KIT, Apology accepted. Please know that I am not the sort of person that holds a grudge.
Yes I know, my comment concerning that was perhaps unfair. I'll await your actual response assuming you intend to actually make one. No, I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. You seem to think that your thoughts, ideas, opinions should go unquestioned and w/o challenge. Ain't gonna' happen amigo. Don't take a position you are not prepared to skillfully and logically defend from vigorous attack would be my advice. You have a nice weekend as well. On Mar 5, 10:53 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Holly, > > I didn't mean to offend you, I apologize. > > I enjoy this board and its members, and occasionally, I toss out a few > barbs. I didn't think that my barbs were all that hurtful or mean > spirited. I had forgotten about your recovery, and please know that I > meant no offense. > > Studio's post will take some time and research in order to post a well > thought out response. Again, no offense, but you are just arguing, for > argument's sake! (I sometimes enjoy that too!!) > > Have a great weekend, and again, lighten up!! > > Keith > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > KIT, > > > You first Keith. You started with the "you are a little slow" and then > > the "crack" comment. > > You know i respond in kind. You play nice and I will, you want to be > > ugly I'll go there to. Your choice. > > > You're "too rushed" to respond to Studio's comments concerning Chile > > (two hours ago) but have time to tell me to "lighten up" because I > > talked to you in the manner you talked to me? WTF? > > > On Mar 5, 10:26 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Holly, > > > > Lighten up! > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > KIT, > > > > > Fine, you want to pretend your stupid be my guest. You added the DOT > > > > and other agencies to the subject. You said they were not needed and > > > > complained about ineffeciency and, judging from your ranting about > > > > anything having to do with socialism, the implication was because > > > > those agencies were socialist and anything socialist was doomed to be > > > > a failure. > > > > Now, if those agencies were gone tomorrow who or what would perform > > > > their duties/functions and why would their doing it NOT be socialism? > > > > > You know god-damn good and well that I'm a recovering alcoholic/addict > > > > with 24 plus years clean. I have not yet stooped to person insults to > > > > you. > > > > > On Mar 5, 8:20 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > I realize that you are a little slow, as most liberals are. > > PlainOl' > > > > was > > > > > talking about the video, and I was referencing his comments about the > > > > > video. PlainOl didn't make any comment about the Missouri DOT being > > > > > socialist!! > > > > > > No more crack rock for you Holly!!! > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > KIT,, > > > > > > > Plain's post 11:05 CT this date: > > > > > > > "it all boils down to socialism vs capitalism." > > > > > > > KIT's post 11:06 CT this date: > > > > > > > "Well said PlainOl" > > > > > > > What do you call that? > > > > > > > Sorry, not up to you to decide who is and who is not contributing > > to > > > > > > our society. > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 6:42 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > > > Again, I never claimed that executive branch agencies were, > > > > "Socialist"; > > > > > > > you are confusing my posts with someone elses. > > > > > > > > I have no problem with what Missouri is doing, as a matter of > > fact, > > > > what > > > > > > > Missouri is doing is none of my business. It might be a > > wonderful > > > > > > > organization. > > > > > > > > I want the Federal DOT dissolved, banished, and all of its > > current > > > > > > employees > > > > > > > given a pink slip, wherein they can join the ranks of productive > > > > > > Americans, > > > > > > > by manufacturing, selling, servicing, generating, producing, > > > > marketing, > > > > > > or > > > > > > > somehow contributing to our society. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > Will you be serious? Did you Goggle the DOT and see what their > > > > duties > > > > > > > > are or not? > > > > > > > > Mainly they use the trucks to haul around equipment and > > materials > > > > for > > > > > > > > road repair. That's what the MODOT does, repair and maintain > > roads > > > > > > > > within the state.What did you think they used them for? > > > > > > > > > WHAT SUDDENLY MAKES ANY OF THESE AGENCIES SOCIALIST??? > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 4:54 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why do we need a federal DOT, when the Misouri DOT is the one > > > > > > soliciting > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > bids, and riding around in the trucks with MODOT?? > > > > > > > > > > What does the Missouri DOT need with a truck? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Hollywood < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > > Really? A construction compay owner just looks out his > > window > > > > one > > > > > > day > > > > > > > > > > and says "what the fuck are we going to do with all this > > > > fucking > > > > > > > > > > concrete?" "Hey, I know, let's build an 8 lane highway fron > > St. > > > > > > Louis > > > > > > > > > > to Kansas City". That should be a hoot. > > > > > > > > > > No agency makes a study concerning the need for such a > > highway, > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > it should be built or what route it should take? No one > > > > solicits > > > > > > bids > > > > > > > > > > for the construction of same and sets standards, > > > > qualifications, > > > > > > > > > > deadlines, nothing? > > > > > > > > > > > Those orange trucks in my state with MODOT (Missouri Dept. > > Of > > > > > > > > > > transportation) painting on their sides have absolutely > > > > > > > > > > no connection with the U.S. DOT? > > > > > > > > > > > What has happened to your statement that ALL these agencies > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > socialist? Why, all the sudden, is the focus of your posts > > are > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > effeciency of these agencies? I don't believe I was talking > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > their particular effeciency. > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT MAKES THOSE AGENCIES, THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR > > DECADES, > > > > > > SUDDENLY > > > > > > > > > > SOCIALIST???? > > > > > > > > > > Have you forgotten the subject of the film clip you posted > > to > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > this thread? > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 3:37 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > > > > > > > The DOT has never built a street, a highway, a bridge, > > much > > > > less > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > sidewalk > > > > > > > > > > > in this Nation, EVER!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > The Department of Energy has yet to build a power plant, > > or > > > > > > design a > > > > > > > > > > nuclear > > > > > > > > > > > station.....The purpose of the DOE was to reduce our > > > > dependency > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > foreign > > > > > > > > > > > oil.....How's that working out for us?? > > > > > > > > > > > > The Department of Education??? HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > These agencies are nothing more than "Job Fare" and a > > drain > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > American > > > > > > > > > > > tax payer! They do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (Except > > continue > > > > to > > > > > > grow, > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > their budgets getting bigger each and every > > > > year.....Eventually, > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > these agencies wants their own law enforcment division, > > where > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > bully > > > > > > > > > > > the folks who pay their salaries!) > > > > > > > > > > > > Wake up and smell the coffee Holly!! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Hollywood < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > C'mon KIT you are smart enough to Google those agencies > > and > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > > what their duties are. Why should I do your work for > > you? > > > > If > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > > know what they do how did you reach the conclusion they > > do > > > > it > > > > > > > > poorly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You STLL don't want to discuss how all those agencies > > > > suddenly > > > > > > > > became > > > > > > > > > > > > socialist????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you propose build and maintain our highways and > > > > streets > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > the DOT? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who would regulate the trucking industry? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why are you suddenly omitting the ATF? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2:55 pm, Keith In Tampa < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never made such a claim, that the Department of > > > > Education, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > Department > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Transportation, or the DOEnergy are socialist. > > They > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > bureaucratic > > > > > > > > > > > > > quagmires, that do nothing! They are a drain on our > > > > > > economy, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > done away with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it that you think the Department of Education > > > > does? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it that you think the Department of > > > > Transportation > > > > > > does? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it that you think the Department of Energy > > does? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Hollywood < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pay attention KIT. Where did I suggest having a > > > > EXCLUSIVELY > > > > > > > > > > SOCIALIST > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONTROLLED government in the United States? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't you want to address how the govt. agencies > > you > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have been in existance for fucking decades, > > suddenly > > > > became > > > > > > > > > > socialist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under THIS administration but were not during the > > > > PREVIOUS > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
