Ross Cassell -> Bob Klahn wrote:

 RC> or not_as_anal_as_debate_and_pol_inc ?

That's got my vote. :)


 RC>>> Ok, whose service has been demeaned?

 BK>>  Mine, Wilson's and Ackley's.

 RC> By whom?

 RC> and have you forgotten that the service of Helm (deceased), Richardson
 RC> and Hardegree, have also been demeaned, mostly by the 65 day wonder?

Actually as recent as yesterday Klahn was demeaning Stan's. His constant
harping on how Stan managed to retire with Klahn's delusional and incorrect
math has been going on for months that I'm aware of it could have been much
longer than that.

 RC>>> The fact that you served a full commitment is something you
 RC>>> should be thanked for and I do thank you, nor do I recall
 RC>>> ever slighting your service, have I?

 BK>>  I did not say *YOU* did. That original was addressed to Hulett.

 RC> You did splatter some paint from your broad brush on me.

 RC>>> What have I chicken hawked or are you like Sauer,
 RC>>> projecting?

 BK>>  Are you eager for the war in Iraq? Do you fully support Bush's
 BK>>  war in Iraq? If not, then I will apologize for that. If so, then
 BK>>  I will have to ask why you think we should have sent our men and
 BK>>  women to fight a war without just cause.

 RC> When the war began, I believed the intel and all that..

 RC> I do believe that a abrupt chickenshit pullout will only lead to the
 RC> creation of Afghanistan II post-1980's style.

 RC> Whether or not the war is just or not, too late, we either see it
 RC> through or we let the boil fester and be forced to revisit it in the
 RC> future, see Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

 RC> [aside]

 RC> Your political party supports abortion and same sex marriages among
 RC> other abominations, there is no requirement for me to believe in them
 RC> and I have every right to disagree with them, you have every right to
 RC> agree with them..

 RC> Your position does not trump mine nor mine yours.

 RC> Yet you look down on those whom take or have a position that differs
 RC> from your own, now you can see why I detest your party as much as I do,
 RC> its the elitist attitiude. This happens with both sides so I am sure you
 RC> can relate the same, only from your perspective and not mine?

 RC>>> As for me, there was no draft or wars in progress when I
 RC>>> was that age.

 BK>>  Which means you, and Hulett, did not enlist because there was no
 BK>>  draft.

 RC> I had no reason to enlist, I presume neither did Ed.

 RC> I am sure that there are far more than just Ed and I whom didnt, but go
 RC> ahead and focus your rage onto us.

Actually I tried to enlist, but they told me I'd have to put my kid up for
adoption because at the time only one parent at a time could be on active
duty. I have since learned that situation changed in the 90s.

 RC>>> Why arent you after Sauer for demeaning the service of
 RC>>> those whom served one or more terms?

 BK>>  I do not see Sauer attacking anyone who does not attack him
 BK>>  first.

 RC> I see him often attacking people in message replies when the only
 RC> offense was a different opinion..

Klahn is blind to any hypocrisy that comes from Sauer. Surely you've noticed that. :)

 RC> Like I was telling Wilson in your echo, Sauer has a sufficient amount of
 RC> guilt himself that he must bear for all the crap he has taken and takes,
 RC> rather attracts.

 RC>>> You are the one saying those without service shouldnt be
 RC>>> critical of those who are with, I submit to you that

 BK>>  Correction: I say they should not demean the service of those
 BK>>  who did serve.

 RC> and those whom served less than one full commitment shouldnt be whining
 RC> about another whom did but didnt go Rambo and request duty in a couple
 RC> punative actions that utilized forces already on station.

 RC>>> Sauer's position is no better in contrast to the angst you
 RC>>> have over the entire topic, now why arent you setting the
 RC>>> boy straight?

 BK>>  Like I said, he jumps on those who jump on him. The right
 BK>>  wingers around her play playground bullies on him, and he fights
 BK>>  back. He may not do it well, but he doesn't stop fighting.

 RC> He needs to jump on topics he has standing to comment on.

Klahn's mantra: "Sauer can do no wrong...Sauer can do no wrong..."

 RC>>> However I think you find it appropriate that Mr 65 days has
 RC>>> standing to critique Stans service yet 65 days doesnt rate
 RC>>> to your 1461.

 BK>>  When Hardegree gets off Sauer's case then Sauer will not have
 BK>>  any reason to attack him.

 RC> Yes he will, the anomosity between them two runs deep.

Klahn is correct Sauer has no reason to attack Stan but when has that ever
stopped him?

 RC> This is evident when nothing is being said negative to him about him,
 RC> with the only sin being a different opinion.

 RC> The onus isnt solely on Hardegree's shoulders and you know it or have
 RC> you forgotten that it takes two to tango?

In Klahn's "mind" Sauer is allowed to Polka when everyone else is Tangoing.

 BK>>  Hardegree contributes nothing but smear and attack. Ross at
 BK>>  least trys to contribute discussion.

 RC> That sword cuts both ways.

 RC>>> Double Standard??

 BK>>  No, one standard. Stop the attacks and the counter attacks stop.

That is a bald faced lie!

 BK>>  I have jumped Ross for when I felt he went too far, but I will
 BK>>  not criticize him for tearing into those who attack him.

 RC> You need to look at the entire history, not just last week, month or year.

 RC> Curing the sore doesnt eliminate the rash.

 RC>>> Just so you are clear, Raymond Yates.. (Jacks brother)

 BK>>  Don't recall him. Either him.

 RC> Then you are senile, I seen you converse with both in the WHAT'S_HOT! echo.

 RC>>> Embellishment or exageration is done for personal gain, it

 BK>>  Yeah... and claiming to have worked on A-10s is a real personal
 BK>>  gain. Sure it is.

 RC> Within the scope of a debate in a feeble attempt to impress a debating
 RC> opponent..

Klahn doesn't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend that people like
Sauer (and Sauer himself) tell lies to try and impress people favorably.
Sauer impressed us, alright, he impressed us as the habitual psychopathic
liar that he is.

 RC>>> forms the foundations of lies, therefore it does harm
 RC>>> others, but especially the one doing it.

 BK>>  Then let's go into Hulett's embellishments, and see how that
 BK>>  plays out.

 RC> Ok, what has Ed embellished?

I'd be interested in hearing this lie, too. Ed is one of the kindest most
compassionate people around. Because he doesn't besse Klahn/Wilson/Sauer's
culo doesn't make him bad or a liar.

 BK>>  And Hulett is dispicable. Which is a whole nother level.

Absolutely no one in this echo is more despicable (or illiterate) as Klahn.
He's a vile insignificant irrelevant impotent pig who couldn't think
himself out of a paper bag.

 RC> So you now want to ferment dissension Sauer/Hardegree style between you
 RC> and him?

 RC> Show me the law that requires people to think and do like yourself?

It only exists in Klahn's "mind".


-- 
L'Chaim,
Mimi

fcpnmimi(at)cox.net


"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
 - Friedrich Nietzsche

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)