[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=menotellname]

(Mojo, please insert your next long winded pointless diatribe here.)

[/quote]

I enjoy reading Mojo's diatribes. He exhibits a mastery of English composition with soulful wit and repartee that you simply cannot hope to match.

His posts are a mode of expression intended to arouse amusement. They possess the power to evoke laughter through his remarks showing felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous.

Mojo has an ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical, and the absurd in human life and to express these usually without bitterness - something you singularly fail at.

[/quote]

Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo's writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

Oh, Roger...did you end your last sentence with a preposition?  For shame.

[quote=noggin]

Babbling looney- Put Stan and the like all talk about their political ideals but i would even doubt that they have voted in all elections since they have been eligible. They are like all too many in this country who rail constantly about the shortcomings yet provide nothing as far as progress. [/quote]

I hope you don't practice this habit of foolish generalizations in other parts of your life.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=babbling looney]

Well, since I am a woman, and as Put has pointed out old   (no point in denying the obvious) your suggestion is, as is the rest of your thinking in this topic, ludicrous.   This doesn't mean that I don't fight for my ideals.  My venue is political not physical.  My enemies are those who would distort and prevert the Constitutional processes that have maintained our freedoms by covertly introducing Socialism and even Communism into our political mainstream by overturning the laws that have been voted on by the populace and passed by our elected officials through the use of the Courts.  My enemies are those who would subvert and destroy our country in a desperate attempt to regain the power and past glory that they see slipping away from them  Pitting class against class and race against race in a self serving power grab. My enemies are those who would relish a defeat for this current administration, that they hate to a rabid and unhinged level, even if it means a defeat for the country as a whole and a further erosion of our ability to protect our way of life.  My enemies are those who would abrogate to themselves our abilities to determine our own fates, choose our own way of raising our families, indoctrinate our children, tell us how we can or cannot not express our views on religion and so on, They will try to controll all aspects of our daily lives, even to the extent of what we should eat. (Read this as Nanny State).  My enemies are also those morons who smoke and throw their cigarette butts on the ground.  Do they think they just disappear? ......oh....wait.... that is a bit off topic

All my enemies are not necessarily Democrat or Liberal, some are Republican as well.   The difference is that I can discriminate on what and where I put my political efforts and don't tar everyone with one label. Since I recall our discussions on discrimination in the industry, tarring everyone as the same and labeling people should be something that I should think you would be sensitive to.

[/quote]

I'm getting turned on.

I just love intelligent women.

[/quote]

She's had my attention since she once mentioned she was in need of a G&T. In this last conversation her politics have convinced me her SO is one lucky guy. 

[quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[quote=menotellname]

[quote=Mojo] [quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

I wont speak for the other usual suspects...I can only answer for myself.

Sr. Hombre-sin-nombre, I can't explain in short bumpersticker simplicity why I chose to voluntarily join the military. I'll happily admit that I was young, dumb and full of c.um...but that's only a facet of the truth. What I can say is that my experience exposed me to all the risks associated with maintaining freedom. Looking back on time, I'd like to believe that a shared sense of duty and a belief in a cause higher then self is what most combat soldiers hold close to their hearts.

Because of the time, when I happened to serve, I was dealt a set of lousy cards in quick succession. I played my hands honorably and acted parts upon two different stages, in theatres with names like The Balboa and The Babel. The first was as romantic and exciting as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid...the second was quietly unforgettable as Heaven's Gate.

Trying to ridicule someone takes style you seem to hunger for Sr. Sin-nombre. I think at heart I am a disenfranchised democrat. My main problem is that I can't seem to find candidates that can explain 70 years of welfare wihich give the poor only enough to keep them poor, planned parenthoods that systematically target poor people of color (ethnic women make lousy feminist is my only guess) and anything to do with unions (here you could keep me up all night - educator, correctional worker or tradesmen - dealers choice).

Boy, it's late..I came in from a night game where my team lost and know I find myself addressing a loser whose team can't seem to decide if a uniform, let alone which color, is appropriate.

Menotelllname, you get excited about ridiculing people for their convictions, yet you lack the confidence to use your own voice in any competent way to draw up an arguement or point of view that is owned and can be originally your's. Please make an honest effort to insult me the next time you decide to collectively add my name to a tired and immature attempt at being clever.

