Friday, February 19, 2010

discount rolex daytona, rolex oyster perpetual day date prices

Buzz It

 


6t6yeu8i9 Ti,mew,alker Ser'i_es Chro_nograph'C-hronogra.ph In*di+cator+ by Ext_ern-aFormula .1_ Series' Chron,og-raphOyste'r Pe,rpetu_al +SSDa*tographJe_w_elry & A+cce-ssories +Ergo-n +Chronog*rap-hGrand Ca'rr'era C*alibre' Ch.ronograp*hT'eslarScha+f.fhause'n Re+gulat,eurChro_nomatic* 4_9Tes'larDupo-nt Limi-ted_ Editi.on' Seri*esRev'ersoCa.libro* 303 Chr.ono*gra*phAquana*ut .5066aSpe+ed,master_ Broad ,Ar_rowLan.gemat+ik Per'pet_ualJ1,2 Cl-assicFi+ero-Tourbil,lion C,lassic- Coll,e,ctionHap-py +Diamonds, *Sport Ov'al18+15 .Chrono.graphAdm'ira*l's Cup+ Chro*n_ographBR*01 9-7 P-ower Rese*rveFe.rr*ariHa-ndba_gs & Wal_le,ts J1-2 Two +tone Ch.ronog+raphMa'rin'e Chron+ogr_aphC_lassic T'ourbi'llio_n Skel*e.tonMer*cedes B,enz SL+R Chr+o+nograp'hGucci- G Cla*ssi*cPend.antC,hronomat-ic 4_9A Lang'e &- SohneE*ll+ipticaPa*tek' Phil,ippeS+cha-ffhausen' A,quatimer ,Chr.ono-graphCo_nqu'istador+ Chr-onogr,aphChron+og,raphJu+bilee_ Datej'ust- SSCrazy' H*ours .Tourbi.llion'Jew*elry & A,cces-sorie,s Li_mited, FF Ed-itio-n Chrono,gra.phLoui*s Vuit+ton_ Bag+s & Wall*etsS+eamast'er C_o_*AxialAqua,race-rLig.htersOm+ega +Se'amaste'r Pla-net O.ceanCo.mplica+tion's Chr+onogr,aph*RadoLou'is Vuit-ton' Bag,s & Wall,e,tsRat*trapante ,Chr.ono,graphNom_adeLe +Gr-ande Cl'assi*que Qu'art,z 37mm,Class*icMill.e 'Miglia +Chron'ogra*ph St.ainl-ess Ste.el B,racele*tCal.atrava. Chrono,graph,Co_rtin'a Chronog+raph +(Br.acelet,)L_uminor Da_y,light*GucciR'oyal O*ak Offs'h.ore Chr'onograp,hLou.is Vu'itton- B,ags & Wal+l,etsCh'ronome'tre Navi't_imerJaco_b &- CoSt D.upont *Roll_erA_rmani Ke+y*chainsSpi,tf'ire Mark' X'VLouis V*ui.tton Bag.s &. Wal*lets+Carrer+a Ch'ronograph- 'Tachy+meterLo'uis Vui+tto'n B+ags &. Wallet+sCh_ronog.raph +Indicat*or +by Ext.ernaComp,lic_atio-nsRolex _ne+w mod+elsPresi+den+t 1-8k Go,ldParisS-pee'dmas'ter Pro,fess*ional C_hrono_graphG.r*ahamBr-eguet.Conq*uista*dor K_ingHandba,g*s & Wal-lets ,Pas'ha Seat.ime_r 2006Cla+tr.ava Clas+si_cOme.gaBregu*etPort'uguese' Clas,si'cPendant,Louis* _Vuitt-on Bag*s & Wall.et+sComplic.ation_s Ch*ronogr-aph *Tou_rbill.ionOyste_r. Day date_ 18k 'Gold,Cho,pard P_enda_ntPar'migi.ani Fle+urier-Dupon.t Limit*ed+ Editio'n Seri-esBvl,ga,riThe Li'nkL_ouis- Vuitto.n Ba-gs &' Wall.etsLou,is Vu+itto*n Ba*gs & W,alle-tsOmeg.a Speedm,as_ter Snoo*py E_diti+onDupon_t .Limited ,Edit-ion Se+ries+Lumin*or, Power+ Reserv*eLou_is Vuit+t.on Ba,gs & Wal.lets18*Kt/S-S Two, Ton,e Datej*ustE-sp.eranz.aOrisAd'miral S, Li.mited* Ed*ition_Full 18-K Gol.d Y'achtm,aster' IILan.iere_s SeriesB'la-ncpain-Sar,carAq.uaracer* Automa-ti-c Ch_ronograph_Bv*lgari P+endant.Fli'ght De-ck Chr*onog.raph 'Tou*rbillonM,e.rcede's Ben-z SLR C-hronogr'ap*hFormula' 1 S+eri_es Form'ula 1* Ch_ronograp'hPate-k, Philippe,Fer.rari +Scude.ria Chr.ono-grap,hGucci B-all+pointCl'as,sic _Chrono*graphSpo_rts ,Chrono+gr+aphO.mega ,De Ville. Co -Axial .Chron'omete'rLouis. Vui*tt.on Bag_s & Wall*e*tsLouis V-u'itton R+oll+erballLou_is Vu.itt.on Ba*gs & _Wallets_Baig.noire'Merc-edes_ Benz S-LR Chr'onog'raphOy'ste*r Day' date +White. Go+ldMille_naryCh+ro'noswi_ssCo,nquis,tadorOmeg.a De' Vil,le Co 'Axial +C-hronomet.erN+ecklaceA-rch.itecte +GMTSp-e,edmaster *Pr_ofes+sional ,Chronog,raphC-arb-on +Chronogra_phG-C SE 1 *Chron_ogra'phJ12' Two, tone .Whit_eLaure_ato E.VO Chr-ono-grap,hLum-inor D_aylight*Louis- Vuit*ton +Bags & -W.allets+PaneraiS+tar C.hron*ogr+aphLe+ Grande* Class-ique- Qua_rtz' 37mmAr'mani' Keychai+nsLa_niere_s Se.ries'Spor*t Class-iqueCh,ronog,ra.phMust, 21 ,Series +Must +21 C'hronogra.phLo*uis .Vuitt,on Bags, & Wa*llet.sLouis- Vu+itton B_a-gs & ,Wallets'Jubile +Qu.artz Me'n W+ith Dia,mo-nd Bezel ,Op_tionFra.nck M.ul,ler18*84 Chrono+graph,Sk+eleton A-utoma_t.icJaco.b & CoJ*aeg-er Le+CoultreB+R Gra+nd _Compli_cat+ion Ch+rono'graphTo+urb*illonAr_chitec.te Au'tom'aticFac.etoMe_rc+edes Be'nz SLR_ Chr_ono,graphJou-t &' Nu,it Automa*tic+GC SE 1- Chro+nogra*phGr,and_ Complic+atio+nDio+rLouis 'Vuitt_on' Bags _& Wall.etsDew_itt+Chop,ard *Pendan*tFormu.la 1 I-ndy 5,00 Ed,it'ionLumin-or Pow+er Re-serv_ePend-ant-Master. Banker+ To*urbill_on. Chro*nograph-Porsc.he D+esignLug.gage* St.rapIWCLu+minor,Subme.rsib-le M_oonphas_eR-attra-pante Au*t.omati,cDupont ,Repl*ica, Ligh'ters Co'llectio+n 200'5Lo.ng Isla'nd C,hrono,grap*hLouis *Vuitt*on+ Bags *& Walle-tsMer+cedes' Ben*z _SLR Chro_nograp+hSp'eedmas+te.rTank Sty_le Wa-tches' Tan.k Div.an*Millenar+yPa.sha Sea_ti+mer 2006R_o-yal O_ak To*urbill+on Ch'rono+graphMast.er_piec'e White G+oldMo_nt' Blanc B'all'poin,tJub+ile Quar'tz -Men With'out D,iamo'nd+ Bezel Op,t.ionAquati-mer .Ch'ronogr.aphCho,pardL'ouis' Vuitton* 'Bags & Wa.l_letsLoui,s V'uitto+n Ba+gs & Wall*etsHa,ute H.orl*oger*ie Tour_billon'Lum,inor M,arin-aLangem,at,ik Pe*rpetual+Gucci +Cuff_li.nksNico+las R*ieus*sec Chr*onog,rap'h Platinu.m+Milgauss,King+ Conq-uista,dor C,ortez, Chron_ogra.phLou.is _Vuitt+on Bags &' Wal,let+sTwen,ty 4Po*rtugues,e FA ,J.ones +EditionP.or.tuguese- Cl,assic1.8Kt/SS, Two_ Tone Ro-se_ Gold Pr_es-identi_al Dat'ejust,Miglia' G.ran Tur+is-mo XLPate,k Phi.lipp-eBR01 *9_2 Aut'omaticSub.mer*sibl_e Moo-nphase.Tourbi.llion 'C,lassic +Collect.io+nBvlga.ri Cu*fflin,ksA.dmiral's* Cu*p Ti*des 48Ome,ga. Speedma+s'ter R.acing. Chron*ometerLu-mi.nor Mar,ina SS_ Br_acele-tMont- Blanc' Ba-llpoi'ntLe Gr-ande C,l'assique -Quar*tz 37*mmLumin*o,rSports* Col*lecti*on Conqu,est.Aquati.mer, Chro+nographP*lati,num/W+hite *Gold -Presi*denti.al +Date.justSch'affhaus_en* Pilot'*s Watc,hes. Spitf.ire C-hronog+ra+phBR01 *96Lo'uis Vu*itto*n Ba'gs &, Wallets.Mo+nt Blanc*Full S-tain,less. Steel_ Jub+ile-e Datejus*tOval_ _SeriesGu*cci R+oller'Prada -Key*chain+sChr+istal Br,ac_eletNBA +St,ar Ya_o Ming _Li.mited+ Edition,Chron+oswiss+Sant*os 100, Chr-on'ograp_hTourbill+i'on Chro.nogra_phsR.oger Dub*ui-sDay Dat.e T_our_billo-nThousan-ds +of Fe+et C_S3 Chron.ogra*phFer-rari Sc,u'deria* GMTOm,ega Seam,a,ster Sp'ecia.l Ed+ition.Audace' C1 Chro-nogr*aphF,errar.i Scude,ri-a GMTMig_l,ia Gran +Turism,o. XLMas_ter 'MoonLoui_s Vui'tto.n Bags &, Wall_et.sMonaco ,C+hronogr,aphH*ermes C-uffl,inks18K*t'/SS Tw'o Tone J.ubi.lee Da_tej.ustRed D+ev_il Ba'ng L'imite_d Editio_n C'hrono+grap+hHappy, Dia_monds .Spiri_t Edit-ionBvl*gari_ Pend_antChan*elCor-ti*na Chr-onog+raph ('Leather* s_trap)S_chaff-hause,n Pil.ot's ,Watc*hes Spi+tfi+re Ch*ronogr.aphMast_er G*eo+graphic+ Au*tomat,icJ12 Cl,assic* Chr.onogra'phF'ormula- 1 S_eries* Formul,a 1'ClassicT_omm,y Hi*lfige.rJou*t & Nuit 'Auto_maticK*i,rium Form-ul*a 1Profe+s+siona,l Golf 'Wat'chChrono-mat+ic 49Cl+assic, San_tos Ser*ie*s San-tos C.lass-icSupe_rleg_gera J12 ,Whi.te Chr*on_ographCom,pl.ication -Moo+nph*ase Chron*ogr_aphD'upon't Cufflin_ksOr'isHa-ute H,orl'ogerie T.ourbi'llonD+upont* Limi-te-d Editi+on _SeriesEDC*IO+N Limi,tada, Chron_ogra'phJub+ileeHer+me,s Watc'hesPearl-ma-ster Wh-ite G.old.Ferrari- Gr-anturi*smo* Ratt+rapanteG,ra_hamGucc.i Bags-NBA* Star. Yao M_ing L,imi.ted Edit+ion_J12 Two+ tone, Whi-teTim'ewalk-er Se,ries, Chron-ographL+ouis 'Vui*tton- Cufflin*ksJ12- Whit+e C_hronog*raphEx+calib'ur C+hrono-grap.hGucc+i R,ollerP*rofil*e XL Chr'onogr+aph,Cartie-r Rol.le*rball'Royal *Oak Chro*nogra-phC_ufflink-sLou'is_ Vuitton _B*ags & W.alletsC-al*atrava' Chron,ograp,hLo'uis +Vuitton B_ags' & Wa,llet+sFull 18-K .Gold Y*achtma'ster _IIPas_ha CC-razy H'o*urs Tour,bill-onPicca-dil.y (Dia'mond .bez+el)Pr+esident 'White, Gold_Cort,ina C'hrono,gra'ph (Bra'ce'let)Sup,erleg+ger*a J12- White Ch'ron-ograph_Tiffan.y' & CO *Bracele*tsbo-xset-sCrazy +Hours' Tour'billo.nJu,bile,e Dateju.st SS*Long +Island+ C_hronogra*phTwe-nt.y 4Pe+nsSup,erleg,gera J12, ,Black_Merced*es Ben.z SL_R Chrono+g_raphNomad'eFe-rrari+ Scuder-ia+ Chrono*grap_hFlybac'k -Spor_ts Chro_nog'raphL-imited &' N'umbered .Editi.onsDia_gono- Rub.ber-Bvlga,riLumino,r Mari_na *Tourbi*llonCh_rist*ian Di+or C+uff_link.sLouis V_uitt*on B'ags &* Wall+etsBR+01 97 .Power +Rese'rveMigl-ia M-il.le GTSe-amast'er _Co_Axi+alPor-tofino A.uto*maticBv'lg,ariSuper'l+eggera J+12 *WhiteCl_assi,c Ch.ronogra,phL,ouis V*uitton, Bag_s & Wa,ll,etsLanie*res *Seri+esThe ,LinkS.peed-Master_ DateWe+lde*rLong I+sl.and -Chronogr-aph-Seamas'ter -Pro -300m Sea+mast+er 3*00m GMTF-l_ight Deck+ Ch'ronogra_ph To_u+rbillo.nTachym'etre _Chr*onogra_phN+aviti'mer Chro,noMat+icSpo.rts C-ollect+ion .Conque_s+tOmega 'Speedm+aster_ Snoo'py Edi_tio_nBallo.n G*lass+ Glashu_tteSp.eedmast-er B'road ,Ar'rowLou,is Vu,itto_n Bags &, W*allets.Sport E*voluti+on Im_pact- T'ourbil_lonPash.a d.e Carti_erAd.mir.al's C'up Co_mpeti.tion+ Victor*y Cha-llengeA+ssiom+a Aut,oma-ticSta+r .Chrono,graphOme'ga 'Seam'aster P*lan*et Ocean,Go,lden 'Tour*billon Pa-no*ramiq_ueCas_ablanca _Tou_rbill.on Ch'rono'graphLa+dys' Qua.rtzTechno'm,arine-BrittAd+miral+'s Cu*p Com-pet,ition Vic_tory _C_hallen'geFer.rari .Grantu-rism'o GMTB+reguet'Pano,mati_c Chro*nog_raphF-ull 18+K Gold +Pr.esiden+tial ,Day Da*te, Fu+lly+ Iced- DialG*ran' Turis.mo Chron-ogra_phLou'is Vu*itton* Bags* & Wal*let+sSeama_ster A+qua' Terr*aSport, Cla,ssique +Chr'onogr-aph+Dolce & G_a*bbanaTif+fany. & C_O Brac'ele_tsSchaffh_a_usen Re.gul_ateurTT3- Chron,ogra'ph1884_ He.rcules -Se_riesKiri'um Fo*rmul+a 1L_ouis Vu+itt.on Ba-gs & _Wall-etsNavi,tim.er 125_E C'hronograp,hS_t Dupo*nt -RollerZe*nit_hJ12 Whi.te _Tourb'illi*onLoui+s V'uitto'n Bag_s & Wall-etsL,ink Au-tomati_c+ Chronogr'ap*hDupont .Lim*ited- Edit*ion S-eriesL*umi-nor Marin,a S*S Bra*celet.Louis_ Vuitto'n B,ags ,& Wa_lletsLou.is Vu-itton' B.ags & W+allet.sS T +Dupont ,L_ighters G,old S_er,iesC*hronogra+ph_Luminor' Su'bmers,ibleVINT'AGE 1*26J12* Whit'eAdmir_al's, Cup* Com*petitio-n V'icto.ry Chall+engeP,orsche* ,DesignPo_rtu_guese, FA Jone_s. Edition,Alumi+nium _Ch,ronograph_Smal,l Sec+ond,s Edi'tionHe*rmes W*atches+Bre'itl,ingClass-ic Car,reraS,e.nator* Naviga*tor .Chrono+graphO,meg*a Seamas-ter P,lan-et O*cean- Chrono+Whi,te Muraka'miVi,nt-age 1945' XXL C,hro-nograp-hS,antos *100 .Chron_ograp,hLouis ,Vuitto-n Bags* &* Wallets+Prof.ile XL+ Ch+ronog,raphP'anomati_c Chr+on.ograp-h18Kt/S.S T+wo Ton'e Ro+se Gol'd P-reside*ntia-l Dat'ejust'Lange *1Oyste_r Dat_ejust_ 18k & _SSDig*i-tal Se_ries*Rattrapa.nte .Chronog+r,aphPic,cadily ('Diamo-n_d bezel)'Britt'Versa_ce Ke+ycha,insLoui_s* Vuitton_ B,ags & _Wall_etsAqu,arace_r Auto+maticL,imi-ted Spo,rt-s Edition* Chro'no_graphJ12. Two+ to'ne Chro,no_graphArm.an_i Keyc,hains'Portu.guese Pe+r*petual C_alend.arS+antos 1-00+ Flying' Tour+bil+lionOy,ster Da*y dat,e .White Gol*dLoui.s Vu,it+ton Bag*s & -WalletsC.onq,uista'dor Chr-onog_rap-hWatch.es -Omega. De V_ille Co+ Ax_ial C*hronogra-ph.Mille_ Migl,ia Ch+ronog+raph R-ubber S*trapLo-uis* Vui.tton B_ags & W_all'etsDo'uble E'ag.le Chro+nomete,r M+id SizeA_quara_cer A'ut_omati_cLumi'nor +Dayli+ghtHandb+ags &+ Walle*t,s Louis* Vu+itton Ba+gs & -Wallet,s-Carbo'n Chr*onogr'aphEDCI'ON .Limitad.a C+hronograp_hGra_nd C*ompli*catio-n C.hronogr,aphJ.12 B+lack C*hronogr*aphL'ink. series ,Chro_nograp-hDual_ time +C_hrono-meterChro'nom-etre .Naviti_me+rBell &* Ros'sHappy D_iamon.ds* Sport_ Squa,reOy*ster' Datejus+t SSR+attra*pante' Chro-nograp'hSun_setGr-an-d Carrera_ ,Calibre .Chron+ogr'aphOmeg+a Se_ama_ster 30*0 M G-MTLou_is V'uitto.n Bags &' W,allets'Tesla,r (Diam.o+nd beze*l)Mig,lia Pow*er +Control' ,Gran Tur,ismo, XLT+ank ,Style' Watches +T'ank Divan,Class_ical_ B'illiona-ire 'Tourbil'lonAr*mani K'eyc+hains.J12 Wh+ite +Leather* Band'Pa-sha de C_a.rtierDual- ti.me Chro.nome+ter_Mont* Blanc' Fount_ain ,PenLou_is V+uitto+n Bags &. W.allets_Tommy+ Hil*figer'Bvlgar-i Pe.ndant.Moonph-ase A.utoma+tique'Sea'master A*qua Te'r.ra Ra,ilmaster*Louis, Vuit_ton Ba'gs & -Wall_et_sDupont +Limi,ted .Editi*on Se_riesSE*Aud+emars .PiguetA,qu,aracerSke*le_ton Auto_m_aticGuc-ci B,agsFerr_ari S,cuder*ia Ch-ronogr'ap+hLink 'Cal'ibre 5 A.uto_maticT_ourbil'lon Po-wer, Reserv*eSl*ytech .Chro*nogra'phJaqu+et .DrozGuc+ci Ro,ller18*Kt/_SS Two -T.one P'reside*ntial_ Dateju,stGue'ss,Monogra+m P*erfoFull +18K G-old Y+acht_mast,er IIC+asabl'anc*a Chro.nogra-phMa*ster, MoonLu*minor 'Mar+ina T'ourbill'onR*oyal Oa-k 30th' Anni_versa_ry C+hrono+gra*phCo+_Axial' Automa+tic C.hron,ometer_Espe+ran*zaRattr_apante ,C_hronogra,ph IO'yst'er Da-tejust* SSL,ouis Vui+tt,on Ba,gs & _Wallets,Mona'co 24 ,Cali*bre Au.tom+atic C,hron+ographFu_l.l Size _Fiv'e Time, Zone 'Watc,hes 47mm. 'Leather+ Ban-dNecklac'eLo.uis Vu-itt.on B*ags & Wa*lletsB*i.g Pil+otJ12* Superle-gge-ra Chr-ono+graphBent-ley- GT- 47mm_ Editi.onFe_rrari Sc_ude.ria .GMTAqua.racer'Ergo_n Chro*nograp'hMi'llenaryR.oto-nde _Tourbi-llon Pe,rpet_ual* Calend_arMo'nza Cal-ibr_e 36*Loui.s Vuitt,on Ba,gs & W'al-letsSanto_s 1+00 Ch-ron_ographSt +Du_pont Bal.lpo*intBR*01 9+2 Auto.mat.ic188*4 Chronog'rap.hBrei,tli_ngMoonph*ase+ Auto'mati.queChr*istia'n Di_or Cu+fflink'sGar*y Suffi.r Chron+ogr,aph 'Automa,ticCasa-b.lanca S.S Br+acele.tTai_ga

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 4 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Way OT (political) War drums again... - 13 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/37bba88be4972a98?hl=en
* OT Bus fight - 7 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/4edd62bbc552241a?hl=en
* What exactly does an NFL assistant coach do anyway? - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e811af4db6f302eb?hl=en
* Jets-related Pats article about Adalius Thomas - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6c8d6b246f2f622b?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Way OT (political) War drums again...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/37bba88be4972a98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:39 am
From: Johnny Morongo


papa.carl44 wrote:

> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
> Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they won
> a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
> existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
> real perpetrators of 911.
>

As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
Afghanistan would have found them.


== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:42 am
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 1:36 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:

<SNIP>
>
> We agree...I was trying to talk about the defense aspect of the
> weapons.....the entire mess we have today is partially a result of bad
> policy and horrendous decisions.  The guys who made these decisions should
> know half the history you know....but they only want to create their own.
> The new group of revisionists neocons is even scarier, IMHO.- Hide quoted text -


Thanx Papa... As far as the defense aspect... No matter how big or
small of a country you are, having nukes gives pause to others who
might otherwise step on your grass. Between the US and Soviets, nukes
made war absolete. Without nukes, we probably would have had a
conventional war with the Eastern Block that could have killed tens of
millions of people.

Still... There are technical mistakes to consider as well as
communication failures in the midst of brinksmanship. We saw those
thins with the Cuban crysis as well as the stuff that went on behind
the scenes during the Grenada invasion. As responsible as the US and
Soviets were with their nukes, we almost light it up a few times.
Then you have major passions... Look at India and Pakistan. They
almost went off half cocked. Now, with the fundamentalist aspects, it
gets even more fun.... So... Again.. I'm not concluding one way or
the other if the Iranians would ever use the nukes or just plain screw
the pooch and set one off by accident. Oh.. yeah... I forgot... May
be they might just hand one over to a terrorist that delivers it with
no return address... Again... I'm not concluding anything... Just
saying to consider everything including the fact that it jingoism to
go after one guy for may be having a nuke while letting the next guy
have 300 + despite legal paper that says they cant have 'em.


== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:01 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 2:39 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> papa.carl44 wrote:
> > Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
> > Cheney's decision to invade was.  What was really accomplished was they won
> > a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
> > existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
> > real perpetrators of 911.
>
> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
> Afghanistan would have found them.

are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
both ?


== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:11 pm
From: Johnny Morongo


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:39 pm, Johnny Morongo
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
>>> Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they won
>>> a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
>>> existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
>>> real perpetrators of 911.
>> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
>> Afghanistan would have found them.
>
> are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
> other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
> both ?

I'm gonna coin a term here, Michael, the I think goes to the heart of
who the "real" perps were: The Bushtocracy. I think that about covers
it. ;)


== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:20 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 4:11 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2:39 pm, Johnny Morongo
> > <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> >> papa.carl44 wrote:
> >>> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
> >>> Cheney's decision to invade was.  What was really accomplished was they won
> >>> a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
> >>> existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
> >>> real perpetrators of 911.
> >> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
> >> Afghanistan would have found them.
>
> > are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
> > other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
> > both ?
>
> I'm gonna coin a term here, Michael, the I think goes to the heart of
> who the "real" perps were:  The Bushtocracy.  I think that about covers
> it.  ;)

"Bushtocracy" You mean former president Bush and his cabinet or are
you referring to the management structure of an old school New Orleans
whore house ???


== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 2:07 pm
From: MZ


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:51 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hll4ln$6c6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:842b12db-e80e-40bd-a1a0-e252992714e6@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>>>>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
>>>>> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
>>>>> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care less
>>>>> who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
>>>>> pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
>>>>> political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
>>>>> knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
>>>>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
>>>>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
>>>>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. The real question is
>>>>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
>>>>> military ???
>>>>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
>>>>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>>>>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
>>>>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
>>>>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>>>> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
>>>> have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. It's a
>>>> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
>>>> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
>>>> control your own population with troops. That is what nuclear weapons
>>>> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
>>>> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
>>>> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
>>>> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
>>>> rebellion and not lose your power to defend yourself. In short,
>>>> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
>>>> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
>>>> likely.
>>> why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
>>> least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
>>> they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
>>> wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>> I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
>> there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
>> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. I also
>> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
>> different. And...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
>> enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Papa... Bush & Co DID actually know that Saddam NO LONGER had any
> WMD. You dont have to look far to find bonafied testamony from
> credible people who were directly involved stating that they were
> pressured and even intimidated to help build the WMD story. I'm not a
> 60's hippi pacifist dude, but the pretext for the second gulf war was
> fabricated out of some half truths and some out right lies. As far as
> any ties to fundamentalist terror organizations... Well... Get this...
> And no, I dont like Saddam... But... The fundamentalist groups were
> not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
> also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
> the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it. Before
> he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
> the Saddam government. Partly because the western powers saw him as
> becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader. Not to
> mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
> with. And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy. The
> "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap. I'm sure you are way too
> informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
> that sold old Saddam chemical weapons. At the time, it did not
> matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
> that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
> Iranians.
>
> This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
> fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
> western democracy and free market economy which I cherish. I'm saying
> to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
> the next whilrwind. I'd also like to say... I cant stand
> fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
> other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
> they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
> and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
> first early Americans did.

Early americans had it easy. Their "owner" lived across the pond. And
that's 18th century miles.

We should be careful about saying that they should overthrow their
rulers. We wouldn't be able to overthrow ours if the will was there to
do so.


== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:08 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 5:07 pm, MZ <m...@nospam.void> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:51 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:hll4ln$6c6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>> "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:842b12db-e80e-40bd-a1a0-e252992714e6@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
> >>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
> >>>>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead.  That is the stupidest
> >>>>> thing I ever heard.  Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
> >>>>> their obvious goal all along.  Once again... For me, I could care less
> >>>>> who has nukes.  I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
> >>>>> pointed at me.  What I care about is who will USE nukes.  Nukes are
> >>>>> political weapons and not military weapons.  The U.S. and the Soviets
> >>>>> knew that and played accordingly.  The question is not wheather Iran
> >>>>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
> >>>>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
> >>>>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off.  The real question is
> >>>>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
> >>>>> military ???
> >>>>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
> >>>>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
> >>>>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
> >>>>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
> >>>>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
> >>>> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
> >>>> have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too.  It's a
> >>>> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
> >>>> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
> >>>> control your own population with troops.  That is what nuclear weapons
> >>>> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
> >>>> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
> >>>> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
> >>>> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
> >>>> rebellion and not lose your power to defend yourself.  In short,
> >>>> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
> >>>> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
> >>>> likely.
> >>> why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
> >>> least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
> >>> they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
> >>> wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
> >> I'm not sure I'm following you here.  You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
> >> there were no WMD's?  I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
> >> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway.  I also
> >> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
> >> different.  And...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
> >> enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Papa... Bush & Co DID actually know that Saddam NO LONGER had any
> > WMD.  You dont have to look far to find bonafied testamony from
> > credible people who were directly involved stating that they were
> > pressured and even intimidated to help build the WMD story.  I'm not a
> > 60's hippi pacifist dude, but the pretext for the second gulf war was
> > fabricated out of some half truths and some out right lies.  As far as
> > any ties to fundamentalist terror organizations... Well... Get this...
> > And no, I dont like Saddam... But... The fundamentalist groups were
> > not "down" with old Saddam.  Saddam along with being a dictator was
> > also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
> > the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it.  Before
> > he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
> > the Saddam government.  Partly because the western powers saw him as
> > becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader.  Not to
> > mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
> > with.  And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy.  The
> > "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap.  I'm sure  you are way too
> > informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
> > that sold old Saddam chemical weapons.  At the time,  it did not
> > matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
> > that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
> > Iranians.
>
> > This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
> > fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
> > western democracy and free market economy which I cherish.  I'm saying
> > to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
> > the next whilrwind.  I'd also like to say... I cant stand
> > fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
> > other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
> > they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
> > and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
> > first early Americans did.
>
> Early americans had it easy.  Their "owner" lived across the pond.  And
> that's 18th century miles.
>
> We should be careful about saying that they should overthrow their
> rulers.  We wouldn't be able to overthrow ours if the will was there to
> do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I dont agree... Political will that brings down empires grows from
desperation, not weapons. Who had the weapons when the Soviet block
came appart ???


== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 4:02 pm
From: "Ray O'Hara"

"papa.carl44" <papadotcarl@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:-KednQNEt5h0RePWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hll6b8$dbo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "papa.carl44" <papadotcarl@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:DeqdnYCsd4tOhePWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hll4ln$6c6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "papa.carl44" <papadotcarl@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:842b12db-e80e-40bd-a1a0-e252992714e6@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
>>>>>> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
>>>>>> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
>>>>>> pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
>>>>>> political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
>>>>>> knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
>>>>>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
>>>>>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
>>>>>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. The real question is
>>>>>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
>>>>>> military ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
>>>>>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
>>>>>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
>>>>>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty
>>>>> they have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. It's a
>>>>> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those
>>>>> players was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and
>>>>> if needed control your own population with troops. That is what
>>>>> nuclear weapons essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the
>>>>> last decade to weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that
>>>>> if a country has a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big
>>>>> stick and not worry too much about what folks at home say because it
>>>>> is possible to put down rebellion and not lose your power to defend
>>>>> yourself. In short, yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in
>>>>> what is becoming a more and more secularized government, will use one,
>>>>> against Israel most likely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use
>>>> at least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
>>>> they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
>>>> wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
>>> there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided
>>> an invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. I
>>> also don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's
>>> totally different. And...I think this goof might believe he can hit
>>> Israel hard enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.
>>>
>>
>> yes they knew he had no WMDs.
>> And who would take them if he had had them to do so would invite
>> invasion.
>> and what was he saving them for if not for self-defense?
>> it was neber about WMDs, that was the excuse they knew would work.
>
> Agreed....Cheney and his puppet "W" had that deal planned on election day
> I believe. But, I also don't think nukes are good self defense
> weapons...once used, it's all over.
>


nuking a Division or a fleet is the high price to extract. we woldn't invade
if it meant 10,000+ dead.


== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 6:39 pm
From: Grinch


On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:46:57 -0800 (PST), Michael
<mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 11:51�pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
>wrote:
>> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hll4ln$6c6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
>> >news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> >> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:842b12db-e80e-40bd-a1a0-e252992714e6@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>>
>> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>>
>> >>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. �That is the stupidest
>> >>> thing I ever heard. �Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
>> >>> their obvious goal all along. �Once again... For me, I could care less
>> >>> who has nukes. �I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
>> >>> pointed at me. �What I care about is who will USE nukes. �Nukes are
>> >>> political weapons and not military weapons. �The U.S. and the Soviets
>> >>> knew that and played accordingly. �The question is not wheather Iran
>> >>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
>> >>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
>> >>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. �The real question is
>> >>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
>> >>> military ???
>>
>> >>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
>> >>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>>
>> >>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
>> >>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
>> >>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>>
>> >> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
>> >> have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. �It's a
>> >> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
>> >> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
>> >> control your own population with troops. �That is what nuclear weapons
>> >> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
>> >> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
>> >> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
>> >> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
>> >> rebellion and not lose your power to defend yourself. �In short,
>> >> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
>> >> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
>> >> likely.
>>
>> > why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
>> > least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
>> > they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
>> > wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm following you here. �You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
>> there were no WMD's? �I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
>> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. �I also
>> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
>> different. �And...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
>> enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Papa... Bush & Co DID actually know that Saddam NO LONGER had any
>WMD. You dont have to look far to find bonafied testamony from
>credible people who were directly involved stating that they were
>pressured and even intimidated to help build the WMD story. I'm not a
>60's hippi pacifist dude, but the pretext for the second gulf war was
>fabricated out of some half truths and some out right lies. As far as
>any ties to fundamentalist terror organizations... Well... Get this...
>And no, I dont like Saddam... But... The fundamentalist groups were
>not "down" with old Saddam. Saddam along with being a dictator was
>also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
>the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it. Before
>he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
>the Saddam government. Partly because the western powers saw him as
>becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader. Not to
>mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
>with. And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy. The
>"enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap. I'm sure you are way too
>informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
>that sold old Saddam chemical weapons. At the time, it did not
>matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
>that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
>Iranians.
>
>This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
>fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
>western democracy and free market economy which I cherish. I'm saying
>to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
>the next whilrwind. I'd also like to say... I cant stand
>fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
>other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
>they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
>and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
>first early Americans did.

You mean by getting the French army and navy to beat the British at
the Battle of Yorktown, to win our Revolution for us?


== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:09 pm
From: Johnny Morongo


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:11 pm, Johnny Morongo
> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2:39 pm, Johnny Morongo
>>> <j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
>>>> papa.carl44 wrote:
>>>>> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush /
>>>>> Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they won
>>>>> a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
>>>>> existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding the
>>>>> real perpetrators of 911.
>>>> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
>>>> Afghanistan would have found them.
>>> are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
>>> other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
>>> both ?
>> I'm gonna coin a term here, Michael, the I think goes to the heart of
>> who the "real" perps were: The Bushtocracy. I think that about covers
>> it. ;)
>
> "Bushtocracy" You mean former president Bush and his cabinet or are
> you referring to the management structure of an old school New Orleans
> whore house ???

I mean the whole Bush clan from papa Bush to Clinton to baby Bush, et. al.


== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:42 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Johnny Morongo" <j.mirehiel@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:luadnVkuq4NIdePW4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> papa.carl44 wrote:
>
>> Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush
>> / Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they
>> won a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not
>> have existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and
>> finding the real perpetrators of 911.
>
> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
> Afghanistan would have found them.

IF...IF...it was the network based in Afghanistan...like you, I have some
doubts as to who and where they were.


== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:43 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Michael" <mjd1966@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:214d0431-e581-45d6-9162-5a767f457b87@n5g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 2:39 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> papa.carl44 wrote:
> > Good post...and also points out how incredibly foolish and damaging Bush
> > /
> > Cheney's decision to invade was. What was really accomplished was they
> > won
> > a real war for the Iranians, and created a situation that would not have
> > existed if they had left it alone and focused on Afghanistan and finding
> > the
> > real perpetrators of 911.
>
> As to finding the "real Perps" of 9/11, no amount of focusing on
> Afghanistan would have found them.

are the real perps the jack-asses that made our foreign policy or some
other group of fundamentalist jack-asses in saudi arabia, egypt... or
both ?

Saudis for sure...and the fundamentalist buffoons who are in reality hoping
for disaster


== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:03 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 9:39 pm, Grinch <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:46:57 -0800 (PST), Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 18, 11:51 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> >wrote:
> >> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:hll4ln$6c6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> > "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:aaWdnYtp759ynuPWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> >> >> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:842b12db-e80e-40bd-a1a0-e252992714e6@k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> OK, Just got this CNN New Allert...
>
> >> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T2
>
> >> >>> So... Iran may be working on a nuke warhead. That is the stupidest
> >> >>> thing I ever heard. Of course Iran is working on a nuke. That was
> >> >>> their obvious goal all along. Once again... For me, I could care less
> >> >>> who has nukes. I grew up in the 70's-80's with the Soviet arsenal
> >> >>> pointed at me. What I care about is who will USE nukes. Nukes are
> >> >>> political weapons and not military weapons. The U.S. and the Soviets
> >> >>> knew that and played accordingly. The question is not wheather Iran
> >> >>> is working on a nuke or not. You have to be a total idiot not to know
> >> >>> they are gearing up to build a nuke and couple it with one of the
> >> >>> ballistic missiles they have been showing off. The real question is
> >> >>> does Iran understand that nukes are strictly political and not
> >> >>> military ???
>
> >> >>> What do you think ??? Is the government in Iran foolish, structurally
> >> >>> unstable or crazy enough to ever USE a nuke ???
>
> >> >>> Would it be fair to pressure them for wanting nukes while other
> >> >>> countries in the region are left unhampered to have their own
> >> >>> collection of 300 + warheads ???
>
> >> >> I think they would use one...and, to be fair, if it is a certainty they
> >> >> have one, I think Israel would use one pre-emtively too. It's a
> >> >> political weapon for BIG countries, and the big power for those players
> >> >> was the fact you could hit the outside enemy with a nuke and if needed
> >> >> control your own population with troops. That is what nuclear weapons
> >> >> essentially did, we may have done stupid things in the last decade to
> >> >> weaken our military stregnth, but the fact remains that if a country has
> >> >> a very strong nuclear capability it can wave it's big stick and not worry
> >> >> too much about what folks at home say because it is possible to put down
> >> >> rebellion and not lose your power to defend yourself. In short,
> >> >> yeah.....Iran, with the screwballs they have, in what is becoming a more
> >> >> and more secularized government, will use one, against Israel most
> >> >> likely.
>
> >> > why would they use one agsinst Israel when they know Israel would use at
> >> > least a dozen in retaliationagainst them?
> >> > they want a bomb for self defense. ifSaddam had actuallyhad WMDswe
> >> > wouldn't have invaded and they realized it.
>
> >> I'm not sure I'm following you here. You mean Bush & Co. actually knew
> >> there were no WMD's? I think Saddam got rid of them thinking he avoided an
> >> invasion, only to have a stupid administration here do it anyway. I also
> >> don't think Saddam was the whack job that Ahmadinejad is, it's totally
> >> different. And...I think this goof might believe he can hit Israel hard
> >> enough to kill their retaliation to some degree.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Papa... Bush & Co DID actually know that Saddam NO LONGER had any
> >WMD.  You dont have to look far to find bonafied testamony from
> >credible people who were directly involved stating that they were
> >pressured and even intimidated to help build the WMD story.  I'm not a
> >60's hippi pacifist dude, but the pretext for the second gulf war was
> >fabricated out of some half truths and some out right lies.  As far as
> >any ties to fundamentalist terror organizations... Well... Get this...
> >And no, I dont like Saddam... But... The fundamentalist groups were
> >not "down" with old Saddam.  Saddam along with being a dictator was
> >also building Iraq into one of the most secular and "western" of all
> >the Arab countries and the fundamentalists hated him for it.  Before
> >he invaded Q-8, western governments including ours were good pals with
> >the Saddam government.  Partly because the western powers saw him as
> >becoming a more "westernized" and reasonable type leader.  Not to
> >mention, Saddam had a beef with the Iran, who we also had a beef
> >with.  And that is of course, central to U.S. foreign policy.  The
> >"enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap.  I'm sure  you are way too
> >informed not to know, but it was indeed a former U.S. administration
> >that sold old Saddam chemical weapons.  At the time,  it did not
> >matter so much that they had WMD because it was felt the only people
> >that were going to wind up choking on gas in the near future were the
> >Iranians.
>
> >This is by no means any indorcement of dictatorships and
> >fundamentalist groups which i despise, nor is it a denouncement of
> >western democracy and free market economy which I cherish.  I'm saying
> >to take fair and informed look at things before getting caught up in
> >the next whilrwind.  I'd also like to say... I cant stand
> >fundamentalist BS or lord high dictarorial monarchs. If people in
> >other countries are caught under the thumb of that crap and they think
> >they deserve better, let them take risks, spend their own resources
> >and shed their own blood making a new way for themselves the way the
> >first early Americans did.
>
> You mean by getting the French army and navy to beat the British at
> the Battle of Yorktown, to win our Revolution for us?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

if i had to pick an important battle that the french won for the
"rebels" it would indeed be the battle of the virginia cape. that was
tremendously pivitol. bottom line, though... they would not have been
there to win that battle without the political will and resourceful
nature of the founding fathers. though, unlike most historians, i
dont see the "american" revolution as an "american" war at all. for
the most part, I see it as largely a british civial war. libertarians
and republicans vs. royalists. america was just the name they gave to
the newly formed splinter group that won the right to preside over the
worlds biggest grocery store.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Bus fight
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/4edd62bbc552241a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:29 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"Conroy" <conroy.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24ae9167-cddd-46c1-b3e4-849cc88b7c14@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 1:28 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> Now...I watched a few times and
> really can't figure out what happened to start this thing off, something
> was
> said, and misinterpreted I suspect. There is no shortage of stupid people,

I believe the first thing that was said was "how much you charge to
spitshine my shoes?" followed by "why should a brother have to
spitshine your shoes" and it blew up from there


In that case, if the older guy said that...he is clearly a total ass, and
scum bag. No matter how he handled himself in terms of self defense, he did
act like a loose cannon and looked a little strange too. What I would
really question here is the bus driver...all of this crap is going on in the
bus and it just keeps going...the driver should have stopped the bus and
summoned police assistance ASAP. There isn't any right or wrong here...they
were all acting like low lifes. And if it was the older guy who initiated
it with a statement like that, he was the lowest of the gang. To be honest,
I was a little offended when my name was inserted as a reference. Nobody in
this group really knows anyone else except for a few who have met. For that
matter, you don't even know my ethnic background or race. I can assure you
I would never act like that guy...the old one. Papa Carl


== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:34 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:qpqdnUEsZbQZc-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
> Just came out on youtube and already has over a million hits..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ
>
> Why did I think of papacarl after I watched this? :)

Mark, Is that the kind of guy you think I am? Someone who is a racist?
Who would ask a Black person something like that? What have I done here to
give you that idea? I'm really curious. Papa Carl


== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:49 pm
From: MZ


papa.carl44 wrote:
> "Conroy" <conroy.news@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:24ae9167-cddd-46c1-b3e4-849cc88b7c14@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 1:28 pm, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Now...I watched a few times and
>> really can't figure out what happened to start this thing off, something
>> was
>> said, and misinterpreted I suspect. There is no shortage of stupid people,
>
> I believe the first thing that was said was "how much you charge to
> spitshine my shoes?" followed by "why should a brother have to
> spitshine your shoes" and it blew up from there
>
>
> In that case, if the older guy said that...he is clearly a total ass, and
> scum bag. No matter how he handled himself in terms of self defense, he did
> act like a loose cannon and looked a little strange too. What I would
> really question here is the bus driver...all of this crap is going on in the
> bus and it just keeps going...the driver should have stopped the bus and
> summoned police assistance ASAP. There isn't any right or wrong here...they
> were all acting like low lifes. And if it was the older guy who initiated
> it with a statement like that, he was the lowest of the gang. To be honest,
> I was a little offended when my name was inserted as a reference. Nobody in
> this group really knows anyone else except for a few who have met. For that
> matter, you don't even know my ethnic background or race. I can assure you
> I would never act like that guy...the old one. Papa Carl

From what I've read, the white guy asked the black guy to make room for
a lady to sit down, and the black guy said "want me to spit shine your
shoes too?" The black guy brought the "spit shine" thing into it, not
the white guy.

But I don't agree with you on this one. The white guy didn't provoke
the confrontation. In fact, as soon as things became escalated, he
WALKED AWAY. The black guy then initiated physical contact.

I agree, the smartest thing would have been to stop jawing. But there's
a big difference between jawing and turning it physical. The white guy
is completely in the innocent as far as that's concerned. He really
didn't do anything to turn it into a physical confrontation. He didn't
stand up, he didn't get in the guy's face, etc.


== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:55 pm
From: MZ


papa.carl44 wrote:
> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
> news:qpqdnUEsZbQZc-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
>> Just came out on youtube and already has over a million hits..
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ
>>
>> Why did I think of papacarl after I watched this? :)
>
> Mark, Is that the kind of guy you think I am? Someone who is a racist?
> Who would ask a Black person something like that? What have I done here to
> give you that idea? I'm really curious. Papa Carl

I see no evidence that any of this was racial. Dude walked away.

The real trash in this video are the women who video taped it and egged
the black guy on to "beat his white ass".


== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:36 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:bvidneuZWqFTZ-PWnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@giganews.com...
> papa.carl44 wrote:
>> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
>> news:qpqdnUEsZbQZc-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> Just came out on youtube and already has over a million hits..
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ
>>>
>>> Why did I think of papacarl after I watched this? :)
>>
>> Mark, Is that the kind of guy you think I am? Someone who is a racist?
>> Who would ask a Black person something like that? What have I done here
>> to give you that idea? I'm really curious. Papa Carl
>
> I see no evidence that any of this was racial. Dude walked away.
>
> The real trash in this video are the women who video taped it and egged
> the black guy on to "beat his white ass".

Got it....I watched it several times and couldn't really figure out what got
it started..if it was what you said you read, it was all on the young
guy...AND...the girls are the real problem, along with whoever was driving
the bus. I'd love to hear that story. The driver had to know there was a
confrontation going on. IF...and IF...it was what you read, you are right.
It was on the young guy, but it was most definitely racial if he responded
to a request to make room for someone to sit down with the "assumed" racism
remark. The old guy did walk away, and got followed. Plus, the young guy
went back a second time encouraged by the girls. After I left teaching /
coaching (in '91) I went to work in behavioral healthcare. I can not tell
you how many of the crisis situations we had to treat in a county wide
crisis center that were generated by some young female encouraging,
requesting, demanding or whatever a young male to exact violence on someone.
Of course, the guys who got into the difficulties were stupid too...but we
all know men do some dumb things to impress women. I have problems hearing
that are getting worse. I really could not figure out a lot of what was
going on. When the young guy came to the front of the bus...the driver
ABSOLUTELY should have stopped and intervened.


== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 4:59 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:bvidneuZWqFTZ-PWnZ2dnUVZ_oJi4p2d@giganews.com...
> papa.carl44 wrote:
>> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
>> news:qpqdnUEsZbQZc-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> Just came out on youtube and already has over a million hits..
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ
>>>
>>> Why did I think of papacarl after I watched this? :)
>>
>> Mark, Is that the kind of guy you think I am? Someone who is a racist?
>> Who would ask a Black person something like that? What have I done here
>> to give you that idea? I'm really curious. Papa Carl
>
> I see no evidence that any of this was racial. Dude walked away.
>
> The real trash in this video are the women who video taped it and egged
> the black guy on to "beat his white ass".

But....you still didn't tell me why it made you think of me...why did it?


== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:13 pm
From: "papa.carl44"

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:qpqdnUEsZbQZc-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
> Just came out on youtube and already has over a million hits..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ
>
> Why did I think of papacarl after I watched this? :)

A little bit of searching reveals that the older white guy who is a Viet Nam
veteran, is most likely somewhat unstable and may have been under the
influence. It is unclear and was never recorded as to how the argument
actually began. One comment made to one of the sites that posted the video
claimed the young guy offered to shine the guys shoes for him, but most say
the older guy asked first. Apparently some people in the area where this
took place know the older man. The questions this older guy are asking are
about how much it would cost to shine his shoes because he is going to a
funeral. The younger man took these questions as a racial slur. Then it
all began. The young woman who was taping this actually admitted she went
out for the day to tape something worth while...that is what she does. She
also taped herself taking the older guys groceries and suggesting they go
through it..after the guy left the bus. Some who were there claimed that
both men were under the influence. This is a very sad situation, and a sad
story. There is no doubt the incident was loaded with racial tension...if
you listen to a clearer version of it you can hear that.

But...Mark, I would still like to know why you chose to include me in this?
I don't think it is particularly humerous. You have never met me, don't
know a thing about me. I find your characterization of me rather
upsetting. I do wish you would respond.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What exactly does an NFL assistant coach do anyway?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/e811af4db6f302eb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:37 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:5f497a59-d2cd-4777-9cf1-6cd34d56730f@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 17, 9:58 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> >> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>> "graybeard" <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>news:p52mn55ri899uphfe1vqefdtpjaoe4jp3u@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
> >>>>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
> >>>>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
> >>>>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
> >>>>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
> >>>>> as you actually know what you are doing.
> >>>> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
> >>>> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going
> >>>> to
> >>>> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> >>>> you might get a little nervous.
> >>>> --
> >>>> graybeard
> >>> U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful
> >>> general,
> >>> was the regt quartermaster.
> >>> He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
> >> Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
> >> casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
> >> just not teh next we had.
>
> >> That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
> >> difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
> >> general.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thomas ??? Interestng choise for most talented.  And I assume you most
> > talented of the civial war.
>
> Yes, comparing generals from different wars would be like comparing C
> Young to a modern day pitcher.

unless you are making a comparison to decide the greatest general of
all time :-) and we all know who that was ;-)


== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:02 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 12:28 am, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5f497a59-d2cd-4777-9cf1-6cd34d56730f@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 9:58 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray O'Hara wrote:
> > > "graybeard" <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > >news:p52mn55ri899uphfe1vqefdtpjaoe4jp3u@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
> > >>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
> > >>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
> > >>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
> > >>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
> > >>> as you actually know what you are doing.
> > >> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
> > >> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going
> > >> to
> > >> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> > >> you might get a little nervous.
> > >> --
> > >> graybeard
>
> > > U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful
> > > general,
> > > was the regt quartermaster.
> > > He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
>
> > Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
> > casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
> > just not teh next we had.
>
> > That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
> > difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
> > general.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thomas ??? Interestng choise for most talented.  And I assume you most
> talented of the civial war.
>
> I dont think Grants problem was that he just threw men into the meat
> grinder.  His reasoning was sound.  Other than Wilderness he did not
> piss human resources away due to bad decision making.  I think Grants
> BIG problem was that he overestimated/overvalued the quality of people
> he chose as subordinants.  Lots of his hand picked guys sucked and it
> cost him/lives.  My choice for most talented UNION guys would be
> Hancock.
>
> =================================================================
>
> Atthe Wilderness Lee moved up and attacked Grant who was passing through it.
> Lee attacked to try to force Grant back. he failed .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ray... Wilderness did not cause the imballance of casualties that Cold
Harbor did, but if he followed throung at Wilderness on the first day
he really could have put Lee in the bag. The Overland Campaign had
Lee's army itself as a target but that didnt mean that Grant had to
ignore strategic oppertunities. From what I have read, there was
enough intel available for Grant leading up to the Wilderness for him
to be able to have made better moves at the outset of the battle.
After he lost the innitial chance that he didnt figure out that he
had, it was just a slug fest. Grant considers that Cold Harbor was
his big mistake, but I think he really blew a big chance at
Wilderness.

As far as Hancock goes.. His big mistake was not shooting Burnside. Or
at least gagging him and putting him in a closet until the war was
over.


== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:12 pm
From: Johnny Morongo


Michael wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:5f497a59-d2cd-4777-9cf1-6cd34d56730f@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 17, 9:58 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>>>> "graybeard" <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p52mn55ri899uphfe1vqefdtpjaoe4jp3u@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
>>>>>>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
>>>>>>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
>>>>>>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
>>>>>>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
>>>>>>> as you actually know what you are doing.
>>>>>> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
>>>>>> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
>>>>>> you might get a little nervous.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> graybeard
>>>>> U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful
>>>>> general,
>>>>> was the regt quartermaster.
>>>>> He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
>>>> Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
>>>> casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
>>>> just not teh next we had.
>>>> That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
>>>> difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
>>>> general.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Thomas ??? Interestng choise for most talented. And I assume you most
>>> talented of the civial war.
>> Yes, comparing generals from different wars would be like comparing C
>> Young to a modern day pitcher.
>
> unless you are making a comparison to decide the greatest general of
> all time :-) and we all know who that was ;-)

Alexander!


== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:26 pm
From: Michael


On Feb 19, 4:12 pm, Johnny Morongo
<j.mireh...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 12:15 pm, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> >> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:5f497a59-d2cd-4777-9cf1-6cd34d56730f@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Feb 17, 9:58 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>>>> "graybeard" <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:p52mn55ri899uphfe1vqefdtpjaoe4jp3u@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> and yes.. that seems odd... a db as a d-line coach ??? still... if you
> >>>>>>> are a hc, you still coach and teach all players including skill
> >>>>>>> players and guys in the trenches, no ??? same deal if you are running
> >>>>>>> an offense or defense. most if not all the guys you are coaching play
> >>>>>>> a position that you never did. so i guess not so strange just as long
> >>>>>>> as you actually know what you are doing.
> >>>>>> Not all Generals came up through the infantry, but if you were in an
> >>>>>> infantry company, and you found out that your new 1st Lt who is going
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> be leading you into a fire zone was just transferred over from Supply,
> >>>>>> you might get a little nervous.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> graybeard
> >>>>> U.S.Grant, America's greatest, most talented and most successful
> >>>>> general,
> >>>>> was the regt quartermaster.
> >>>>> He was a lion in combat as a junior officer.
> >>>> Most talented? No, he was very successful because he was willing to take
> >>>> casualties to win the war. I am not writing that he was an idiot but
> >>>> just not teh next we had.
> >>>> That would probably be Thomas but he was a Virginian and politically
> >>>> difficult for Lincoln to advance. An interesting fellow & a very good
> >>>> general.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Thomas ??? Interestng choise for most talented.  And I assume you most
> >>> talented of the civial war.
> >> Yes, comparing generals from different wars would be like comparing C
> >> Young to a modern day pitcher.
>
> > unless you are making a comparison to decide the greatest general of
> > all time :-)  and we all know who that was ;-)
>
> Alexander!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

napoleon faught and won more capitol engagements than alexander,
hannibal, julius cesar and fredrick the great combined :-) no to
mention the crem brulee on the way back from moscow was devine...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jets-related Pats article about Adalius Thomas
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/6c8d6b246f2f622b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:50 pm
From: Ian White


On 18/02/2010 23:58, MZ wrote:
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
>> news:qpqdnUcsZbTIX-DWnZ2dnUVZ_jJi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> graybeard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:50:07 -0500 MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, ideally, the Patriots could trade Thomas off and get
>>>>> something in return, while dictating his destination. Unfortunately
>>>>> for New England, the perception he's on the outs isn't exactly a
>>>>> secret, and it's usually pretty tough to deal guys that other teams
>>>>> know are on the chopping block.
>>>> Maybe BB would trade Thomas for Gholston. He couldn't be any less
>>>> productive for New England than Adalius was.
>>> You've seen Gholston play, right?
>>>
>>> Lemme rephrase...
>>>
>>> You've seen Gholston warm the bench, right? :)
>>
>> the thing is both look like they shold be studs out there.
>>
>
> It's possible they both just need changes of scenery. But with Ryan's
> history of developing linebackers, I doubt anyone else would have better
> luck with Gholston.

I believe Rex said "If I can't make a player out of Gholston, no one
can", which pretty much means Gholston's worth less than fuck-all in any
sort of trade right now.

He's *got* to step up and show major return for his paycheck next year,
otherwise it will be his last. He's costing the team in dollars *and*
taking a spot of someone who can at least show some effort.

--
Ian


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC