If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#601
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Ray Fischer
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ... All Things Mopar wrote: Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Ray Fischer laid this on an unsuspecting readership ... Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. There is no war against al Qaeda. Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with, huh? -- ATM, aka Jerry "The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging wars or debates |
#602
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Ray Fischer
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ... My 5.7L HEMI with MDS actually gets better overall gas mileage than does the 3.5L V-6, and with 90 more ponies. We just launched the Dodge Caliber. Later this year, a 330 hp turbo 2.4L SRT4 will launch, capable of 0-60 in 5 flat /and/ CAFE to Nobody much cares about the size of your dick. Didn't know we were measuring dicks in the shower room! But, you "green" people just keep on a buying those silly-ass city cars and I'll keep on laughing at your false economy. When are you people going to understand the basic truth of the world - them that has, gets, and them that wants big, powerful vehicles, gets. Now, go away boy, you bother me ... -- ATM, aka Jerry "The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging wars or debates |
#603
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:25:47 -0500, All Things Mopar, the USA's
latest benchmark for The Ugly American wrote: Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. The Taliban is no more. You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts of Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no more". You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble brain. Insanity? Dementia? We're left wondering what makes you tick? "The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging wars or debates Or an extremely offensive offense designed to divert attention from your increasingly stupid belligerent, fact free statements? |
#604
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:25:47 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:
You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts of Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no more". You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble brain. Interestingly, since I posted the last message I heard an interview with two NY Times reporters (Elizabeth Ruben and Dexter Filkins(sp?)) that have spent much time in Afghanistan, and they report that it is far more dangerous than before. They can no longer speak with many of their contacts, either because the contacts fear being killed by the Taliban, or because they fear that the reporters will be kidnapped, and they will be blamed. You can hear the interview, but I assume that you'll have no interest in the reality that exists beyond your malignant imagination. If I'm mistaken just ask and I'll provide a pointer to the interview's URL. |
#605
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
William Graham wrote: "Jennifer" wrote in message ... I live in a state where ethanol is produced. Nearly every gas station here is being FORCED into carrying it. It is garbage gas. If your car isn't made to use this type of fuel, don't use it. It will damage your fuel injectors. Don't use it in your lawn mower either thinking you'll save money, you'll damage your mower. It runs the engine too hot. They're selling us a bill of goods on this "gas". You'll get less gas mileage from it too. I'd rather convert my car into running on used fryer oil than put ethanol in my car anyday. Converting ANY gasoline engine to ethanol is possible without huge trauma. Your lawn mower running too hot is because you are running it at a stochiometric mixture. All air cooled spark engines have to run on the rich side of stochiometric at high power to allow fuel vaporization to cool the cylinder. The cure is to modify the carb with fuel resistant rubber materials and to rejet the engine to run richer, and to add a very small amount of lubricant to the fuel, It's not rocket science. I have run B&S engines on car gas, avgas, ethanol, methanol and blends of surplus solvents very successfully. Carbed cars are easy to modify. Get a second carb at the junkyard for $5 and some spare jets in the larger sizes and the alcoholproof racing gasket kit. EFI cars require access to the firmware or aftermarket ECM. It can be done I know of a Cadillac owner who converted his Northstar to E85 with replacement injectors and an aftermarket ECM. It's methanol, not ethanol, that is challenging from a materials standpoint. But can still be done. |
#606
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
All Things Mopar wrote:
Ray Fischer All Things Mopar wrote: Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. There is no war against al Qaeda. Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with, huh? Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't have to obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution, can dictate to other nations, and can use any tactic he wishes in order to briing about his new world order. Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare silly fools like yourself into doing what he says. -- Ray Fischer |
#607
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Andrew Venor wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote: Andrew Venor wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: Andrew Venor wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: Andrew Venor wrote: Ray Fischer wrote: Yes.....He has had to make up for Clinton's lack of action in an world of ever increasing hostility..... What a typically stupid statement. Clinton went after terrorists. We saw with hindsight that blowing up some tents and mud huts with cruise missiles after the Africa embassy bombings wasn't an effective strategy against Al Qaeda. And so you neocons prove yet again that you care more about your partisan cult than oyu care about America. Throwing out veiled anti-Semitic insults tells me you don't have an argument to make. You idiotic non sequitur proves that all you care about is attacking Clinton and justifying Bush. What ever you might think of President Bush after Sept. 11, 2001 their hasn't been another attack on US soil since the Taliban was toppled and Al Qaeda had to go on the lam. 1) Anthrax attacks of 9/2001 2) The worst terrorist attack against the US happens during Bush's watc and the best you can come up with is "there hasn't been another one"?!? You have admit that after President Clinton blew up some tents it didn't The usual neocon lies. So tell us, what did Clinton do that deterred Al Qaeda? Captured and tried terorrists. Bombed suspected chemical weapons factory. Warned Bush that al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. The 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania were levels of destruction previously reserved to nation states. More people die of food poisoning every year in the US. Do you have a figure to back that statement up? http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm Besides, food poisoning isn't a planned attack on the nation by a foreign non state organization out to destroy us. Unlike Bush's attack on a foreign nation that killed over 100,000 innocent people? If you are referring to the Lancet article then I have my doubts in their methodology in their survey applying the numbers of the worst neighborhoods of places like Baghdad to the entire country. They did no such thing. The samples were randomly selected. However, the numbers you claim pail against the one million Iraqis and Iranians that were killed in the eight years of Iran/Iraq war that Saddam Hussein So you're saying that as murderous despots go, Bush isn't quite as bad as Saddam. No bin Laden fled the country and escaped. Because Bush let him. How many years has it been since then? What is your proof that the President "let him" escape? Has he been captured? Is the US doing anything to capture bin Laden? Or is the US spending hundreds of billins of dollars conquering Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Iran? And seeing you think you have a clue in finding bin Laden why don't you hop a plane over to Pakistan and get him. So you think he's in Pakistan? The country that despite harboring known terrorists and despite being ruled by a military dictator is one of Bush's allies? "War on terrorism" is crap. You would rather that religious minorities like the Hindus in Afghanistan be persecuted, and oppressed. You would rather persecute and kill Muslims. No I would rather that everybody get along. Then you had better stop being a lying asshole. So tell us, what school of debate did you attend that taught you that profanity wins arguments? If you don't like beiong called a lying asshoel then stop being a lying asshole. Real simple, but it seems that you right-wingers aren't too clear on the whole "personal responsibility" concept. You would rather that millions be killed by foreign despots like Saddam And again you resort to being a lying asshole. It's all you murderous fanatics can do. I'll ask it again, what is it about some people on the left that makes What makes you murderous fascists think that lying and killing are the only solutions to any problem? You're just like Saddam - you think that mass killing is the solution. -- Ray Fischer |
#608
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
All Things Mopar wrote:
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, ASAAR laid this on an unsuspecting readership ... On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:18:26 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote: Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. The Taliban is no more. You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts of Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no more". You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble Idiot. -- Ray Fischer |
#609
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... All Things Mopar wrote: Ray Fischer All Things Mopar wrote: Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. There is no war against al Qaeda. Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with, huh? Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't have to obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution, can dictate to other nations, and can use any tactic he wishes in order to briing about his new world order. Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare silly fools like yourself into doing what he says. And his motive for all this evesdropping on American citizens is.....? |
#610
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, William
Graham laid this on an unsuspecting readership ... Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with, huh? Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't have to obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution, can dictate to other nations, and can use any tactic he wishes in order to briing about his new world order. Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare silly fools like yourself into doing what he says. And his motive for all this evesdropping on American citizens is.....? Nobody really knows. The Brits claim to have discovered some 775 bad guys in their country after Tony Blair had MI-5 install Bush-style wire tapping. OK, fine. But, if /we/ have caught some here, presumably far larger than 775, why wouldn't the White House be trumpeting that from the tree tops in an attempt to get the president's job approval ratings up? And, no, it is /not/ because we'd be tipping our hand to our enemies. No one is suggesting that the bad guys be identified... The administration won't even tell House and Senate investigating committees how many calls were tapped, much less who made the calls, what they did or did not say, or anything else that might help to deflect the obvious Bill of Rights violations. And, even the FISA court is often ignored. It is easy to see why the bully boys might want to listen in when one bad guy is talking to another one while another agent petitions the FISA court in order not to have them escape - this used to be called "probable cause" - but the requirement is 72 hours and is often delayed indefinitely, sometimes forever. How the hell hard is it to wake up a judge, present the evidence for the tap, and get approval for a warrant? One insight may help: the /typical/ FISA court warrant request exceeds 60 pages! WTF?! Why doesn't it just say "one camel jockey is talking to his bud in Libya, we want to trace the call and listen in to identify these guys"? And, how is it that in a large percentage of alleged cases of wire tapping - "alleged cases" because no one knows the true number - a warrant is never even applied for? It is argued by the White House that it is only international calls are tapped and no one is actually listening in on the calls. Yeah, OK. And, the claim is that "data mining" is going not, not eavesdropping. I just love euphemisms like "collateral damage" and now "data mining", which apparently means looking for patterns that identify potential bad guys. Right, like the red, yellow, and green identifiers for people in airports. We all know how this one works: white guys are green, people with swarthy complexions but dressed "normally" are yellow, and someone who "looks like a terrorist" is red and is picked up and hauled away, with no presumption of innocence, no Miranda rights (which do not apply to terrorist threats, obviously), and no charges ever filed. So, tell me, how exactly does the Patriot Act get around the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments for people standing in airport lines? If this sort of **** is done to exclude blacks from something "regular" citizens easily get is called "racial profiling", how is that different than "profiling" Middle Eastern people or anyone else who is simply walking around an airport terminal? Likely, no one will ever know the answers to these and many other questions until two things occur, which they will eventually ("what goes around, comes around") - control of Congress passes to the Blues and a Blue president is elected. One would think that by now the truly egregious violations of civil liberties by the provisions of the Patriot Act and minor revisions to the much-amended 1947 National Security Act would've been challenged in court by now, wouldn't you? -- ATM, aka Jerry "The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging wars or debates |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 232 | June 25th 06 05:56 AM |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 648 | June 13th 06 02:31 AM |