By the way you write I can say you haven't give up a couple of
years for your country. Like I have in the ARMY. You're just dead
weight!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff wrote:
>
> I think Dan Quayle was thinking of you when he said:
>
> " What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being
> very wasteful. How true that is."

 

hehe...

actually my calendar WAS wrong....lol...shows you how much i use that
thing....


"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-25C4F0.17320310082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
> Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!
>
> Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
> hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
> You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?
>

 

hehe...

actually my calendar WAS wrong....lol...shows you how much i use that
thing....


"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-25C4F0.17320310082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
> Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!
>
> Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
> hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
> You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?
>

 

hehe...

actually my calendar WAS wrong....lol...shows you how much i use that
thing....


"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-25C4F0.17320310082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
> Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!
>
> Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
> hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
> You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?
>

 

hehe...

actually my calendar WAS wrong....lol...shows you how much i use that
thing....


"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-25C4F0.17320310082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
> Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!
>
> Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
> hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
> You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?
>

 

"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-AAE8A0.17301410082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator
would
> > be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> > almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> > loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the
power
> > base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much
different,
> > and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.
>
> Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni?

Al-Sadr is the guy I was referring to. He is a powerful cleric, and he has
no position in the new government. He is pissed that the ****** are top dogs
now after his Sunni bretheren have been the top dog for so long.




I'm curious given
> there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
> analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
> with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
> that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
> correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.
>
It's the Sunnis that arre leading the majority of the insurgancy. Yes, there
are pockets of insurgants that I can't explain, but we can be relatively
certain they are extremists of their faith, not main stream.

And, the US will be happy to leave as soon as we are sure there will not be
a civil war that develops in the vacuum that will be caused.



> > Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> > inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action
in
> > Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> > disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> > change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> > benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> > other forms of our generosity.
> >
> > They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.
>
> Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
> you speak?
>

America is the largest trading partner of almost all of these. But, our
largesse is what bails them out of various disasters that befall them all
from time to time. We bailed the French out in WWII. We rebuilt Germany
after WWII. We forgave billions in debt that; Russia has racked up. Yes, my
friend, American largesse has benefitted each of these countries, and they
decry our efforts all of the way to the bank.



> >
> > > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> > >
> > > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> > >
> >
> > --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let
alone
> > decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.
>
> Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
> compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6
>
>

These numbers are "asdjusted for inflatiion" so to speak. They are not raw
numbers that shows that any country contributes X number of dollars, they
are "corrected" numbers that show the relative contribution in each category
measured. If the United States has an economy that churns out trillions in
goods and services, but gives a mere 100 billion in aid, and another country
has a paltry few hundred billion in GDP, but gives 50 billion in aid, then
that country will fair better in this report because its contribution
relative to its ability to contribute is higher, but the contribution is
still much smaller.





> > > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> > money
> > > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> > >
> > > Great move.
> > >
> >
> > What is your objection here?
>
> None. I was agreeing with you.
>
> > Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its
own
> > security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq
has
> > not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> > kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.
>
> Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
> could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
> of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?
>
> > > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> > English,
> > > > thank a soldier.)
> > >
> > > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > > other language could it be read?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have
America
> > to thank, because without America it would have been translated into
another
> > language.
>
> This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
> that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
> language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
> originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
> to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
> not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
> yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
> reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
> colonized by England has America to thank?
>

Were it not for the English monarchy, the entire planet might be speaking
Spanish or French because America would still have bailed out the rest of
the world, yes, even the English monarchy has benefitted from our might, and
we kicked their butts too.



> > Why do you hate America so much?
>
> I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
> this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
> scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
> If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
> hate ignorance.
>

You hate America so much, you can't even have a little fun with a play on
words. Sheesh! Take it easy dude, life's much too short to come unraveled by
wishful thinking.

 

"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-AAE8A0.17301410082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator
would
> > be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> > almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> > loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the
power
> > base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much
different,
> > and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.
>
> Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni?

Al-Sadr is the guy I was referring to. He is a powerful cleric, and he has
no position in the new government. He is pissed that the ****** are top dogs
now after his Sunni bretheren have been the top dog for so long.




I'm curious given
> there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
> analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
> with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
> that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
> correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.
>
It's the Sunnis that arre leading the majority of the insurgancy. Yes, there
are pockets of insurgants that I can't explain, but we can be relatively
certain they are extremists of their faith, not main stream.

And, the US will be happy to leave as soon as we are sure there will not be
a civil war that develops in the vacuum that will be caused.



> > Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> > inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action
in
> > Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> > disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> > change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> > benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> > other forms of our generosity.
> >
> > They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.
>
> Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
> you speak?
>

America is the largest trading partner of almost all of these. But, our
largesse is what bails them out of various disasters that befall them all
from time to time. We bailed the French out in WWII. We rebuilt Germany
after WWII. We forgave billions in debt that; Russia has racked up. Yes, my
friend, American largesse has benefitted each of these countries, and they
decry our efforts all of the way to the bank.



> >
> > > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> > >
> > > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> > >
> >
> > --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let
alone
> > decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.
>
> Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
> compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6
>
>

These numbers are "asdjusted for inflatiion" so to speak. They are not raw
numbers that shows that any country contributes X number of dollars, they
are "corrected" numbers that show the relative contribution in each category
measured. If the United States has an economy that churns out trillions in
goods and services, but gives a mere 100 billion in aid, and another country
has a paltry few hundred billion in GDP, but gives 50 billion in aid, then
that country will fair better in this report because its contribution
relative to its ability to contribute is higher, but the contribution is
still much smaller.





> > > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> > money
> > > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> > >
> > > Great move.
> > >
> >
> > What is your objection here?
>
> None. I was agreeing with you.
>
> > Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its
own
> > security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq
has
> > not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> > kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.
>
> Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
> could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
> of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?
>
> > > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> > English,
> > > > thank a soldier.)
> > >
> > > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > > other language could it be read?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have
America
> > to thank, because without America it would have been translated into
another
> > language.
>
> This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
> that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
> language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
> originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
> to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
> not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
> yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
> reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
> colonized by England has America to thank?
>

Were it not for the English monarchy, the entire planet might be speaking
Spanish or French because America would still have bailed out the rest of
the world, yes, even the English monarchy has benefitted from our might, and
we kicked their butts too.



> > Why do you hate America so much?
>
> I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
> this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
> scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
> If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
> hate ignorance.
>

You hate America so much, you can't even have a little fun with a play on
words. Sheesh! Take it easy dude, life's much too short to come unraveled by
wishful thinking.

 

"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-AAE8A0.17301410082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator
would
> > be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> > almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> > loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the
power
> > base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much
different,
> > and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.
>
> Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni?

Al-Sadr is the guy I was referring to. He is a powerful cleric, and he has
no position in the new government. He is pissed that the ****** are top dogs
now after his Sunni bretheren have been the top dog for so long.




I'm curious given
> there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
> analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
> with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
> that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
> correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.
>
It's the Sunnis that arre leading the majority of the insurgancy. Yes, there
are pockets of insurgants that I can't explain, but we can be relatively
certain they are extremists of their faith, not main stream.

And, the US will be happy to leave as soon as we are sure there will not be
a civil war that develops in the vacuum that will be caused.



> > Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> > inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action
in
> > Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> > disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> > change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> > benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> > other forms of our generosity.
> >
> > They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.
>
> Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
> you speak?
>

America is the largest trading partner of almost all of these. But, our
largesse is what bails them out of various disasters that befall them all
from time to time. We bailed the French out in WWII. We rebuilt Germany
after WWII. We forgave billions in debt that; Russia has racked up. Yes, my
friend, American largesse has benefitted each of these countries, and they
decry our efforts all of the way to the bank.



> >
> > > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> > >
> > > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> > >
> >
> > --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let
alone
> > decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.
>
> Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
> compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6
>
>

These numbers are "asdjusted for inflatiion" so to speak. They are not raw
numbers that shows that any country contributes X number of dollars, they
are "corrected" numbers that show the relative contribution in each category
measured. If the United States has an economy that churns out trillions in
goods and services, but gives a mere 100 billion in aid, and another country
has a paltry few hundred billion in GDP, but gives 50 billion in aid, then
that country will fair better in this report because its contribution
relative to its ability to contribute is higher, but the contribution is
still much smaller.





> > > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> > money
> > > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> > >
> > > Great move.
> > >
> >
> > What is your objection here?
>
> None. I was agreeing with you.
>
> > Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its
own
> > security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq
has
> > not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> > kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.
>
> Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
> could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
> of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?
>
> > > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> > English,
> > > > thank a soldier.)
> > >
> > > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > > other language could it be read?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have
America
> > to thank, because without America it would have been translated into
another
> > language.
>
> This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
> that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
> language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
> originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
> to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
> not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
> yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
> reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
> colonized by England has America to thank?
>

Were it not for the English monarchy, the entire planet might be speaking
Spanish or French because America would still have bailed out the rest of
the world, yes, even the English monarchy has benefitted from our might, and
we kicked their butts too.



> > Why do you hate America so much?
>
> I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
> this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
> scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
> If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
> hate ignorance.
>

You hate America so much, you can't even have a little fun with a play on
words. Sheesh! Take it easy dude, life's much too short to come unraveled by
wishful thinking.

 

"Jeff" <nothing@here.com> wrote in message
news:nothing-AAE8A0.17301410082004@news.ispnews.com...
> In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator
would
> > be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> > almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> > loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the
power
> > base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much
different,
> > and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.
>
> Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni?

Al-Sadr is the guy I was referring to. He is a powerful cleric, and he has
no position in the new government. He is pissed that the ****** are top dogs
now after his Sunni bretheren have been the top dog for so long.




I'm curious given
> there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
> analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
> with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
> that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
> correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.
>
It's the Sunnis that arre leading the majority of the insurgancy. Yes, there
are pockets of insurgants that I can't explain, but we can be relatively
certain they are extremists of their faith, not main stream.

And, the US will be happy to leave as soon as we are sure there will not be
a civil war that develops in the vacuum that will be caused.



> > Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> > inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action
in
> > Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> > disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> > change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> > benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> > other forms of our generosity.
> >
> > They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.
>
> Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
> you speak?
>

America is the largest trading partner of almost all of these. But, our
largesse is what bails them out of various disasters that befall them all
from time to time. We bailed the French out in WWII. We rebuilt Germany
after WWII. We forgave billions in debt that; Russia has racked up. Yes, my
friend, American largesse has benefitted each of these countries, and they
decry our efforts all of the way to the bank.



> >
> > > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> > >
> > > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> > >
> >
> > --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let
alone
> > decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.
>
> Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
> compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:
>
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6
>
>

These numbers are "asdjusted for inflatiion" so to speak. They are not raw
numbers that shows that any country contributes X number of dollars, they
are "corrected" numbers that show the relative contribution in each category
measured. If the United States has an economy that churns out trillions in
goods and services, but gives a mere 100 billion in aid, and another country
has a paltry few hundred billion in GDP, but gives 50 billion in aid, then
that country will fair better in this report because its contribution
relative to its ability to contribute is higher, but the contribution is
still much smaller.





> > > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> > money
> > > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> > >
> > > Great move.
> > >
> >
> > What is your objection here?
>
> None. I was agreeing with you.
>
> > Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its
own
> > security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq
has
> > not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> > kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.
>
> Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
> could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
> of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?
>
> > > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> > English,
> > > > thank a soldier.)
> > >
> > > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > > other language could it be read?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have
America
> > to thank, because without America it would have been translated into
another
> > language.
>
> This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
> that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
> language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
> originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
> to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
> not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
> yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
> reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
> colonized by England has America to thank?
>

Were it not for the English monarchy, the entire planet might be speaking
Spanish or French because America would still have bailed out the rest of
the world, yes, even the English monarchy has benefitted from our might, and
we kicked their butts too.



> > Why do you hate America so much?
>
> I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
> this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
> scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
> If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
> hate ignorance.
>

You hate America so much, you can't even have a little fun with a play on
words. Sheesh! Take it easy dude, life's much too short to come unraveled by
wishful thinking.

 

I think that what Bill is saying here is, if you are going to complain about
how your country is being run, you should try standing in defense of it
first, then complain later. At least Kerry got that part right.




"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41194CD7.B08DDD56@***.net...
> By the way you write I can say you haven't give up a couple of
> years for your country. Like I have in the ARMY. You're just dead
> weight!
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > I think Dan Quayle was thinking of you when he said:
> >
> > " What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being
> > very wasteful. How true that is."