Community Calendar
Community
Calendar
Tomahawk Leader Internet Edition - Newspaper in Tomahawk Wisconsin Photo Album
Photo
Album
Map
Map of
Tomahawk, WI
Grey Bar
The Tomahawk Leader is a state and national prize-winning weekly newspaper serving the scenic Northwoods area in and around Tomahawk, WI.

It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2003 2:52 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bob, you are losing it:

>>Flosum and Dave are unhappy with the United Nations. Now that's a familiar position held by
conservatives for years. History, of course, has
proven that view to be dead wrong.<<<

I doubt very seriously that history has taken a stand or ever will on “my” opinion of the United Nations. There is no right or wrong… it is my opinion…. I don’t like the United Nations.

Sure blows the he-ll out of your theory that I march in lock-step with the pres don’t it? Hehehe

As for >The United States is a willing and avid supporter of the United Nations. <

If that is the case, then why are we always so far behind in paying our dues and then we only pay with great reluctance? I think we have gotten ourselves into a position where it is politically correct to belong and politically un-correct to get out. And like most political correctness, it is political crapola! ;)

<small>[ February 04, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2003 6:35 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I normally would not reply to a post like Bob's because it comes from someone who does not read well and also exhibits flights of fancy. I will make an exception because the UN is an important subject. I have no problem with the UN and never did. The United Nations is important because it allows a continuing forum for nation states to use to discuss problems and, at times, to try to apply collective solutions. It is not and never was intended to become a world government. Liberals, who seek to limit our personal freedoms through the use of government, almost always support the establishment of the United Nations as a world governmental body since that would have a corresponding effect on our freedom as a nation state. We do not need to have the UN for the US to have a foreign policy. We do not need to have a decision from the UN in order for us to take actions that are in the interest of the United States. No other country has done more to create and sustain the UN than the USA (Woodrow Wilson founded the forerunner to the UN after WWI), but it will be a cold day in **** before we give up our prerogatives as a sovereign nation state to this or any other organization.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 2:58 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Flotsum and Dave are just modern avatars of the old John Birch Society. Tie a flag to your SUV and drive up and down the road and bingo, you are a super patriot. By the way you may want to read the Superpatriot by a former UN Conspiracy theorist defector. He discuses how he used to do his best to produce products like Flosum and Dave. His tools of trade: lies and deception.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:04 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 184
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Work
Maybe Bush could have someone count the bags for him:
* * * *
From the Boulder Mennonite
January 22, 2003
There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq
in a simple, but potentially powerful way.

Place ½ cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size
bag or sandwich bag works fine). Squeeze out excess air and
seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have
written, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them.” Romans 12:20.
“Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not attack
them.” (If you are of a different faith than Christian,
substitute a statement from your own faith tradition.)

Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-
sized or padded mailing envelope –both are the same cost to
mail) and address them to:

President George Bush
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Attach $1.06 in postage. (FYI three $.37 stamps equal $1.11)

Drop this in the mail TODAY. It is important to act NOW so that
President Bush gets letters ASAP. In order for this protest to
be effective, there must be hundreds of thousands of such rice
deliveries to the White House. We can do this if you each
forward this message to your friends and family.

There is a positive history of this protest. In the 1950’s,
Fellowship of Reconciliation began a similar protest, which is
credited with influencing President Eisenhower against attacking
China. Read on:

“In the mid-1950’s, the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation,
learning of famine in the Chinese mainland, launched a ‘Feed
Thine Enemy’ campaign. Members and friends mailed thousands of
little bags of rice to the White House with a tag quoting the
Bible, “If thine enemy hunger, feed him.” As far as anyone knew
for more than ten years, the campaign was an abject failure.
The President did not acknowledge receipt of the bags publicly;
certainly no rice was ever sent to China.

