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?

So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
protest outsourcing? So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?
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.

Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.

Bryant

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)

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?

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****. 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.

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.

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

From: (RHF

Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.

RHF,

The poster said that the only jobs Bush had sent overseas were military jobs.
That's BS. Bush supports companies being allowed to "outsource" jobs to the
Caribbean and India to maximize their profits. He's always supported companies
profits over keeping jobs in the US. He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
with telemarketers to gather Republican funds. You're confusing Bush policy
with others. Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
Americans that still have jobs.

Bryant

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

In article ,
(LW) wrote:

"JC" wrote ...
It's payback time!


Soooo .. what did you have in mind?

He admitted the problem .. he went through treatment .. his ratings
are up a few points .. he's putting a few more million in the bank ..
hasn't he suffered enough already?

Come on JC it's Christmas .. try to have peace on earth and good will
toward your fellow man just for a few days. OK?

I don't listen to Rush, but the impression is that he advocates hard
time for all drug abusers, which would include him. Shouldn't he be
lining up at the prison door with all of the other folks who have harmed
no one but themselves?

Dave

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/