Where's the Party? (It's at Your Local Insurgency Booth)

On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power.

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).



Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.



We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.



Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories.

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.



Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

What's left to say. We answered each others question. It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

RT

On Sep 20, 3:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power.

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).

Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.

We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.

Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories.

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.

Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

What's left to say. We answered each others question. * It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

No, you didn't and that was fine for me, since it firmly established
your ignorance. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Still have reading comprehension problems. One more time, anyone who
supports our current expenditure on defense, $515,400,000,000 (more
than the other top 12 countries combined) either works for the
Defense Industry, is a Hawk or a fool. Since all apply to YOU and this
fact seems to escape you, I will add the word ignorant to your
description. And I am being kind........

RT

On Sep 20, 11:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power.

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).

Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.

We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.

Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories.

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.

Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

What's left to say. We answered each others question. * It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

No, you didn't and that was fine for me, since it firmly established
your ignorance. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Still have reading comprehension problems.

Yes. *I'm sure everyone has noticed your problem with that by now.



One more time, anyone who
supports our current expenditure on defense, $515,400,000,000 (more
than the other top 12 countries combined) *either works for the
Defense Industry, is a Hawk or a fool.

Oh, I see you've added a third category. *It's as stupid as the other
two, but I suppose any change would have to be an improvement in your
case.



Since all apply to YOU and this
fact seems to escape you, I will add the word ignorant to your
description. And I am being kind........

What you're being is kind of stupid (for a very large value of 'kind
of').

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? *

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. *Both
seem fine words to describe you.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Reading comprehension is definitely your short suit.

In reference to my statements regarding going from a guns to a butter
economy and riding ourselves from the strangle hold the MIC has on our
economy with its $515,400,000,000-defense budget.

Your replies:

Yeah, it's not, because most of us recognize that destroying the
industrial and research base is NOT a viable way to 'fix' the
economy.

Yeah, just imagine! International affairs go to hell in a hand
basket, the world becomes a much more dangerous place, and we get
WWIII. Read some history. Pay attention to what happens when the US
decides to go Isolationist.

How do you do otherwise once you give up the ability to act on the
International stage?

And in reference to my statement:

Are YOU paranoid about us giving up our big stick?

Your reply:

You bet your ass I am. The world is a bad neighborhood.

If those are not the statements of a Hawk nothing is. You can always
tell a Hawk because they try to win their argument through fear and
then of course demeaning the messenger.

WWIII, the world is a dangerous place, destroying the industrial and
research base and god forbid Isolationism. Talk about being a
paranoid loon!

The fact remains, my argument supports the reduction of the Defense
budget where we (the people) are not ruined due to its strangle hold
on our economy.

Your argument…. Keep the status quo..

Frankly you have nothing to stand on.

RT

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: I've expressed no opinion on that topic. I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: I've expressed no opinion on that topic. I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: I've expressed no opinion on that topic. I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. Both
seem fine words to describe you.


Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

Looks like Capo got schooled.



--
"Every living thing out there that walks, flies or squats in the
mud, wants to kill you and eat your eyes for Ju-Ju B's"

On Sep 20, 4:12*pm, "HVAC" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:3m0f9652vsvt3ilffdge3dvrfuujnvti4r@4ax .com...







Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. *Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Ouch! *That's gonna leave a mark.

Looks like Capo got schooled.

--
"Every living thing out there that walks, flies or squats in the
mud, wants to kill you and eat your eyes for Ju-Ju B's"

Schooled? Have you checked the stars lately.....
Bawhahahahahahahaha....

More than one person thinks I nailed Freddy Boy....

RT

"vtcapo" wrote in message
...

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

Looks like Capo got schooled.


Schooled? Have you checked the stars lately.....
Bawhahahahahahahaha....

More than one person thinks I nailed Freddy Boy....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You want to nail a GUY?

You forget that it's not the 60's anymore, and your
'experiment' days are suppossed to be over?






--
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

On Sep 21, 1:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power.

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).

Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.

We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.

Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories.

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.

Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

What's left to say. We answered each others question. * It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

No, you didn't and that was fine for me, since it firmly established
your ignorance. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Still have reading comprehension problems.

Yes. *I'm sure everyone has noticed your problem with that by now.

One more time, anyone who
supports our current expenditure on defense, $515,400,000,000 (more
than the other top 12 countries combined) *either works for the
Defense Industry, is a Hawk or a fool.

Oh, I see you've added a third category. *It's as stupid as the other
two, but I suppose any change would have to be an improvement in your
case.

Since all apply to YOU and this
fact seems to escape you, I will add the word ignorant to your
description. And I am being kind........

What you're being is kind of stupid (for a very large value of 'kind
of').

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? *

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. *Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Reading comprehension is definitely your short suit.

You appear to have the problem right but the location wrong.







