|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 12, 4:36*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 12, 12:53*pm, Scott wrote: On Aug 12, 1:43*pm, "Paul G." wrote: On Aug 12, 11:36*am, Scott wrote: Wow, you caught a spelling error. *That's the only thing in your post that's sensible. *Now, I think I'll go commit sepuku in shame. It's kind of like getting an email from "your bank", but the name of the bank is misspelled. *A "company commander" who misspells "sergeant" *sets off the same alarm bells. Like I said, *"I think it would be far more interesting to hear a "company commander" state his opinion of George "W"uss's leadership on 9/11." * Seems quite reasonable to me, yet you wussed out. * I've stated what I thought of our pathetic excuse for a president's actions on 9/11, and exactly why. *I didn't even get into his shameful actions later on, when he went into hiding. *That must have made bin Laden's day, seeing the president of the United States on the run from a handful of Muslims with box cutters. If you're not man enough to analyze Bush's actions from a company commander's perspective, I'll understand. *Lots of bull****ters exaggerate their military service. -Paul You're the one ragging on Bush, not me. *Like you (to a very limited degree) I don't think he's above reproach, but I do not feel the need or choose to critique his actions on 9/11. *For one thing, we only know what the press has told us about his actions and we are not privy to all the conversations or all his decisions on that day. *Could things have been better? *Sure. *Would I classify his actions on 9/11 as cowardly or incompetent? *No. The crucial part was videotaped. *There is no question what happened. His aide steps up and whispers in his ear. The aide says he told Bush that a second plane had hit the WTC and "the nation is under attack." * You can see exactly what Bush did, which was nothing. He froze:http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/0...057.html#video What would you say about a "company commander" who just sat there when told "Sir, the company is under attack"? You keep referring to people wussing out and you've previously said that when you get in people's faces they back down. *Just when was the last time you actually stood up to someone in person? *Really? *C'mon now, fess up, you're not such a badass, are you? Heh heh! * I'm roughly the size and shape of a grizzly bear. Normally a scowl does the job. *Last time I can think of was when I saw a pickup truck ramming and pushing the side of a car with a woman in it. I stopped my car about 50' away, got out and started walking over there. To my relief he looked at me, backed up and took off. *I'll be damned if the woman didn't drive after him! *I was quite happy to have done my civic duty without getting run over or shot. I also have a really funny story about why I now ignore insults from carloads of white trash while out cycling. *But no, I'm not a badass in person. But none of that matters in usenet. *The taunts are just usenet hyperbole used to achieve a goal. Mission accomplished. *I got you to say "Would I classify [Bush's] actions on 9/11 as cowardly or incompetent? *No." *Yet you also say "I do not feel the need or choose to critique [Bush's] actions on 9/11." *I find that very odd. I used to race bikes, and so I sometimes critique bike racing. I should think someone who's been in command would instinctively recoil at the idea of a president who just sits there when told "the nation is under attack." * What kind of commander were you, just a pencil- pushing bureaucrat? As for me exxagerating anything, well... considering that I haven't really told you very much other than I was a company commander of an infantry company, I haven't exactly claimed very much, now have I? What, exactly, about that counts as an exxageration? The "commander of an infantry company" who can't spell "sergeant". I've actually had my service questioned because I didn't blindly support Our Glorious Leader, and I'm only claiming to have been a lowly radar tech. * Of course everyone knows the real bull****ters claim they were Marines, not merely Army, so that's a point in your favor. -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - With what limited respect I can muster, I'm not impressed by any of your rants and I doubt seriously that you could back me or anyone down with a scowl. My guess is you're big as a bear, a 40% bodyfat bear. Not particularly scary to be confronted by someone like that, unless you're carrying ice cream. I haven't questioned your service. You tell us you worked as a radar tech. I believe you. You bet your ass I believe you. I have commented on the nature of your service, qualifying it as "camp follower" to prove the point that you aren't so damn brave, either, and you arrogantly think that because you were "educated" you were better suited to working with radars instead of doing the grunt work, as if there is something demeaning about being in the combat arms. Your elitist attitude has come out in numerous posts, but what you don't understand is that the great majority of those serving in the combat arms are as educated as you, but not so pussified as to look for the easy way out or to avoid the hard, dangerous work that's required. Some might say I have an elitist attitude, too, and I do. I proudly served in elite units with very professional, very dedicated soldiers who'd just as soon stick an icepick in your ear as look at you if I'd asked 'em to, or who'd lay down their lives for their buddies without being asked. Guys who happily put up with more crap and hardship then anyone had a right to put them through, and do it willingly. You think you were special 'cause you were educated and therefore worked as a radar tech. What a load of crap. You weren't special, you were a pussy. You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". Besides, there are any number of contingency plans in place for all sorts of scenarios, and from my limited experience I'd imagine that once President Bush was aware that the appropriate actions were being handled by the people tasked to handle them, I wouldn't expect him to jump into the nearest phone booth and emerge as the superhero you seem to think he should've been. Panicked response is hardly confidence inspiring. You've found an act you can hang your hat on to justify your hatred for the president. Good for you. On balance, I'm not so upset with him so I'm not going to get my shorts all in a bunch over it. |
Ads |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 7:56*am, Scott wrote:
With what limited respect I can muster, I'm not impressed by any of your rants and I doubt seriously that you could back me or anyone down with a scowl. *My guess is you're big as a bear, a 40% bodyfat bear. Not particularly scary to be confronted by someone like that, unless you're carrying ice cream. You're very unimpressive yourself, Rambo. You claim to have experience as a commander, yet you seem to be better at shooting of your mouth than assessing Bush's pathetic performance as commander-in- chief. You obviously don't have what it takes to lead. I haven't questioned your service. *You tell us you worked as a radar tech. *I believe you. *You bet your ass I believe you. * I have commented on the nature of your service, qualifying it as "camp follower" to prove the point that you aren't so damn brave, either, and you arrogantly think that because you were "educated" you were better suited to working with radars instead of doing the grunt work, as if there is something demeaning about being in the combat arms. That cuts both ways. You're demeaning the nature of my service, not that I give a ****. You're making excuses for Bush's pathetic leadership skills. That's all I need to know about YOUR leadership skills. Your elitist attitude has come out in numerous posts, but what you don't understand is that the great majority of those serving in the combat arms are as educated as you, but not so pussified as to look for the easy way out or to avoid the hard, dangerous work that's required. snort! The "great majority"?! You need to read more. Of course that would require pulling your head out of your ass: WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards. Some might say I have an elitist attitude, too, and I do. OK, so I'm elitist and it's bad, you're elitist and it's good. I don't give a ****. I proudly served in elite units with very professional, very dedicated soldiers who'd just as soon stick an icepick in your ear as look at you if I'd asked 'em to, Psychopaths are like that. You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". You really are a moron. Andrew Card has publicly stated what happened at that historic moment. It's on the Whitehouse website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20030416.html "I walked into the room, trying not to be disruptive to the young students and whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" Consider that the usenet equivalent of an icepick in the ear. -Paul |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 11:30*am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:56*am, Scott wrote: With what limited respect I can muster, I'm not impressed by any of your rants and I doubt seriously that you could back me or anyone down with a scowl. *My guess is you're big as a bear, a 40% bodyfat bear. Not particularly scary to be confronted by someone like that, unless you're carrying ice cream. You're very unimpressive yourself, Rambo. *You claim to have experience as a commander, yet you seem to be better at shooting of your mouth than assessing Bush's pathetic performance as commander-in- chief. You obviously don't have what it takes to lead. I haven't questioned your service. *You tell us you worked as a radar tech. *I believe you. *You bet your ass I believe you. * I have commented on the nature of your service, qualifying it as "camp follower" to prove the point that you aren't so damn brave, either, and you arrogantly think that because you were "educated" you were better suited to working with radars instead of doing the grunt work, as if there is something demeaning about being in the combat arms. That cuts both ways. You're demeaning the nature of my service, not that I give a ****. You're making excuses for Bush's pathetic leadership skills. That's all I need to know about YOUR leadership skills. Your elitist attitude has come out in numerous posts, but what you don't understand is that the great majority of those serving in the combat arms are as educated as you, but not so pussified as to look for the easy way out or to avoid the hard, dangerous work that's required. snort! *The "great majority"?! * You need to read more. Of course that would require pulling your head out of your ass: WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards. Some might say I have an elitist attitude, too, and I do. OK, so I'm elitist and it's bad, you're elitist and it's good. *I don't give a ****. I proudly served in elite units with very professional, very dedicated soldiers who'd just as soon stick an icepick in your ear as look at you if I'd asked 'em to, Psychopaths are like that. You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". You really are a moron. *Andrew Card has publicly stated what happened at that historic moment. It's on the Whitehouse website:http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20030416.html "I walked into the room, trying not to be disruptive to the young students and whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" Consider that the usenet equivalent of an icepick in the ear. -Paul Funny, but I ain't bleeding. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 11:16*am, Scott wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:30*am, "Paul G." wrote: On Aug 13, 7:56*am, Scott wrote: With what limited respect I can muster, I'm not impressed by any of your rants and I doubt seriously that you could back me or anyone down with a scowl. *My guess is you're big as a bear, a 40% bodyfat bear.. Not particularly scary to be confronted by someone like that, unless you're carrying ice cream. You're very unimpressive yourself, Rambo. *You claim to have experience as a commander, yet you seem to be better at shooting of your mouth than assessing Bush's pathetic performance as commander-in- chief. You obviously don't have what it takes to lead. I haven't questioned your service. *You tell us you worked as a radar tech. *I believe you. *You bet your ass I believe you. * I have commented on the nature of your service, qualifying it as "camp follower" to prove the point that you aren't so damn brave, either, and you arrogantly think that because you were "educated" you were better suited to working with radars instead of doing the grunt work, as if there is something demeaning about being in the combat arms. That cuts both ways. You're demeaning the nature of my service, not that I give a ****. You're making excuses for Bush's pathetic leadership skills. That's all I need to know about YOUR leadership skills. Your elitist attitude has come out in numerous posts, but what you don't understand is that the great majority of those serving in the combat arms are as educated as you, but not so pussified as to look for the easy way out or to avoid the hard, dangerous work that's required. snort! *The "great majority"?! * You need to read more. Of course that would require pulling your head out of your ass: WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards. Some might say I have an elitist attitude, too, and I do. OK, so I'm elitist and it's bad, you're elitist and it's good. *I don't give a ****. I proudly served in elite units with very professional, very dedicated soldiers who'd just as soon stick an icepick in your ear as look at you if I'd asked 'em to, Psychopaths are like that. You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". You really are a moron. *Andrew Card has publicly stated what happened at that historic moment. It's on the Whitehouse website:http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20030416.html "I walked into the room, trying not to be disruptive to the young students and whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" Consider that the usenet equivalent of an icepick in the ear. -Paul Funny, but I ain't bleeding. Yeah- no bleeding in usenet- dumbass. "You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". -Rambo Scott "I ... whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" -Andrew Card Victory is sweet. Now a real man would have the balls to simply say "I was wrong". You didn't. That makes this doubly sweet. -Paul |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 2:16*pm, Scott wrote:
Funny, but I ain't bleeding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scott go read through the "TK was exactly right thread", if you have the stomach for it. Where I posted links to what actually went on that morning with the fighter response, etc...and why there was nothing, anyone could've done that morning, no matter who to change the results, but Paul seems to have ignored that because it doesn't fit his preoconceived ideology. I'm no Bush fan by a long shot, and I'm betting you aren't either, but dirty laundry gets aired in the family. Probably no way in hell you knew my buddy when you were with the 82nd but he was a 81mm mortar crewman, Was a corporal at that point I think, Kandrotas. My address is good, and mentioned your thoughts about going to Landstuhl to Meesha which triggered the "we should go too", back there, or back to Ft. Lewis. Just mail along any questions, or she's working at Westover ARB now, but I'm not sure if she's got a dsn line or current equivalent. I think she does. I could probably get that for you. Bill C |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 12:04*pm, Bill C wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:16*pm, Scott wrote: Funny, but I ain't bleeding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scott go read through the "TK was exactly right thread", if you have the stomach for it. Where I posted links to what actually went on that morning with the fighter response, etc...and why there was nothing, anyone could've done that morning, no matter who to change the results, but Paul seems to have ignored that because it doesn't fit his preoconceived ideology. That doesn't matter. The fact is Bush froze in a crisis. It is a clear, simple example of why he is not and never was qualified to be president, and it's on video. The fact that we got lucky and there were only 4 planes is irrelevant to Bush's fitness to be commander-in- chief. A leader who won't lead is like a fighter pilot who won't fly- and that's also what Bush is. Get that thru your thick head. -Paul |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 3:29*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:04*pm, Bill C wrote: On Aug 13, 2:16*pm, Scott wrote: Funny, but I ain't bleeding.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scott go read through the "TK was exactly right thread", if you have the stomach for it. Where I posted links to what actually went on that morning with the fighter response, etc...and why there was nothing, anyone could've done that morning, no matter who to change the results, but Paul seems to have ignored that because it doesn't fit his preoconceived ideology. That doesn't matter. The fact is Bush froze in a crisis. It is a clear, simple example of why he is not and never was qualified to be president, and it's on video. The fact that we got lucky and there were only 4 planes is irrelevant to Bush's fitness to be commander-in- chief. *A leader who won't lead is like a fighter pilot who won't fly- and that's also what Bush is. Get that thru your thick head. -Paul He's lead very nicely for the folks he gives a **** about. His corporate buddies are making a fortune, even when the GAO found that Halibuton/KBR had over/fraudulently billed at least 10s of millions of dollars he ordered it paid. Then there's his last minute assault on the Endangered Species protections which goes hand in hand with handing over public lands for the for profit exploitation of his energy and mining buddies. There's a ton of valid things to hammer him on, that particular morning isn't really one of them. You'd obviously have preferred the Alexander Haig approach I assume? Bill C |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 12:53*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Aug 13, 11:16*am, Scott wrote: On Aug 13, 11:30*am, "Paul G." wrote: On Aug 13, 7:56*am, Scott wrote: With what limited respect I can muster, I'm not impressed by any of your rants and I doubt seriously that you could back me or anyone down with a scowl. *My guess is you're big as a bear, a 40% bodyfat bear. Not particularly scary to be confronted by someone like that, unless you're carrying ice cream. You're very unimpressive yourself, Rambo. *You claim to have experience as a commander, yet you seem to be better at shooting of your mouth than assessing Bush's pathetic performance as commander-in- chief. You obviously don't have what it takes to lead. I haven't questioned your service. *You tell us you worked as a radar tech. *I believe you. *You bet your ass I believe you. * I have commented on the nature of your service, qualifying it as "camp follower" to prove the point that you aren't so damn brave, either, and you arrogantly think that because you were "educated" you were better suited to working with radars instead of doing the grunt work, as if there is something demeaning about being in the combat arms. That cuts both ways. You're demeaning the nature of my service, not that I give a ****. You're making excuses for Bush's pathetic leadership skills. That's all I need to know about YOUR leadership skills. Your elitist attitude has come out in numerous posts, but what you don't understand is that the great majority of those serving in the combat arms are as educated as you, but not so pussified as to look for the easy way out or to avoid the hard, dangerous work that's required. snort! *The "great majority"?! * You need to read more. Of course that would require pulling your head out of your ass: WASHINGTON - Army Secretary Noel Harvey and vice chief of staff Gen. Richard Cody said Monday that the Army was using looser Defense Department rules that permitted it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards. Some might say I have an elitist attitude, too, and I do. OK, so I'm elitist and it's bad, you're elitist and it's good. *I don't give a ****. I proudly served in elite units with very professional, very dedicated soldiers who'd just as soon stick an icepick in your ear as look at you if I'd asked 'em to, Psychopaths are like that. You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". You really are a moron. *Andrew Card has publicly stated what happened at that historic moment. It's on the Whitehouse website:http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20030416.html "I walked into the room, trying not to be disruptive to the young students and whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" Consider that the usenet equivalent of an icepick in the ear. -Paul Funny, but I ain't bleeding. Yeah- no bleeding in usenet- dumbass. "You don't have any ****ing idea what that aide whispered in President Bush's ear and I for one doubt very seriously it was "the nation is under attack". -Rambo Scott *"I ... whispered in the President's right ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!" -Andrew Card Victory is sweet. *Now a real man would have the balls to simply say "I was wrong". * You didn't. That makes this doubly sweet. -Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - If you want relish in your "victory", go ahead. At the moment I'm not familiar with the details of what was presented to President Bush that day, how much he knew, when he knew it, etc... and without anything other than your declaration of how the events happened to go on, I wouldn't concede anything. Besides, what the hell do you know about having balls? |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
One small thing to consider.
Most disaster response protocols say that the best place for the leader in the first few minutes is in a safe place with good communications. The theory being that he should be in a central location and assessing information while the underlings make the proper responses, responses which they have rehearsed many times and know by heart. In the first few minutes or even hours, a top leader may well do more harm than good by inserting himself into the decision loop at the operational level. If the leader is in the communication loop, the lower-level people may defer to him on some crucial questions or just wait for his words of wisdom, even though the lower-level people know full well what needs to be done and are prepared to do it. The decisions that need to be taken in the first few minutes are tactical decisions, not strategic or grand strategic decisions. The leader will not be familiar with the tactical questions and it may be too early in the response to worry about strategic questions. I'm not a Bush fan, but I don't find much fault with the initial response to the 9/11 attacks. Barry Harmon |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
More dumb**** liberals...
On Aug 13, 3:12*pm, Scott wrote:
*At the moment I'm not familiar with the details of what was presented to President Bush that day, how much he knew, when he knew it, etc... and without anything other than your declaration of how the events happened to go on, I wouldn't concede anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Hi Scott. Did you get a good look at my near crash on Sunday? I'd be interested in hearing how that started if you know. Bret |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Liberals hard at work | DI | General | 19 | June 25th 07 07:16 PM |