Aren't you people listening?

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

"Mark M" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

If you're Freud, everything!

B

"Mark M" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

If you're Freud, everything!

B

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different
person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You
have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their
heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

If you're Freud, everything!

OK.
You win non-political answer of the day...

Now... Back to brawling...

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.13.18.40.18.126000@realphoto...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:52:54 +0000, William Graham had this to say:

Oh, well....The election is only three weeks away....Then, (presumably)
we
can all go back to talking about 35 mm photography for another 4
years........

If you want to exist for 4 more years you will do the sensible thing and
vote that idiot president of yours out of office.

If we want to "exist"?????

Now that...
(and this is REALLY saying something)
....is the dumbest thing you have said in the history of my reading of
Dallas' idiotic blatherings.

Care to make a little wager on that...payable in four years??

I'm prepared to bet the deed to my house against yours, that this...your
grandaddy of all your OTHER grandaddy stupid statements over the last
several years...will be proven ridiculous.

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.13.18.40.18.126000@realphoto...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:52:54 +0000, William Graham had this to say:

Oh, well....The election is only three weeks away....Then, (presumably)
we
can all go back to talking about 35 mm photography for another 4
years........

If you want to exist for 4 more years you will do the sensible thing and
vote that idiot president of yours out of office.

If we want to "exist"?????

Now that...
(and this is REALLY saying something)
....is the dumbest thing you have said in the history of my reading of
Dallas' idiotic blatherings.

Care to make a little wager on that...payable in four years??

I'm prepared to bet the deed to my house against yours, that this...your
grandaddy of all your OTHER grandaddy stupid statements over the last
several years...will be proven ridiculous.

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

B

"Might" does not equal "exactly". Bush was afraid of what he might do in the
future, based on his actions in the past. But is was reasonable for us to
assume 20 years ago that he might remain our friend after he helped us in
Iran.....We guessed wrong....Sorry about that........

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

B

"Might" does not equal "exactly". Bush was afraid of what he might do in the
future, based on his actions in the past. But is was reasonable for us to
assume 20 years ago that he might remain our friend after he helped us in
Iran.....We guessed wrong....Sorry about that........

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:Lbkbd.73273$a85.31942@fed1read04...

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You
have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

Maybe he means, "Make love, not war."

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:Lbkbd.73273$a85.31942@fed1read04...

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" writes:

No. In my eyes, Rumsfeld was talking to and about a different person.
The
Saddam of yesterday was not the Saddam of today. Nor is anyone. You
have
to
take people at face value. It is impossible to get inside their heads
and
predict exactly what they are going to do in the future.

So why the ****** do you advocate this invasion based on what he might
do in the future?

What has ****** got to do with it?

Maybe he means, "Make love, not war."