Palestinians Under Attack

On 21 Jan 2009 06:19:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 18:36:46 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 08:19:02 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:25:10 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:41:18 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

an inviolate document like our
Constitution.

Your Prez doesn't agree.

At a Presidential meeting:

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
that the provisions in this [proposed] law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just a god-damned piece of paper!"

Verified and confirmed by three attendees.

And you were one of them?

How old are you? 13?

If I was 13, that would make you, what, 8?

LOL! AGAIN with the school-yard retorts.

I may have to revise your age downward.

Interesting that you started with a schoolyard retort

And AGAIN you project your own actions onto others.

Sheesh. Typical rightard. No ability to take responsibility for
anything that you do.


What a lying fool you are! YOU were the one with the childish "How
old are you? 13?" remark. That isn't projection, that's history.

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 21 Jan 2009 06:19:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 18:36:46 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 08:19:02 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:25:10 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:41:18 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

an inviolate document like our
Constitution.

Your Prez doesn't agree.

At a Presidential meeting:

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
that the provisions in this [proposed] law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just a god-damned piece of paper!"

Verified and confirmed by three attendees.

And you were one of them?

How old are you? 13?

If I was 13, that would make you, what, 8?

LOL! AGAIN with the school-yard retorts.

I may have to revise your age downward.

Interesting that you started with a schoolyard retort

And AGAIN you project your own actions onto others.

Sheesh. Typical rightard. No ability to take responsibility for
anything that you do.

What a lying fool you are!

LOL! More of that refual to take responsibility by blaming others for
your own actions.

YOU were the one with the childish "How
old are you? 13?" remark.

If you act chldish then you get asked how old you are. Did you really
think that asking if he was in the meeting with Bush was anything
other than childish stupidity?

--
Ray Fischer

On 22 Jan 2009 04:20:30 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 21 Jan 2009 06:19:33 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 18:36:46 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 08:19:02 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:25:10 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:41:18 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

an inviolate document like our
Constitution.

Your Prez doesn't agree.

At a Presidential meeting:

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
that the provisions in this [proposed] law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just a god-damned piece of paper!"

Verified and confirmed by three attendees.

And you were one of them?

How old are you? 13?

If I was 13, that would make you, what, 8?

LOL! AGAIN with the school-yard retorts.

I may have to revise your age downward.

Interesting that you started with a schoolyard retort

And AGAIN you project your own actions onto others.

Sheesh. Typical rightard. No ability to take responsibility for
anything that you do.

What a lying fool you are!

LOL! More of that refual to take responsibility by blaming others for
your own actions.

YOU were the one with the childish "How
old are you? 13?" remark.

If you act chldish then you get asked how old you are. Did you really
think that asking if he was in the meeting with Bush was anything
other than childish stupidity?

My mistake for answering a fool according to his folly.

In message , HEMI - Powered
writes
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

We have an extremely good military designed for 21 century
conflicts. Come over to uk.current-events.terrorisum where we
can discuss it.

Clearly there is no national elitism going on in that little
corner of cyberspace.....

The Brits do have a capable intelligence network and a reasonable
version of our Homeland Security for their airports, sea ports, and
cities but NOT a strategic navy, air force, or ground army capable
of a quick reaction battle in a foreign land

Like the Falklands?

much less something as
large as Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I doubt we would ever need to do something that large and even the US
could not do it alone.

Actually the UK forces are essential to the US who screwed up
in both Iraq and Afghanistan in fact the New 2007 US manuals on
counter terrorism are virtually eh British manuals with US
covers on them.

If you can do something better and are willing to help us out,
we are more than willing and happy to make use of it. We
aren't so arrogant as you are to actually believe that our fecal
matter doesn't emit oderous compounds.

UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were so small as to be
inconsequential.

US stupidity that size is everything. :-)

Witness where they were deployed, just as the
French and Germans were, in places with little likelihood of battle
casualties nor any ability to inflict casualties on the enemy.

I assume you have not seen a TV in the last 2 years? The Brits in
Afghanistan are doing the majority of the ground fighting

In fact the Brits opened up large areas of Afghanistan the US never got
into. 0ver 60% of Afghanistan was never out of Taliban control until
the Brits wen back in during 2007

Most of the US did not leave their fire bases even in the day. It was
just like the Russians US control in Afghanistan was basically day time
Kabul


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

HEMI - Powered wrote:
J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour

Dawwin does not dispute God he just lays out the evidence that
shows the development of the species after god started it

I don't mean to be sidetracking the conversation, but Darwin
started out intending to become a minister (that's a person who
stands up in front of a church and preaches, not a government
official) and what he learned on the voyage of the Beagle turned
him off of religion entirely, so it can have that effect even
with people who are already dedicated to their religion.

Darwin's two books on evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with
Creationism.

Darwin certainly didn't think so!

--
Chris Malcolm

HEMI - Powered wrote:

The only people stupider/more ignorant than atheists are agnostics.
By definition, if you believe there is no God, then WHO do you
suppose "revealed" this to you?

This is the wittiest and most entertaining example of the logical
fallacy of peitito principii I've ever seen!

But I ought to warn you that using such irony in newsgroup runs the
serious risk of being read by people silly enough to think you were
being serious.

--
Chris Malcolm

HEMI - Powered wrote:

I can't think of ANY reason whatsoever for ANY American citizen to
voluntarily leave

Not even American citizens voting in as president a left-handed black
with a suspiciously foreign name and insanely liberal politics?

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
HEMI - Powered wrote:
J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour

Dawwin does not dispute God he just lays out the evidence that
shows the development of the species after god started it

I don't mean to be sidetracking the conversation, but Darwin
started out intending to become a minister (that's a person who
stands up in front of a church and preaches, not a government
official) and what he learned on the voyage of the Beagle turned
him off of religion entirely, so it can have that effect even
with people who are already dedicated to their religion.

Darwin's two books on evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with
Creationism.

Darwin certainly didn't think so!

Says who?

--
Ray Fischer

On 24 Jan 2009 12:33:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

HEMI - Powered wrote:

I can't think of ANY reason whatsoever for ANY American citizen to
voluntarily leave

Not even American citizens voting in as president a left-handed black
with a suspiciously foreign name and insanely liberal politics?

Actually, he is only half-black. That makes him just as much white as
he is black. He was raised in a white household by a white
grandmother. So strictly speaking, America has yet to elect its
first black president.

Being left handed is irrelevent, of course.

The suspicion is not his foreign-sounding name, but rather the growing
suspicion that he is not legally qualified to serve as president
because of his citizenship status. Instead of simply providing
proof, he has blocked lawsuits and refused to release an actual birth
certificate and school application records.

Insanely liberal politics? Yes, that's a concern, but we've weathered
that storm before. It took a Jimmy Carter to give us a Ronald Reagan.

Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
HEMI - Powered wrote:
J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour

Dawwin does not dispute God he just lays out the evidence that
shows the development of the species after god started it

I don't mean to be sidetracking the conversation, but Darwin
started out intending to become a minister (that's a person who
stands up in front of a church and preaches, not a government
official) and what he learned on the voyage of the Beagle turned
him off of religion entirely, so it can have that effect even
with people who are already dedicated to their religion.

Darwin's two books on evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with
Creationism.

Darwin certainly didn't think so!

Says who?

Darwin.

--
Chris Malcolm