supporting that same foreign nation's intrests for
money.


>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd rather require foreign nations to
>>>>work in spies to get low-level information than have the top people
>>>>hand stuff over for cash.

 

> >> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them to
> >> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
> >>
> >
> >They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
> >Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was
re-elected.
>
> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on their payroll.
>

Sure, the Republicans hire Chinese spies. You can never tell when you'll
need one.


> >>
> >> And SAVAK really improved life there.
> >>
> >
> >The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK.
>
> Not to the average Iranian. And all the US support for the shah is in
large
> part responsible for the mess in the Middle East today. "I shot an arrow
in
> the air..."
>

Oh please. You love to ascribe simpleton causes to such grand problems. As
if turning left instead of right would have brought us to peace in the
middle east... were it just for this one act of supporting the Shah. I can
argue that had Reagan or Bush been in office instead of Carter during the
Iranian Hostage Crisis that history would have played much differently in
the middle east (for the better).

>
> >Again, cold war
> >politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to
seize
> >power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left
it
> >alone?
> >
> >

 

> >> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them to
> >> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
> >>
> >
> >They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
> >Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was
re-elected.
>
> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on their payroll.
>

Sure, the Republicans hire Chinese spies. You can never tell when you'll
need one.


> >>
> >> And SAVAK really improved life there.
> >>
> >
> >The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK.
>
> Not to the average Iranian. And all the US support for the shah is in
large
> part responsible for the mess in the Middle East today. "I shot an arrow
in
> the air..."
>

Oh please. You love to ascribe simpleton causes to such grand problems. As
if turning left instead of right would have brought us to peace in the
middle east... were it just for this one act of supporting the Shah. I can
argue that had Reagan or Bush been in office instead of Carter during the
Iranian Hostage Crisis that history would have played much differently in
the middle east (for the better).

>
> >Again, cold war
> >politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to
seize
> >power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left
it
> >alone?
> >
> >

 

> >> So, if say China doesn't like the Republican party here, it's OK for
them to
> >> help groups try to overthrow the US government?
> >>
> >
> >They can try. Our enemies have been funding these groups for years. The
> >Chinese certainly did what they could to make sure Clinton was
re-elected.
>
> At least the Dems didn't have a Chinese spy on their payroll.
>

Sure, the Republicans hire Chinese spies. You can never tell when you'll
need one.


> >>
> >> And SAVAK really improved life there.
> >>
> >
> >The Soviet threat was bigger and badder than SAVAK.
>
> Not to the average Iranian. And all the US support for the shah is in
large
> part responsible for the mess in the Middle East today. "I shot an arrow
in
> the air..."
>

Oh please. You love to ascribe simpleton causes to such grand problems. As
if turning left instead of right would have brought us to peace in the
middle east... were it just for this one act of supporting the Shah. I can
argue that had Reagan or Bush been in office instead of Carter during the
Iranian Hostage Crisis that history would have played much differently in
the middle east (for the better).

>
> >Again, cold war
> >politics. Would all be well in Iran had the Shah not been allowed to
seize
> >power in 1952? I'll bet you think you know. Would the Soviets have left
it
> >alone?
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>
> I accepted none of your lies.
>

In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd. You would save
yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>
> I accepted none of your lies.
>

In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd. You would save
yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpdgp4$l1i$43@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Wcrub.236439$Tr4.695855@attbi_s03>,
>
> I accepted none of your lies.
>

In other words, you've lost yet another argument Lloyd. You would save
yourself a world of embarassment if you just stopped replying on subjects
you know nothing about, your old "he's lying" routine fools no one but you.