Good night.
[/quote]

Just so you know...genius...I was in the military too.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO, I'd love to hear the details on this one....

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

Amazes me that most LIBS are so pathetic to defend Saddam..

Lib reply: Sadam did not have WMD?
He admited before we entered he had WMD. He broke 14 UN resolutions over 12 years for the UN to look into his programs. If 2 people (DC snipers) caused 20 million to freak out. Can you imagine the thousands of extreme sunni's that Saddam was breeding. I have a good artile at the bottom of thread about this.. HE WAS A WMD!!

http://www.christophercoutu.com/Vision/IRAQ/FREE_IRAQ.html

Lib reply: He never was a threat for the US?
The only way for him to stay in power is to push for instablility in the middle east. So he paid marters 25k to blow them selves up. He owned all IRAQ news papers and stated jihad should continue against the west. 

You listen to Kerry, Hollywood, Liberal media, Michael Moore and Kennedy one would think Saddam and the terrorists are good people. 

Most of the BS these people say are slaps in the face of our American troops. If anyone of these guys went to IRAQ our troops would curse them up and down.  

GREAT ARTICLE BELOW SHOWING SADDAM'S EVIL AT THE END>>!

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Internationally isolated and fearful of losing power, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) made an astonishing move in the last years of his secular rule: He invited into Iraq (news - web sites) clerics who preached an austere form of Islam that's prevalent in Saudi Arabia.

He also let extremely religious Iraqis join his ruling Baath Socialist Party. Saddam's bid to win over devout Muslims planted the seeds of the insurgency behind some of the deadliest attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces today, say Saudi dissidents and U.S. officials.

"Saddam invited Muslim scholars and preachers to Iraq for his own survival," said Saad Fagih, a London-based Saudi dissident. "He convinced them that Shiites are the danger."

Shiite Muslims make up about 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people and they strongly support planned Jan. 30 elections, hoping to reverse the longtime domination of Iraq's Sunni minority. The insurgency is thought to be run mostly by Sunnis who fear losing power.

Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi — or Salafi — brand of Sunni Islam began trickling into Iraq in the mid-1990s, at the height of punishing international sanctions for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. They came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, including some returning Iraqis who adopted the Salafi ideology in exile.

A Wahhabi mosque was even built in the Shiite holy city of Karbala at a time when Shiites were banned from worshipping their religion freely. Signs of strict Islamic codes also began appearing, such as a growing number of women wearing veils.

The words "God is great" were added to the Iraqi flag after Saddam's defeat in the 1991 U.S.-led Gulf War (news - web sites). He closed bars and nightclubs to appease Muslims.

Around the same time, several militant Islamic groups, including Jund al-Islam (Islam's Soldier), started taking root in the mountains of northern Iraq along the Iranian border.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, these Salafi groups reorganized under Ansar al-Islam, which had ties with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida and with Jordanian militant leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of the current insurgency.

Ansar al-Islam, which adhered to a rigid Salafi ideology, seems to have been destroyed during the initial days of the U.S.-led invasion when its bases were attacked by American forces in March 2003. Hundreds of fighters were killed or scattered, many reportedly fleeing to Iran.

But the Ansar al-Sunnah Army — believed to be an outgrowth of Ansar al-Islam — then surfaced. The group recently claimed responsibility for the December suicide bombing at a U.S. base in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, killing 22 people, mostly American troops. Thought to be the deadliest Iraqi-run group, it also has been behind a string of beheadings and the twin suicide bombings of Kurdish party headquarters in Irbil last February.

Al-Zarqawi formed his own group, which is suspected of being behind a campaign of beheadings, kidnappings, mortar attacks and car bombings, including one that hit the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003, killing 22 people.

On Tuesday, al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for assassinating the governor of Baghdad province and six of his bodyguards.

Al-Zarqawi recently announced he was merging his Tawhid and Jihad group with al-Qaida, and changed its name to al-Qaida in Iraq. Bin Laden may have taken him up on the offer, according to an audiotape broadcast in December in which a speaker the CIA (news - web sites) believes was bin Laden called al-Zarqawi his lieutenant in Iraq and said Muslims there should "listen to him."

"Thanks to American propaganda, this group has achieved the glory and fame that it lacked and always strived for," said Yasir al-Sirri, an Egyptian and strict Muslim in London.

But he dismissed American claims that al-Qaida and Saddam were linked.

