RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

May 25th 05, 05:29 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)

Because those "flaws" were largely invented

by the left leaning media.

Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,

Bush never promised to balance the budget at
this time. That's to come in the future.

A president's job is to balance the budget.
He failed to do so in 4.5 years in office.

The report
by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as
originally thought".

According to whom?

The Pentagon.

Link please.

Already posted it once.

When?

The other day.

And don't just say "the pentagon", post a

complete link to the "news" source from which

you base your biased claims.

You missed the link...again If blaming me makes you feel better, I
volunteer. Anything to get you feeling more confident.

-
....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle
underequipped and ill prepared.

I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous

quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion,

before I voted against it". What do you think

that 87 billion was for?

Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply,
protection, and gear
for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government.

And you would be equally ignorant to ignore

the years of neglect that our military suffered

at the hands of Clinton, who had no great love
for it.

That's not being ignorant, that's refusing to argue history and what can
not be changed. "Ignorant" is publicly telling the world they are
ignorant for preferring to focus on the present failures of Bush instead
of arguing past history.
Stay focused.

-
The list goes on and his
failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred.

Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right,

you're bound to take a few on the chin in the

process.

Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is
a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence.
Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up.

Who says we're ignoring it?

You think otherwise?

All in good time.

And this information comes from.....

We don't have unlimited military resources.

Unless, of course, you want the draft brought

back.....
=A0=A0

Maybe if the kids of people like you who are hellbent on this farcical
war were drafted, I would support such an act.

Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of

taking those few on the chin, are the ones to

be very afraid of.

Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can
remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but
reactive lipeservice.

Stay focused. This isn't about me, as much as

you'd like it to be.

Exactly, it's about your hypocrisy.

There has been none to date which have been
proven.

Then show me the balanced budget.

Never promised.

No one said it was

You implied as much

You haev a serious deficit. I implied nothing of the sort, in fact, I
"implied" the opposite. I said your president failed to do his job, such
as balance the budget. You implied if the president doesn't promise to
his job, he can be derelict in it. LMAO!
It is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Claiming
that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is
derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge
regarding the position of president.

There are far more pressing issues than a

balanced budget.

You admitting your president is unable to fulfill his duties is a step
in the right direction.

Ridding the world of maniacal terrorists is a

bit higher on the pecking list.

And an impossibility that only gullible people believe....one of
Bush'most incompetent statements was "We will rid the world of terror".
_
Tell it to the military sons and
daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable
reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment.

.A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not

.the president today.

Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings
and hatred for him for other reasons?

No, it's a simple matter of you wanting to pin

every failing on Bush, when, if you truly

understood how the government operates,

you would not make such an ignorant,

uninformed claim.

My claim simply was Bush failed to balance the budget. It's a fact.
Also is a fact, is it appears to have struck a nerve with you, as you
have gone from denying any Bush failures, to defending his failures.

Military budgets have to be approved by

congress, a congress in which Kerry voted

against (after he voted for) the necessary

money to provide that equipment you feel we

were glaringly lacking.

Isn't me, it's the American families of the dead and the soldiers in the
field, and the high ranking officers who first brought this to light.
This month's Maxim magazine printed a bunch of letters from the troops,
signed with rank and names and where they are assigned in the middle
east. Stars and Stripes, a very republican publication, also printed
many letters from those serving. Number THREE on the soldiers complaint
list is RUMSFELD, and ALL their letters confirm the exact opposite of
everything you think you know about the war.
Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry.

He is merely doing the same things as many

corporations. Making due with less. Unless,

you want a large tax increase.

Yes, i would much rather have a tax increase
to pay for adequate gear and protection for out soldiers. Many of us are
not so galavant when trivializing the lives of our soldiers, as many of
us don't put tax cuts, like yourself, above the lives of our soldiers.
Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is
undertaking.
Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing
(admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for
daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it.

=A0=A0When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military

bases?

You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken"
the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave.

Not the same thing.

Right,,because Bush is doing the military slashing, it must be ok.

Bush is not eliminating

any crucial bases or programs.

Eliminate your poor choice of the subjective term "crucial" and your
hypocrisy glares and you are left with no salient point.

Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such

smear which got discovered before any real

damage could be done.

You are wired to focus on anything but
responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through
unrealistic self-denial,

I seek the truth, and I place blame where the

blame belongs,

Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication
of responsibility.

and that starts with those who seek to destroy

this country out of a ideological hatred of our

way of life.

Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president.

The president didn't fly airplanes into the trade

towers or the pentagon.

Right,,,,he just failed to prevent it, as the Official 911 Report
suggests...you know,,,the Presidential Commission he was against, then
for investigating his administrations ill-preparedness and response to
911.

The president didn't try to annex a neighboring
country.

Right....

The president didn't exterminate hundreds of

thousands of his own people.

He's on his way with the number of dead in this war.

The president didn't blow a hole in the USS

Cole.

Neither did Kerry.

The president didn't blow up embassies. The

list goes on.
=A0

So do his failures, such as curbing more and more of our rights under
the false guise of keeping us safer, when we are under more danger than
ever before. In fact, puppets like you are programmed to incorrectly
parrot that Bush has protected us since 911, when nothing is further
from the truth. We have had several attacks on US soil since then, but
Bush, keeping a perfect record, fails to apprehend those responsible.

=A0I don't blame the one leader with the cajones

to call it like it is and stand up to it.

But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is
much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed

Dharfur does not threaten this country in any

way.

Neither did Hussein. Read the 911 Report.
Bush failed to stop the
proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce
them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently
and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes.

The former soviet union has nukes. The

Chinese have nukes. So what? Now if Osama

Bin Laden had a few, I'd be concerned. Or if

Saddam had been allowed to finish his nuke

program, I'd be concerned.

He wasn't working on one during the invasion. It's a shame you have to
learn history for this group by denying it, then researching it for
yourself when the proper links are placed in front of you.
-
Of course, Iran has solidified several more
nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes,
yet you know little of it.

What oil glut? Do you not read the

commodities page?

Clown. The commodities page has nothing to do with the world oil supply.
It's a management problem, not one of supply and demand.

The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth
cleverly evades them, make up their own

version of the truth to justify actions which

would, in an earlier generation, be considered

treason.

Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse
reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position
evaporates.

.He has not flip flopped on any of his reasons.

Then perhaps you can explain what reasons were given the first time
congress denied his plea to invade Iraq.

They remain the same as always.

You're wrong. The reasons presented to congress each time had nothing to
dow with each other. When he was denied the first time, he invoked a
reason as "liberating Iraq". The second time, he claimed violations of
the UN and that Hussein was amassing WMDS.

Then there is the more recent Newsweek

gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet

(How does one flush a book down a toilet

anyway?).

They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets.

I'm really interested in how you would know

that with any accuracy.

Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal
realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party
acknowledged global warming and you didn't.

Which is how exactly?

Education. One that eludes you. I find it amusing you are always
astonished at exactly "how" and "why" people know things you do not.
This can partially be attributed to your narcism and refusal to accept
anyone knows more than you.

And for the record, I never denied global

warming,

You did.

just questioned the amount of effect that

humanity has truly had on it.

Yes, after you initially denied it.

The evidence is still inconclusive on this point,
as I have provided in the links.

No, the evidence is most certainly conclusive, as my links were dated of
last week. Once again, because you are unable to grasp the methods in
which concentrations of certain gases can ascertain and pinpoint with
extreme accuracy what is manmade and what is naturally occurring and
released into the atmosphere, does not make it any less so.

BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush.

All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning.

Yet you were ready to embrace it as another

reason to throw a dagger at Bush.

I did no such thing..one can always tell when your ego is waning, as you
harriedly and sloppily begin misattributing things that were never said
to those you love.

Ah, so you've decided to print the information

without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't
resist the urge.

I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain.

The why did you ask in the first place?

I asked for your explicit and implied permission to post related
information. Do I have it?

BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your
"Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that

$9.95).

Keep guessing all that you will never know.

_
Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC.

Are you retarded, or can you simply not read?

You are mistaken about my current address.

When you take to lying about your wife and everything else you have lied
about in the past, nothig you can say can ever regain a reputation for
credibility. You destroyed any you had long ago.

.Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date.

I have no software,,,besides,,webtv doesn't use software. Off you go,
now,,,

My current address IS the one on my FCC

license. The one you have is the OLD one.

Stony creek road was were I was born and

raised and spent most of my CB career. I

.moved from there in 1999.

You can verify this by going on QRZ and

loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and

then look at what address my call is listed

with.

I accept (once again) your apology. No one claimed the Stony Creek was
your curretn address, Davie. Stop being so paranoid, as it leads to
incredible gaffes in your behalf.

What you think is irrelevant,

Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and
menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are
denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed and you are
scrambling to explain awwy everything I posted.

How has it been confirmed?

Ahhh,,,,,I prefer to remain content in wacthing you self-tighten that
noose. The squirming you share with us is good for a bit longer.

Because YOU think it is? I am telling you, you
are dead wrong about my wife's name.

I know exactly what you say, but the fact is her exact name appeared on
the change of address card submitted to the Post Office with the same
address shared by you,,there. That's another small bit of information
you were ignornat of..when one places a change of address card wioth the
Post Office, if you fail to check the little box at the bottom that
tells of your privacy, they SELL the information to listbrokers. Now,
tell us how the Post Office gt it wrong, Dave...LMFAO!
_
In fact, she
used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife
because of the shame you rained down upon yourself.

I never even heard of Gravers road.

Really? You grew up near there and never heard of it? Need the exact
address on Gravers Road and then you can use the mapblast, eh?
Ok,,she was born in 1963 and lived at 1819 Gravers Road in Norristown.

again you are mistaken

And you're sweating like a stuck pig.

(We must be up to a

dozen things you've been wrong about now).

Cripes...this talk from you sounds just like it did when it was shown
you lied about having a Phelps Stationmaster antenna.

This is what happens when you play with

cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95.

Does that type software give that information? How about birthdates and
applications for marriage on file with the state,,,including addresses?
_
It's not what I think, it's what more and more
regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis.

Name them.

Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical
competency, you called him names and took issue with his career. Shark
taught you better regarding your own state's driving laws, and he was
attacked by "Geo" all of a sudden with homo remarks,,BTW, where is "Geo"
these days? : )
Our British friend across the pond taught you about cb radios that come
type accepted with what are legal roger beeps, but you denied that as
well, screamed and begged for proof, was given it, and humbled. Jim
tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him
naive. No Davie,,as is always the pattern, you blame everyone else when
the problem is yourself.
_
Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you
better.

.Nice dodge.

See above.

But I drive a Ford.

A blue one whose license plates do not match the address given to the
FCC as provided by law. Go ahead,,,,'splain! LMAO...

Once again, name the people who agree with
your position and disagree with mine.

See above.

and contrary to your wild imagination, you do

not represent the majority.

Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the
regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a
minority position that is usually incorrect.

.Prove it. Post the names, posts and other

references.

Na-na-nee-nee-noo-noo,,,,"pwove it"

Prove it.

See above.

Other that you, Frank, and

occasionally Landshark, who actually even

gives enough of a crap about these jabs that

we exchange, to even chime in?

You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime
in" to all exchanges in order to express they care?

Well gee, how then are we supposed to know

that they disagree?

Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may
ask such questions.

Did you buy Frank's crystal ball?

Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure.

I'm not the one who's suggesting that I can

read minds in order to glean the opinions of

people who do not post their opinions here.

You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your
**** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic
in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it.

.Just like you gave us the names and

addresses of all of your publishing gigs when

you once claimed to be a "professional

journalist"?

Exactly. I provided where I went to school and for who I was employed.
That horrible **** poor memory you have is partially responsible for
your communication deficits.
If you are going to make the rules, you have to play by them too.
Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your constant
excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you
exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : )
You have not provided for one
single piece of information you have provided
here. Yet you expect others to do it. Hypocrisy.

Your personal

obsessive mania concerning my personal life

Yet it is you who is obsessively begging for personal info about me.

C'mon, you can do better.

When you take to providing a contingent of explanations, it reiterates
my perfect aim and accuracy.