On 22 Jun 2006 23:04:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97EACBD00C876fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:uj3m92t8cppphluo40969ptusk9fbs7664@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 20:07:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97EAADD3BE4DDfstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i1tl9213h12hvjo83kva6qnld5cq8ts78f@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 17:29:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97EA931735F58fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:16ll92t4tijabjqj9o3alcolugj8ct9l3h@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 16:06:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97EA850063312fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:d6il92dpi9e1pvmaasj7vi9tirn7f9ft8d@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 10:21:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97EA4A6075EE7fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kpqdnQQN0v1_wwfZnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@pipex.net:

jtem01@gmail.com wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=YWYwMTQ2YzNmMmI1MmJiNjE2NDE3YjlhMjRjNDRjNmU=

For those whose newsreaders don't handle text wrapping
too well:

http://tinyurl.com/ln4p8

For the record: I don't have any issues with trying to shoot
it down.

I would be slightly concerned that an attempted that failed
could be misread as a sign that the U.S. is powerless to
respond, but that is hardly assured.

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure the North Koreans remembered to
include a GPS beacon in the design!

A missile defense failure would only indicate that we would have
to resort to preemptive bombing.

How many Koreans are you willing to lose?

As many as it takes.

And you wonder (well, others wonder, you don't notice) why we have
so few allies these days. There are 20+ million people in and near
Seoul. Seoul is some 35 miles from the DMZ. But courageous Fred is
willing to see lots of those people die. Big stones you got there
Fred, to risk their lives.

Matt, you're such a quivering jelly. Why aren't you asking Kim about
how he's putting those lives at risk? Ah, but you know about him,
don't you, and you accept that part of the equation out of fear as
long as you think you can control the other side.
Those 20+ million hostages will always be there so you can give in
to whatever Kim wants from you.

Fascinating. What, exactly, did I say we should give him?

Why, whatever he wants, obviously.

Can you provide a quote that shows I hold that position? Just one will
do. Or are you happy to just make things up?

"How many Koreans are you willing to lose?" Implying that no threat is
acceptable, therefore anything Kim wants, Kim gets.

You may well have inferred that, but I certainly did not mean to imply
it. It is a issue of how much risk for how much return. I am not
willing to lose 10 million people to punish a missile test, you are.

And you're perfectly happy to sit back and
watch him expand his range to put even more hostages in his grasp.

You should ask for your money back on those mind reading courses,
they are not worth a damn. I am not the one who has dithered away
while he has restarted his program and built up his arsenal, I am
not the one who started a war, bogging down our army, with the
*least* dangerous of the supposed Axis of Evil.

Oh, but those 20+ million hostages would still be there, Matt, no
matter how much of our army was avaiable. You *have* dithered away
while he built up his arsenal, because he did it while A DEMOCRAT
fumbled around with "agreed frameworks" and making nicey-nice.

Actually under Clinton did get them to change their actions.

Yeah, he got them to pretend.

No, he got them to stop. They did not kick out the monitors until
Shrub arrived.

Well,
Shrub did as well, but that was to get them to re-start.

Yeah, he got them to quit pretending.

He got them to remove the monitors. And he justified some of their
fear of the U.S. by showing we were willing to invade on our own. And
we had already told North Korea we lumped them with Iraq.

I understand quite well why we have few staunch allies these days.
Karl Rove put it perfectly in his rebuttal to Jack Murtha.

Ah, ignorant dishonest Karl. The man who somehow missed that it was
Ronald Reagan who did the biggest most damaging cut and run in U.S.
history. Tell us about it, Fred. Tell us about how Ronald Reagan
was, according to Rove the unindicted leaker, was a Democrat when he
cowardly cut and ran from Beirut teaching Islamic terrorists how
much real backbone Americans have.

Ah, ignorant dishonest Matt, it was Jack Murtha who advised Bill
Clinton to cut and run from Somalia, and it was Jack Murtha who went
on Meet the Press to say how much he wants to repeat the performance
in Iraq. And yes, Reagan's strategic error in Beirut has cost us 20+
years of terrorism as a result.

So we agree that Rove the Unindicted is a liar.

For answering Jack Murtha's lies back?

No, for lying about who cut and run and hurt the country by doing so.
We have already agreed that Reagan's cutting and running was
astoundingly dangerous and deadly. Yet Rove the Unindicted leaker said
otherwise.

No, Matt, that doesn't make
anybody a liar except in your upside-down world.

It was a lie to say that it is the Democrats who do it rather than the
Republicans.

And you would just make it that much worse, you
ballless bowl of quivering jelly.

Oh, such brave words. Get your testosterone shot this week?

Oh, and poor Matt, you can't even let the unindicted Rove go, huh?
Crow leave a bad taste? Can I say I TOLD YOU SO again? Why, yes I can!

Let's see. Shrub says he will fire whoever leaks. Rove admits he
leaked and is not fired. What a surprise.

Ah, good old Matt pulls out that media strawman again.

Nope.

Who would have us?
Who would let us paint a target on their backs, knowing that we will
cut and run on them as soon as a few lives are lost?

Whereas you are willing to see millions of South Koreans die in
order to show that you have real balls.

Whereas you are willing to consign the entire world to slavery in
order to show that you haven't got any balls at all.

Stop making things up to make yourself feel taller. I said nothing of
the sort.

Everything you have said implies it.

Again, that you infer does not mean I imply. You insist that things
are black or white, not me. I figure you weigh the risk and return and
try your best. You see no options other than slavery or decimation.

I said that bombing them for making a test was a bad idea.
Remarkably enough so do the South Koreans. But you have more guts, you
are willing to risk their lives to protect them. Brave, brave Sir
Fred.

Remarkably enough, you are still willing to let them all be enslaved
without firing a shot in their defense. Brave brave bowl of jelly Matt.

Lying about my position won't make it so. I did not say that, I did
not imply it, I don't agree with it. I think that it is not worth
losing 10 million people to punish a test, you are.

On 22 Jun 2006 23:04:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97EACBD00C876fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:uj3m92t8cppphluo40969ptusk9fbs7664@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 20:07:37 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97EAADD3BE4DDfstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:i1tl9213h12hvjo83kva6qnld5cq8ts78f@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 17:29:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97EA931735F58fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:16ll92t4tijabjqj9o3alcolugj8ct9l3h@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 16:06:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97EA850063312fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:d6il92dpi9e1pvmaasj7vi9tirn7f9ft8d@4ax.com:

On 22 Jun 2006 10:21:06 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97EA4A6075EE7fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:

Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:kpqdnQQN0v1_wwfZnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d@pipex.net:

jtem01@gmail.com wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?
q=YWYwMTQ2YzNmMmI1MmJiNjE2NDE3YjlhMjRjNDRjNmU=

For those whose newsreaders don't handle text wrapping
too well:

http://tinyurl.com/ln4p8

For the record: I don't have any issues with trying to
shoot it down.

I would be slightly concerned that an attempted that failed
could be misread as a sign that the U.S. is powerless to
respond, but that is hardly assured.

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure the North Koreans remembered to
include a GPS beacon in the design!

A missile defense failure would only indicate that we would
have to resort to preemptive bombing.

How many Koreans are you willing to lose?

As many as it takes.

And you wonder (well, others wonder, you don't notice) why we
have so few allies these days. There are 20+ million people in
and near Seoul. Seoul is some 35 miles from the DMZ. But
courageous Fred is willing to see lots of those people die. Big
stones you got there Fred, to risk their lives.

Matt, you're such a quivering jelly. Why aren't you asking Kim
about how he's putting those lives at risk? Ah, but you know about
him, don't you, and you accept that part of the equation out of
fear as long as you think you can control the other side.
Those 20+ million hostages will always be there so you can give in
to whatever Kim wants from you.

Fascinating. What, exactly, did I say we should give him?

Why, whatever he wants, obviously.

Can you provide a quote that shows I hold that position? Just one
will do. Or are you happy to just make things up?

"How many Koreans are you willing to lose?" Implying that no threat is
acceptable, therefore anything Kim wants, Kim gets.

You may well have inferred that, but I certainly did not mean to imply
it. It is a issue of how much risk for how much return. I am not
willing to lose 10 million people to punish a missile test, you are.

And you're perfectly happy to sit back and
watch him expand his range to put even more hostages in his grasp.

You should ask for your money back on those mind reading courses,
they are not worth a damn. I am not the one who has dithered away
while he has restarted his program and built up his arsenal, I am
not the one who started a war, bogging down our army, with the
*least* dangerous of the supposed Axis of Evil.

Oh, but those 20+ million hostages would still be there, Matt, no
matter how much of our army was avaiable. You *have* dithered away
while he built up his arsenal, because he did it while A DEMOCRAT
fumbled around with "agreed frameworks" and making nicey-nice.

Actually under Clinton did get them to change their actions.

Yeah, he got them to pretend.

No, he got them to stop. They did not kick out the monitors until
Shrub arrived.

Well,
Shrub did as well, but that was to get them to re-start.

Yeah, he got them to quit pretending.

He got them to remove the monitors. And he justified some of their
fear of the U.S. by showing we were willing to invade on our own. And
we had already told North Korea we lumped them with Iraq.

I understand quite well why we have few staunch allies these days.
Karl Rove put it perfectly in his rebuttal to Jack Murtha.

Ah, ignorant dishonest Karl. The man who somehow missed that it
was Ronald Reagan who did the biggest most damaging cut and run in
U.S. history. Tell us about it, Fred. Tell us about how Ronald
Reagan was, according to Rove the unindicted leaker, was a
Democrat when he cowardly cut and ran from Beirut teaching Islamic
terrorists how much real backbone Americans have.

Ah, ignorant dishonest Matt, it was Jack Murtha who advised Bill
Clinton to cut and run from Somalia, and it was Jack Murtha who went
on Meet the Press to say how much he wants to repeat the performance
in Iraq. And yes, Reagan's strategic error in Beirut has cost us 20+
years of terrorism as a result.

So we agree that Rove the Unindicted is a liar.

For answering Jack Murtha's lies back?

No, for lying about who cut and run and hurt the country by doing so.

We have already agreed that Reagan's cutting and running was
astoundingly dangerous and deadly. Yet Rove the Unindicted leaker said
otherwise.

No, Matt, that doesn't make
anybody a liar except in your upside-down world.

It was a lie to say that it is the Democrats who do it rather than the
Republicans.

And you would just make it that much worse, you
ballless bowl of quivering jelly.

Oh, such brave words. Get your testosterone shot this week?

Oh, and poor Matt, you can't even let the unindicted Rove go, huh?
Crow leave a bad taste? Can I say I TOLD YOU SO again? Why, yes I
can!

Let's see. Shrub says he will fire whoever leaks. Rove admits he
leaked and is not fired. What a surprise.

Ah, good old Matt pulls out that media strawman again.

Nope.

Who would have us?
Who would let us paint a target on their backs, knowing that we
will cut and run on them as soon as a few lives are lost?

Whereas you are willing to see millions of South Koreans die in
order to show that you have real balls.

Whereas you are willing to consign the entire world to slavery in
order to show that you haven't got any balls at all.

Stop making things up to make yourself feel taller. I said nothing
of the sort.

Everything you have said implies it.

Again, that you infer does not mean I imply. You insist that things
are black or white, not me. I figure you weigh the risk and return and
try your best. You see no options other than slavery or decimation.

I said that bombing them for making a test was a bad idea.
Remarkably enough so do the South Koreans. But you have more guts,
you are willing to risk their lives to protect them. Brave, brave
Sir Fred.

Remarkably enough, you are still willing to let them all be enslaved
without firing a shot in their defense. Brave brave bowl of jelly
Matt.

Lying about my position won't make it so.

I did not say that, I did
not imply it, I don't agree with it. I think that it is not worth
losing 10 million people to punish a test, you are.

And all Murtha has in response is that lame old Chickenhawk
ad-hominem.

So lying and saying Democrats cut and run is valid, but responding
is not.

It's not a lie to say that Jack Murtha and John Kerry made cutting
and running eminently clear. Chickenhawk has always been a lame
ad-hominem.

What is lame about pointing out how just about all of the brave
Republican who are so willing to risk the lives of others were too
scared to risk their own?

It stands as no particular proof of their courage or lack thereof.
It's still a lame ad-hominem.

But that is not quite relevant to the point
that Republicans have a long history of cutting and running. From
Ike's giving up in Korea to Nixon's hope that he could deceive
people and use air power to Reagan beating up on Grenada to distract
people from his terrible waste of live in Lebanon to Bush I failure
to support the Shiites after the first Gulf War.

Oh, let's not acknowledge the Democrats and the UN role in the first
gulf war. And you call Rove a liar, you ball-less bowl of jelly.

Funny, I thought that Bush made the decision to stop without any
objections from the Democrats. Please back up the claim that he wanted
to do more but was stopped by the UN and the Democrats.