“What nonviolent activists only learned a decade later was that
the campaign played a significant, perhaps even determining role
in preventing nuclear war. Twice while the campaign was on,
President Eisenhower met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
consider U.S. options in the conflict with China over two
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. The generals twice recommended the
use of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower each time turned
to his aide and asked how many little bags of rice had come in.
When told they numbered in the tens of thousands, Eisenhower
told the generals that as long as so many Americans were
expressing active interest in having the U.S. feed the Chinese,
he certainly wasn’t going to consider using nuclear weapons
against them. “ (From: People Power: Applying Nonviolence
Theory, by David H. Albert, pg. 43. New Society, 19)

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 2:56 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
FLOSUM: Read Dave's post about the United Nations. DAVE: You are entitled to believe and
say anything you like. Accusing me of "not reading well" and given to "flights of fancy" are
gratuitous insults that don't surprise me coming from someone with your political and social views.
You obviously find opposing views uncomfortable, even personally insulting. I've yet to discover what you do read because your posts carry no references -- just your own benighted point of view. If you want to debate an issue, I'm your man. Just be prepared to provide facts, solid
evidence, and SOURCES to support your grand assertions. Some months ago I had a similar exchange with Flosum and his disparagement is a
matter of record on this message board. His views
are not to be confused with realities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 2:57 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Abraham is reverting to the old liberal strategy of shooting the messenger or in this case trying to discredit them by using character assassination and name calling. They do that every time they run out of intellectual argument to support their bankrupt ideas. I can play that game.

If I’m an incarnation of the John Birch Society then what does that make you? an avatar of Karl Marx, or is it Lenin or maybe Trotsky? Or I guess it may be the amoral Immanuel Kant you are quoting above. He is the one that argued that decisions should be based on pleasure vs. pain and nothing else. As in if it feels good, do it, regardless of moral of other consequences. Yup, sounds like a super liberal to me. Never take responsibility for their actions but first to demand that everyone else does.

Dave, I agree with you on the original concept of the U.N. and of course it has and will continue to do “some” good and in some areas a lot of good. But in it’s current structure I think it is extremely difficult if not possible to do the things the founders thought were most need.

<small>[ February 05, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: JFlosum ]</small>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:02 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Marty...not intending to impune the veracity of what your grandfather may have told you, but his experience with mustard gas would have been in WWI not in WWII. There are no recorded cases of chemical weapons usage against Allied Forces in WWII by anyone. The Germans did use some chemical warfare agents such as Tabun, Sarin, and Cyclon-B in the death camps, but they refrained from using these weapons along with the older WWI varietals like clorine and mustard on the battlefield. Although the Germans committed large sums and much effort in the development of new chemical agents, they were never used. Historical documents show that this was on the direct orders of Adolf Hitler, who was himself a gas casualty during WWI. The speculation by many biographers is that his experience with gas warfare in the trenches was responsible for his refusal to use this type of weapon even when all was lost. Accounts by any number of veterans (and a famous cartoon by Bill Mauldin) show that most soldiers "86ed" their gas masks as soon as possible. Most soldiers threw away the gas mask and used the carrier to store cigarettes and candy bars as well as to fool officers and NCOs into believing that they still had the mask. I can assure you that had there been any gas casualties at all, every soldier would have held onto his gas mask for dear life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:21 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bob, our disagreements on other threads had to do, for the most part, with you not being able to accept the idea that I had my own ideas and not just regurgitating the party line like most of the liberals do. I openly admitted that a lot of my posts were my own ideas and not founded on any one quotable source. You had great difficulty with that concept, suggesting that if I could not quote a source, the idea was not valid, which is ridicules. Abram seems to have the same problem. He seems to think that history has proven me wrong because I do not like the United Nations. History can regard my opinion in any fashion that it wants but it can not make me like the U.N.

I don’t feel I need to source every idea or opinion I have. But if you want one here try this one: --Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

And another: --The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost, not the acquisition of special knowledge.

