Frogs Threaten To Kill Lance

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>> Qaida French.
>>
>>
>>pro-Taliban?
>>
>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>
>>
>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>along side the Taliban.

> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.

>>>>
>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>
>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>
>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?

> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
> Iraq.

> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.

In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.

> Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On 30 Jul 2004 01:54:27 -0700, [email protected] (LordAvalon) wrote:

>RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 29 Jul 2004 05:36:35 -0700, [email protected] (LordAvalon) wrote:
>>
>> >Lance Delacroix <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> On 26 Jul 2004 02:01:24 -0700, [email protected] (LordAvalon)
>> >> wrote a whole bunch of ****, which I have snipped for your
>> >> convenience.
>> >>
>> >> >If you personally went on the tour you probably noticed that people
>> >> >get very early on the side of the road (hours or day in advance). They
>> >> >talk to each other and would be troublesome to a wouldbe terrorist.
>> >> >There are a lot of gendarmes riding motorcycles or barring the roads
>> >> >everywhere and helicopters.
>> >>
>> >> What a GAY ****ing post! What are you on, amyl nitrate? Gendarmes
>> >> yet! How about a little escargot, you poofter?
>> >They are military in case you do not know and they have a very
>> >thorough knowledge of the areas they patrol. Must I remind you that
>> >many terrorists were stopped on routine checks or because of a
>> >policeman's hint on suspicious behaviour.
>> >Like in the US we have an alert level (Vigipirate) which is currently
>> >to orange. It asks of every citizen to signal abandonned luggage or
>> >suspect behaviour to the authorities.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Goddamn. You don't know **** from Shinola about people who are
>> >> into blowing **** up.
>> >
>> >We actually do:
>> >We have police services criss crossing in depht our territory (see
>> >"the french were right" in the National Journal). Such has the
>> >"Renseignements Généraux" and the DST. We have an anti-terrorist
>> >specialized justice pool of judges which share in the different files
>> >and have a good knowledge of underground mouvances.
>> >
>> >> "They talk to each other and would be troublesome to a wouldbe
>> >> terrorist".
>> >Yes sharing the most precious thing in our world: information.
>> >Information leads to analysis, which leads to action.
>> >
>> >> Troublesome?
>> >If you attend the tour and see two or three grim looking guys from
>> >North African origin, staying in a van, looking tense, refusing the
>> >glass of pastis you offer them... half a chance you'll call the
>> >police! And nowadays averybody shoots movies or pictures in such
>> >event...
>> >
>> >> A bunker buster up your chute would be troublesome, you
>> >> crowing colon-kisser.
>> >You sound flustered, have trouble to keep your self control?
>> >
>> >> Jesus ****ing Christ, what a dummy.
>> >> Must be a Euro-peon.
>> >No i just happen to work in security and I would really be interested
>> >on YOUR methods to foil a terrorist attempt.
>> >
>> >if you are a terrorist you have to
>> >1) get the motivation
>> >2) decide target enough in advance
>> >3) get the cadres and personnel and money
>> >4) get the stuff you will use (unmarked car, untraceable weapons...)
>> >5) brief and train
>> >6) infiltrate the event
>> >7) wait for target with a cover
>> >8) identify target and time
>> >9) coordinate your attack
>> >10) cover evidences
>> >11) exfiltrate the event / area
>> >12) hide or destroy your means of exfiltration
>> >13) hide your equipement
>> >14) go back home unseen.
>> >
>> >
>> >So you can act on every and each item (non exhaustive list). Even if
>> >it is only a 1% or 5% chance to foil them at each step with small
>> >actions, it is worth enforcing them because in the end you come up
>> >with what looks like a mine field from the terrorist's point of view
>> >(deterrence).
>> >Like to protect your home (fence + automatic lighting + dogs +
>> >infrared barriers + remote video + remote listening + pressure mat +
>> >armored door + sound alarm screecher +...). Each protection is
>> >ludicrously easy to overcome but the combination is a pain in the ass
>> >for even the most motivate burglar
>> >
>> >Preemptive intelligence and humane data gathering are the most
>> >efficient.
>> >
>> >But you are obviously some kind of military expert or mercenary which
>> >has great knowledge of these matters: so what is your analysis and
>> >advice?
>> >
>> >
>> >> ("Oh, no, don't let's invade Iraq. It would be TROUBLESOME.")
>> >
>> >Yes but now let's stop chit chatting and bring facts.
>>
>> Good post and all well-reasoned until you get to this last bit which I'll try to
>> be gracious and credit to a reasonable pique at the jabs from the last poster.
>>
>> Ron
>Please do so. Your reminding me of good manners leave me no choice but
>to quiet down and stand stoically amid raging posters. Let reason be
>my shield.

