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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

www.jtf.org/news.php
Obama,,, T-Q-F-U
cuhulin

www.rense.com/general85/ottrebut.htm
cuhulin