In reference to my statements regarding going from a guns to a butter
economy and riding ourselves from the strangle hold the MIC has on our
economy with its $515,400,000,000-defense budget.

Your replies:

Yeah, it's not, because most of us recognize that destroying the
industrial and research base is NOT a viable way to 'fix' the
economy.

Yeah, just imagine! *International affairs go to hell in a hand
basket, the world becomes a much more dangerous place, and we get
WWIII. *Read some history. *Pay attention to what happens when the US
decides to go Isolationist.

How do you do otherwise once you give up the ability to act on the
International stage?

And in reference to my statement:

Are YOU paranoid about us giving up our big stick?

Your reply:

You bet your ass I am. *The world is a bad neighborhood.

If those are not the statements of a Hawk nothing is. *You can always
tell a Hawk because they try to win their argument through fear and
then of course demeaning the messenger.

WWIII, the world is a dangerous place, destroying the industrial and
research base and god forbid Isolationism. *Talk about being a
paranoid loon!

The fact remains, my argument supports the reduction of the Defense
budget where we (the people) are not ruined due to its strangle hold
on our economy.

Your argument…. Keep the status quo..

Frankly you have nothing to stand on.

There's a lot of ground between your "dismantle the Military
Industrial Complex" and "the status quo".

Conclusion: *You're a simple-minded ****wit.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Reading comprehension still an issue. If you are going to quote me...
"dismantle the Military Industrial Complex" make sure I said it in the
first place. Never said dismantle the MIC. But I repeatedly said that
the defense budget needs to be reduced so it does not continue to
cripple our economy. Are all Hawks that ignorant not to know that the
way the MIC continues to thrive, the only way it can lubricate its
wheels are through acts of WAR?

So Freddy boy why don't you come clean and tell us what part of the
MIC you worked for. Or are you embarrassed?

RT

On Sep 21, 4:50*am, "HVAC" wrote:
"vtcapo" wrote in message

...



As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.

Looks like Capo got schooled.

Schooled? *Have you checked the stars lately.....
Bawhahahahahahahaha....

More than one person thinks I nailed Freddy Boy....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You want to nail a GUY?

You forget that it's not the 60's anymore, and your
'experiment' days are suppossed to be over?

--
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

Our course HVAC would come to that conclusion. Being unable to get a
date with the opposite sex he has switched sides and is continually
focused on cock and buggery..............Right Sgall?

RT

On Sep 21, 10:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power.

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).

Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.

We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.

Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories..

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.

Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

What's left to say. We answered each others question. * It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

No, you didn't and that was fine for me, since it firmly established
your ignorance. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Still have reading comprehension problems.

Yes. *I'm sure everyone has noticed your problem with that by now..

One more time, anyone who
supports our current expenditure on defense, $515,400,000,000 (more
than the other top 12 countries combined) *either works for the
Defense Industry, is a Hawk or a fool.

Oh, I see you've added a third category. *It's as stupid as the other
two, but I suppose any change would have to be an improvement in your
case.

Since all apply to YOU and this
fact seems to escape you, I will add the word ignorant to your
description. And I am being kind........

What you're being is kind of stupid (for a very large value of 'kind
of').

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? *

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different..

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different..

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different..

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. *Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Reading comprehension is definitely your short suit.

You appear to have the problem right but the location wrong.

In reference to my statements regarding going from a guns to a butter
economy and riding ourselves from the strangle hold the MIC has on our
economy with its $515,400,000,000-defense budget.

Your replies:

Yeah, it's not, because most of us recognize that destroying the
industrial and research base is NOT a viable way to 'fix' the
economy.

Yeah, just imagine! *International affairs go to hell in a hand
basket, the world becomes a much more dangerous place, and we get
WWIII. *Read some history. *Pay attention to what happens when the US
decides to go Isolationist.

How do you do otherwise once you give up the ability to act on the
International stage?

And in reference to my statement:

Are YOU paranoid about us giving up our big stick?

Your reply:

You bet your ass I am. *The world is a bad neighborhood.

If those are not the statements of a Hawk nothing is. *You can always
tell a Hawk because they try to win their argument through fear and
then of course demeaning the messenger.

WWIII, the world is a dangerous place, destroying the industrial and
research base and god forbid Isolationism. *Talk about being a
paranoid loon!

The fact remains, my argument supports the reduction of the Defense
budget where we (the people) are not ruined due to its strangle hold
on our economy.

Your argument…. Keep the status quo..

Frankly you have nothing to stand on.

There's a lot of ground between your "dismantle the Military
Industrial Complex" and "the status quo".

Conclusion: *You're a simple-minded ****wit.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Reading comprehension still an issue.

Yes, and we've continued to notice your problem in that regard.



