On May 23, 8:49 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud
Aside from which, even if he dies, HC would only have to capture a
small number of his newly freed delegates to lock up the nomination.
Last I heard her campaign was deep in debt. Maybe she needs
to keep running to keep raising money, but that assumes she is
campaigning inexpensively.
--
FF
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ya know...
>> I am a conservative Republican
>> BUT
>> I gotta tell you,
>> # 5 - kinda pissed me off.
>>
>> She's just a bitch, her gender doesn't represent her ability.
>>
>> K.
>>
>>
>> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>>> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>>> that out loud
>>
>> Why is she still running?
>>
>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and
>> much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
>> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> When it's over, she will Still be a Serving United States Senator. Only
> 99 other people in the world can say that.
Well, she may still be a Senator. Whether she will be "serving"
anything but her own self interest remains to be seen.
Which raises another question, how many Senators actually serve their
constituents?
...
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
On May 26, 1:05 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> 1) Invade and occupy Mecca and Medina
> 2) Build pig farms on that land
> 3) Shoot anyone who tries to enter with bullets tipped in pork fat
> 4) Tell the Islamic world that we'll happily be making bacon and saugsage
> in their holy shrines until/unless they suppress *all* terra-ist action
> and hand the leadership of the various factions over to the West. Oh ...
> and they all have to recognize Israel diplomatically and publicly -
> in front of their people and in Arabic, Persian, and English - acknowledge
> the Israeli right to the land they currently occupy. Think of it as
> being war reparations.
>
You do a good job of making it clear that you want innocent
people to suffer and die, but haven't the balls to do it your-
self.
--
FF
suffering and deth
Swingman wrote:
> "Leon" wrote
>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much
>> of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
>> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
>
> 7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in the US
> and that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder. (Well maybe Oprah
> fits in there somewhere)
>
What if McCain picks Condosleeza as his running partner?
;-)
--
Froz...
Han wrote:
> FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> "Leon" wrote
>>>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>>>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>>>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and
>>>> much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>>>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>>>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a
>>>> MAN. 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>> 7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in the
>>> US and that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder. (Well
>>> maybe Oprah fits in there somewhere)
>>>
>> What if McCain picks Condosleeza as his running partner?
>> ;-)
>
> I used to like her, but now I know that she knew, or should have known,
> all that is rotten in Bushes Iraq adventure, I think she will be a target
> and a distraction for McCain. Actually, I'd like that!
>
Imagine if she switched parties and was Obama's running mate, that would
test the mettle of the US population.
--
Froz...
Han wrote:
> FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Leon" wrote
>>>>>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>>>>>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>>>>>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget
>>>>>> and much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>>>>>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>>>>>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a
>>>>>> MAN. 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in
>>>>> the US and that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder.
>>>>> (Well maybe Oprah fits in there somewhere)
>>>>>
>>>> What if McCain picks Condosleeza as his running partner?
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> I used to like her, but now I know that she knew, or should have
>>> known, all that is rotten in Bushes Iraq adventure, I think she will
>>> be a target and a distraction for McCain. Actually, I'd like that!
>>>
>> Imagine if she switched parties and was Obama's running mate, that
>> would test the mettle of the US population.
>
> Qualifications is what matter, not skin color. If someone obligingly
> follows orders, knowing that such is ethically wrong (and Condo should
> have known) than this is not only morally and ethically reprehensible,
> but in extreme cases, it is a punishable offense, as established in
> Nuremberg (although those were in a somewhat different context).
>
> Please accept this as partly tongue in cheek.
>
I know what you are talking about, I'm just another Canuck filling in for
Rob while he is sleeping.
;-)
--
Froz...
Han wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On May 25, 5:48 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote
>>> innews:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5
>> [email protected]:
>>>> On May 25, 4:22 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country
>>>>> and way of
>>>>> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia.
>>>> MUCH better to stay the course!
>>>> Right?
>>> No, extremist right.
>>
>> Brain-washed/party-line extreme right.
>> That's what I have been on about. It's that unwavering loyalty
>> (Germany in the 30's), even though all evidence points towards the
>> Bush administration's immorality, criminal behaviour and fraudulent
>> mismanagement of your nation's coffers. At no time in US history has
>> anybody done more damage than Bush. But all his KBR, Cargyle and GD
>> friends sure got rich, eh?
>>
>> Add to that, the inability to discern the difference between somebody
>> wanting to help the poor and a socialist? WTF ever happened to the '
>> compassionate conservative?'....oh wait... they've been busy sending
>> your children to die for the enrichment of the Bush friends.
>>
>> Notice how the Saudis sent him packing? They have all they want. They
>> don't need him.
>> Naaaaa... enough of this already. You just can't talk sense to some-
>> one who's happily blinded by bullshit.
>>
> Yes indeed, while we could outspend the former Soviet Union to let them
> expire exhausted of money, I doubt that we can do that with the terrorist
> extremists. Which is why spending money on a missile defense system is
> like fighting the last war. This war is different guys!
>
>
Actually, we could easily suppress terra-ist extremists and the Muslims
would do it themselves:
1) Invade and occupy Mecca and Medina
2) Build pig farms on that land
3) Shoot anyone who tries to enter with bullets tipped in pork fat
4) Tell the Islamic world that we'll happily be making bacon and saugsage
in their holy shrines until/unless they suppress *all* terra-ist action
and hand the leadership of the various factions over to the West. Oh ...
and they all have to recognize Israel diplomatically and publicly -
in front of their people and in Arabic, Persian, and English - acknowledge
the Israeli right to the land they currently occupy. Think of it as
being war reparations.
This would work just fine except ... for the vicious Western left that would
soil itself at that thought that war is mean...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 24, 8:08 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> > might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> > that out loud
>
> Why is she still running?
>
> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
?
> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much of
> it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
Isn't it true that if she drops out she won't recoup much of her
personal loans to the campaign? I remember reading some such about
federal campaign contributions. That's a hell of a good reason to
stay in the race - money.
> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
Senator from NY...? I don't think so.
> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
?
> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
If that were true no one who lost an election would ever run again.
Whichever one gets the nomination, and presuming they're elected,
there's going to be a major shit storm they inherited/assumed. The
odds of it being a one term presidency are high.
R
On May 24, 11:32=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> evodawg <[email protected]> wrote innews:odWZj.957$tF1.392@trnddc01:
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> >> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> >> that out loud
> > How can a party that can't run it's own primary expect to run the
> > country? How can a party that can't run Congress expect to run the
> > country? How can a party that wants to nationalize Big Oil Companies
> > and Health Care run this country? =A0Sounds a lot like Hugo
> > Chavez/Putin/Castro to me.
>
> > "America is too great for small dreams" =A0Ronald Reagan
>
> After the nGulf of Tonkin resolution and the WOMD resoltion, I think the
> parties are on equal footing.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Hillary would 'Vince-Foster' Obama in a heartbeat. She smacks of evil.
That Robert Kennedy reference was more than a slip of the tongue... it
was an outburst of ugliness of some sort.... kinda like that monster
jumping out of a chest in Alien.
I think she would make GWB look like a choir boy in comparison.
On May 25, 4:22 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and way of
> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia.
Wouldn't be prudent.
Right?
Ya know...
I am a conservative Republican
BUT
I gotta tell you,
# 5 - kinda pissed me off.
She's just a bitch, her gender doesn't represent her ability.
K.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud
Why is she still running?
1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much of
it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0a0b8047-a482-4177-bbca-e6f5476af05a@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Last I heard her campaign was deep in debt. Maybe she needs
> to keep running to keep raising money, but that assumes she is
> campaigning inexpensively.
Yup, she is showing us all how irresponsible she is, fiscally. Add to that
her lies about being in the middle east and being shot at. Oh, she
misspoke, it was not on that particular trip, the one with the school girl.
Still, I wonder what trip that she was on that she did get shot at, I
suspect that her answer would be that she misspoke again. Well maybe she
went on a hunting trip with the VP. :~)
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:82eb3253-57d7-49f4-a3cc-dc457e57cd9f@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 8:08 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>> > might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>> > that out loud
>>
>> Why is she still running?
>>
>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>
> ?
>
>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much
>> of
>> it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>
> Isn't it true that if she drops out she won't recoup much of her
> personal loans to the campaign? I remember reading some such about
> federal campaign contributions. That's a hell of a good reason to
> stay in the race - money.
Yeah, that was my point, although probably a futile exercise.
>
>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>
> Senator from NY...? I don't think so.
Senator from Where? Who was senator before her?
>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
>
> ?
>
>> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
>
> If that were true no one who lost an election would ever run again.
I'm not talking about other people, only her.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> The fact that Hillary is a woman has nothing to do with not wanting her in
> office any more than the fact that Obama is black makes him a poor choice.
> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and way of
> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia. There are plenty of women who
> would be well-suited to the office just as there are some black men or
> other minorities who would be well qualified. It's neither the gender nor
> the race that makes these two dangerous.
Hillary is dangerous because she's made it clear she doesn't give a shit
about the country, she doesn't give a shit about her party, she only
gives a shit about Hillary.
We don't need any more self-serving, self-centered asshats in office and
we most certainly don't need either a Bush or a Clinton ever again.
--
Blog Me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
"Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xOq_j.1800$QW.1051@trndny04...
>>
>>
>
> When it's over, she will Still be a Serving United States Senator. Only
> 99 other people in the world can say that.
Now that is funny.
"Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>
> Well, she may still be a Senator. Whether she will be "serving" anything
> but her own self interest remains to be seen.
> Which raises another question, how many Senators actually serve their
> constituents?
>
All of them do, up on that platter.
FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "Leon" wrote
>>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and
>>> much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a
>>> MAN. 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not
>>> matter.
>>
>> 7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in the
>> US and that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder. (Well
>> maybe Oprah fits in there somewhere)
>>
> What if McCain picks Condosleeza as his running partner?
> ;-)
I used to like her, but now I know that she knew, or should have known,
all that is rotten in Bushes Iraq adventure, I think she will be a target
and a distraction for McCain. Actually, I'd like that!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Leon" wrote
>>>>> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
>>>>> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
>>>>> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget
>>>>> and much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
>>>>> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
>>>>> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a
>>>>> MAN. 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not
>>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>> 7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in
>>>> the US and that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder.
>>>> (Well maybe Oprah fits in there somewhere)
>>>>
>>> What if McCain picks Condosleeza as his running partner?
>>> ;-)
>>
>> I used to like her, but now I know that she knew, or should have
>> known, all that is rotten in Bushes Iraq adventure, I think she will
>> be a target and a distraction for McCain. Actually, I'd like that!
>>
> Imagine if she switched parties and was Obama's running mate, that
> would test the mettle of the US population.
Qualifications is what matter, not skin color. If someone obligingly
follows orders, knowing that such is ethically wrong (and Condo should
have known) than this is not only morally and ethically reprehensible,
but in extreme cases, it is a punishable offense, as established in
Nuremberg (although those were in a somewhat different context).
Please accept this as partly tongue in cheek.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
evodawg <[email protected]> wrote in news:odWZj.957$tF1.392@trnddc01:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>> that out loud
> How can a party that can't run it's own primary expect to run the
> country? How can a party that can't run Congress expect to run the
> country? How can a party that wants to nationalize Big Oil Companies
> and Health Care run this country? Sounds a lot like Hugo
> Chavez/Putin/Castro to me.
>
> "America is too great for small dreams" Ronald Reagan
After the nGulf of Tonkin resolution and the WOMD resoltion, I think the
parties are on equal footing.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5694f37d08@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On May 25, 4:22 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and
>> way of
>
>> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia.
>
> MUCH better to stay the course!
>
> Right?
>
No, extremist right.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On May 25, 5:48 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5
> [email protected]:
>>
>> > On May 25, 4:22 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country
>> >> and way of
>>
>> >> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia.
>>
>> > MUCH better to stay the course!
>>
>> > Right?
>>
>> No, extremist right.
>
>
> Brain-washed/party-line extreme right.
> That's what I have been on about. It's that unwavering loyalty
> (Germany in the 30's), even though all evidence points towards the
> Bush administration's immorality, criminal behaviour and fraudulent
> mismanagement of your nation's coffers. At no time in US history has
> anybody done more damage than Bush. But all his KBR, Cargyle and GD
> friends sure got rich, eh?
>
> Add to that, the inability to discern the difference between somebody
> wanting to help the poor and a socialist? WTF ever happened to the '
> compassionate conservative?'....oh wait... they've been busy sending
> your children to die for the enrichment of the Bush friends.
>
> Notice how the Saudis sent him packing? They have all they want. They
> don't need him.
> Naaaaa... enough of this already. You just can't talk sense to some-
> one who's happily blinded by bullshit.
>
Yes indeed, while we could outspend the former Soviet Union to let them
expire exhausted of money, I doubt that we can do that with the terrorist
extremists. Which is why spending money on a missile defense system is
like fighting the last war. This war is different guys!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On May 25, 4:22=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and way of=
> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia. =A0
MUCH better to stay the course!
Right?
Didn't see Robatoy's response, so I'll respond to his nonsense here
Han wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On May 25, 5:48 pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote
>>> innews:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5
>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>> > On May 25, 4:22 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > [snip]
>>>
>>> >> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country
>>> >> and way of
>>>
>>> >> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia.
>>>
>>> > MUCH better to stay the course!
>>>
>>> > Right?
>>>
>>> No, extremist right.
>>
>>
>> Brain-washed/party-line extreme right.
>> That's what I have been on about. It's that unwavering loyalty
>> (Germany in the 30's), even though all evidence points towards the
>> Bush administration's immorality, criminal behaviour and fraudulent
>> mismanagement of your nation's coffers. At no time in US history has
>> anybody done more damage than Bush. But all his KBR, Cargyle and GD
>> friends sure got rich, eh?
>>
You have absolutely got to be kidding. The old meme of "Bush is Hitler"
is pretty worn and to be honest neither bright nor intelligent. There have
been numerous instances where I have disagreed with various Bush policies
such as immigration, and the out of control social spending culminating in
the prescription drug plan. But hey, those were things that the libs
should have loved and happily embraced, right?
"At no time done more damage ...." I guess that's why we have had record
employment numbers under Bush. Immorality? Just because one may disagree
with foreign policy doesn't make the man's behaviors immoral. It's not like
he was getting BJ's in the oval office or renting out the Lincoln bedroom.
>> Add to that, the inability to discern the difference between somebody
>> wanting to help the poor and a socialist? WTF ever happened to the '
>> compassionate conservative?'....oh wait... they've been busy sending
>> your children to die for the enrichment of the Bush friends.
>>
Let me type this real slowly so you understand: It's not charity when you
are using somebody else's money! The left and socialists are all
about "compassion" and "caring", but don't ask *them* to pony up anything!
That's for the "other" rich and the plebes -- we'll use tax dollars for all
that compassion.
>> Notice how the Saudis sent him packing? They have all they want. They
>> don't need him.
>> Naaaaa... enough of this already. You just can't talk sense to some-
>> one who's happily blinded by bullshit.
>>
Ain't that the truth. The irony of your statement is jaw-dropping.
What's all the more amusing is the fact that my post said zip, zero, zilch
about Bush -- for or agin'. It decried the fact that the two leading dem
candidates are raving socialists and that the only thing people seem to be
concerned about is their gender or race.
> Yes indeed, while we could outspend the former Soviet Union to let them
> expire exhausted of money, I doubt that we can do that with the terrorist
> extremists. Which is why spending money on a missile defense system is
> like fighting the last war. This war is different guys!
>
>
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On May 26, 1:05 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> 1) Invade and occupy Mecca and Medina
>> 2) Build pig farms on that land
>> 3) Shoot anyone who tries to enter with bullets tipped in pork fat
>> 4) Tell the Islamic world that we'll happily be making bacon and saugsage
>> in their holy shrines until/unless they suppress *all* terra-ist action
>> and hand the leadership of the various factions over to the West. Oh ...
>> and they all have to recognize Israel diplomatically and publicly -
>> in front of their people and in Arabic, Persian, and English - acknowledge
>> the Israeli right to the land they currently occupy. Think of it as
>> being war reparations.
>>
>
> You do a good job of making it clear that you want innocent
> people to suffer and die, but haven't the balls to do it your-
> self.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
> suffering and deth
A: I said it was *a* way to do it, not a *good* way. I did so merely
to point out that there are solutions to this problem. Whether or
not they are palatable is another matter altogether.
B: It is very doubtful that a strategy like the one above would
be substantially better or worse than any other kind of war.
Here is a small clue: Innocent people die in war - that's why
we all would like to avoid it whenever possible. But given
that innocent people already died absent a war, I rather think
doing this isn't all that much of a delta. Moreover, innocent
death is minimized when war is shortened. Holding the Islamic
holy cities hostage would almost certainly have that effect.
In the mean time, the next time a building gets mowed down
with civilians in an airplane, a train bombed, a town
randomly peppered with rockets, or innocent civilians immolated
by a suicidal piece of Islamic sewage, we can all rest comfortably
that people like you sit on the sidelines wringing your hands
about "innocent deaths", but only if they are the enemy's
innocents. Ours don't seem to bother you all that much.
C: You haven't a clue what I am- and am not willing to do nor do
I feel particularly compelled to explain it to you. While
you may be fascinated with my genitalia, I am not wired that
way and I'll thank you to keep your distance.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
that out loud "
I must have missed something in the news What did she actually say for
this group to think that she said that Obama might be gunned down like
BK.I guess I like HC and heard her speech differently. The good news
that regardless of which one of the three gets elected we will be
putting the worst president that this country has seen behind us.
On May 26, 1:44 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 1:05 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> >> 1) Invade and occupy Mecca and Medina
> >> 2) Build pig farms on that land
> >> 3) Shoot anyone who tries to enter with bullets tipped in pork fat
> >> 4) Tell the Islamic world that we'll happily be making bacon and saugsage
> >> in their holy shrines until/unless they suppress *all* terra-ist action
> >> and hand the leadership of the various factions over to the West. Oh ...
> >> and they all have to recognize Israel diplomatically and publicly -
> >> in front of their people and in Arabic, Persian, and English - acknowledge
> >> the Israeli right to the land they currently occupy. Think of it as
> >> being war reparations.
>
> > You do a good job of making it clear that you want innocent
> > people to suffer and die, but haven't the balls to do it your-
> > self.
...
>
> A: I said it was *a* way to do it, not a *good* way. ...
OK. It would be a bad way, suicidal among other problems.
>
> B: It is very doubtful that a strategy like the one above would
> be substantially better or worse than any other kind of war.
> Here is a small clue: Innocent people die in war -
The distinct here is that your 'strategy' was suggested to maximise
death and destruction among the innocent on all sides, without
regard to effectiveness.
You make suggestions of this ilk, though usually slightly less
obvious,
so often as to disprove the notion that you actually want a reduction
in violence.
--
FF
On May 26, 12:46 pm, henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud "
>
> I must have missed something in the news What did she actually say for
> this group to think that she said that Obama might be gunned down like
> BK.I guess I like HC and heard her speech differently. The good news
> that regardless of which one of the three gets elected we will be
> putting the worst president that this country has seen behind us.
I haven't seen a clip of what she actually said. I have heard pundits
claim
that, when asked why she hadn't yet conceded the nomination she
pointed out that the 1968 primary was still hotly contested in June of
1968
when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
If so, the 'controversy' is fabricated via a misrepresentation of her
remarks, something that is hardly new in politics though in recent
years it appears that condemnation of persons who promote such
distortions has gone out of style in the media and press.
On a similar note, it is asserted to be true that she landed at an
airfield in Bosnia where there was a *threat* of sniper fire and
precautions were taken that were not ordinarily considered
necessary.
Again, I have not seen a clip that shows what words came out
of her mouth.
And for another example, Hagee's comment that Hitler's persecution
of the Jews added motivation to the effort that culminated in the
restoration of the Jewish State of Israel, and thus contributed to the
fulfillment of some prophecy or other is evidence that he is some
sort of apocalyptic nut, not an anti-semite.
--
FF
On May 26, 5:19=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 26, 12:46 pm, henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> > might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> > that out loud "
>
> > I must have missed something in the news What did she actually say for
> > this group to think that she said that Obama might be gunned down like
> > BK.I guess I like HC and heard her speech differently. The good news
> > that regardless of which one of the three gets elected we will be
> > putting the worst president that this country has seen behind us.
>
> I haven't seen a clip of what she actually said. =A0I have heard pundits
> claim
> that, when asked why she hadn't yet conceded the nomination she
> pointed out that the 1968 primary was still hotly contested in June of
> 1968
> when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
>
> If so, the 'controversy' is fabricated via a misrepresentation of her
> remarks, something that is hardly new in politics though in recent
> years it appears that condemnation of persons who promote such
> distortions has gone out of style in the media and press.
>
> On a similar note, it is asserted to be true that she landed at an
> airfield in Bosnia where there was a *threat* of sniper fire and
> precautions were taken that were not ordinarily considered
> necessary.
>
> Again, I have not seen a clip that shows what words came out
> of her mouth.
>
> And for another example, Hagee's comment that Hitler's persecution
> of the Jews added motivation to the effort that culminated in the
> restoration of the Jewish State of Israel, and thus contributed to the
> fulfillment of some prophecy or other is evidence that he is some
> sort of apocalyptic nut, not an anti-semite.
>
> --
>
> FF
To disagree with the policies of Israel, doesn't make one an anti-
semite either.
henry wrote:
> "Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud "
>
> I must have missed something in the news What did she actually say for
> this group to think that she said that Obama might be gunned down like
> BK.I guess I like HC and heard her speech differently. The good news
> that regardless of which one of the three gets elected we will be
> putting the worst president that this country has seen behind us.
>
No, we did that when Carter was properly drummed out of office.
Bush's reputation will eventually be rehabilitated at least as
regards to foreign policy when the magnitude of the threat of
Islam in its death throes right now is finally understood by
the population at large. I'd guess this will take 20-30 years.
He isn't remotely the worst President of the past 100 years,
let alone US history. That honor is a toss up between Carter
and FDR, two foul and malignant collectivists who had no
respect for the Constitution, no understanding of economics,
and a complete disregard for personal liberty.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On May 26, 1:44 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 26, 1:05 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 1) Invade and occupy Mecca and Medina
>>>> 2) Build pig farms on that land
>>>> 3) Shoot anyone who tries to enter with bullets tipped in pork fat
>>>> 4) Tell the Islamic world that we'll happily be making bacon and saugsage
>>>> in their holy shrines until/unless they suppress *all* terra-ist action
>>>> and hand the leadership of the various factions over to the West. Oh ...
>>>> and they all have to recognize Israel diplomatically and publicly -
>>>> in front of their people and in Arabic, Persian, and English - acknowledge
>>>> the Israeli right to the land they currently occupy. Think of it as
>>>> being war reparations.
>>> You do a good job of making it clear that you want innocent
>>> people to suffer and die, but haven't the balls to do it your-
>>> self.
> ...
>> A: I said it was *a* way to do it, not a *good* way. ...
>
>
> OK. It would be a bad way, suicidal among other problems.
>
>> B: It is very doubtful that a strategy like the one above would
>> be substantially better or worse than any other kind of war.
>> Here is a small clue: Innocent people die in war -
>
> The distinct here is that your 'strategy' was suggested to maximise
> death and destruction among the innocent on all sides, without
> regard to effectiveness.
>
> You make suggestions of this ilk, though usually slightly less
> obvious,
> so often as to disprove the notion that you actually want a reduction
> in violence.
>
> --
>
> FF
I want a reduction in violence *to me* (and my countrymen, allies, etc.).
If the Islamic world wishes to implode in an orgy of self-destruction -
the inevitable consequence of their failure to embrace modernity - so be
it, I don't care. In fact, let's sell them weapons and ammo. The sooner
they destroy themselves - Muslim-on-Muslim violence far exceeding Muslim-
on-anyone-else violence - the better off the planet will be. In the
mean time, the decent Muslims are more than welcome to join the rest
of the civilized world. The idea that we (the West) should act so
as to minimize *all* violence is patently absurd. We can't and ought
not even to try. We should protect ourselves and allow the various
cesspools around the world to run their course.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 25, 7:35=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Didn't see Robatoy's response,
I don't believe you.
Woodie wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> When it's over, she will Still be a SELF Serving United States
>> Senator. Only
> ^^^^
>> 99 other people in the world can say that.
>
> Just clarified that a bit...
Much better, and far more on point.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On May 24, 12:59 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 24, 11:32 am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > evodawg <[email protected]> wrote innews:odWZj.957$tF1.392@trnddc01:
>
> > > Robatoy wrote:
>
> > >> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> > >> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> > >> that out loud
> > > How can a party that can't run it's own primary expect to run the
> > > country? How can a party that can't run Congress expect to run the
> > > country? How can a party that wants to nationalize Big Oil Companies
> > > and Health Care run this country? Sounds a lot like Hugo
> > > Chavez/Putin/Castro to me.
>
> > > "America is too great for small dreams" Ronald Reagan
>
> > After the nGulf of Tonkin resolution and the WOMD resoltion, I think the
> > parties are on equal footing.
>
> > --
> > Best regards
> > Han
> > email address is invalid
>
> Hillary would 'Vince-Foster' Obama in a heartbeat. She smacks of evil.
> That Robert Kennedy reference was more than a slip of the tongue... it
> was an outburst of ugliness of some sort.... kinda like that monster
> jumping out of a chest in Alien.
> I think she would make GWB look like a choir boy in comparison.
GWB IS a choir boy, or something similar. Unfortunately, he's also
stupid and lives on the approval from his friends, sort of like my
little dog. All the boozing he did, if he'd done it in a decent
redneck bar, he'd have at least gotten over some of that nonsense
about the second time he got his nose broken.
Google has had these stupid assed little verification type-ins for a
bit now, and I don't see a damned bit of difference in the scumsuckers
trying to sell watches, their sisters or whatever.
On May 24, 1:13 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> Google has had these stupid assed little verification type-ins for a
> bit now, and I don't see a damned bit of difference in the scumsuckers
> trying to sell watches, their sisters or whatever.
I see that it has been cut way back.
I don't have statistics, but just from memory the spam used
to be more than half of the threads. Now it looks to be
down around one in five.
--
FF
On May 25, 5:48=A0pm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5=
[email protected]:
>
> > On May 25, 4:22=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> >> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and
> >> way of
>
> >> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia. =A0
>
> > MUCH better to stay the course!
>
> > Right?
>
> No, extremist right.
Brain-washed/party-line extreme right.
That's what I have been on about. It's that unwavering loyalty
(Germany in the 30's), even though all evidence points towards the
Bush administration's immorality, criminal behaviour and fraudulent
mismanagement of your nation's coffers. At no time in US history has
anybody done more damage than Bush. But all his KBR, Cargyle and GD
friends sure got rich, eh?
Add to that, the inability to discern the difference between somebody
wanting to help the poor and a socialist? WTF ever happened to the '
compassionate conservative?'....oh wait... they've been busy sending
your children to die for the enrichment of the Bush friends.
Notice how the Saudis sent him packing? They have all they want. They
don't need him.
Naaaaa... enough of this already. You just can't talk sense to some-
one who's happily blinded by bullshit.
Robatoy wrote:
> On May 25, 7:35Â pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Didn't see Robatoy's response,
>
> I don't believe you.
If I had wanted to ignore your post, I'd have ignored both your post and
Han's response.
Fact is, not all posts make it through all news hosting services in a
timely manner.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 25, 5:48Êpm, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:a9146474-3a93-4fd7-8d2f-9e5694f37d08@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On May 25, 4:22Êpm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and
>> >> way of
>>
>> >> life in pursuit of their socialist utopia. Ê
>>
>> > MUCH better to stay the course!
>>
>> > Right?
>>
>> No, extremist right.
>
>
>Brain-washed/party-line extreme right.
>That's what I have been on about. It's that unwavering loyalty
>(Germany in the 30's), even though all evidence points towards the
>Bush administration's immorality, criminal behaviour and fraudulent
>mismanagement of your nation's coffers. At no time in US history has
>anybody done more damage than Bush. But all his KBR, Cargyle and GD
>friends sure got rich, eh?
>
>Add to that, the inability to discern the difference between somebody
>wanting to help the poor and a socialist? WTF ever happened to the '
>compassionate conservative?'....oh wait... they've been busy sending
>your children to die for the enrichment of the Bush friends.
>
>Notice how the Saudis sent him packing? They have all they want. They
>don't need him.
>Naaaaa... enough of this already. You just can't talk sense to some-
>one who's happily blinded by bullshit.
:)
Robatoy wrote:
> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud
How can a party that can't run it's own primary expect to run the country?
How can a party that can't run Congress expect to run the country?
How can a party that wants to nationalize Big Oil Companies and Health Care
run this country? Sounds a lot like Hugo Chavez/Putin/Castro to me.
"America is too great for small dreams" Ronald Reagan
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ya know...
> I am a conservative Republican
> BUT
> I gotta tell you,
> # 5 - kinda pissed me off.
>
> She's just a bitch, her gender doesn't represent her ability.
I'll agree to a point. Normally gender doesn't represent ability but in
this particular case I feel that before the last card is dealt "she" will
play the "female card".
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
> that out loud
Why is she still running?
1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much of
it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
Kate wrote:
> Ya know...
> I am a conservative Republican
> BUT
> I gotta tell you,
> # 5 - kinda pissed me off.
>
> She's just a bitch, her gender doesn't represent her ability.
>
> K.
>
The fact that Hillary is a woman has nothing to do with not wanting her in
office any more than the fact that Obama is black makes him a poor choice.
The problem is what either of these two would do to our country and way of
life in pursuit of their socialist utopia. There are plenty of women who
would be well-suited to the office just as there are some black men or
other minorities who would be well qualified. It's neither the gender nor
the race that makes these two dangerous.
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>> that out loud
>
>
> Why is she still running?
>
> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much
> of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Leon" wrote
> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much
> of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
7. When IT'S OVER Nancy Pelosi will be the most powerful woman in the US and
that's enough to make even Hillary (and me) shudder. (Well maybe Oprah fits
in there somewhere)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ya know...
> I am a conservative Republican
> BUT
> I gotta tell you,
> # 5 - kinda pissed me off.
>
> She's just a bitch, her gender doesn't represent her ability.
>
> K.
>
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>> that out loud
>
>
> Why is she still running?
>
> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and
> much of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
>
>
>
>
When it's over, she will Still be a Serving United States Senator. Only
99 other people in the world can say that.
Leon wrote:
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Why is Hillary still in the running? Because according to her, Obama
>> might be gunned down like Bobby Kennedy. Oops, she's sorry she said
>> that out loud
>
>
> Why is she still running?
>
> 1. Because when it's over "IT'S OVER".
> 2. When IT'S OVER Bill will not have any reason to stick around.
> 3. When IT'S OVER she will have spent millions past her budget and much
> of it was her money, with nothing to show for it.
> 4. When IT'S OVER the camera's will soon be turned away from HER.
> 5. When IT'S OVER she will have been beaten by a minority AND a MAN.
> 6. When IT'S OVER it will finally sink in that she does not matter.
7. When it's over, Nancy Pelosi will have won and will be the most powerful
woman in D.C.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough