Support Sharon Angle
in [Golf]
|
From: William Clark on 23 Jul 2010 08:06 In article <alangbaker-1B34F1.21135022072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article <8arstsF33vU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > news:6teh46lub9c8d66b00erj2obavr1vc1qsp(a)4ax.com... > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:12:40 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > >>news:k46h46tkt4v0j0c7mfi72hjuqnv4idf4as(a)4ax.com... > > >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > >>> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>On Jul 22, 1:02 pm, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>> Well, my opinion is that removing Saddam was a good thing for the > > >>>>> region. > > >>>>> The timing is debatable but I believe we would have had to do it > > >>>>> eventually > > >>>>> anyway. I think Saddam did indeed have WMDs, but they were moved > > >>>>> elsewhere > > >>>>> before the invasion. > > >>>> > > >>>>A good thing for the region? So, we went to war there to make life > > >>>>better for Iran and Syria? Where do you suppose the WMD was moved to? > > >>> > > >>> A better question is where was our CIA spy planes when they were > > >>> moving all of this equipment? There were no WMDS. > > >>> > > >>> BK > > >> > > >>The truck convoys were photographed by satellite in 2002. > > >> > > > There were reports of such to Syria, but never confirmed by our > > > intelligence sources. There were no WMDS. > > > > > > BK > > > > They were confirmed. > > Really? > > Let's see a quote... ...for once. Expect the usual "you do your own research" cop out.
From: William Clark on 23 Jul 2010 08:08 In article <vfWdnbIZyq0PgdTRnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)nventure.com>, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in news:clark- > 15F200.14145521072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > > > Jim, > > > > You obviously do need to use smaller words and type slower. Right now > > you are clearly well beyond their reading and comprehension levels. > > > > > > I'll try. But one syllable is as small as I can go, so I doubt I can get > to his reading level. I doubt that my beagle could get to his reading level :-)
From: John B. on 23 Jul 2010 09:09 On Jul 23, 7:31 am, Moderate <nos...(a)nomail.com> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > On Jul 22, 12:20 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > >>news:alangbaker-0E2AA9.09351722072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > >>> Armitage wasn't a Clinton appointee. > > >>> He served as an aide to Senator Bob Dole, a foreign policy advisor > > > > to > >>> Ronald Reagan, was promoted to Deputy Assistant of Defence for Asia > > > > and > >>> then further promoted to Assistant Secretary of Defence for > >>> International Security Policy by his administration. > > >>> In 1993 -- when Clinton was president, he entered the private > > > > sector... > > >>> ...where he remained until George W. Bush's presidency. > > >>> So not only is your smoke screen rather obvious, it's just plain > > > > wrong. > > >> Armitage served in the Clinton State Department until May 1993. > > > So you acknowledge he wasn't a Clinton appointee. He was there when > > Clinton arrive and didn't lose his job immediately. > > > He worked for Republicans, got his government job and promotions from > > Republicans, was re-hired by Republicans. > > > In what way does that make him a "Clinton appointee" when he outed > > Valerie Plame? > > > Were you lying our just ignorant when you made your earlier claim? > > He was appointed by the Clinton administration. You were ignorant in > your claim. Don't try and spin this on me. He was appointed by the first Bush administration and he stayed on for a couple on months after Clinton took office. You're trying to make him out to be a Clintonista in the context of his outing of Valerie Plame, and that is a stretch to put it mildly.
From: Alan Baker on 23 Jul 2010 13:04 In article <76974938301577272.827204nospam-nomail.com(a)news.suddenlink.net>, Moderate <nospam(a)nomail.com> wrote: > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > On Jul 22, 12:20 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> > >> news:alangbaker-0E2AA9.09351722072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > >> > >> > >> > >>> Armitage wasn't a Clinton appointee. > >> > >>> He served as an aide to Senator Bob Dole, a foreign policy advisor > > > > to > >>> Ronald Reagan, was promoted to Deputy Assistant of Defence for Asia > > > > and > >>> then further promoted to Assistant Secretary of Defence for > >>> International Security Policy by his administration. > >> > >>> In 1993 -- when Clinton was president, he entered the private > > > > sector... > >> > >>> ...where he remained until George W. Bush's presidency. > >> > >>> So not only is your smoke screen rather obvious, it's just plain > > > > wrong. > >> > >> Armitage served in the Clinton State Department until May 1993. > > > > So you acknowledge he wasn't a Clinton appointee. He was there when > > Clinton arrive and didn't lose his job immediately. > > > > He worked for Republicans, got his government job and promotions from > > Republicans, was re-hired by Republicans. > > > > In what way does that make him a "Clinton appointee" when he outed > > Valerie Plame? > > > > Were you lying our just ignorant when you made your earlier claim? > > He was appointed by the Clinton administration. You were ignorant in > your claim. Don't try and spin this on me. No, he was not. And when he outed Plame he was there because the Bush administration re-hired him. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 23 Jul 2010 20:22
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-CD45BB.08085023072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <vfWdnbIZyq0PgdTRnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d(a)nventure.com>, > Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in news:clark- > > 15F200.14145521072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > You obviously do need to use smaller words and type slower. Right now > > > you are clearly well beyond their reading and comprehension levels. > > > > > > > > > > I'll try. But one syllable is as small as I can go, so I doubt I can get > > to his reading level. > > I doubt that my beagle could get to his reading level :-) Somebody who owns/tolerates a beagle shouldn't be bayin' about intelligence. :) -Greg |