So Freddy boy why don't you come clean and tell us what part of the
MIC you worked for. *Or are you embarrassed?

So when are you going to grow a pair and start posting under your real
name, nymskull?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

Usual diversionary ploy, avoid the question by posing your own.

Just as I thought, embarrASSed......

RT
PS At least you pulled out a new phase from your book. Or did you
consult HVAC? Bwahahahahahahah.....

On Sep 21, 1:09*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:58*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:55*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:06*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:

Reading comprehension..... I rest my case.

Rest it? *Your 'case' is pretty much comatose, nymskull.

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

Still avoiding my question?...... hmmmm ......Nailed it!

And you're still avoiding mine. *You're a ****wit.

Heaven forfend that anyone who actually knows anything about the
issues be allowed to have an opinion, nymskull. *This is rather the
same thinking that says that anyone involved in nuclear engineering or
physics should be ignored when discussing nuclear power..

Someone just blinked....

Did you? *I didn't notice (nor care).

Thank you for answering my question. *

I didn't.

We now know who was buttering your bread.

No doubt you 'know' all sorts of things based on no evidence other
than your own delusions.

Actually the fact that you worked
in the Defense Industry was obvious. You didn't even whince at the
$515,400,000,000 *allocated to the MIC. You defended it.. Only someone
who like I said, has his bread buttered by the industry or an absolute
fool would take that stance. *You fit into both categories.

I see. *So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either dishonest, a fool, or both. *Good to know. *It's proof that YOU
are a fool, regardless of what others may be.

Now does that answer your question?

No, it does not. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

What's left to say. We answered each others question. * It was good
for me. It wasn't good for you?

No, you didn't and that was fine for me, since it firmly established
your ignorance. *Let me try again:

Still waiting for your justification for categorizing me as a 'hawk'
based on what I've written.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Still have reading comprehension problems.

Yes. *I'm sure everyone has noticed your problem with that by now.

One more time, anyone who
supports our current expenditure on defense, $515,400,000,000 (more
than the other top 12 countries combined) *either works for the
Defense Industry, is a Hawk or a fool.

Oh, I see you've added a third category. *It's as stupid as the other
two, but I suppose any change would have to be an improvement in your
case.

Since all apply to YOU and this
fact seems to escape you, I will add the word ignorant to your
description. And I am being kind........

What you're being is kind of stupid (for a very large value of 'kind
of').

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? *

1) Where did I say I support our current expenditure on defense?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

2) Where have I said anything to support your claim about where I work
or what I do?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

3) Where have I expressed any opinion that would support your claim
that I'm a 'hawk' of any stripe?

Hint: *I've expressed no opinion on that topic. *I've only expressed
an opinion about your stupidity, which is something quite different.

As for 'fool' and 'ignorant', I've expressed opinions on those. *Both
seem fine words to describe you.

Reading comprehension is definitely your short suit.

You appear to have the problem right but the location wrong.

In reference to my statements regarding going from a guns to a butter
economy and riding ourselves from the strangle hold the MIC has on our
economy with its $515,400,000,000-defense budget.

Your replies:

Yeah, it's not, because most of us recognize that destroying the
industrial and research base is NOT a viable way to 'fix' the
economy.

Yeah, just imagine! *International affairs go to hell in a hand
basket, the world becomes a much more dangerous place, and we get
WWIII. *Read some history. *Pay attention to what happens when the US
decides to go Isolationist.

How do you do otherwise once you give up the ability to act on the
International stage?

And in reference to my statement:

Are YOU paranoid about us giving up our big stick?

Your reply:

You bet your ass I am. *The world is a bad neighborhood.

If those are not the statements of a Hawk nothing is. *You can always
tell a Hawk because they try to win their argument through fear and
then of course demeaning the messenger.

WWIII, the world is a dangerous place, destroying the industrial and
research base and god forbid Isolationism. *Talk about being a
paranoid loon!

The fact remains, my argument supports the reduction of the Defense
budget where we (the people) are not ruined due to its strangle hold
on our economy.

Your argument…. Keep the status quo..

Frankly you have nothing to stand on.

There's a lot of ground between your "dismantle the Military
Industrial Complex" and "the status quo".

Conclusion: *You're a simple-minded ****wit.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Reading comprehension still an issue.

Yes, and we've continued to notice your problem in that regard.

So Freddy boy why don't you come clean and tell us what part of the
MIC you worked for. *Or are you embarrassed?

So when are you going to grow a pair and start posting under your real
name, nymskull?

Usual diversionary ploy, avoid the question by posing your own.

Which I note you avoid.



Just as I thought, embarrASSed......

Don't flatter yourself. *You haven't demonstrated any capability to
think.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Certainly capable of out witting you. Still won't reveal his
vocation. Hummmmm.... Arms dealer?

RT