"From the start, al-Zarqawi wasn't part of al-Qaida. Not everyone who was in Afghanistan (news - web sites) was affiliated to al-Qaida," said al-Sirri, who supports the Iraqi insurgency.

There's no question, however, that Saddam invited Islamic extremists into Iraq.

The core insurgency is Iraqi Sunni Muslims — a volatile mix of groups and freelancers who include loyalists of the former Baath Party, Fedayeen militiamen, former Republican Guard and intelligence agents, Islamic extremists, paid common criminals and disaffected Iraqis.

The Sunni resistance at first wanted to use al-Zarqawi as a tool to draw support for their cause, according to Fagih, who maintains contacts in Saudi Arabia.

"Foreigners came and were ready to kill themselves," he said, but the Sunni resistance discovered it couldn't control al-Zarqawi. "He's like an unguided missile."

Now, U.S. officials say it is local insurgents — essentially former regime elements and Islamic extremists, and not foreign fighters — who are proving difficult to defeat.

"If in Iraq there were only al-Zarqawi or al-Qaida, the situation would be manageable," a U.S. government official based in Iraq said on condition of anonymity. "It would be just like any country with terrorist problems. Al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida wouldn't have the effect of what we are seeing now."

He said most of the suicide car bombings, which usually kill Iraqi civilians, police and national guardsmen, are carried out by foreign fighters, while the former regime elements have been largely involved in planting bombs to attack U.S. convoys.

The Iraqi extremists who joined the Baath Party under Saddam and are now engaged in the insurgency are not necessarily tied to al-Qaida, the U.S. official said.

"Exactly who they are tied to or what — like other international terrorists — is very fluid," the official said. "Foreign fighters have ties to al-Qaida. They all help each other one way or another — whether it's financial, logistical planning. ... They share training camps used by differing groups at different times."

The camps, the official alleged, were financed mostly by rich former Baathists who fled to Syria just before the war — charges the Syrian government has denied.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were against the war that toppled Saddam — partly because they feared it could result in Shiite domination.

"They didn't want the Sunni hegemony uprooted. They wanted to keep the status quo," said Hamza al-Hassan, a Shiite Saudi dissident writer in London. "Now, some Arab fighters might be joining the insurgency to protect Sunni power."

[quote=menotellname]Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo’s writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

[/quote]

It is apparent that the browneye just likes to disagree. That's a definite symptom of a failed planner.

They are such a bitter group, and browneye is a bitter boy.

Did your Mom make you wear highwaters to school?

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[/quote]

There is a huge difference between the demographics of the political affiliations of officers and enlisted personnel.  Their feelings about any past, present, or future President are a different subject.  I suggest you educate yourself on the subtle yet distinct differences. 

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

[/quote]

Speaking of off topic...

Seems like your entire post is off topic.  My previous post answered your post in a similar manner by rambling and asking aimless questions.  Your pointless questions were answered with like minded pointless questions.  Notice the irony?

To answer your last question:  I didn't know that anyone was appointed.

Anyway...who labeled me liberal?  I am moderate and rational.  I have lived, seen, and experienced both sides of the fence.  Fought and served, done blue collar and white collar work, been poor and wealthy.  I hold very balanced views.  You tend to be rather extreme.  But I wouldn't expect less of a racist (oh look...another label).

For what it's worth, I make it a habit to ask every service person, enlisted or commissioned, who they'd rather have in at NCA.

Here's their choices:

1. Bush
2. Kerry
3. Gore
4. Clinton

Nobody in uniform chooses anyone other than Bush. I'm not talking about a dozen or so soliders, either. I'm talking hundreds (my firm has given lectures, gratis, on various financial subjects at several Army and Air Force installations since 1991, so I see quite a few of them).

I wish I could spell out the numerous reasons why on this forum, but I simply do not have that much time. My girl is calling as I type, so I have to jet.

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=menotellname]Good writing and good reading material = yes.  However, you are wrong again.  Mojo’s writing style reeks of bitterness and it is still long winded and self-serving thereby making his posts pointless.  Much like Put Trader.  As a matter of fact these two individuals are quite similar.

[/quote]

It is apparent that the browneye just likes to disagree. That's a definite symptom of a failed planner.

They are such a bitter group, and browneye is a bitter boy.

Did your Mom make you wear highwaters to school?

[/quote]

?????

Talk about off topic remarks.

I just call a spade a spade.  If you don't like it...tough.

Highwaters?

I guess you attempted to make another weak point. 

Speaking of failing...you failed.  Again.

There we go....He DID wear highwaters in school!!!

How funny! 

I feel that Godwin's Law is going to kick in soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The Dems have already lost any pretense at logical argument long ago.

[quote=babbling looney]I feel that Godwin’s Law is going to kick in soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The Dems have already lost any pretense at logical argument long ago.[/quote]

I think you're right.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

That's funny, since most...the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY...of our soldiers are REPUBLICANS.

[/quote]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[/quote]

Clearly you haven't a clue. I doubt you even know two people on active duty and I doubt you ever served yourself.

I suggest you ask anyone in uniform how they felt about the last two Commanders in Chief. Then draw your own conclusions about what party they favor.

Here's a hint, it isn't yours.

[/quote]

There is a huge difference between the demographics of the political affiliations of officers and enlisted personnel.  Their feelings about any past, present, or future President are a different subject.  I suggest you educate yourself on the subtle yet distinct differences. 

[/quote]

Once again you prove you haven't a clue. It's not to say there are no liberals in the military,  it's to say they are a rare, rare breed. rarer in the military than they are on Wall Street.

I'd be happy to measure my experience on both sides of the officer/enlisted demographic, and I'll tell you again, you haven't a clue.

[quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown][quote=menotellname][quote=stanwbrown]

[quote=menotellname]Still trying to figure out why Put, Stan, Mojo, and Looney are still stateside.  Shouldn't you be putting on fatigues and going overseas to fight for your ideals...oops...I forgot that Republicans are all rhetoric.  Please forgive the previous rhetorical statement.[/quote]

Let me see if I understand this...we can't support the war unless we volunteer to fight it (let's put aside that fact that I, and I'm sure many others here, other than metellnotruth have ALREADY served in uniform)? Then can you be for law and order w/o joining the police? Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o joining the fire department?

The foolishness of liberals never ceases to amaze....

[/quote]

Can you be a vegan by eating meat?

Can you be a pacifist by being an ultimate fighter?

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

Were you trying to make a point?

Surprisingly enough I have been a police officer and a paid firefighter too.  I don't just say it.  I do it.

Next.

[/quote]

I saw your off-topic babbling, and noted the fact you failed to answer, so I'll give you another chance.

Can you be in favor of law and order w/o being a cop?

Can you be in favor of fire prevention w/o becoming a fireman?

And here's another for you; who put liberals in charge of who was allowed to say what?

[/quote]

Speaking of off topic...

Seems like your entire post is off topic.  My previous post answered your post in a similar manner by rambling and asking aimless questions.  Your pointless questions were answered with like minded pointless questions.  Notice the irony?

To answer your last question:  I didn't know that anyone was appointed.

Anyway...who labeled me liberal?  I am moderate and rational.  I have lived, seen, and experienced both sides of the fence.  Fought and served, done blue collar and white collar work, been poor and wealthy.  I hold very balanced views.  You tend to be rather extreme.  But I wouldn't expect less of a racist (oh look...another label).

[/quote]

Sorry, pal, but if you claim without a shred of evidence that Bush lied by saying the same thing Democrats said about Saddam in 1998, if you claim he lied while relying on the opinion of every intelligence agency on the planet, if you claim troops in our Armed Forces aren't overwhelmingly conservative and supportive of the president, if you claim one must be a hypocrite to support the war in Iraq and not enlist to fight it, you're not a moderate and you’re certainly not rational. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You’re a liberal repeating every liberal talking point.

Sorry, pal, but if you claim without a shred of evidence that Bush lied by saying the same thing Democrats said about Saddam in 1998, if you claim he lied while relying on the opinion of every intelligence agency on the planet, if you claim troops in our Armed Forces aren't overwhelmingly conservative and supportive of the president, if you claim one must be a hypocrite to support the war in Iraq and not enlist to fight it, you're not a moderate and you’re certainly not rational.

You’re a liberal repeating every liberal talking point.

Furthermore, if you toss in the racist accusation, you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a desperate liberal, trapped in a obviously ridiculous position, looking for anything, anything to distract others while you try to toss in the race card to escape. Despicable.

gee, I wish we had an edit button  

What you were supposed to say is:

gee, I wish we had an edit button  

gee, I wish we had an edit button