|
OT- Could see it coming
Michael W. Bryant, the dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 5, 6:40�am, Bushcraftgregg wrote: No JB- no thicker skin needed, I know what you're saying, I'm just trying/asking him to stop before he gets out of hand. I HAVE seen him out of hand years back, so my statement is valid. He DID email me years back and tried to chum up to me but I'm hip to his type and never responded. Of course, he is going to say he didn't and it's my word against his and that's fine but I would hope the majority or at least the ones I care about in here would believe me over him. IMO him/ his type are the most dangerous types of people to encounter on usenet, he cloaks himself in a veil as "one that would do you no wrong" but I do not buy it because I have seen the opposite of that. I really don't want to speak about it anymore, really I don't. But I know he is just going to keep on - he can't help it. I appreciate you taking up for him, though you will say you weren't etc. etc. but lets just stop it at this. Thanks.- Dear BCBLazySusan, You're a basketcase. And a liar. Yes, Bryant, you are indeed a basketcase! And, a liar as well, PhDufus! If you feel so threatened, why do you feel the need to make OT political posts in a shortwave newsgroup? You just like stirring up trouble and spreading malicious garbage. You're obviously one of those "special Christians" who refuses to practice what he preaches. You must be one of those "special Christians" who feels compelled to lie their fat ass off. Dude, you're such a jerk! Dude, you're such a lying dufus! Earlier in the thread you wrote that I had diclosed confidences from backchannels with you, now you say I wrote you, but you never responded. Gee whiz, that a contradiction! Can you put your little mind in gear and explain how those two posts can be consistent? Is it OK to lie when your target is someone you don't like? If so, I can understand why you are so chummy with Stave Lare. Stave? Keep rolling, dufus! dxAce Michigan USA And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute. They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows, there may be more. |
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height OfIrresponsibilit...
On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon
wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. |
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height Of Irresponsibilit...
In article
, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. The limited trade packs the Reagan administration were in our favor but the follow on expanded trade deals from Bush, Clintoon, Bush were not. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : MWB - More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. - History WillShow President Bill Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTATreaty Becoming LAW [.]
On Mar 6, 5:24*am, Mike wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. Come on, RHF, where are the URLs? Mike |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. dxAce Michigan USA And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute. They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows, there may be more dufi there. |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article ,
dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article
, Telamon wrote: In article , Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Well, that would be Carter II with a tele-prompter. Ah! A new moniker "Obama bin Biden" -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
|
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height OfIrresponsibilit...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com