On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:29:51 GMT, Rick Langel <ricklangel@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:47:42 -0400, Famous Amos Moses®
><amoses@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>This is just another example of how you cannot see beyond your I'm
>>right and you're wrong two bit world "Don't even entertain anything
>>I've already decided has to be wrong" Rick Langel.
>
>And this is an example of your hypocrisy, as you also live in a "I'm
>right and you're wrong" world. If we didn't argue for what we believe
>to be true, why the hell are we here?
If we didn't run off headlong into the forest to get lost; what's the
point of running?
We need to use our heads. You are not using yours.
>
>>...like no one has ever declared terra nullus before. Just is just
>>and fair is fair. Even children can learn to play together and share
>>resources.
>>
>>Grow a brain....get a heart while you're at it, too. ....geeze, you
>>are a case.
>
>Talk about grow a brain. Instead of failing miserably at a personal
>attack on me, where you instead show yourself to be a hypocrite, why
>don't you try to do something novel, like attack my actual argument?
Well, I would, Rick, but your 'actual argument' is GIGO...and until
you see you'll be a foo 'til you die.
David Krieps wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:58:52 GMT, Liana Doran <ldoran@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Hi David, I guess I should have specified if he paid into a company pension plan.
> >For example I worked for Air Canada for 25 years. They took a percentage of my
> >salary each pay cheque and would match that amount. This is how most, if not all,
> >company pension plans work up here. If a company goes bankrupt the pension funds
> >cannot be touched by creditors and is paid back in full to the
> >employees......including the monies that the company kicks in (I believe but not
> >really sure under those circumstances). So I was wondering if it worked the same way
> >down there......or does the company fund 100% of the pension plan without any
> >employee contrtribution? And if so, why is it not protected?
> >
> >Liana
>
> Sorry! :)
>
> It was a company pension plan. The company contributes some amount
> per pay period to a company owned fund, which pays the pension. No
> contribution from the employees.
>
> Cheers! :)
Thanks for the clarification David.
Liana
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:53:03 -0400, "bostnbob" <bostnbob@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>"Famous Amos Moses®" <amoses@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:qm1dfvobt1qc7q9fhllle1ao2daab1pe67@no-spam
>>
>> Yeah, Rummy takes care of business.
>>
>
>What's interesting is that Rummy & company talked big when out of office,
>but *didn't* take care of business immediately upon gaining the power to
>actually do something in January, 2001, or, for that matter, when it
>became more politically feasible, immediately after the World Trade Center
>attack in September of that year.
>Instead they waited for a year, until just after Labor Day, 2002, the
>traditional beginning of campaign season,
>to raise the issue of an attack on Iraq to a suddenly discovered imminent
>threat from weapons of mass destruction.
>Perhaps you would care to speculate on why Rummy waited until election time
>to "take care of business."
Rummy is not stupid, just ethically twisted.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:29:44 +0000, Famous Amos Moses® wrote:
> Rummy is not stupid, just ethically twisted.
His intelligence isn't in question, but perhaps his competence
should be. It is difficult to understand his failure to plan for an
Iraqi occupation. It is one thing to hope Iraqis will rise up and
take care of themselves, it is another to plan on it. To me, he is
starting to look like a bean-counter, that places cost above all
else. We fought this war on the cheap, and we certainly are not
allotting the needed resources to Iraq's occupation (or to
Afghanistan's either).
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030627-031552-9068r
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:32:46 -0700
thunder wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:29:44 +0000, Famous Amos Moses® wrote:
>
> > Rummy is not stupid, just ethically twisted.
>
> His intelligence isn't in question, but perhaps his competence
> should be. It is difficult to understand his failure to plan for an
> Iraqi occupation. It is one thing to hope Iraqis will rise up and
> take care of themselves, it is another to plan on it. To me, he is
> starting to look like a bean-counter, that places cost above all
> else. We fought this war on the cheap, and we certainly are not
> allotting the needed resources to Iraq's occupation (or to
> Afghanistan's either).
>
> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030627-031552-9068r
Was he actually interested in making the two countries better places, or
just scoring points with American voters?
--
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could
agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but
... there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of
mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ... The third one by itself, as
I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a
reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale
we did".
-Paul Wolfowitz, interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine