|
|
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets. Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for Bush to send US jobs overseas? I didn't see that in the Wash. Post article. So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to protest outsourcing? I just asked why labor unions don't do some hiring and do for themselves all the lobbying against outsourcing instead of outsourcing everything and complaining about outsourcing. So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right? No, I didn't see anything in the Wash. Post article validating Bush sending phone calls over to India. I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument. Oh, so sorry. Had the Wash. Post article you linked us to included any validation of your assertion that Bush outsourced phone calls to India, I would have commented on it. But it didn't. Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad. I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner. But what I did find was that the fed-union appears to do a lot of outsourcing themselves. Doesn't matter because its someone else's money, I guess. I guess that you and I can process identical information and see different outcomes. Wonder what that means? |
|
MW Bryant wrote:
Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear lies? Try again, loser. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding" their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers". Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes. UJ |
|
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner. Bull****. double-BS back at you. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time. JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with the Democrat party. But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove something you assert. My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Thanks for not wasting any more of my precious time. Brian |
(Brian) wrote in message om...
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ... From: (Brian) I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner. Bull****. double-BS back at you. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time. JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with the Democrat party. Correction - that should read "Soliloguy and I..." But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove something you assert. My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Thanks for not wasting any more of my precious time. Brian |
|
Oui, it was a Klinton policy! What a putz you are M. Bryant. -- Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr http://forums.club-internet.fr/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com