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

On Sep 21, 11:17*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
vtcapo wrote:
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.

Certainly capable of out witting you.

Of course you are (but not capable of recognizing that 'outwitting'
isn't two words').



Still won't reveal his vocation.

Still won't reveal his identity. *Hiding in Mom's basement?

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

Hiding in Mom's basement? She lives in Florida, no basement. Freddy
why don't you tell us why you have your posts removed after 6 days.
Afraid Big Brother will keep you on file or is it your checkered
past in the MIC?

RT
PS You can always tell when someone is losing an argument. They start
correcting your spelling. "Outwitting" who knew... who cares.
PPS Your ending phrases....... How about something new.....