Dude, you don't know how hard I have to try sometimes. No, I'm sure you do.
Besides you and I may want to argue some time and I'd prefer not to **** you
off.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>
>>>
>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>
>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>along side the Taliban.
>
>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>
>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>
>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>
>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>> Iraq.
>
>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>
>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.

Not now that we've got him locked up.

Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.

All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
Doesn't make 'em harmless.

Ron

 

[BroJack]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing brojack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>
>>>> Another leftist-media brainwashed starry-eyed liberal.
>>>
>>>You mean, they weren't there in Texas? You mean bin Laden didn't fight
>>>the russkies? You sure? You got documents? Love to see them.
>
>> Throughout the history of **** sapiens, yesterday's friends are
>> today's enemies ... and vice versa. At one time, Iraq is the lesser
>> of two evils. At another time, Iran. And so it goeth.
>
>So the Taliban were our friends, I see...

Shux, Joe Stalin was our friend, for awhile.

>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>
>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron
>>>
>>>> The entire raghead empire has a plan for non-believers: Convert,
>>>> enslave, or kill.
>>>
>>>> They are all allies and assets to each other.
>>>
>>>Enjoy life...
>
>> I won't enjoy it if I'm required to face East, stampede each other on
>> the holiest day of the year, or cut my daughter's throat in an "honor"
>> killing for "allowing" herself to be raped. Pbuh.
>
>Who is requiring you to do so? Must be a liberal somewhere...

Liberals are everywhere, allowing the savages to do what they please,
lest they become angry.

BroJack

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>
>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>
>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>
>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>
>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>
>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>> Iraq.
>>
>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>
>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.

> Not now that we've got him locked up.

> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.

Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...

> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
> Doesn't make 'em harmless.

Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?

> Ron

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing brojack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>
>>>>> Another leftist-media brainwashed starry-eyed liberal.
>>>>
>>>>You mean, they weren't there in Texas? You mean bin Laden didn't fight
>>>>the russkies? You sure? You got documents? Love to see them.
>>
>>> Throughout the history of **** sapiens, yesterday's friends are
>>> today's enemies ... and vice versa. At one time, Iraq is the lesser
>>> of two evils. At another time, Iran. And so it goeth.
>>
>>So the Taliban were our friends, I see...

> Shux, Joe Stalin was our friend, for awhile.

So that's why all those seismic tremors were going off at Lev Bronstein's
grave...

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>> The entire raghead empire has a plan for non-believers: Convert,
>>>>> enslave, or kill.
>>>>
>>>>> They are all allies and assets to each other.
>>>>
>>>>Enjoy life...
>>
>>> I won't enjoy it if I'm required to face East, stampede each other on
>>> the holiest day of the year, or cut my daughter's throat in an "honor"
>>> killing for "allowing" herself to be raped. Pbuh.
>>
>>Who is requiring you to do so? Must be a liberal somewhere...

> Liberals are everywhere, allowing the savages to do what they please,
> lest they become angry.

They are surely Satan's spawn... Heavens, mercy. I thank the lord ev'ry
day for the hard work **** Cheney puts in.

> BroJack

 

[BroJack]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing brojack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another leftist-media brainwashed starry-eyed liberal.
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean, they weren't there in Texas? You mean bin Laden didn't fight
>>>>>the russkies? You sure? You got documents? Love to see them.
>>>
>>>> Throughout the history of **** sapiens, yesterday's friends are
>>>> today's enemies ... and vice versa. At one time, Iraq is the lesser
>>>> of two evils. At another time, Iran. And so it goeth.
>>>
>>>So the Taliban were our friends, I see...
>
>> Shux, Joe Stalin was our friend, for awhile.
>
>So that's why all those seismic tremors were going off at Lev Bronstein's
>grave...

I guess ol' Lev was a bit naive. Disillusionment can be a *****.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>>> The entire raghead empire has a plan for non-believers: Convert,
>>>>>> enslave, or kill.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are all allies and assets to each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>Enjoy life...
>>>
>>>> I won't enjoy it if I'm required to face East, stampede each other on
>>>> the holiest day of the year, or cut my daughter's throat in an "honor"
>>>> killing for "allowing" herself to be raped. Pbuh.
>>>
>>>Who is requiring you to do so? Must be a liberal somewhere...
>
>> Liberals are everywhere, allowing the savages to do what they please,
>> lest they become angry.
>
>They are surely Satan's spawn... Heavens, mercy. I thank the lord ev'ry
>day for the hard work **** Cheney puts in.

Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
stage.

BroJack

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:19:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing brojack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another leftist-media brainwashed starry-eyed liberal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean, they weren't there in Texas? You mean bin Laden didn't fight
>>>>>>the russkies? You sure? You got documents? Love to see them.
>>>>
>>>>> Throughout the history of **** sapiens, yesterday's friends are
>>>>> today's enemies ... and vice versa. At one time, Iraq is the lesser
>>>>> of two evils. At another time, Iran. And so it goeth.
>>>>
>>>>So the Taliban were our friends, I see...
>>
>>> Shux, Joe Stalin was our friend, for awhile.
>>
>>So that's why all those seismic tremors were going off at Lev Bronstein's
>>grave...

> I guess ol' Lev was a bit naive. Disillusionment can be a *****.

We have a marker on not knowing history....

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The entire raghead empire has a plan for non-believers: Convert,
>>>>>>> enslave, or kill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are all allies and assets to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Enjoy life...
>>>>
>>>>> I won't enjoy it if I'm required to face East, stampede each other on
>>>>> the holiest day of the year, or cut my daughter's throat in an "honor"
>>>>> killing for "allowing" herself to be raped. Pbuh.
>>>>
>>>>Who is requiring you to do so? Must be a liberal somewhere...
>>
>>> Liberals are everywhere, allowing the savages to do what they please,
>>> lest they become angry.
>>
>>They are surely Satan's spawn... Heavens, mercy. I thank the lord ev'ry
>>day for the hard work **** Cheney puts in.

> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
> stage.

40 years: 1964...

Let's see:

8 years Nixon/Ford
12 years Reagan/Bush
4 years Bushlite

That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
appointments, budget, etc.

SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991

House: last ten years: Republican led
Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
of majority due to Jeffords)

OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis. Also, who was Lev Bronstein?


> BroJack

 

[BroJack]

>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>> stage.
>
>40 years: 1964...
>
>Let's see:
>
>8 years Nixon/Ford
>12 years Reagan/Bush
>4 years Bushlite


>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>appointments, budget, etc.
>
>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>
>House: last ten years: Republican led
>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
> of majority due to Jeffords)

William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
wing.


>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.

Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
victim plantation....

> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?

Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.

BroJack

 

[Raptor]

LordAvalon wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>LordAvalon wrote:
>>>You are more astute than Lance Delacroix!
>>
>>Oh gee, thanks. (You're not saying much!)
>>
>>--
>
> I was stating the obvious, didn't I? I may add for my defense that I
> had never met this person on the ng... Are you familiar with his
> posts?

Nope. See the cross-posting list.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"We should not march into Baghdad. ... Assigning young soldiers to
a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war, it
could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater
instability." George Bush Sr. in his 1998 book "A World Transformed"

 

[RonSonic]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>
>>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>
>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>
>>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>>> Iraq.
>>>
>>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>>
>>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.
>
>> Not now that we've got him locked up.
>
>> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.
>
>Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
>energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
>at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
>the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...

It is ridiculous and would be laughable if it weren't for the people starved to
pay for the things.

>> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
>> Doesn't make 'em harmless.
>
>Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?

He's in the "caught" category.

Ron

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>>> stage.
>>
>>40 years: 1964...
>>
>>Let's see:
>>
>>8 years Nixon/Ford
>>12 years Reagan/Bush
>>4 years Bushlite


>>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>>appointments, budget, etc.
>>
>>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
>> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
>> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
>> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
>> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
>> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
>> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>>
>>House: last ten years: Republican led
>>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
>> of majority due to Jeffords)

> William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
> years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
> leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
> decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
> action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
> reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
> impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
> Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
> legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
> wing.


>>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.

> Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
> feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
> victim plantation....

>> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?

> Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.

So, not only do you know any history, you're a racist to boot. Thanks for
coming clean...

