PDA

View Full Version : March - 1965



Gayle in MD
04-16-2007, 12:19 PM
The American president was resolute on winning the war in Vietnam. Americans were being told over and over that we were winning the war. We were told that if we left Vietnam, Communism would spread across the hemisphere. Our Generals were secretly stating, and also Pentagon Papers later proved, that 70% combat, and combat casualties, at that time, were solely for the purpose of avoiding humility.

The recently released Nixon tapes, detail how Nixon planned the exit from Vietnam, according to political considerations. The Pentagon papers, also proved the same.

At that time, 24,000 American troops had been killed in combat. We "Surged" in an additional 20,000 troops, and continued in a militarily unwinnable war for another five years, and lost an additional 30,000 troops, after which the same end result occured that would have occured had we left five years earlier.

Republicans, and particularly George Bush, have accused Democrats of cutting off funding for the troops. That is a lie, and Bush has stated that lie, over and over again. The funding for our troops is there in the bill, none has been cut off from our troops, and they will have not only everything they need, but much more than Bush was going to spend on making them safer, supplying them with rest, and training, as conditions for sending them in. Because Democrats are no longer willing to allow George Bush to sacrifice American blood to avoid accepting the dire reality he has created, they have added conditions, in the best interest of our soldiers, in order to protect them from Bush's incompetence, and unrealistic expectations. The war in Iraq, has been declared unwinnable, by the military, by the Iraq Study Group, by almost unanimously our most respected foreign affairs experts, and even by General Petraeus.

Political advances have not been achieved, and Sunnis and Shiias alike, in fact, 97% of Sunni, and 86 % of Shiia, recently stated in polls that American combat troops should leave Iraq, and are making the ciolence worse. A virtual cabal of retired generals, are calling for a withdrawel of our troops from combat missions, and some calling for a responsibly orchestrated phased exit from Iraq as a combat force.

"It is too late" said the retired Brigadier General, and former Military Strategic Combat Instructor, and specialist in Strategic Combat.

It has BEEN too late for quite some time, and staying, will only cause more deaths. The unfortunate Iranian, alqeada and Talliban consequneces have already occured. Afghanistan, is degrading, and some say becoming as dire, as Iraq has been reported to be, before the surge, which has failed to produce positive results. The Generals agreed that we do not have enough troops to provide safety for the Iraqi population, and that further escalation of combat maneuvers in Iraq, will only add to the strife and violence, for no reasonable gain to our country.

This war has lasted longer than WWII, and we are coming closer to the same conditions which history has proven will lead only to further deaths, and greater failure.

If you don't do anything else, watch the full replay of today's statements by Bush, flanked by a friendly audience of uniformed military people, who, btw, can show ONLY support of the President while in Uniform, and then watch the follow up by Senator Reid, flanked by three career Generals, of the highest reputation and experience. The vast void between fantasy, and reality, has never been more obvious or more stark.

These statments can also be accessed on Capital News.org, and C-Span.org, but will most surely be repeated on the C-Span station on cable this evening.

You owe it to your country, and to our soldiers, IMO, to be absolutely determined to view both.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-16-2007, 06:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This war has lasted longer than WWII, <hr /></blockquote> So, is it a war only when you decide it will fit your comparison. All the other times you are telling us we are not in a war (some ridiculous statement like a battle but definitely not a war), but when you want to compare a timeline it is. How about you do another comparison...How many American soldiers died during WWII compared to this one?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-16-2007, 06:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
So, is it a war only when you decide it will fit your comparison. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">It is Bush's war, but War was never declared on Iraq. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
How about you do another comparison...How many American soldiers died during WWII compared to this one?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">How about you do a comparison, how many Americans died on 9/11, compared to how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to Bush's illegal policies? Or better yet, how many terrorists factions were around before Bush started naming Middle East countries in his Axis of Evil, cowboy style(all hat no cattle) diplomacy?</font color>

G.

pooltchr
04-16-2007, 06:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
So, is it a war only when you decide it will fit your comparison. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="red">It is Bush's war, but War was never declared on Iraq. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
How about you do another comparison...How many American soldiers died during WWII compared to this one?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">How about you do a comparison, how many Americans died on 9/11, compared to how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to Bush's illegal policies? Or better yet, how many terrorists factions were around before Bush started naming Middle East countries in his Axis of Evil, cowboy style(all hat no cattle) diplomacy?</font color>

G. <hr /></blockquote>

Why do you answer Ed's questions with questions of your own, rather than giving him a straight answer? Who brought up the comparison between the time for WWII and Iraq to begin with?
Steve

Gayle in MD
04-16-2007, 07:07 PM
The differences in time, was not the point of the post. Ed never refers to the thrust of the debate. He takes out on insignificant issues, and uses it to distract from the point. The post, is about knowing when to get out, and learning from past, and hard bought, knowledge and experience. The post is about how Presidents don't want to admit to failure. It points out how Nixon did the very same thing, and how many died, because he refused to tell the American people the truth, just like Bush has done, only even worse. the post is not about comparing the casualties of WWII, to casualties of Iraqa and Afghanistan. Medical advances would prohibit such comparisons, for one thing, and WWII was not a civil war, wrought with guerilla warfare. We were fighting a visible country, and soldiers in uniforms, in WWII. My point in bringing up how long we've been in Iraqa, is to say, look what we accomplished in WWII, in much less time. The civil war in Iraq, and the state of the country, is dire and degrading. Taliban is strengthening in Afghanistan. The Green Zone is no longer safe. iraqis want us out. Americans want us out. The Generals say it can't be won militarily, it's too late for a surge, our Army is broken, the war was mismanaged all along, and BUSH, doesn't want to have to make any compromises!!! What outrageous colossal nerve coming from a complete F.up]

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
04-16-2007, 07:23 PM
Ed, what is your point here?
Does it matter what we call it...a war, a conflict, a police action, an extended battle?
Young Americans are dying over there....does it really matter if those numbers don't approach that of WWII?
We were forced into WWII....this " " is GWB's wet dream...

eg8r
04-17-2007, 08:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, what is your point here?
<hr /></blockquote> Wow, you really are slow. It is not clear? I used English right? You should understand how to speak and read English at this point in your life.

eg8r

eg8r
04-17-2007, 08:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is Bush's war, but War was never declared on Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote> Phew, I am glad you knew what I was pointing out. wolfdancer was completely clueless (no surprise).

[ QUOTE ]
How about you do a comparison <hr /></blockquote> I guess you are ignoring the request because you know your comparison was ridiculous and you were called on it.

eg8r

eg8r
04-17-2007, 08:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The differences in time, was not the point of the post. Ed never refers to the thrust of the debate. He takes out on insignificant issues, and uses it to distract from the point. <hr /></blockquote> I was not interested in the point of your whole post. If you post BS then I will call you on it.

If you make a post I am free to ask questions about any little part of it if I like. Likewise you are also free to avoid the tough questions, perfect example of a liberal. You post crap, get called on it and then cry that your "real" other point was ignored. Sorry but I got caught up in the dumb stats and thought I would request a more important one. Since the more important one does not suit your "real" point you are deciding to deflect it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-17-2007, 01:47 PM
Ed, you are much more intelligent, than to pass that off as an answer. I often have a hard time deciding what the gist of your message is....and only yours
Perhaps you went to schools for gifted students, and the hidden meanings can only be discovered by other Mensa candidates?????
Now you would look even more intellectually superior, if you could explain, when asked, in a way that someone like me could understand....
In the meantime, I think you were just arguing semantics with Gayle, over this war.......and for the record...it meets the dictionay definition of a war...as the internal strife over there, meets the definition of a civil war.
Now maybe as a Bush lackey, until the great white father says so....you will remain confused on its nomenclature....

wolfdancer
04-17-2007, 01:58 PM
Ed, its you that makes obscure comparisions, etc....and then cant explain them. Bush often makes verbal gaffs, because his brain works slower then his mouth...maybe yours is not as fast as your typing skills....or lack thereof?????
Fact is....Gayle has all the facts on her side....or dont you read the papers?....you have only your hatred of the left, left to support your beliefs (they must be wrong because they are godless, baby killing, liberal, welfare cheats, etc...)

wolfdancer
04-17-2007, 02:28 PM
Gayle, i have no idea what Ed is railing about....your original post is quite clear....but as usual, he is off topic and trying to argue something that only he thought you were trying to say.
I feel like giving up again on reading his posts......but I'm always intrigued by his absolute denial of each new report, and the weak arguments he uses to suppress them.
If you wonder how Bush was able to get elected....other then the rigged voting.....Ed is an example of how many people were able to deny the truth, and rely on their spiritual beliefs instead.....to install this (sic)conservative Christian as their leader.
I don't blame you for your continued arguments here with Ed, et al.....but they all have blinders on to the corruption, and it's a complete waste of your time.

wolfdancer
04-17-2007, 04:42 PM
Gayle, I have been looking for that perfect word to describe Ed's ramblings....and lo &amp; behold; I have found it:
BAFFLEGAB !!!!
It's simple meaning: Incomprehensible or pretentious verbiage.
The inventor was trying to come up with a word needed to describe a special blend of “incomprehensibility, ambiguity, verbosity and complexity”. He tried legalfusion, legalprate, gabalia, and burobabble before settling on bafflegab. (He may have read some of Ed's whimsical posts?)
So, next time you can't make any sense out of a reply to one of your posts....especially one where you are just quoting from the media....just remember it's.... bafflegab

Gayle in MD
04-17-2007, 05:17 PM
right, Ed, whatever you NEED to think!!!

Gayle in MD
04-17-2007, 05:19 PM
LMAO! Hey, whatever! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
04-17-2007, 05:24 PM
It's really funny, isn't it? The post police, can't stay on topic! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bobbyrx
04-17-2007, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> The American president was resolute on winning the war in Vietnam. Americans were being told over and over that we were winning the war. We were told that if we left Vietnam, Communism would spread across the hemisphere. Our Generals were secretly stating, and also Pentagon Papers later proved, that 70% combat, and combat casualties, at that time, were solely for the purpose of avoiding humility.

The recently released Nixon tapes, detail how Nixon planned the exit from Vietnam, according to political considerations. The Pentagon papers, also proved the same.

At that time, 24,000 American troops had been killed in combat. We "Surged" in an additional 20,000 troops, and continued in a militarily unwinnable war for another five years, and lost an additional 30,000 troops, after which the same end result occured that would have occured had we left five years earlier. <font color="blue">How many people died when the communists took over N. Vietnam and how many died when we left S. Vietnam on it's own? MILLIONS </font color>

Republicans, and particularly George Bush, have accused Democrats of cutting off funding for the troops. That is a lie, and Bush has stated that lie, over and over again. The funding for our troops is there in the bill, <font color="blue">somewhere in the pork </font color> none has been cut off from our troops, and they will have not only everything they need, but much more than Bush was going to spend on making them safer, supplying them with rest, and training, as conditions for sending them in. Because Democrats are no longer willing to allow George Bush to sacrifice American blood to avoid accepting the dire reality he has created, they have added conditions, in the best interest of our soldiers, in order to protect them from Bush's incompetence, and unrealistic expectations. <font color="blue"> Pure B.S. They added pork to buy votes from members of their own party</font color>

Gayle in MD
04-17-2007, 05:35 PM
How many died? The same esact number that would have died, anyway, Jerk!


BS, they added pork to bribe Republicans who had already voted on them.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Actually, I love it when Bush is out there telling the same old lies, over and over again. It just drives more people into the Demiocratic Party. Seems Republicans are scarce these days! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bobbyrx
04-18-2007, 09:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How many died? The same esact number that would have died, anyway, Jerk! <font color="blue"> I love it when you call me names.....So that means we should not have tried to stop millions from being killed </font color>


BS, they added pork to bribe Republicans who had already voted on them.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<font color="blue"> Pelosi got to 218 with the help of just two Republicans, Reps. Walter Jones (N.C.) and Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), who have become the most outspoken GOP critics of the war. They didn't need to be bribed. Pelosi managed to coax enough members of the Out of Iraq Caucus into supporting her way forward in trying to end the Iraq war.


</font color>

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 10:02 AM
BS, the funding for the Farmers, etc., had been left over business from the Republican majority, before the Democrats even took the majority.

No funding for the troops has been eliminated, it has been increased, and Bush, is holding up the money because he refuses to sign the bill. He doen'st want us to hold the Iraqis to any benchmarks, nor does he accpet the fact that this war is destroying our armed forces, creating debt we cannot afford to continue to increase, and that our home land is at risk, due to his escapade in Iraq, built on his lies. No, he won't sign it, because he's used to getting a blank check from the former corrupt Republican Majority DO NOTHING Congress. No, he won't sign it, because he thinks he doesn't have to answer to Congress, or the American People, but he is about to find out that he isn't KING!

What kills millions, is WAR, that is why it should always be proven as a necessary last resort. Vietnamese fatalities
would have continued, regardless of whether we stayed, or left. Just as iraq fatalities will continue, either way. You cannot FORCE democracy with guns and bombs. Cemocracy must be wanted, and fought for, by the citizens of the country in which the civil war rages, and we have absolutely no business interfering in Iraqis affaisr, and so say the vast majoirty of iraqis, the iraq study group, our own history, the majority of the American people, and retired generals who are speqaking out against this administration's policies. and Bush, insists we give HIM a blank check, top do as he pleases, after he has shown gross incompetence, and complete denial of the mess he has created, for no good reason.

George Bush is not KING of AMERICA.


Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you are much more intelligent, than to pass that off as an answer. I often have a hard time deciding what the gist of your message is....and only yours
<hr /></blockquote> Gayle knew what I was talking about and since she is the person I was responding to I don't see a need in carrying you along. If you don't understand then just step aside and let everyone by.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you went to schools for gifted students, and the hidden meanings can only be discovered by other Mensa candidates?????
<hr /></blockquote> Perhaps you just did not pay attention in school and that same action has followed you all your life.

[ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, I think you were just arguing semantics with Gayle, over this war <hr /></blockquote> Wrong, Gayle was the one arguing semantics. Everyone on this planet refers to this as a war but then Gayle started touting this "battle" crap for a while. It was short lived though. I was just calling attention to the fact that she has switched gears and is back with the rest of the world referring to it as a war.

[ QUOTE ]
Now maybe as a Bush lackey, until the great white father says so....you will remain confused on its nomenclature.... <hr /></blockquote> Remember, you were the one that stuck your confused nose in the fire.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 10:14 AM
America did not declare war with Iraq. The Congress did not appropriate funds for our involvement in a Civil War in Iraq. George Bush lied when he said he would not Nation Build. This war is illegal, and immoral, because Congress did not approve of our involvement in a Civil War, and George Bush lied about the reasons for the occupation, and therefore, this is an illegal, immoral war, which the United States Congress never agreed to, and which the American People are against, and the Iraqis People wish us to leave their country.

Gayle in Md.
As long as we're seen as occupiers, Iraqis will continue to kill our troops. This is the worst policy disaster in our history, and Bush, has cut off finding for out troops because he won't sign the bill that provides the funding.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No funding for the troops has been eliminated, it has been increased, and Bush, is holding up the money because he refuses to sign the bill. He doen'st want us to hold the Iraqis to any benchmarks <hr /></blockquote> More ignorant regurgitation hidden under the guise of a lie. Bush does not want to sign because of the demand for a withdrawal date of which there are no benchmarks.

[ QUOTE ]
No, he won't sign it, because he thinks he doesn't have to answer to Congress, or the American People, but he is about to find out that he isn't KING!
<hr /></blockquote> Oh but he is. Even Levin understands they will not get enough votes and the left will be forced to put an acceptable bill in front of the President that will not include some stupid withdrawal date.

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is not KING of AMERICA. <hr /></blockquote> He never was, he is President and he is enforcing the laws of our nation and not allowing a runaway Congress to come in and try and rule the land. He is showing the terrorists that he will not sit by and allow pelosi to appease them, he is still in control. The left is withholding money for the troops and their safety.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This war is illegal, and immoral, because Congress did not approve of our involvement in a Civil War <hr /></blockquote> You can speak till you are blue in the face but it does not mean you are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
and Bush, has cut off finding for out troops because he won't sign the bill that provides the funding.
<hr /></blockquote> Bush is forcing Congress to act responsible and remove the requirement for a withdrawal date. They are not ready to do so, so the troops are being left out to dry because of a group of selfish Congressman.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, its you that makes obscure comparisions, etc....and then cant explain them. <hr /></blockquote> List them? Gayle tried to make a comparison to WWII, when we continued with a request for the next stat she ran back under the rock.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush often makes verbal gaffs, because his brain works slower then his mouth...maybe yours is not as fast as your typing skills....or lack thereof?????
<hr /></blockquote> You are calling out my typing skills? LOL, that is hilarious. You have nothing intelligent to say so you are now stabbing blindly in the dark.

[ QUOTE ]
Fact is <hr /></blockquote> Anything that comes out of your mouth is merely careless. I could never with a straight face believe anything you say when you preface it with "fact is..."

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:22 AM
Why are you ignoring a simple question?

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 10:38 AM
"You are calling out my typing skills? LOL, that is hilarious. You have nothing intelligent to say so you are now stabbing blindly in the dark."

This proves to me, Ed ...that your reading skills are somewhat suspect.....
The "dig" was that your brain can't keep up with your typing speed...and while Bush makes verbal gaffs....yours are all in print.

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 10:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
More ignorant regurgitation hidden under the guise of a lie. <font color="red">Congress never agreed to appropriate funds to fight a Civil War in Iraq. </font color> Bush does not want to sign because of the demand for a withdrawal date of which there are no benchmarks. [ QUOTE ]
Wrong again, Bush has a history of lying about Benchmark conditions, refusing to admit he was losing the war, refusing to be honest with Americans by calling this a War On Terror, and in fact, our troops are dying in a CIVIL WAR BETWEEN IRAQIS. Congress wants our troops re-deployed away from the front lines of the Civil War in Baghdad, and deployed only for the mission of training Iraqis, and fighting what few alQaeda have infiltrated Iraq, SINCE BUSH MADE THIS MESS. Murtha has been calling for that for over a year, and the Iraq study group, also said, the situation in Iraq was dire and degrading. Most of the Generals say that only a political solution can work, and that it is too late to send in more troups, whioch Bush failed to do originally, hence, the country fell into Civil War, just as those same Generals told him originally would happen, if he didn't go in with enough troops. bush is incompetent, and congress has a responsibility to draw down our forces, from a Civil War, which cannot be wonmilitarily. Those are the facts, and you can call them lies all you wish, but they remain the facts. Bush has proven his incompetence, and now he wants to leave the war for the next president, just as he himself has said, which would untimately cause many many more American and Iraqi deaths. When the vast majority of people in a country want us to leave, that makes us occupiers, which is why Iraqis say it si alright to kill Americans. <hr /></blockquote>

He never was, he is President and he is enforcing the laws of our nation and not allowing a runaway Congress to come in and try and rule the land. <font color="red">Only congress can declare war, and only Congress can appropriate funds for war. Only congress has the responsibility to decide if our money should be spent at all, at any time, in any war. Those are the facts, get over it. </font color> He is showing the terrorists that he will not sit by and allow pelosi to appease them, he is still in control. <font color="red">He is not in control, he is a lame duck president, who has proven himself incompetent, and Pelosi is trying to protect our troops from being victims of his HUGE TEXAS STYLE EGO, and his COMPLETE LIED AND DENIALS OF THE FACTS. </font color> The left is withholding money for the troops and their safety.

eg8r

<hr /></blockquote>

Bobbyrx
04-18-2007, 10:55 AM
from that conservative rag: web page (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/03/the_iraq_supplemental_vote_bre.html)

eg8r
04-18-2007, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Congress never agreed to appropriate funds to fight a Civil War in Iraq. <hr /></blockquote> You keep saying this but it is a strawman. We did not go into Iraq in the middle of a civil war. Saddam had complete control.

[ QUOTE ]
Only congress can declare war, and only Congress can appropriate funds for war. Only congress has the responsibility to decide if our money should be spent at all, at any time, in any war. Those are the facts, get over it <hr /></blockquote> Obviously a veto proves you are wrong. Congress only puts forth a bill, the President signs and approves.

[ QUOTE ]
He is not in control <hr /></blockquote> Oh he is in total control, just as the pork spending congress who are trying to force a stupid troop withdrawal date.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This proves to me, Ed ...that your reading skills are somewhat suspect..... <hr /></blockquote> Then you might want to go back and read what you actually typed. Apparently your brain and your fingers are not in sync.

What you meant to say and what you actually said are two different things. This explains a lot about your posts here.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2007, 11:26 AM
You'll find out who's in control, when the Congress cuts of funding for this war completely. You are as usual, completely wrong. congress controls the money, and with a majority, they control the funding for the war, and can overturn any veto made by the President. You don't even know how the Government works, which you prove completely with all your statements, nor do you know what is in the Bill, which you obviously haven't even read. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The violence is up, and if it hasn't GREATLY improved by the end of August, the Democrats will get their majority to cut off the money for this war. We cannot continue to borrow money from China, to pay for a war, that has put us in more danger, and made our safety here at home, more diluted than it already was. We do NOT have the money to go on like this, and the congress will NOT continue to give this idiot what he wants, when he has proven himself to be out of touch with reality, just like you. People will not be for a war, that makes the terrorists stronger, and no, there wasn't a civil war when Bush occupied Iraq, he created one there, with his bullheaded refusal to listen to the experts who told him he was not sending enough troops, hence, the Civil war errupted, just as he was warned would happen. All that has been proven. He's a F-up, always was, always will be.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-18-2007, 11:37 AM
I am bored, what else is going on?

eg8r

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 01:00 PM
Quoting from what I wrote:
"..his brain works slower then his mouth...maybe yours is not as fast as your typing skills."
it makes sense to me, but maybe they teach different reading skills at the Montessori school, where I'm sure your parents would have enrolled such a gifted prodigy????
For the record..St.John's, St.Monica's, St.Stephen's, S.Bridget's were all fortunate to have had me as a student.

wolfdancer
04-18-2007, 01:10 PM
without the dubious benefit of having read any of your other replies to this thread....in answer to your query:
from many of your past postings....your questions usually are just an attempt to direct the thread away from it's main point, which you are in disagreement with.
Using your recent comparison....if I write a thread about liking apples, you'll ask me how to make orange juice?

eg8r
04-18-2007, 01:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quoting from what I wrote:
"..his brain works slower then his mouth...maybe yours is not as fast as your typing skills."
it makes sense to me, but maybe they teach different reading skills at the Montessori school, where I'm sure your parents would have enrolled such a gifted prodigy???? <hr /></blockquote> Keep on quoting Einstein... [ QUOTE ]
...his brain works slower then his mouth...maybe yours is not as fast as your typing skills....or lack thereof?????
<hr /></blockquote> Geesh, does your mommy still hold your shirt out of the way so you don't pee on it. You don't even remember what you typed and I am the one with comprehension skills? Give me a break. I am done holding your hand it is time you start taking some baby steps on your own.

eg8r

eg8r
04-18-2007, 01:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
without the dubious benefit of having read any of your other replies to this thread....in answer to your query:
<hr /></blockquote> Enough said. Your post is no more than the gum stuck to my shoe.

eg8r