And just for good measures here’s another: --Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:23 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
BOB DOOLITTLE: Sorry if you took offense. As you say, we are all entitled to our opinions...even about each other. As you seem to have problems with comments on your personal style, I will refrain from them in the future altough I suggest you never get involved in an Oxford style debate as you will probably not survive long. As to the proof and sources issues, I see nothing in any of your posts indicating that you have much of an appreciation for either since you offer none. I am all in favor of raising the bar, so to speak, and hope to see something other than your own unsupported opinions in the future. I might add that the simple tossing out of a name here and there probably does not qualify as a proof. Such an intelligent interchange might also be a good example to other message board participants. The only question now is what to debate. Since you suggested the format in the first place, I feel you should take on the role of the affirmative player and state a premise upon which we can launch. I will play the role of the negative. I assume that the usual rules will apply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 3:41 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I did a search on http://www.google.com/ and found this story. I have no idea if it is
accurate.

On December 2nd, 1943, German bombers attacked American tankers and munitions ships in Bari Harbor off the southeast coast of Italy.

One of the ships, it seems, had held 100 tons of mustard gas. Later, the Army claimed it'd been there as a deterrent -- a deterrent which had inexplicably been made top secret. We were lucky that most of the mustard gas burned off in the fires. The small part of it that'd been absorbed into floating oil was what did all the damage. And so this Bay of Bari incident produced the only mustard gas casualties in WW-II -- Americans killed by American gas.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1190.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:06 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
DAVE: I have debated Oxford style as an undergraduate and enjoyed it and obviously survived. Why is it that conservatives always
want to take the negative side of virtually any
issue? The affirmative typically carries a greater burden of proof since a prima facie case must be established and questions of desirability
and practicality must also be firmly established. The negative need only effectively refute any of
these areas to prevail. (We are talking about standard argumentation are we not?) Case in point: I think President Bush has the burden of proof (the affirmative if you will) in making a case for an invasion and occupation of Iraq. A substantial number of people in this country and abroad agree (read any major newspaper) that he has not made that case. You want to accept the burden of proof that President Bush has in "making
the case" for war? If so, lead on! I'll take the negative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 4:37 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 233
Location: Tomahawk, WI
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Resident 1980 - 1989, retired here 5/2012
Quote:
Originally posted by Marty:
My grandfather fought in WWI & WWII, in WWII he was mustard gassed in WWII.
Mustard gas was not used in WWII. If he was exposed to mustard gas as a combatant it was in WWI. If he was exposed in WWII it would have been as a volunteer wearing full protective gear as there was some testing carried on.

". Although mustard gas was not used in WWII, the United States produced and stockpiled the chemical for possible use" See ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/tenth/profiles/s116must.pdf

<small>[ February 05, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: NurseNell ]</small>

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:06 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bob: With your vast experience in debate as well as world politics I am surprized that you are surprized about conservatives normaly finding themselves fullfillng the role of the negative in classic debate. I hate to assert that this is only natural as I am sure that you, with your superior wisdom, already know the following:

liberal: Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non revolutionary progress and reform (change).

conservative: Tending to favor the preservation of the existing order and to regard proposals for change with distrust (status quo).

Since the rules of classic debate require that the negative defend the status quo and since the bulwark of conservatism is the maintenance of the staus quo it is only natural that conservatives would wind up on the negative team more often than not. Since liberals favor change and reform to achieve what they call progress, it is only natural that they would find themselves on the affirmative side. (For the uninitiated out there, the terms "affirmative" and "negative" have no connotation whatever and should be looked at simply as team names like "Tigers" or "Hatchets". Bob wants you to infer that conservatives are somehow negative because that is the team name, but I know you are all smart enough to see through this cheap ploy.)Anyway, Bob, that is the reason but you knew all that, I am sure.

