 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / October 2007new bin laden tape
http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf <quote> In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa. This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives. </quote> I wonder if he'll promise to make all future attacks carbon-neutral, either by preventing the emission of greenhouse gases during the attack, or by purchasing carbon credits? I aslso found this to be amusing <quote> So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology in which it is not the business of any class of humanity to lay down its own laws to its own advantage at the expense of the other classes as is the case with you, since the essence of man-made positive laws is that they serve the interests of those with the capital and thus make the rich richer and the poor poorer. <quote> Gosh, now doesn't that sound familiar :-)  SignatureDennis "For instance, on planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on, while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons." --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, chapter 23. -- Dennis "For instance, on planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on, while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons." --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, chapter 23. In rec.scuba, on Sun 09 Sep 2007 09:18:06a, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: > http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcri > pt.pdf [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the > factories of the major corporations Is he afraid that his sand pit is going to be a bit too hot for him if the planet warms up a bit? >In rec.scuba, on Sun 09 Sep 2007 09:18:06a, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" ><nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Is he afraid that his sand pit is going to be a bit too hot for him if the >planet warms up a bit? If I had been President 6 years ago, his sand pit would have reached about a million degrees and would be a glassed in crater about now. Signaturedillon Elvis is still dead > If I had been President 6 years ago, his sand pit would have reached > about a million degrees and would be a glassed in crater about now. Same with Syria, Iran and part of Iraq. Iran is going to give us the chance to test some of the newer weapons; small yield, very precise, easily delivered. If we don't do it, the Israeli's will. If Clinton hadn't been using the "attacks" against Bin Laden to cover up his numerous scandals, which included banging the office help, he could have greased the bastard numerous times, instead he just kicked that can down the street into the next administration, which his lack of action and infidelity assured would be republican. > If Clinton hadn't been using the "attacks" against Bin Laden to cover up his > numerous scandals, which included banging the office help, he could have > greased the bastard numerous times, instead he just kicked that can down the > street into the next administration, which his lack of action and infidelity > assured would be republican. Still blaming Clinton for the past 7 years of Bush's mistakes? That would be hilarious if it weren't pitifully sad. Fortunately for you, you'll have a new Clinton to start blaming pretty soon, before even your best buddies get sick of your blaming poor Bill everytime you get constipated. >> If Clinton hadn't been using the "attacks" against Bin Laden to cover up his >> numerous scandals, which included banging the office help, he could have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >soon, before even your best buddies get sick of your blaming poor Bill >everytime you get constipated. Still, you have to admit that Ignorant Infidel Scott stopped at blaming Clinton for the fact that "the best trained Army in the world" still hasn't found, even less captured, OBL after 6 years. > >> If Clinton hadn't been using the "attacks" against Bin Laden to cover up his > >> numerous scandals, which included banging the office help, he could have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > blaming Clinton for the fact that "the best trained Army in the world" > still hasn't found, even less captured, OBL after 6 years. You know the world is a rather large place, right? We THINK he's in a border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It'd be cool if wecould just go in direclty and look for them. Of course, that would be violating their national sovreignty. Got a UN resolution we could use as justification? What's your stance on our invasion of Iraq again? If we can't go into the area to look, its kind of hard to look for him, eh? Of course he could be elsewhere though. Took 15 years to find Eichmann, Carlos the Jackal was arrested in 1994 - 19 years or so after his terroristacts of 1975. Even within this country, it took 5 years or so to find Eric Rudolph. These things take time, John. Dennis > These things take time, John. Why do you even answer or quote a dirty, cheap shot throwing cocksucker like this? He and his aint gonna do anything but sit on their a.ses and degrade those he likes to fell that are less intelligent, those that that freed him and his, by better men that he will ever be, and bitch and troll for some reaction. Makes him feel all smart and sh.t. There is a reason he trolls and bitches all the time, with every post, about America and Americans. And it aint because he has the smallest shred of respect for the freedom he enjoys. It's because he is a coward and resents feeling like one. Never did, never done, and never will. Has to depend on on people who have and will for the freedom he has to be an a.shole. > > These things take time, John. > > Why do you even answer or quote a dirty, cheap shot throwing cocksucker like > this? I'd rather his posts not go unanswered. :-) Some might think that because there's no response, no counter, that his claim must be true. Dennis On Sep 18, 8:36 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > Some might think that because there's no response, no counter, that his > claim must be true. Just like with all my posts that go unanswered. > On Sep 18, 8:36 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just like with all my posts that go unanswered. It's pretty sad that people might think that the claims therein are true... ;-) > > On Sep 18, 8:36 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's pretty sad that people might think that the claims therein are true... > ;-) Even sadder when, instead of intelligently debating claims that they believe untrue, they simply claim to have me killfiled. >> > On Sep 18, 8:36 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Even sadder when, instead of intelligently debating claims that they >believe untrue, they simply claim to have me killfiled. Mebbe the world's pols should try that instead of all their silly breast beating and posturing. Nobody's ever died from a killfiling. JF > >> It's pretty sad that people might think that the claims therein are true... > >> ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mebbe the world's pols should try that instead of all their silly > breast beating and posturing. Nobody's ever died from a killfiling. I wonder if Bush has Bin Laden killfiled, after Bin Laden keeps on sending "nya, nya, you can't get me" e-mails to Bush with sinister smileys attached. (|-(# >> >> It's pretty sad that people might think that the claims therein are true... >> >> ;-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >sending "nya, nya, you can't get me" e-mails to Bush with sinister >smileys attached. (|-(# That would solve everything. JF In rec.scuba, on Wed 19 Sep 2007 06:09:31p, JOF <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote: > Mebbe the world's pols should try that instead of all their silly > breast beating and posturing. Nobody's ever died from a killfiling. That would depend upon how diligent you were in doing the killfiling RIGHT. IIRC, wasn't Black killfiled? > In rec.scuba, on Wed 19 Sep 2007 06:09:31p, JOF <jofran...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > IIRC, wasn't Black killfiled? Not by anyone who matters. He regularly dove with rec.scubans and engaged in hearty debate and exuberant wagers, back in the good old days when rec.scuba was something more than just a shadow of its former self. If you look at it from a Japanese point of view, he died with honor. In rec.scuba, on Sun 23 Sep 2007 01:26:21p, Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote: > Not by anyone who matters. He regularly dove with rec.scubans and > engaged in hearty debate and exuberant wagers, back in the good old > days when rec.scuba was something more than just a shadow of its > former self. If you look at it from a Japanese point of view, he died > with honor. It would seem that he was killfiled quite well. We haven't heard anything from him in quite awhile, right? > In rec.scuba, on Sun 23 Sep 2007 01:26:21p, Greg Mossman > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It would seem that he was killfiled quite well. We haven't heard anything > from him in quite awhile, right? We haven't heard anything from Jammer either. Do you think he also killfiled himself? In rec.scuba, on Sun 23 Sep 2007 03:52:03p, Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote: > We haven't heard anything from Jammer either. Do you think he also > killfiled himself? You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ I heard from him last week. > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other > > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ > > I heard from him last week. How's Jammer doing? Dennis > > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other > > > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ > > > > I heard from him last week. > > How's Jammer doing? Just fine, pursuing other interests and keeping Mrs. Jammer from killing him. > > > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the > other [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just fine, pursuing other interests and keeping Mrs. Jammer from killing > him. Glad to hear it. Please give him my regards! Dennis - -"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message -news:c7757$46f700db$4c49ae41$29016@KNOLOGY.NET... -> "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message -> news:4dydnVdSEfevbWvbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@whidbeytel.com... -> > "Conshelf" <Conshelf@127.0.0.1> wrote in message -> > news:Xns99B4AACEAF0A5conshelf@194.177.96.26... -> > -> > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the -other -> > > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ -> > -> > I heard from him last week. -> > -> > -> > -> -> How's Jammer doing? - -Just fine, pursuing other interests > and keeping Mrs. Jammer from killing him. Are the two compatible? :) say hi for me. - - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net >>>>You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Just fine, pursuing other interests and keeping Mrs. Jammer from killing > him. Does that imply he's avoiding her, or the contrary? Matthias SignatureVK exquis. mod. Gesch.haus in ruh. Wohnl.3 WE, ehem. Praxis, ca. 350/1000 qm WF/Grdst. 19km nördl. Braunschweig , hochw. einger; Nah VW, Hafen; frei, 0160-4433698 o. 0911-7809081. Gut für Arzt/RA/Ing.büro, oder ruhiges Wohnen, Bilder vorh. > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other > > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ > > Iheardfromhimlastweek. When can we expect you bad assed >boys< to arrive in Iraq? I'd love to see an idiot like Jammer "leading" a platoon of you losers. That would be an AQ slam dunk. > > > You're not suggesting that Jammer was a sockpuppet for MJB (or the other > > > way around)? Verrrrry interesting ........ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > AQ slam > dunk. So we can accurately say you are indeed rooting for Al Quaeda? Dennis > > In rec.scuba, on Sun 23 Sep 2007 01:26:21p, Greg Mossman > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > We haven't heard anything from Jammer either. Do you think he also > killfiled himself? He might be nailed to a roof somewhere. >> In rec.scuba, on Wed 19 Sep 2007 06:09:31p, JOF <jofran...@gmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not by anyone who matters. He regularly dove with rec.scubans Once. >and engaged in hearty debate and exuberant wagers, He still owes me a grand, btw. >back in the good old > days when rec.scuba was something more than just a shadow of its > former self. If you'd stop starting gun threads... > If you look at it from a Japanese point of view, he died > with honor. That's about as accurate as you usually are. On Sep 24, 1:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > Not by anyone who matters. He regularly dove with rec.scubans > > Once. Twice at least. I believe he dove with Ben and MHK. He would have dove with me, but I flaked out. In any case, that's a lot more than many other rec.scubans have accomplished. Heck, some rec.scubans apparently don't even dive. > He still owes me a grand, btw. You should have filed a claim in probate court. It's probably too late to collect now. > If you'd stop starting gun threads... I almost did recently, after a particular juicy shooting, but then I remembered how you disapprove of gun threads and kept myself in check. > > If you look at it from a Japanese point of view, he died > > with honor. > > That's about as accurate as you usually are. Instead of trying to hit a target, I manipulate the target into coming to me. > On Sep 24, 1:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Twice at least. Once. He didn't dive with Ken, and, IIRC Ken's trip report, barely said hello to him. As I remember, they were on a multi-boat club dive, and The Sheepmeister didn't even let him on his boat. That's one of the many things that makes kennybenny's panging love and devotion for him so twisted. > I believe he dove with Ben and MHK. He would have > dove with me, but I flaked out. In any case, that's a lot more than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You should have filed a claim in probate court. It's probably too > late to collect now. He's not the first to welsh out, and won 't be the last. At least he had the sac to bet, unlike the Canadian Club. >> If you'd stop starting gun threads... > > I almost did recently, after a particular juicy shooting, but then I > remembered how you disapprove of gun threads and kept myself in check. Good thing. >> > If you look at it from a Japanese point of view, he died >> > with honor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Instead of trying to hit a target, I manipulate the target into coming > to me. Like a Kamikaze...? > > Instead of trying to hit a target, I manipulate the target into coming > > to me. > Like a Kamikaze...? <cough> > On Sep 24, 1:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > many other rec.scubans have accomplished. Heck, some rec.scubans > apparently don't even dive. Greg, someday............ I do dive but finances has made impossible the last two years Dud to the lack of Clinton/stock Market dive Mrch 2000 > > On Sep 24, 1:34 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dud to the lack of Clinton/stock Market dive Mrch 2000 I understand that you're saying that finances have been impossible in the last two years due to the lack of Clinton, but fortunately Hillary will be along soon to remedy that and we can finally dive together. Just hold tight for another year. > I understand that you're saying that finances have been impossible in > the last two years due to the lack of Clinton, but fortunately Hillary > will be along soon to remedy that and we can finally dive together. > Just hold tight for another year. You really should get some mental help for those delusions of yours... There's very few Democratic candidates who can polarize more hate towards them than Hillary... People who might have considered themselves middle of the road are unlikely to vote for someone so blatantly socialist... The hard core leftists will still vote the Democratic ticket no matter who they run... They are so brainwashed by the leftist propaganda that they'll vote for whomever they're told to vote for... The hard core right wingers will vote Republican because they know what the Democrats stand for and they don't want it... The deciding factor will be the people who are probably too stupid to have an opinion one way or the other... "Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message > You really should get some mental help for those delusions of yours... That's the way it is with political opinion: the rational, right-minded, agree with you - the rest suffer from delusional thinking. (Exactly like rec.scuba.) > You really should get some mental help for those delusions of yours... > There's very few Democratic candidates who can polarize more hate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > deciding factor will be the people who are probably too stupid to have > an opinion one way or the other... These f.cking idiots cant wait to vote for her, even though she has *proven* she is a criminal and a whore. I just hope a democrat administration is in place when the ragheads finally light off a nuke here, because they will just as soon as they can. > These f.cking idiots cant wait to vote for her, even though she has *proven* > she is a criminal and a whore. > > I just hope a democrat administration is in place when the ragheads finally > light off a nuke here, because they will just as soon as they can. Why can't they now? It's not like the current Administration has done much of anything to protect us against an attack here, unless you think the terrorists plan on smuggling in nukes hidden in their shoes. If it does happen, we'll simply place the blame on Bush and his 8 years of inactivity on the home front, squandering all our money in Iraq instead of fixing things back home, the same way you wackos somehow blame Clinton for 9/11 even though it happened squarely on Bush's watch. > > These f.cking idiots cant wait to vote for her, even though she has *proven* > > she is a criminal and a whore. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > somehow blame Clinton for 9/11 even though it happened squarely on > Bush's watch. So clearly, the first WTC attack was Clinton's fault, because it occurred "on his watch". Dennis On Sep 25, 5:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > So clearly, the first WTC attack was Clinton's fault, because it occurred > "on his watch". Sure, if you want to call that an attack. > On Sep 25, 5:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sure, if you want to call that an attack. Looks like an attack to me. Dennis > Looks like an attack to me. Surely you didn't expect Super Pinko Lefty to cop to anything... > > Looks like an attack to me. > > Surely you didn't expect Super Pinko Lefty to cop to anything... "Super Pinko Lefty"? I sort of like that. 6 people died in the attack on Clinton's watch, plus there was a bit of reparable damage. 2,750 died in the attack on Bush's watch, and the towers were obliterated. Which do you think is worse? Only 483 days more until Hillary is inaugurated. I just sent her another $100 today. "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- President-to-Be Hillary Clinton, 2004 > "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped > you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're > probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going > to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- > President-to-Be Hillary Clinton, 2004 If anyone other than the fuckin' government was trying to do this, we could call it robbery and would be justified in shooting them... Maybe we'll be lucky and she'll come to Texas in an open air motorcade... We know how to properly greet socialistic Democrats when they come down here... Wouldn't want her to fell left out, ya' know... > If anyone other than the fuckin' government was trying to do this, we > could call it robbery and would be justified in shooting them... Maybe > we'll be lucky and she'll come to Texas in an open air motorcade... We > know how to properly greet socialistic Democrats when they come down > here... Wouldn't want her to fell left out, ya' know... Don't get excited. These idiots couldn't get that whore elected with all the vote scabbing, lying, hanging chad, lying, lawsuits and caterwauling that defines the Democrat party and all the rest of the bullshit they pull. Anyone who actually thinks America will put the Klintons back in office is simply a gang-banged fool. Numbnuts like Mossman don't realize that the huge majority of American women (voters) wouldn't give her a seat on the bus. Kinda like he was crowing about "war hero John Kerry" was going to win the last election. These f.cking idiots cant see their own reflection in the mirror. > Numbnuts like Mossman don't realize that the huge majority of American women > (voters) wouldn't give her a seat on the bus. "The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women. "In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216. html?hpid=topnews > > > Looks like an attack to me. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- > President-to-Be Hillary Clinton, 2004 "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" And some people wonder why we say she's a socialist. > > > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And some people wonder why we say she's a socialist. I'd call it honesty. After all, isn't any form of government taxation "taking things away" from the taxpayer for the common good, whether that good is police and fire protection, military defense, or public schools? > > > > "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that good is police and fire protection, military defense, or public > schools? I'd say that you're right. It is honest to call her a socialist. You guys are arguing with someone who just finished congratulating the Canadians because their dollar increased in value at the expense of our dollars. > You guys are arguing with someone who just finished congratulating the > Canadians because their dollar increased in value at the expense of our > dollars. Let 'em have their petty victory. It won't last long, and, stuff still costs 30% more (for a noticeably lesser value, in many cases) up there anyway. On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:11:05 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> You guys are arguing with someone who just finished congratulating the >> Canadians because their dollar increased in value at the expense of our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It won't last long, and, stuff still costs 30% more (for a noticeably >lesser value, in many cases) up there anyway. What victory? We got our wagon hitched to the American horse years ago. When the American economy goes in the tank, we start treading water too. The only folks chuckling up here are the cross border shoppers, and then only if they don't really get it, like you. JF >> 6 people died in the attack on Clinton's watch, plus there was a bit >> of reparable damage. 2,750 died in the attack on Bush's watch, and >> the towers were obliterated. Which do you think is worse? Well, let's see now. The first instance is a multiple homicide, an attempt to kill many people that succeeded in killing a few. The second instance is a multiple homicide, an attempt to kill many people that succeeded in killing many people. Sound pretty much the same to me. >> "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped >> you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're >> probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going >> to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- >> President-to-Be Hillary Clinton, 2004 Send them your money. Leave mine alone. > On Sep 25, 5:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sure, if you want to call that an attack. Typical leftist revisionism. > Typical leftist revisionism. His bullshit is simply *obscene*. f.cking obscene. The only hope for him understanding is if the ragheads light their nuke off in his f.cking yard, or that he is standing beside the next suicide bomber. Maybe in the billionth of a second before he gets turned into vapor he will get it, but I wouldn't take any bets. Signature"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Lazarus Long > > Typical leftist revisionism. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe in the billionth of a second before he gets turned into vapor he will > get it, but I wouldn't take any bets. Speaking of obscene and billions, here's the latest Republican big spending: "Defense Secretary Robert Gates will ask Congress Wednesday to approve nearly $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, increasing initial projections by more than a third." Nearly $190 billion more. Too bad we're sending all that money to Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making our own country safe. > Nearly $190 billion more. Too bad we're sending all that money to > Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making our own country safe. So, you're finally coming around to the solution that I initially proposed for the problem? Nukes are cheap... It's not too late... > > Nearly $190 billion more. Too bad we're sending all that money to > > Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making our own country safe. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nukes are cheap... It's not too late... Not to worry, it'll happen. Another gift from Xerxes. >>> Typical leftist revisionism. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nearly $190 billion more. Too bad we're sending all that money to > Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making our own country safe. Which hs nothing to do with the first'attack' on Wtc >> > Typical leftist revisionism. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Nearly $190 billion more. Too bad we're sending all that money to >Iraq and Afghanistan instead of making our own country safe. Mmmm Greg, Are you really sure that money is going to Iraq and Afghanistan? I tend to favour Bechtel, Halliburton and ilk > > On Sep 25, 5:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Typical leftist revisionism. That the first attack failed had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush senior's efforts to stop it, but ineffectiveness on the part of the terrorists. Dennis On Sep 26, 6:52 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 5:23 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That the first attack failed had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush senior's > efforts to stop it, but ineffectiveness on the part of the terrorists. The first attack didn't fail. It killed 6 people. By calling it a failure, you're engaging in what some here might call "typical leftist revisionism" and "obscene" "f.cking obscene". My only point is that Bush's attack was much greater than Clinton's attack which obviously means that our nation was far safer under Clinton than under Bush. ---- "Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to deliver the change America needs," [bricklayer's] union president John J. Flynn said. "After years of an administration that has turned its back on working families, we need a president whose priorities are our priorities." > On Sep 26, 6:52 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Bush's attack was much greater than Clinton's attack which obviously > means that our nation was far safer under Clinton than under Bush. Then by that measure, since there were multiple attacks under Clinton, we're much safer under Bush. Excellent! On Sep 26, 9:19 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 6:52 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Excellent!- How many attacks on U.S. soil occurred under Clinton? How many attacks under Bush? There were three just on 9/11 alone. (And foreign embassies don't count, no matter how much you want them to) > How many attacks on U.S. soil occurred under Clinton? How many > attacks under Bush? There were three just on 9/11 alone. > > (And foreign embassies don't count, no matter how much you want them > to) Yeah, it's not like we own the foreign embassies... erm... I mean, it's not like the foreign embassies are on our soil... erm... I mean... well... never mind. > erm... I mean... well... never mind. There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're being disingenuous by pretending not to see it. >>erm... I mean... well... never mind. > > There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the > middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're > being disingenuous by pretending not to see it. As I understand it, my countries embassies are my countries soil, or at least exterritorial to the country they are situated in. That's how political asylum works. Similar, on a ship you succumb to the legislation of her flag. Matthias > >>erm... I mean... well... never mind. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Similar, on a ship you succumb to the legislation of her flag. That's all fine and dandy for international law, Geneva Convention, and the rest, the kind of stuff our current administration likes to scoff at, but like a lot of technicalities, it doesn't bear much resemblance to reality. The fact is that the embassy is just a house or compound located in a foreign country, behind barbed wire for the protection of the "inmates". Said "inmates" know exactly what they might be getting into when they volunteer for service in a foreign country. Basically, they've signed up for a lot more risk than the average office worker in NYC. Attacks on foreign embassies are commonplace. They're expected. Attacks on our very own U.S. soil within our very own U.S. borders on U.S. civilians at work in the domestic U.S. are an entirely different ballgame. > >>erm... I mean... well... never mind. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Similar, on a ship you succumb to the legislation of her flag. And the whim/will/orders of her captain. >> There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the >> middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're >> being disingenuous by pretending not to see it. Not really. Attacking US Citizens, because they are US Citizens is pretty much the same no matter where it happens, in our embassies on our land, or on someone else's land . . . or did you think cutting someone's head off with a dull knife, on video, was somehow better because it didn't happen here? Lee > >> There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the > >> middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a dull knife, on video, was somehow better because it didn't happen > here? Actually, yes. I do think cutting someone's head off over there with a dull knife, on video, is somehow better because it didn't happen here. It happened there, by someone who left the safe and secure borders of the U.S., to accompany an invading army on an unpopular mission. I think it would be worse if it happened to someone kidnapped out of their NYC office building. If it happens there, it's war. If it happens here, it's terror. Terror is worse than war because it directly targets unwary civilians. > > >> There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the > > >> middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If it happens there, it's war. If it happens here, it's terror. > Terror is worse than war because it directly targets unwary civilians. While I agree that if it happened during a war where the war is being held, then there's war. However, with regard to cutting someone's head off with a dull knife on video . .it doesn't matter where it happens, it's terror. >> If it happens there, it's war. If it happens here, it's terror. >> Terror is worse than war because it directly targets unwary civilians. Taking unarmed civilians, anywhere, and killing them is not an act of war, it's murder. When it's done on video, but cutting their heads off with a dull knife, and for effect, it's terrorism. Either that, or we made a big mistake when we convicted the Nazis for murdering Jews. > >> If it happens there, it's war. If it happens here, it's terror. > >> Terror is worse than war because it directly targets unwary civilians. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Either that, or we made a big mistake when we convicted the Nazis for > murdering Jews. It's still war. That's why they're called war crimes. The Nazis were terrible, but they weren't "terrorists". Bush has us applying the word "terrorist" to just about any evil-doing nowadays, very convenient when there's an endless "war on terrorism" going on, but semantically and practically improper. Also, there's a difference between a journalist who travels with the military to a foreign country during a war and a civilian sitting at his desk back home. Like the embassy personnel, the journalist is volunteering to put himself in harm's way. His violent death might be tragic, but it's not entirely unexpected. Terrorism is all about the shock value, as its purpose is to instill terror. Sure, using a knife and doing it on video are meant to instill terror, but it's still one side killing another during an ongoing war, just a modern way of putting your enemies' heads on stakes. To keep on topic, when I was diving in Chuuk, we were told that the Japanese would capture one Chuukese islander and boil him alive so his screams would attract the rest of the populace. That's just about identical to the beheading situation except that in this case the Japanese were the invaders, not the natives. Would you call the Japanese terrorists, or was this just another example of military tactics? The U.S. has certainly been accused of torture and killing in this and previous wars. Is that terrorism too? > > erm... I mean... well... never mind. > > There's a big difference in attacking us when we're smack dab in the > middle of their country versus attacking us in our country and you're > being disingenuous by pretending not to see it. First of all, our embassies are always smack dab in the middle of our country. It's part of what they are. In the case of embassies, they are smack dab in the middle of a part of our country that is surrounded by some other country. Secondly, Does the embassy belong to us? Is the Embassy on our soil? I know there's a difference between being attacked in the middle of their country and being attacked in the middle of ours. For one thing, it's a lot easier to attack in the middle of theirs, but I'd say that you're the one being disingenuous by claiming that those attacks don't count (not even a little bit). > Secondly, > Does the embassy belong to us? > Is the Embassy on our soil? Every country has its own sovereign property laws. These can be affected by individual treaties, group conventions, and general international law, but it all really comes down to geography. If they countries go to war, how long do you thing they'll respect each other's "property" rights in a little patch of land within the enemy's borders? It's merely a symbolic convenience to consider an embassy another country's "soil". And they've been attacked by terrorists because of their symbolism and because they're easy targets, but they're no more an attack on the U.S. itself than burning the flag. A symbolic attack like flag burning isn't really an attack. Bringing down two buildings in New York City is. > I know there's a difference between being attacked in the middle of their > country and being attacked in the middle of ours. For one thing, it's a lot > easier to attack in the middle of theirs, but I'd say that you're the one > being disingenuous by claiming that those attacks don't count (not even a > little bit). Okay, fine. They count a little bit. > First of all, our embassies are always smack dab in the middle of our > country. It's part of what they are. In the case of embassies, they are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > being disingenuous by claiming that those attacks don't count (not even a > little bit). Don't waste your breath or your keystrokes. It is all lost on this moron. > > First of all, our embassies are always smack dab in the middle of our > > country. It's part of what they are. In the case of embassies, they are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It is all lost on this moron. He's not a moron and calling him such doesn't really help your cause. Just thought I'd throw that out there. > > > I know there's a difference between being attacked in the middle of > their [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just thought I'd throw that out there. Thanks. > He's not a moron and calling him such doesn't really help your cause. He is not only a moron, but a dangerous moron. > Just thought I'd throw that out there. Feel free. Paid for in full. > > He's not a moron and calling him such doesn't really help your cause. > > He is not only a moron, but a dangerous moron. "Dangerous". I like that. It just shows that you don't need a gun or a trash-talking mouth to put fear into the weak-minded. No wonder they killfile me, the same way normal people lock their doors to keep out dangerous burglars, rapists, and killers. Apparently they fear that I'll make enough sense that they'll want to throw out their guns and become liberals. > "Dangerous". I like that. It just shows that you don't need a gun or > a trash-talking mouth to put fear into the weak-minded. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they fear that I'll make enough sense that they'll want to throw out > their guns and become liberals. Nawh, people just lock up their booze and pets... > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:06:47 -0700, Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> > wrote (while suffering with delusions of adequacy) > > "Dangerous". I like that. It just shows that you don't need a gun or > > a trash-talking mouth to put fear into the weak-minded. You are trash. Not just your mouth, your whole being is trash. Youre a coward, a bigot, and the only reason you arent a tyrant is because you dont have the balls. You are so stupid that you think running your f.cking mouth makes something of you. *REAL* men, who's feet you aint fit to lick, make and keep you free to be all the punk you are. You scare *no one*. You endager *everyone*, because you are an ignorant, arrogant little a.shole. Little a.shole. People put you in their killfile for the same reason they dont keep garbage on their kitchen table. I hope your f.cking money makes you happy and whole, because without it, you got nothing. Nothing. And you know what else? You give nothing. You are a f.cking parasite. > > No wonder they killfile me, the same way normal people lock their > > doors to keep out dangerous burglars, rapists, and killers. Apparently > > they fear that I'll make enough sense that they'll want to throw out > > their guns and become liberals. > > Nawh, people just lock up their booze and pets... ***** "Scott" <pugetsounddrinker@gmail.com> wrote in message .. > ***** Another hangover? You need to remember that when you drink till you're stupid, stupid takes a while to wear off. > "Scott" <pugetsounddrinker@gmail.com> wrote in message .. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You need to remember that when you drink till you're stupid, stupid takes > a while to wear off. At least ours occasionally wears off. We can quit drinking anytime, but you're sentenced to life as yourself. > > "Scott" <pugetsounddrinker@gmail.com> wrote in message .. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We can quit drinking anytime, but you're sentenced to life as yourself. "Take me to the Brig. I want to see the "real Marines". > "Take me to the Brig. I want to see the "real Marines". Sorry doufus, the derelicts are in the brig. >> "Scott" <pugetsounddrinker@gmail.com> wrote in message .. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > At least ours occasionally wears off. There you go making sense again. > We can quit drinking anytime, but you're sentenced to life as yourself. Being a drunken slob, a drunken idiot, a drunken whiner, or a drunken slut does not make you another person.; You're still Doug or you're still Scott - even though you imagine otherwise. Sure, you can quit drinking any time you want. (Who hasn't heard that from a denying alcoholic?) On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:19:11 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> "Scott" <pugetsounddrinker@gmail.com> wrote in message .. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We can quit drinking anytime, but you're sentenced to life as yourself. The proper response is "I'll be sober tomorrow, you will be stupid for how long" > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:19:11 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The proper response is "I'll be sober tomorrow, you will be stupid for > how long" Kennybenny's -way- past stupid. > > > "Dangerous". I like that. It just shows that you don't need a gun or > > > a trash-talking mouth to put fear into the weak-minded. > > You are trash. > > Not just your mouth, your whole being is trash. That's rich, coming from a guy who's spending his Sunday morning drinking cheap booze on his trailer porch. > Youre a coward, a bigot, and the only reason you arent a tyrant is because > you dont have the balls. Actually it's because I don't have the mustache. I never could grow a fearsome one like true tyrants need. Speaking of balls, maybe if I transplanted the hair . . . nah, never mind. > You are so stupid that you think running your f.cking mouth makes something > of you. I'm already something. Running my mouth makes something less of you. Eventually you'll be reduced to a pin-prick. Now you're just a prick. > *REAL* men, who's feet you aint fit to lick, make and keep you free to be > all the punk you are. I really wasn't planning on licking the feet of any men soon, real or not. What about all the women fighting in Iraq? Are they real men too? > You scare *no one*. Bullshit. I'm dangerous and you said so yourself. Dangerous people scare other people. You're obviously scared, it's plain to see from your rants. > You endager *everyone*, because you are an ignorant, arrogant little > a.shole. One out of three isn't bad for you. I'll accept arrogant. But I don't get called "little" too often, and you're the only one ignorant enough to call me ignorant. > Little a.shole. Again, "big a.shole" I can understand. You're the only ignorant enough to call me little. > People put you in their killfile for the same reason they dont keep garbage > on their kitchen table. Because it embarrasses them? If I embarrass them by calling them out as racists or psychotics, maybe they should figure out first why there's trash on their table instead of burning down the entire trailer to get rid of it. > I hope your f.cking money makes you happy and whole, because without it, you > got nothing. That's not true. I'll still have a lot of dive gear. > Nothing. > > And you know what else? > > You give nothing. I just gave $100 to Hillary a couple days ago. > You are a f.cking parasite. You'll have to explain that one again. Few parasites pay the kind of taxes I do. If I disappeared, over 50 people, plenty of them supporting families, would have to look for new jobs in this shitty economy. And I make the world a better place with my pretty pictures, free to look at by anyone with an internet connection. > > > No wonder they killfile me, the same way normal people lock their > > > doors to keep out dangerous burglars, rapists, and killers. Apparently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ***** That's Mike Grey's trademark. Can't you think of something more original, like "laugh of the day" or "me too"? > I just gave $100 to Hillary a couple days ago. Oh? What street corner was she working? > > I just gave $100 to Hillary a couple days ago. > > Oh? What street corner was she working? The one a block from his house. > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:06:47 -0700, Greg Mossman <moss...@qnet.com> > > wrote (while suffering with delusions of adequacy) [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > ***** What's your ETA in Iraq bad a.s? Are you just flapping you c.nt mouth? >> > He's not a moron and calling him such doesn't really help your cause. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they fear that I'll make enough sense that they'll want to throw out > their guns and become liberals. That's your typical coherent statement. I was gonna make you buy me dinner at Joe'sCS in RC, but I hadda split. I'll get you next time. :-) > >> > He's not a moron and calling him such doesn't really help your cause. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'll get you next time. :-) How do you do it? I wouldnt cross the street to piss on his gums if his teeth were on fire. You are truly a brave man, and I uncover my gourd. On Sep 30, 3:05 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > That's your typical coherent statement. > > I was gonna make you buy me dinner at Joe'sCS in RC, but I hadda split. You're just running because you heard I was dangerous. > I'll get you next time. :-) Do you carry dive gear with you in the truck? > On Sep 30, 3:05 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're just running because you heard I was dangerous. Compared to who? I had to drive twice from Redding to Lancaster, instead of once. (moving boats one at a time, because they were too big to load both at once). >> I'll get you next time. :-) > > Do you carry dive gear with you in the truck? I will be next trip, for sure. > > You're just running because you heard I was dangerous. > Compared to who? His wetback maid. On Sep 30, 10:22 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> I was gonna make you buy me dinner at Joe'sCS in RC, but I hadda split. > > > You're just running because you heard I was dangerous. > > Compared to who? Compared to someone who won't try to drink you under the table? > I had to drive twice from Redding to Lancaster, instead of once. > > (moving boats one at a time, because they were too big to load both at > once). Why didn't you tie the boats together, load your truck on top, then sail 'em down the coast? Lots of good diving along the way. I'm headed up that way myself next week, meeting my cousin for dinner at Sea Ranch on Wednesday. It'll be tempting to dive, but not that tempting. > > Do you carry dive gear with you in the truck? > > I will be next trip, for sure. I'm out of town first week of December, otherwise here for the rest of the year. Local diving starts to suck after New Year's, especially if my dry suit doesn't fit. > On Sep 26, 9:19 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > (And foreign embassies don't count, no matter how much you want them > to) It just goes to show how you have to marginalize paradigms to make your logic fit your argument. How liberal. On Sep 27, 11:07 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 9:19 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > It just goes to show how you have to marginalize paradigms to make your > logic fit your argument. Any set of data has to have constraints, or else the results can be skewed and undermined. Therefore it's necessary to throw out any data that doesn't meet the preconditions. American soil is taken in the lay sense, the dirt we trod upon in our daily American lives. It's perfectly reasonable not to count the technicalities like embassies and military bases located in foreign countries, though I would include quasi-American soil like Puerto Rico and Guam. > Then by that measure, since there were multiple attacks under Clinton, > we're much safer under Bush. > > Excellent! BANG |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message