Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c19356c7-2620-471e-b6e5-4629297b72ed@googlegroups.com:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:
Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of
state sponsors of terrorism.
Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.
Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of
the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.
Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being
leveraged around to better behavior, and he did hold his country
together.
The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring,
he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or
substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion.
Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.
It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion
suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use
air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces
around to kill off everybody they could get at.
Ditto Sadaam and Tito.
Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.
Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the
short term.
Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together
after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but
wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power
after the Arab Spring.
Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton,
as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
sees it as as home-grown phenomenon, quite possibly help by the
new social media which seemed to have played a significant role in
sreading the protests.
Thank you for getting it right.
We did nothing to get it going it was Gaddafi himself sealing his
own fate.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:ae10cfd7-c4ab-4126-a419-
aadf6eeb7c41@googlegroups.com:
The deal didn't just slow Iran down, it halted
their development for 15 years.
15 years.
What part of "that IS merely a slowing down" do you not understand?
It is NOT a halt. Period.
A HALT is what IS needed.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:70cb756f-b2e9-4e58-876e-22595fdc4cd2@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:30:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f005cfc5-d876-48f6-90ac-ebb179d5170d@googlegroups.com:
We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in
trying to tell us what we should do? The founding fathers knew
exactly what they were doing with the electoral college process
and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one
result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's
change the rules, etc.
Decades of collegiate analysis decidedly shows you for the
guess-
as-you-go, make-shit-up, know-nothing-asshole we all know you to
be.
The reason folks want it gone, and it was long before THIS
election cycle, you putz, is because they have done the analysis,
and have found it to be one of the most corruptable aspects of
our government.
That's just another lie. Wrong, always wrong.
The current cycle is a perfect example thereof.
I've asked you to provide us with evidence that anything improper
went on in the electoral college, as opposed to them just casting
their votes as the voters in their states determined. As usual,
you provided nothing. You're just pissed because
Trump won, so now you want to claim it wasn't fair. Sore loser.
That is exactly what I said you would say.
You are a fucking pussy, and you would lose teeth if we met.
Likely lose more than that.
You never asked me anything, fucktard.
And "voting like they are supposed to do" means nothing if the
circumstance is ALREADY CORRUPTED going in.
Also, the entire premise is not needed. Popular vote works fine.
The thing was implemented so THEY could exercise control over what
WE vote for. It should have been tossed out from the get go.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:eb9485ab-0611-4616-83f9-49f435fb4314@googlegroups.com:
Of course they are. If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would
not have gone to war against him and he may have very well
prevailed.
You are so stupid. You make shit up based on your bent impressions.
He would never have had nukes.
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:43 AM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:07:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:
Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.
Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.
Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.
Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.
Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.
+1
One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.
No misconceptions, you just ignore the facts, the results, what actually
happened in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya.
No. You are ignoring the fact that these were popular uprsings, not engineered by any foreign power.
And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea
and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.
Of course they are.
How? Is the regime going to supress a popular uprisng by blasting it's own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?
If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would not have
gone to war against him and he may have very well prevailed.
If Gaddafi had nukes, the rebels could well have turned them on him.
If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.
Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.
Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes were not
meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure took credit and
gloated.
Only when the famous interview is looked at through the eyes of a addict to right-wing conspiracy theories.
If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.
Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.
Yeah, sure, go in and grab the nukes from a country that has nukes.
That's probably the stupidest thing you've posted here yet.
If a country is in disorder, the nukes aren't necessarily going to be in the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that happens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precautionary measure.
--
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:16:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:eb9485ab-0611-4616-83f9-49f435fb4314@googlegroups.com:
Of course they are. If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would
not have gone to war against him and he may have very well
prevailed.
You are so stupid. You make shit up based on your bent impressions.
He would never have had nukes.
Look up the definition of "if"? Apparently Obama, Kerry, the UN believed
he could have developed nukes, they were hell bent on getting him to stop.
And if NK, one of the most backward, depressed, isolated countries on the
planet can get them, why not Libya. Pakistan has them, are Pakistan and
NK so greatly advanced compared to Libya?
Wrong, always wrong.
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:43 AM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:07:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:
One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.
No misconceptions, you just ignore the facts, the results, what actually
happened in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya.
No. You are ignoring the fact that these were popular uprisings, not engineered by any foreign power.
You are ignoring that when major powers encourage them, it gets noticed
and helps.
And how they started doesn't matter, the US participated in
BOMBING the country to HELP the opposition.
And are you happy with the results? First they
sent a message to Iran, NK, that if you make a deal with the US, turn
over your nukes, turn over your WMDs, then we come and kill you.
Second, Libya is now a hell hole, with millions fleeing to Europe,
drowning on the way. Why aren't the libs blaming Obama for those
deaths?
Every illegal alien that dies at the US border, they try to
blame Trump for.
Your right-wing fantasies can't handle that idea, so you invent some foreign intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.
And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.
Of course they are.
How? Is the regime going to supress a popular uprisng by blasting it's own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?
You really are quite stupid. I never suggested that a country would use
nukes on rebels. I said that if the country has nukes, then Obama and France
would not have been bombing them to support the rebels.
If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would not have
gone to war against him and he may have very well prevailed.
If Gaddafi had nukes, the rebels could well have turned them on him.
A total diversion into the wilderness. It's what libs do.
That's the problem with authoritarian regimes - if there's one obvious head, you can always cut it off.
If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.
Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.
Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes were not
meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure took credit and
gloated.
Only when the famous interview is looked at through the eyes of a addict to right-wing conspiracy theories.
ROFL
"We came, we saw, he died" Hah, hah.
But heh, it's Hillary a big lib, so it's all OK, that wasn't gloating
just brilliant statesmanship.
If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.
Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.
Yeah, sure, go in and grab the nukes from a country that has nukes.
That's probably the stupidest thing you've posted here yet.
If a country is in disorder, the nukes aren't necessarily going to be in the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that happens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precautionary measure.
Sure, countries are going to send troops into a nuclear power country
to grab their nuclear weapons.
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 10:57:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:70cb756f-b2e9-4e58-876e-22595fdc4cd2@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:30:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f005cfc5-d876-48f6-90ac-ebb179d5170d@googlegroups.com:
We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in
trying to tell us what we should do? The founding fathers knew
exactly what they were doing with the electoral college process
and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one
result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's
change the rules, etc.
Decades of collegiate analysis decidedly shows you for the
guess-
as-you-go, make-shit-up, know-nothing-asshole we all know you to
be.
The reason folks want it gone, and it was long before THIS
election cycle, you putz, is because they have done the analysis,
and have found it to be one of the most corruptable aspects of
our government.
That's just another lie. Wrong, always wrong.
The current cycle is a perfect example thereof.
I've asked you to provide us with evidence that anything improper
went on in the electoral college, as opposed to them just casting
their votes as the voters in their states determined. As usual,
you provided nothing. You're just pissed because
Trump won, so now you want to claim it wasn't fair. Sore loser.
That is exactly what I said you would say.
You are a fucking pussy, and you would lose teeth if we met.
Likely lose more than that.
I'll add that to your list of threats made, for possible referal
to the authorities. And I'll have it available when you again deny
that you make threats.
You never asked me anything, fucktard.
And "voting like they are supposed to do" means nothing if the
circumstance is ALREADY CORRUPTED going in.
Which it's not. Again, I asked you for evidence of this alleged "corruption"
with the electoral college now many times, there is none. You're just
a sore loser.
Also, the entire premise is not needed. Popular vote works fine.
The thing was implemented so THEY could exercise control over what
WE vote for. It should have been tossed out from the get go.
It was implemented so states rights were protected and smaller states
could not as easily be ignored.
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:10:28 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c19356c7-2620-471e-b6e5-4629297b72ed@googlegroups.com:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:
Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of
state sponsors of terrorism.
Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.
Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of
the moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.
Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being
leveraged around to better behavior, and he did hold his country
together.
The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring,
he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or
substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion.
Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.
It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion
suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use
air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces
around to kill off everybody they could get at.
Ditto Sadaam and Tito.
Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.
Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the
short term.
Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together
after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but
wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power
after the Arab Spring.
Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton,
as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
sees it as as home-grown phenomenon, quite possibly help by the
new social media which seemed to have played a significant role in
sreading the protests.
Thank you for getting it right.
We did nothing to get it going it was Gaddafi himself sealing his
own fate.
We certainly encouraged it
and then bombed. This is like saying because
someone else started an assault and you only joined in the attack,
the guy getting killed had nothing to do with you.
... how they started doesn't matter, the US participated in
BOMBING the country to HELP the opposition.
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 2:49:51 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 11:16:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:eb9485ab-0611-4616-83f9-49f435fb4314@googlegroups.com:
Of course they are. If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would
not have gone to war against him and he may have very well
prevailed.
You are so stupid. You make shit up based on your bent impressions..
He would never have had nukes.
Look up the definition of "if"? Apparently Obama, Kerry, the UN believed
he could have developed nukes, they were hell bent on getting him to stop.
And if NK, one of the most backward, depressed, isolated countries on the
planet can get them, why not Libya. Pakistan has them, are Pakistan and
NK so greatly advanced compared to Libya?
Wrong, always wrong.
Says the mindless idiot.
Population of Pakistan - 197 million. They got nuclear weapons quite a while ago.
Population of North Korea - 25.47 million. The entire country is poor and depressed because a lot of their GNP has been devoted to getting nuclear weapons.
Population of Libya - 6.375 million. They weren't in the hunt - Gaddafi did have oil money, but nobody would have trusted the guy with nuclear weapons.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 2:49:42 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:43 AM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:07:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:
snip
One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.
No misconceptions, you just ignore the facts, the results, what actually
happened in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya.
No. You are ignoring the fact that these were popular uprisings, not engineered by any foreign power.
You are ignoring that when major powers encourage them, it gets noticed
and helps.
And your evidence for the claim that the major power helped the uprisings is?
You are fantasising - as usual - and expecting the rest of the world to take your fantasies seriously.
And how they started doesn't matter, the US participated in
BOMBING the country to HELP the opposition.
In Libya, the bombing was confined to Gaddafi's terrorist columns.
It might have helped the various rebels, but the main aim was to stop Gaddafi from killing civilians.
And at the time they were doing it, Obama/Hillary were calling for regime change. Capiche?
Were they? Where's your evidence?
No, libs never can.
Sane people - not just liberals - aren't going take your fantasies seriously.
And are you happy with the results? First they
sent a message to Iran, NK, that if you make a deal with the US, turn
over your nukes, turn over your WMDs, then we come and kill you.
Second, Libya is now a hell hole, with millions fleeing to Europe,
drowning on the way. Why aren't the libs blaming Obama for those
deaths?
Because the problem wasn't created by Obama, and there doesn't seem to have been anything he could have done to prevent any of thse deaths.
Every illegal alien that dies at the US border, they try to
blame Trump for.
Who? Where? Post a link to this implausible claim.
Your right-wing fantasies can't handle that idea, so you invent some foreign intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.
And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.
Of course they are.
How? Is the regime going to supress a popular uprisng by blasting it's own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?
You really are quite stupid. I never suggested that a country would use
nukes on rebels. I said that if the country has nukes, then Obama and France
would not have been bombing them to support the rebels.
I have to keep reminding you that NATO wasn't bombing Gaddafi's murderous flying columns to support the rebels, but to minimise the number of civilian deaths.
The targets would have been different if supporting the rebels had been the main aim.
Capiche? Can you cite for us any country with nukes that we have bombed?
There aren't any,
If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would not have
gone to war against him and he may have very well prevailed.
If Gaddafi had nukes, the rebels could well have turned them on him.
A total diversion into the wilderness. It's what libs do.
What makes you think that? Apart from congenital stupidity, of course.
That's the problem with authoritarian regimes - if there's one obvious head, you can always cut it off.
If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.
Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.
Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes were not
meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure took credit and
gloated.
Only when the famous interview is looked at through the eyes of a addict to right-wing conspiracy theories.
ROFL
"We came, we saw, he died" Hah, hah.
But heh, it's Hillary a big lib, so it's all OK, that wasn't gloating
just brilliant statesmanship.
It was a spur of the moment improvisation, and not all that good.
The gloating is all in your imagination.
Of course if Trump said it......
It's a play on Caeser's "Veni, vidi, vedici". Trump isn't well enough educated to know the original (and you don't seem to be either).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici
If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.
Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.
Yeah, sure, go in and grab the nukes from a country that has nukes.
That's probably the stupidest thing you've posted here yet.
If a country is in disorder, the nukes aren't necessarily going to be in the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that happens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precautionary measure.
Sure, countries are going to send troops into a nuclear power country
to grab their nuclear weapons.
A country in enough disorder that they haven't got control of their nuclear weapons is a rather softer target,
Please keep representing for the libs, they must be proud.
Please keep demonstrating what an idiot you are. I respond to your moronic points in order to persuade you to damn yourself even further with even more moronic reactions.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a-
b79d9f4d1b59@googlegroups.com:
It was implemented so states rights were protected and smaller states
could not as easily be ignored.
What part of 'no longer relavent" do you not understand?
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:40:24 -0700, trader4 wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:29:44 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Who? Where? Post a link to this implausible claim.
Why do you just spout ignorance instead of following what is actually
going on?
Sloman will always use this tactic when he knows he's lost the argument:
demand his interlocutor post proof of an assertion - then invariably
disparage the source of that evidence. So do yourself a favour and KF the
fool already, because you'll *never* prove anything to his satisfaction.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
[on the old Libya siuation]
... how they started doesn't matter, the US participated in
BOMBING the country to HELP the opposition.
Only in the sense that preventing a military force with artillery
from using those area weapons against civilian targets (towns) is 'help'.
Preventing terroristic, genocidal violence is worthwhile regardless of
any merits of 'the opposition'.
Bombing (area weapons) wasn't the nature of the effort, but
interdiction of heavy weapons systems; civilian casualties were
light, under 80, because people weren't targeted.
So, bombing is the wrong descriptive word, and 'help the opposition' ignores
the fact that the opposition wasn't identified, wasn't a single group, and
wasn't coordinating any of the efforts. These aren't fine distinctions, the
above statement is... a deception.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f50b63c6-6719-471e-8744-0b38e1060b6e@googlegroups.com:
So, according to you, a car traveling from NYC to Boston is not
halted while the driver has lunch along the way? It's just
"slowed down"? That would be a new version of physics, but then
you are always way out there.
"Stopping for lunch" along the way is a slower run than not stopping
for lunch.
Same car, same driver, different runtime. One is slower than the
other. Why? One stopped for lunch.
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:29:44 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Who? Where? Post a link to this implausible claim.
Why do you just spout ignorance instead of following what is actually
going on?
You mean like when he asked about "what Hillary gloating" over killing
Gaddafi? And where we have the video of her doing exactly that,
saying "we came, we saw, he died" and laughing? Where he then says
that's not gloating, it's just Hillary being caught off guard?
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a-
b79d9f4d1b59@googlegroups.com:
It was implemented so states rights were protected and smaller
states could not as easily be ignored.
What part of 'no longer relavent" do you not understand?
States rights are just as relevant today, more so actually, as they
were at our founding. You're just another sore loser that doesn't
like the results of the last election.