> BroJack

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>
>>>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>
>>>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>>>
>>>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.
>>
>>> Not now that we've got him locked up.
>>
>>> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.
>>
>>Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
>>energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
>>at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
>>the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...

> It is ridiculous and would be laughable if it weren't for the people starved to
> pay for the things.

>>> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
>>> Doesn't make 'em harmless.
>>
>>Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?

> He's in the "caught" category.

So is the arabic Barbara Cartland... Which, I guess renders your point
moot...

> Ron

 

[BroJack]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>>>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>>>> stage.
>>>
>>>40 years: 1964...
>>>
>>>Let's see:
>>>
>>>8 years Nixon/Ford
>>>12 years Reagan/Bush
>>>4 years Bushlite
>
>
>>>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>>>appointments, budget, etc.
>>>
>>>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
>>> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
>>> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
>>> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
>>> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
>>> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
>>> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>>>
>>>House: last ten years: Republican led
>>>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
>>> of majority due to Jeffords)
>
>> William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
>> years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
>> leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
>> decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
>> action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
>> reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
>> impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
>> Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
>> legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
>> wing.
>
>
>>>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.
>
>> Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
>> feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
>> victim plantation....
>
>>> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?
>
>> Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.
>
>So, not only do you know any history, you're a racist to boot. Thanks for
>coming clean...

Today, those who support color-blindness and equality are racists.

To be considered not a racist, one has to syupport affirmative action
and other racial preference programs for non-whites.
King must beturning over in his grave.

BroJack

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>>>>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>>>>> stage.
>>>>
>>>>40 years: 1964...
>>>>
>>>>Let's see:
>>>>
>>>>8 years Nixon/Ford
>>>>12 years Reagan/Bush
>>>>4 years Bushlite
>>
>>
>>>>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>>>>appointments, budget, etc.
>>>>
>>>>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
>>>> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
>>>> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
>>>> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
>>>> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
>>>> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
>>>> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>>>>
>>>>House: last ten years: Republican led
>>>>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
>>>> of majority due to Jeffords)
>>
>>> William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
>>> years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
>>> leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
>>> decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
>>> action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
>>> reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
>>> impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
>>> Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
>>> legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
>>> wing.
>>
>>
>>>>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.
>>
>>> Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
>>> feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
>>> victim plantation....
>>
>>>> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?
>>
>>> Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.
>>
>>So, not only do you know any history, you're a racist to boot. Thanks for
>>coming clean...

> Today, those who support color-blindness and equality are racists.

You're the one who referred to "some kike".

> To be considered not a racist, one has to syupport affirmative action
> and other racial preference programs for non-whites.

No. That's your twisted logic.

> King must beturning over in his grave.

Do you know you he was? (noting your incredible unwareness of Lev
Bronstein...)

> BroJack

 

[Bro Jack]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>>>>>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>>>>>> stage.
>>>>>
>>>>>40 years: 1964...
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see:
>>>>>
>>>>>8 years Nixon/Ford
>>>>>12 years Reagan/Bush
>>>>>4 years Bushlite
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>>>>>appointments, budget, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
>>>>> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
>>>>> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
>>>>> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
>>>>> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
>>>>> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
>>>>> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>>>>>
>>>>>House: last ten years: Republican led
>>>>>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
>>>>> of majority due to Jeffords)
>>>
>>>> William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
>>>> years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
>>>> leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
>>>> decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
>>>> action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
>>>> reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
>>>> impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
>>>> Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
>>>> legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
>>>> wing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.
>>>
>>>> Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
>>>> feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
>>>> victim plantation....
>>>
>>>>> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?
>>>
>>>> Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.
>>>
>>>So, not only do you know any history, you're a racist to boot. Thanks for
>>>coming clean...
>
>> Today, those who support color-blindness and equality are racists.
>
>You're the one who referred to "some kike".

But, but, but, you said "racists." Is "kike" a racial slur?

>> To be considered not a racist, one has to syupport affirmative action
>> and other racial preference programs for non-whites.
>
>No. That's your twisted logic.

That's reality today, son. Affirmative action is "in," the
level-playing field is no longer in vogue. You apparently haven't
heard of the SC 6/03 Graf and Grutter decisions which upheld aff.
action, although not to the extent that it was being practiced by
UMichigan, i.e., giving blacks automatic 20 points for being black.

And that's when the loopy Sandy implied that AA is unconstitutional
but that it would probably not be around 25 years from now.

Temporary unconstitutionality is apparently OK.

>> King must beturning over in his grave.
>
>Do you know you he was? (noting your incredible unwareness of Lev
>Bronstein...)
>

Don't know Bro Lev and too lazy to research him, but I walked with
King.

BroJack

 

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>>
>>>>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>
>>>>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>>>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>>>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>>>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>>>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>>>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>>>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>>>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.
>>>
>>>> Not now that we've got him locked up.
>>>
>>>> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.
>>>
>>>Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
>>>energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
>>>at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
>>>the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...
>
>> It is ridiculous and would be laughable if it weren't for the people starved to
>> pay for the things.
>
>>>> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
>>>> Doesn't make 'em harmless.
>>>
>>>Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?
>
>> He's in the "caught" category.
>
>So is the arabic Barbara Cartland... Which, I guess renders your point
>moot...

That they are dangerous unless caught, at which point they appear pathetic. No
I'd say that remains valid.

Sorry, you don't get to use Saddam's present miserable worthlessness as a reason
to deny what a frikking nightmare he was.

Ron

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing Bro Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:34:56 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing BroJack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the collapse of America during the past 40 years of liberal
>>>>>>> metastasis, it really doesn't matter whom the Lawd puts in at this
>>>>>>> stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>40 years: 1964...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let's see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>8 years Nixon/Ford
>>>>>>12 years Reagan/Bush
>>>>>>4 years Bushlite
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>That's 24 years' control of executive branch, armed forces, judicial
>>>>>>appointments, budget, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>SCOTUS: Rehnquist: Nixon appointee in 1972
>>>>>> Stevens: Ford appointee in 1975
>>>>>> Scalia: Reagan appointee in 1986
>>>>>> Kennedy: Reagan appointee in 1988
>>>>>> O'Connor: Reagan appointee in 1981
>>>>>> Souter: Bush appointee in 1990
>>>>>> Thomas: Bush appointee in 1991
>>>>>>
>>>>>>House: last ten years: Republican led
>>>>>>Senate: Republican 1981 to 1987, 1994 to present (excluding the short loss
>>>>>> of majority due to Jeffords)
>>>>
>>>>> William Brennan, arguably the most liberal justice in the past 75
>>>>> years, was appointed by Ike. The fact is that today's SCOTUS has five
>>>>> leftists and one loopy broad on the verge of dementia. Look at the
>>>>> decisions fer crissakes,relative to the death penalty, affirmative
>>>>> action, etc. Furthermore, many liberal decisions, such as favoring
>>>>> reverse racism, et al, never get to SCOTUS. THe 9th Circuit should be
>>>>> impeached as communists. Many leftist decisions were made during Earl
>>>>> Warren and William Douglas,two of the loopiest lefties ever. Also,the
>>>>> legislative br. for much of the 2nd part of the 20thcentury was left
>>>>> wing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>OK, 'splain your logic about the metastasis.
>>>>
>>>>> Civil rights devolved into reverse racism; women's equality into
>>>>> feminazism; moralrelativism; "The Great Society" which created a
>>>>> victim plantation....
>>>>
>>>>>> Also, who was Lev Bronstein?
>>>>
>>>>> Honestly, I don't know; thought he was some kike who trusted Josef.
>>>>
>>>>So, not only do you know any history, you're a racist to boot. Thanks for
>>>>coming clean...
>>
>>> Today, those who support color-blindness and equality are racists.
>>
>>You're the one who referred to "some kike".

> But, but, but, you said "racists." Is "kike" a racial slur?

Someone help this fellah...

>>> To be considered not a racist, one has to syupport affirmative action
>>> and other racial preference programs for non-whites.
>>
>>No. That's your twisted logic.

> That's reality today, son.

You the milk man?

Affirmative action is "in," the
> level-playing field is no longer in vogue. You apparently haven't
> heard of the SC 6/03 Graf and Grutter decisions which upheld aff.
> action, although not to the extent that it was being practiced by
> UMichigan, i.e., giving blacks automatic 20 points for being black.

> And that's when the loopy Sandy implied that AA is unconstitutional
> but that it would probably not be around 25 years from now.

> Temporary unconstitutionality is apparently OK.

I doubt you know the constitution. My hunch is that if you did, you'd
understand the Supreme Court decision, a Supreme Court, 7 of 9 appointed
by republicans.

>>> King must beturning over in his grave.
>>
>>Do you know you he was? (noting your incredible unwareness of Lev
>>Bronstein...)
>>

> Don't know Bro Lev and too lazy to research him, but I walked with
> King.

To walk with King, being lazy wouldn't cut it. To be active once and
announce a conversion to laziness is not a badge to shout about.

> BroJack

 

[Clovis Lark]

In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>>>>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>>>>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>>>>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>>>>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>>>>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>>>>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>>>>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.
>>>>
>>>>> Not now that we've got him locked up.
>>>>
>>>>> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.
>>>>
>>>>Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
>>>>energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
>>>>at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
>>>>the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...
>>
>>> It is ridiculous and would be laughable if it weren't for the people starved to
>>> pay for the things.
>>
>>>>> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
>>>>> Doesn't make 'em harmless.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?
>>
>>> He's in the "caught" category.
>>
>>So is the arabic Barbara Cartland... Which, I guess renders your point
>>moot...

> That they are dangerous unless caught, at which point they appear pathetic. No
> I'd say that remains valid.

> Sorry, you don't get to use Saddam's present miserable worthlessness as a reason
> to deny what a frikking nightmare he was.

Who denied he was once a nightmare?

> Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 18:29:11 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:35:22 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC), Clovis Lark
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In rec.bicycles.racing RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:06:49 GMT, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 07/29/2004 11:01 AM, in article [email protected],
>>>>>>>>>>>"BroJack" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Jul 2004 08:26:54 -0700, [email protected] (Roland2k) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another reason to despise the slimy, pro-terrorist French.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those pro-terrorist French are in Afghanistan with our troops right
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now, and have been since 2001. Read a newspaper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't talking about the pro-Taliban French, but rather the pro Al
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qaida French.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>pro-Taliban?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I thought it was Texas that loved the Taliban. It was there they were
>>>>>>>>>invited, wined, dined and loved to death in 1997.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/12/14/wtal14.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Same with AQ. They were our friends, fighting them goldurned russkies
>>>>>>>>>along side the Taliban.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AQ didn't exist then. But yes, some of the same characters are involved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Saddam Hussein was not a member nor a supporter of Al Qaeda ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, Jawazeeris group and the WTC bombers. He only
>>>>>>>>>> considered Bin Laden an "asset" not an "ally."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The WTC bombers? you got some info that eluded the US government?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We caught a bunch of them, but some got away and headed straight for Baghdad.
>>>>>>>> Very old news. Google something like 1993 WTC bombing Baghdad, and see what
>>>>>>>> looks credible to you. Much is speculative, what is certain is that at least one
>>>>>>>> of the players came from Iraq and all who are known to have escaped went to
>>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The factual statement is "There is no evidence linking Saddam directly with the
>>>>>>>> 9/11 attacks." Far too many people distort and exaggerate that into "Saddam has
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with terrorism" which is not at all true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In fact it IS true. Saddam is in a US built spider hole, locked away,
>>>>>>>scared to have surgery on a hernia and a prostate infection. Those are
>>>>>>>his primary concerns. He has no connection with terrorism.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not now that we've got him locked up.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Two years ago, ten years ago, another thing entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>>Two years ago, Saddam officially announced his irrelevance by devoting his
>>>>>energies to become the Arabic Barbara Cartland. One thing he succeeded
>>>>>at: when US forces entered his palaces, they found toilets as lavish as
>>>>>the ones Ms. Cartland squatted upon in her estate...
>>>
>>>> It is ridiculous and would be laughable if it weren't for the people starved to
>>>> pay for the things.
>>>
>>>>>> All these types are pathetic once they get caught or driven into a bunker.
>>>>>> Doesn't make 'em harmless.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure it does. What damage has Slobberdown Milosovic been up to lately?
>>>
>>>> He's in the "caught" category.
>>>
>>>So is the arabic Barbara Cartland... Which, I guess renders your point
>>>moot...
>
>> That they are dangerous unless caught, at which point they appear pathetic. No
>> I'd say that remains valid.
>
>> Sorry, you don't get to use Saddam's present miserable worthlessness as a reason
>> to deny what a frikking nightmare he was.
>
>Who denied he was once a nightmare?

Seemed to be what you're trying to suggest. Unless exposure to many thousands of
attempts to criticize the removal of Saddam using such logic caused me to be a
bit kneejerk about it.

Ron