As far as the case for armed intervention in Iraq, I trust that you were glued to the TV set today and watched the entire address given by Colin Powell to the UN Security Council(not just the few lines covered in the evening news). I would simply repeat what the Secretary of State said since I thought he made a very convincing case for armed intervention as soon as possible. Your turn....I can hardly wait.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:54 pm 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
DAVE: Perhaps I gave you more credit for wanting to engage in "raising the bar" for discussion and
debate than you are willing to accept. I was assuming, too, that outside of resisting change and
reform as a knee-jerk response, that you were willing to make a case suggesting that the status quo ought to be preserved. Even conservatives do that from time to time. And, notice, a decision to go to war with Iraq is not a decision consistent with preserving the "status quo" in any real sense.
We've never attacked a country in which inspectors have been operating for weeks and months and still have opportunities to continue inspections to ensure that weapons are not present or are not present in a form that allows them to be readily used. We've never attacked a country which is not engaged in aggressive warfare or actively threatening its neighbors. That's not consistent with the "status quo;" it's it redefining the status quo.
Yes, I listened carefully to Colin Powell and I agree with many that it was an impressive presentation raising still more questions about whether or not Saddam Hussein has operable weapons of mass destruction. But, as people inside and outside this country have noted, the case is, on
the basis of the kind and quality of evidence offered, a circumstantial case. It argues more
for persistence in inspections than it does for
attack. One example. Powell showed satellite photos of "something" being moved ahead of a visit of inspectors. That may be suspicious but what court of law in this country would accept that as evidence of anything. Another: Powell showed photos of Iraqis burying "something" which was then "graded over." Again, it is suspicious but
not proof of anything. It does make one wonder why the U.S. did not provide those photos to inspectors and directed them to the site to investigate further.
I listened today as well to further news from North Korea -- which admits having nuclear weapons, refuses inspections, is in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions and an agreement signed with the United State, posseses and has successfully tested intermediate range missiles, and has openly admitted selling weapons to enemies of the United States -- which brazenly announced that a nuclear power plant is now fully operational. BUT WE INSIST THAT NORTH KOREA MUST BE DEALT WITH THROUGH DIPLOMACY. The logic for war with Iraq doesn't wash when the case for action against North Korea is examined by the same logic.

Let see how you make an argument for war against Iraq. Certainly going to war under these circumstances is not consistent with any "status
quo" that I recognize.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:11 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 683
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Tie to Tomahawk: I grew up there & family
Spambot: No
Bob,

You just made the case for both a possible attack against Iraq and for using diplomacy in N. Korea.

"which admits having nuclear weapons, refuses inspections, is in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions and an agreement signed with the United State, posseses and has successfully tested intermediate range missiles, and has openly admitted selling weapons to enemies of the United States"

How do you attack a nuclear power which has missles that may be able to reach Alaska? We are currently in a position with N. Korea that I would prefer to avoid with Iraq. We don't really have much of a choice. If we attack they could take out S. Korea, Japan, parts of the U.S. or any other target close enough.

Also, N. Korea has not invaded any other country in what, the last 40 years? It has not used ANY of it's most dangerous weapons on others. It seems to be perfectly happy threatening to use them in negotiations.

On the other hand, we currently have the opportunity to stop Iraq BEFORE it has the same opportunities that N. Korea has. Iraq's nuclear program is not as advanced as N. Korea's. Iraq doesn't have as powerful of a missle and would have a harder time reaching as far with its weapons.

Finally, and this is one of the most important parts. Iraq HAS used the weapons it has. It has used chemical weapons in Iran and against its own people. It doesn't threaten to use them, it does. From what I have read one of the main factors chemical weapons were not used in Desert Storm is that we warned Iraq that we would respond with every weapon available if they used them. I guess even Saddam knows a nuclear attack would destroy his country.

Also, you asked for an example of an attack against a country that had inspectors in it. Clinton did it against Iraq last time they weren't working with inspectors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:20 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 2:01 am
Posts: 121
Location: Tomahawk
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby....I am absolutely certain that I gave you more credit than you deserve. I am surprized that even a flaming liberal like you cannot ascertain the status quo correctly. Let's see what it is. Under current law and our Constitution the United States Government decides, based on what is in the interest of the country, when we will go to war, who with, and all the other particulars. Our decision in this regard is made solely on what is in our interest as a nation state. Both houses of the Congress have authorized the president to use whatever means he deems necessary, including the use of military force, against Iraq. The President has determined that the use of military force to disarm Iraq is both necessary and feasible. Nowhere in the Congressional mandate does it mention anything about getting permission from the United Nations and I believe the President has made his position fairly clear on this issue as well. You may not agree with any of this but it does not change the fact that the status quo is a Congressional and Executive mandate for war with Iraq. All invective aside I still maintain that the ball is on your side of the court. You may not agree with the arguements in favor of war with Iraq but they have in fact been made; by the President, by the Congress, by the Secretary of State, by the British Prime Minister, and by many other world leaders. According to recent polls, over 70% of Americans find the arguements in favor of such a war compelling and well over half support us going it alone if we have to. Even liberal pundits complain that the numbers favoring war with Iraq are growing daily. The arguements have been made to support war with Iraq; the Congress and the people support the action; and any refutation is most certainly the responsibility of naysayers like yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:13 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 233
Location: Tomahawk, WI
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Resident 1980 - 1989, retired here 5/2012
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
[QB]Bobby, Bobby, Bobby....QB]
This is a patronizing and demeaning use of someone's name. The poster in question uses the name Bob Doolittle so either Bob or Mr. Doolittle should work just fine. You don't need to talk down to other posters.

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:17 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 233
Location: Tomahawk, WI
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Resident 1980 - 1989, retired here 5/2012
Quote:
Originally posted by Abraham:
From the Boulder Mennonite
January 22, 2003
There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq in a simple, but potentially powerful way.
Thanks Abraham, I've done this and our school is doing it. There is more information at http://www.riceforpeace.org/

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:24 am 
Offline
Typical Poster
Typical Poster

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 53
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Dave, Kerry, and all the rest of you eager for war. The last time I checked war is still a question for the people of this country. Congress gave a much-qualified mandate to the President to go to war if our national security is, indeed, shown to be seriously threatened. The issue has for some time been a matter of determining the nature of that threat. And that issue is by no means determined. Kerry, do we only attack people who do not have the capability to respond? What prevents us from keeping diplomatic pressure on both Korea and Iraq, from keeping inspectors on the ground as long as they can go about their business unimpeded? What prevents us from using our considerable intelligence assets not just to point fingers at what we consider "suspicious," but to direct inspectors to areas or activities we consider to be potential evidences of violations of U.N. resolutions? Clearly, the Bush Administration has botched the case of North Korea badly and escalated that threat by clumsy statements about the "axis of evil" and by ignoring that problem while concentrating on Iraq.
But how you reason that that argues for war against Iraq and diplomacy for Korea escapes me.
I'm still waiting to hear Dave provide a convincing case for war against Iraq. He's is, in
my judgement, dancing around that opportunity after suggesting that he was ready to debate following sound rules for evidence, etc. My judgment is that neither he, nor Flosum, no our illustrious Webmaster has the stomach for that task. And, I believe it is evident why you don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:41 am 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Rice for peace: “I've done this and our school is doing it.”

Yeah, and by doing so you are causing an unnecessary nuisance to the post office and the White House. Each one of those envelopes has to go through special screening. It’s a cute trick that goes more to the brain washing of the kids you are exploiting. Amazed the school would allow you to misuse your position that way. But then again most schools are the hotbed of liberalism, so maybe not all that surprising.

And while I’m at it, you chastising Dave for being patronizing and demeaning (which to a small degree I do agree he has done) is just as demeaning and a bit arrogant on your part. Last I looked there is a WebMaster that controls the board (and does a fine job if maybe not just a bit too strict). And as a matter of fact, the board has all but died from lack of interest until some of us “demeanors” cam back and kicked it up a notch!! Hehehe

I think it’s very entertaining to watch the two of them trying to beat the other into submission in their academia high brow manner. Let them go at it…. When the WebMaster thinks they have gone too far…he will pull the plug… I know from having had the plug pulled on me and Bob once before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:11 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
>>The last time I checked war is still a question for the people of this country.<< :) :) :) :)

One more point. You admit that: Congress gave a much-qualified mandate to the President to go to war if our national security is, indeed, shown to be seriously threatened.

That leaves it up to the opinion of the president to determine. It becomes an “opinion”, a discretionary call. That seems to me something you have fundamental problems with as I have pointed out before. You just can not accept that there are valid opinions that are not yours!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:12 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Declaring WAR!!

Some Cajuns from Mamou heard that Saddam Hussein was going to help Osama bin Laden and they decided This is WAR!! Saddam Hussein was sitting in his bunker when his telephone rang.

"Hallo! Mr. Hussein," a heavily accented voice said. "This is Boudreaux down at the Fred's lounge in Mamou, Looziannah. I'm callin' to told you we be officially declarin' war on you!"

"Well, Boudreaux," Saddam replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?" "Rat now," said Boudreaux (hesitating), "there is me, my cousin Thibodeaux, my nex door neighbor Justain, and the whole bunch from da' bar. Dat makes us eight!"

Saddam paused. "I must tell you, Boudreaux, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command." "Woo-eee!" said Boudreaux. "I gots to call you back later!"

Sure enough, the next day, Boudreaux called again. "Mr. Hussein, the war is still on! We got us some war equipment!" "And what equipment would that be, Boudreaux?" Saddam asked. "Well, we got us two combines, a dozer, and a farm tractor." Saddam sighed. "I must tell you, Boudreaux, that I have 16,000 tanks and 14,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I've increased my army to 1-1/2 million since we last spoke." "E-yiee!" said Boudreaux. "I gots to get back to you later."

Sure enough, Boudreaux rang again the next day. "Mr. Hussein, da war still be on! We got ourselves some airborne! We've took Marcel's ultra-light glider an we put us a shotgun in the cockpit, and Hebert gots out of jail today and he is gonna join our army too!"

Saddam was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell you, Boudreaux, that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!"

"Ah-yie-yie!", screams Boudreaux, "I gots ta call you back later." Sure enough, Boudreaux calls again the next day. "Bon jour, Sad-****! I so sorry I gots to toll you we is callin' off dis war."

"I'm sorry to hear that," said Saddam. "Why the sudden change of heart?" "Well," said Boudreaux, "we all had a long talk at da bar and Sheriff Broussard he say no way he's gonna feed no two million prisoners, no!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:26 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 312
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I need to clarify that statement as to who has the power to declare war. Constitutional scholars are debating that very thing and have been for a few years. Some say the President has the power on his/her own, others say only with the approval of congress, or after congress approves and therefor is the one that is actually declaring war. But no one that I have seen has said it lies with the people, except Bob! That is ludicrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:36 pm 
Offline
Contributor
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:01 am
Posts: 233
Location: Tomahawk, WI
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Tie to Tomahawk: Resident 1980 - 1989, retired here 5/2012
Quote:
Originally posted by JFlosum:
Yeah, and by doing so you are causing an unnecessary nuisance to the post office and the White House. Each one of those envelopes has to go through special screening. It’s a cute trick that goes more to the brain washing of the kids you are exploiting. Amazed the school would allow you to misuse your position that way.
Did I say anything about the students doing this? No, I didn't. Staff is doing it, and only those who choose to do it. I'm sorry the White House is being inconvenienced. Do you think Bush's daughters will enlist in the military and fight for their country? I highly doubt it. Even Bush himself had his Daddy get him a position in the Air National Guard so he didn't have to go to Viet Nam.

My school is hardly a hotbed of anything but providing excellent care to 140 special needs kids.

Nell

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 179 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY
Localized by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr