France and the French was Re: Big Disappointment: Polar S720i Heart Rate Monitor



R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:57:52 -0500, "M. Bakunin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>> Really? Why don't you answer the question I asked you a few months
>>> ago when the invasion of Iraq was being discussed?
>>>
>>> Who wrote this and when?

>>
>> "a few months ago" i was not using this provider or this monicker.
>>
>> you're confused. really confused.

>
> Yeah, right:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/erswm


So what leading Democrat said those things (sincere beliefs) that would be
characterized as cooked intelligence (evil lies) if uttered by Bush?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>> > Bill Baka wrote on 01/09/2006 21:11 +0100:
>> >>
>> >> I'm for using all the nuclear material for power plants and if
>> >> Plutonium can't be used as such, just take and fire the excess into
>> >> the sun whenever enough builds up.
>> >> 3 benefits.
>> >> 1. No Plutonium for bombs.
>> >> 2. Nuclear energy, sorely needed since alternative energy is going
>> >> nowhere fast.
>> >> 3. No bombs left over for terrorists to grab or the ex-USSR to sell.
>> >> Bill Baka
>> >
>> > 4. SE USA become uninhabitable for several thousand years when a launch
>> > fails as it inevitably will (vide Challenger and Columbia)
>> >
>> >

>> Use a rocket, not that waste they call a shuttle. That thing has been a
>> farce since day one. I would gladly sit in a capsule on top of a Saturn
>> V rocket, but not in a shuttle.

>
> The safest way to dispose of nuclear waste appears to be to drill very
> deep holes (significantly below the depth of any aquifer) into bedrock,
> place the waste in a vitrified form in the hole, and backfill with a
> cement grout.


Preferably in a non-tectonically active area. If there is such
a place anywhere on Earth. If there is, it'll probably be in
a Developing Nation that's so far been happily getting by,
minding it's own business and not bothering anybody.

<sigh> Shooting our refuse into the sun. Yeah, might as well
make the whole solar system a garbage dump. After all, we've
already littered the moon and Mars with our junk. What a bunch
of slobs **** technocutis is. It's not enough that we sully
only the planet we stand on. I expect sooner or later a space
mission will be kyboshed by an orbiting, 25,000 MPH Wendy's
spoon-straw, or the ossal remnants in a Sputniking KFC bucket.

> The downside is that drilling such holes is extremely
> expensive.


Big Oil does it all the time.

Meanwhile, solar energy is there for the harnessing. Heck,
the whole planet is driven by it.

Last Saturday was a beautiful sunny day here. I did my weekly
trip to the laundromat. While I was there, people were drying
their clothes in the mechanical dryers there. I took my wet
laundry home and hung it on the clothesline, in the sunshine.

I had to bury hardly anything.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > Bill Baka wrote:
> >> Tony Raven wrote:
> >> > Bill Baka wrote on 01/09/2006 21:11 +0100:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm for using all the nuclear material for power plants and if
> >> >> Plutonium can't be used as such, just take and fire the excess into
> >> >> the sun whenever enough builds up.
> >> >> 3 benefits.
> >> >> 1. No Plutonium for bombs.
> >> >> 2. Nuclear energy, sorely needed since alternative energy is going
> >> >> nowhere fast.
> >> >> 3. No bombs left over for terrorists to grab or the ex-USSR to sell.
> >> >> Bill Baka
> >> >
> >> > 4. SE USA become uninhabitable for several thousand years when a launch
> >> > fails as it inevitably will (vide Challenger and Columbia)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Use a rocket, not that waste they call a shuttle. That thing has been a
> >> farce since day one. I would gladly sit in a capsule on top of a Saturn
> >> V rocket, but not in a shuttle.

> >
> > The safest way to dispose of nuclear waste appears to be to drill very
> > deep holes (significantly below the depth of any aquifer) into bedrock,
> > place the waste in a vitrified form in the hole, and backfill with a
> > cement grout.

>
> Preferably in a non-tectonically active area. If there is such
> a place anywhere on Earth. If there is, it'll probably be in
> a Developing Nation that's so far been happily getting by,
> minding it's own business and not bothering anybody.


As I see it, there are currently no "good" alternatives for disposal of
nuclear waste, so we have to look at the least bad. Transporting
thousands of shipments of nuclear waste to a repository is something to
be avoided if possible, and leaving waste in its current storage
containers is not a long term solution. Drilling deep boreholes at the
current nuclear power plant sites it at least technically feasible.

> <sigh> Shooting our refuse into the sun. Yeah, might as well
> make the whole solar system a garbage dump. After all, we've
> already littered the moon and Mars with our junk. What a bunch
> of slobs **** technocutis is. It's not enough that we sully
> only the planet we stand on. I expect sooner or later a space
> mission will be kyboshed by an orbiting, 25,000 MPH Wendy's
> spoon-straw, or the ossal remnants in a Sputniking KFC bucket.
>
> > The downside is that drilling such holes is extremely
> > expensive.

>
> Big Oil does it all the time.


And the oil companies extract (increasingly) economically valuable
hydrocarbons from deep boreholes. There is no economic return for
burying nuclear waste (if this disposal happens, the governments will
in all likelihood stick the taxpayers and/or electrical utility
customers with the bill, not the executives and stockholders in the
utility companies that made the decisions to build nuclear power
plants).

> Meanwhile, solar energy is there for the harnessing. Heck,
> the whole planet is driven by it.


Solar energy does nothing to deal with the immense amount of nuclear
waste that would have to be dealt with if all nuclear power plants were
shut down tomorrow.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
 
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:25:27 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

>R Brickston wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:32:37 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> R Brickston wrote:
>>> Brickston snipped out for being too long.
>>> We are "At war." with terrorism, mostly meaning Iraq, while we ignore
>>> the genocide that the Muslims are committing on the southern end of
>>> their territory. Why are we ignoring that? Simple, no oil. The dirt poor
>>> Africans who are being slaughtered simply have nothing we need so we let
>>> them be killed.
>>> Does that say anything about politics to you?
>>> Bill Baka

>>
>> Yeah, it says you have your head up your ass.

>
>I meant to anyone intelligent, not you.


Exactly, Billy. Anyone intelligent knows your head is up your ass.
 
On 2 Sep 2006 14:27:13 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>R Brickston wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2006 12:19:52 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >R Brickston wrote:
>> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:36:16 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >R Brickston wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 09:31:40 -0500, "M. Bakunin" <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> > "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The English lately are not much better than the French and deserve whatever
>> >> >> >> the Islamist Jihadists decide to do to them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >stupid mongrel. if you use the extremists' attacks as a scale to judge
>> >> >> >how bad a country is, yours gets the gold medal. after all, they knock
>> >> >> >down 2 towers and 3000+ people.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, you approve of the action on Sept. 11?
>> >> >
>> >> >I greatly approve of the actions of September 11, 1906, when Mohandas
>> >> >Gandhi first used his methodology of Satyagraha (non-violent protest).
>> >>
>> >> Gosh, if we had only used that methodology against the Japanese and
>> >> ****** in WWII. Think of all the lives it would have saved.
>> >
>> >R. Brickston is attempting to imply that I said something that I did
>> >not, i.e. that Satyagraha (non-violent protest) is universally
>> >applicable. This is both a poor and dishonest debating tactic.

>>
>> Well, if you said, "I greatly approve of the actions of September 11,
>> 2005, when we threw a birthday party for my (plug in favorite
>> relative)," that is obviously not related and no meaning applicable to
>> the present conversation. However, your Ghandi comment is the real
>> example of a poor debating tactic, as is your attempt to deny what you
>> were inferring.

>



You're just arguing twisted logic to make a point that is meaningless.
We're discussing a violent act, you bring up a famously non-violent
occurance and then claim it was erronneous to think that you were
applying it to the immediate discussion.

>There are many events that have happened on September 11, and to assume
>one is of such greater importance than the others that it is assumed to
>be the event referred to is jingoistic arrogance - there is my implied
>point.


Jingoism? Are you capable of following a simple topic of discussion?
What do you think this statement is referring to:

"they knock down 2 towers and 3000+ people."

What an asshole.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Meanwhile, solar energy is there for the harnessing. Heck,
>> the whole planet is driven by it.

>
> Solar energy does nothing to deal with the immense amount of nuclear
> waste that would have to be dealt with if all nuclear power plants were
> shut down tomorrow.


At least it doesn't add to it.

And by "solar energy", I'm not strictly referring to photovoltaic
technology. Tidal, wind, hydro-electric and biofuels are also
involved. Sometimes even human power, like when riding bikes
instead of driving cars (after all, people and the foods we eat
are ultimately solar powered, too.)

But if we really need electric toothbrushes instead of plain ordinary
ones, and DustBusters & Dirt Devils instead of brooms and dustpans,
and electric can openers, and mechanical dishwashers, and mechanical
clothes dryers on sunny days ... I guess we need nukes (and their
awful byproducts) to feed power to all that indispensable junk.

Wanna know how nuclear waste is dealt with in other parts of the world?
Here ya go:

http://tinyurl.com/kz6ye

In full:
http://bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/mayak/21636


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:25:27 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> R Brickston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:32:37 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> R Brickston wrote:
>>>> Brickston snipped out for being too long.
>>>> We are "At war." with terrorism, mostly meaning Iraq, while we ignore
>>>> the genocide that the Muslims are committing on the southern end of
>>>> their territory. Why are we ignoring that? Simple, no oil. The dirt poor
>>>> Africans who are being slaughtered simply have nothing we need so we let
>>>> them be killed.
>>>> Does that say anything about politics to you?
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Yeah, it says you have your head up your ass.

>> I meant to anyone intelligent, not you.

>
> Exactly, Billy. Anyone intelligent knows your head is up your ass.


I probably shouldn't waste my time on you but, why is Iraq so much more
than genocide? The Muslims killing Africans to expand their territory
are not much better than ******, yet since they have no oil Bush turns a
blind eye to the situation.
You condone genocide?

Consider yourself labeled.

Bill Baka
 
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:34:31 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>R Brickston wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:57:52 -0500, "M. Bakunin" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? Why don't you answer the question I asked you a few months
>>>> ago when the invasion of Iraq was being discussed?
>>>>
>>>> Who wrote this and when?
>>>
>>> "a few months ago" i was not using this provider or this monicker.
>>>
>>> you're confused. really confused.

>>
>> Yeah, right:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/erswm

>
>So what leading Democrat


Take your pick...

>said those things (sincere beliefs) that would be
>characterized as cooked intelligence (evil lies) if uttered by Bush?
>


Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist
acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the
united states."


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."


Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and
the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."


Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region,
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."


Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction."


Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do,
of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something
terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard
connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or
effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


**** Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments
regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or
some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."


Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological
weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is
trying to get nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st
Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build
arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles
to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no
more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been
developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of
mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where --
if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll
cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."


Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear
that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability
of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of
terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions
near but not exactly in the Middle East."
 
R Brickston wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:34:31 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> So what leading Democrat

>
> Take your pick...
>
>> said those things (sincere beliefs) that would be
>> characterized as cooked intelligence (evil lies) if uttered by Bush?



> Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
> "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear
> weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist
> acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the
> united states."
>
>
> Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
> "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is
> clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
> weapons of mass destruction program."
>
>
> Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and
> the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
>
>
> Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region,
> and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>
>
> Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
> developing weapons of mass destruction."
>
>
> Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
> "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
> weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we
> have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
> of weapons of mass destruction."
>
>
> Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
> "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do,
> of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something
> terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard
> connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or
> effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
>
>
> **** Durbin > September 30, 1999
> "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is
> the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments
> regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or
> some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
>
>
> Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
> "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological
> weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
> So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."
>
> Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
> "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is
> trying to get nuclear weapons."
>
> Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
> "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st
> Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build
> arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles
> to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no
> more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
>
>
> Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
> "The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been
> developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of
> mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where --
> if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll
> cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
>
>
> Al Gore > September 23, 2002
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
> weapons throughout his country."
>
> John Kerry > February 23, 1998
> "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear
> that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
> and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability
> of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of
> terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions
> near but not exactly in the Middle East."


Oh, come on. It's obvious that George W. Bush /influenced/ all those people
to say those things -- even the ones that were two-plus years before he
became President. Get real, man.
 
Tom Keats wrote on 03/09/2006 06:02 +0100:
> At least it doesn't add to it.
>
> And by "solar energy", I'm not strictly referring to photovoltaic
> technology. Tidal, wind, hydro-electric and biofuels are also
> involved. Sometimes even human power, like when riding bikes instead
> of driving cars (after all, people and the foods we eat are
> ultimately solar powered, too.)
>


Don't forget the sun is a massive nuclear reactor, not that we have much
choice about it and the large volumes of highly radioactive waste it is
throwing in our direction all the time ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote on 03/09/2006 06:02 +0100:
>> At least it doesn't add to it.
>>
>> And by "solar energy", I'm not strictly referring to photovoltaic
>> technology. Tidal, wind, hydro-electric and biofuels are also
>> involved. Sometimes even human power, like when riding bikes instead
>> of driving cars (after all, people and the foods we eat are
>> ultimately solar powered, too.)
>>

>
> Don't forget the sun is a massive nuclear reactor, not that we have much
> choice about it and the large volumes of highly radioactive waste it is
> throwing in our direction all the time ;-)


Exactly! So we've already got a [global] fusion reactor at our
disposal. And for the most part, its highly radioactive waste
that's thrown in our direction is naturally taken care of.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:04:46 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>R Brickston wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:34:31 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>> So what leading Democrat

>>
>> Take your pick...
>>
>>> said those things (sincere beliefs) that would be
>>> characterized as cooked intelligence (evil lies) if uttered by Bush?

>
>
>> Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
>> "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear
>> weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist
>> acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the
>> united states."
>>
>>
>> Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
>> "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is
>> clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
>> weapons of mass destruction program."
>>
>>
>> Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
>> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and
>> the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>>
>> Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
>> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>> destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region,
>> and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>>
>>
>> Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
>> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
>> developing weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>>
>> Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002
>> "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
>> aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
>> weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we
>> have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
>> of weapons of mass destruction."
>>
>>
>> Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
>> "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do,
>> of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something
>> terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard
>> connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or
>> effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
>>
>>
>> **** Durbin > September 30, 1999
>> "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is
>> the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments
>> regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or
>> some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
>>
>>
>> Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
>> "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological
>> weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
>> So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."
>>
>> Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
>> "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is
>> trying to get nuclear weapons."
>>
>> Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
>> "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st
>> Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build
>> arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles
>> to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no
>> more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
>>
>>
>> Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
>> "The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been
>> developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of
>> mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where --
>> if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll
>> cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."
>>
>>
>> Al Gore > September 23, 2002
>> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
>> weapons throughout his country."
>>
>> John Kerry > February 23, 1998
>> "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear
>> that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
>> and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability
>> of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of
>> terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions
>> near but not exactly in the Middle East."

>
>Oh, come on. It's obvious that George W. Bush /influenced/ all those people
>to say those things -- even the ones that were two-plus years before he
>became President. Get real, man.
>


That's more than the response you'd get from a liberal, they just
ignore it and go on to their next "fair and balanced" viewpoint.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"n5hsr" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Even though my last name is of French origin, and I did take French in


Who cares?
No need to apologize. You're not what your ancestors were, lucky you,
you're just an average american moron.

--
*** USA, THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED PLUTOCRACY ***











Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

> R Brickston wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:14:25 +0100, Dan Gregory
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> R Brickston wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, do you think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is mentally stable enough to
> >>> possess The Bomb?
> >> Probably more so than Shrub
> >> :-((

> >
> > So, in your view of the world, it would be a good idea to transfer all
> > the US and Russian nuclear weapons to the government of Iran?

> No in my view they should have been done away with years ago. But the
> previous post was about mental stability. M.A is probably not an
> alcholic for example.....


speaking of mental stability, what about your government giving a visa
to your country's enemy to come spew his propaganda on american soil???!!
from the bbc, september 3:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5309766.stm

Ex-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has delivered a scathing criticism
of US foreign policy to an annual gathering of Muslims in Illinois.

He said US anti-terrorism policies were actually inciting terrorism and
accused the US of trying to dominate the world.

Mr Khatami is the most senior Iranian official to visit the US since the
severing of ties with Iran in 1979.

He was speaking at the Islamic Society of North America convention,
which has drawn tens of thousands of Muslims.

--
*** USA, THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED PLUTOCRACY ***











Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
M. Bakunin wrote:
> Ex-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has delivered a scathing criticism
> of US foreign policy to an annual gathering of Muslims in Illinois.
>
> He said US anti-terrorism policies were actually inciting terrorism and
> accused the US of trying to dominate the world.
>
> Mr Khatami is the most senior Iranian official to visit the US since the
> severing of ties with Iran in 1979.
>
> He was speaking at the Islamic Society of North America convention,
> which has drawn tens of thousands of Muslims.
>

What that says to me is that the real **** has yet to hit the fan.
The future years should be very interesting.
Bill Baka
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> R Brickston wrote:

<snip>
..................................... they knock
>> >down 2 towers and 3000+ people.

>>
>> So, you approve of the action on Sept. 11?

>
> I strongly DISAPPROVE of the actions of September 11, 1973.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
>


So now we wonder if you approve of the al Qaeda attack on the World Trade
Center on September 11, 2001 based on it was only the Arabs pushing back at
us or some other leftist we deserved it kind of ****?

p.s. (OT)
Was it your rewriting of history that was responsible for the Chilean coup
of 1973 page of Wikipedia being locked down?
 
"M. Bakunin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

..
>
> speaking of mental stability, what about your government giving a visa
> to your country's enemy to come spew his propaganda on american soil???!!
> from the bbc, september 3:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5309766.stm
>



It's called "Freedom of Speech" something most non-Americans have a hard
time understanding, fortunately we also have something called "Freedom to
Listen", we don't have to pay any attention to him. You won't see
thousands standing in front of a TV camera waiting for a clue to start
jumping up and down, waving hands in the air, and burning flags.

Besides he's not a guest of Americans, just Jimmy Carter, our European
President.
 
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> ...Hell, I don't know if there is a use for it [plutonium] besides
>> bombs....

>
> BICYCLE FRAMES!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
>


I believe Sherman means BICYCLE BOMBS! They are becoming more popular these
days.
 
hhs wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>> ...Hell, I don't know if there is a use for it [plutonium] besides
>>> bombs....

>> BICYCLE FRAMES!
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
>>

>
> I believe Sherman means BICYCLE BOMBS! They are becoming more popular these
> days.
>
>

Huh?
Where?
I have seen some bicycles that bombed, but bicycle bombs?????
Bill Baka
 

Similar threads