Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LMAO !In article <efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
You can't have it both ways.
Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon.
I look forward to the arrest of US citizens by the British Police for running"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.
Preposterous.
But still true.
Just saying that it's true doesn't make it so.
Prove your point if you expect to be believed.
================================================
Online Gambling Industry Reels After Arrest
Published: July 18, 2006
LONDON, July 18 - Europe's multibillion-dollar online gambling industry was
thrown into turmoil today after the United States government arrested the
chief executive of a British bookmaking company on Monday, leaving his
rivals scrambling to figure out whether they could be next.
---
Running a gambling establishment which asserts a presence in the US
is equivalent to the perpetrator being in the US and committing that
crime here.
And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.
I agree completely.
How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?
Also an option. Any one of those three will work.
I think the mutual concession option
This option does not exist.
You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?
Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so
(but what's new?).
Let me explain then.On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:24:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ever wondered why it [international terrorism] happens to the USA
most btw ?
---
Nope. Losers want to blame everyone but themselves for their
predicaments and, so, take shots at the champ in an attemp to try to
convince themselves that they're not impotent.
That's a very strange idea."Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show me
a religious text that*isn't*
riddled with contradictions.
They're all really just books of magic spells anyway.
---
No, they're not. They're survival manuals.
I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.
I agree completely.
How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?
Also an option. Any one of those three will work.
I think the mutual concession option
This option does not exist.
You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?
Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so
(but what's new?).
And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?
---John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:
The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any "War
on Terror" been won?
The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.
Obfuscation noted.
So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?
---
We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not possible
to win this one?
The Nazi party was genuinely popular. That's one reason they got elected.
---
What does that have to do with anything? We still beat the shit out
of them.
---
Islamist extremism *isn't* popular. Although it may become more so as thew USA
continues to bumble its way from one disaster to another.
---
So what? If push comes to shove we'll beat the shit out of them too,
whether they're popular or not, dumbass.
Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?
You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by yourKeith wrote:
In article <efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
You can't have it both ways.
Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon.
LMAO !
The USA is the most two-faced nation on the planet. You regularly back one side then
declare war on them.
You might want to consider what you do for your country'sYou might care to consider what that might do for your credibility.
Keith wrote:
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Bunch of damn cowboys.
Yaaa-hoo!
John
Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next
episode of "Deadwood"
John
I'll get out my copy of "Tombstone" ;-)
Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".
I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
If they're intentionally selling redhead porn from a US domain intoJohn Fields wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.
Preposterous.
But still true.
Just saying that it's true doesn't make it so.
Prove your point if you expect to be believed.
================================================
Online Gambling Industry Reels After Arrest
Published: July 18, 2006
LONDON, July 18 - Europe's multibillion-dollar online gambling industry was
thrown into turmoil today after the United States government arrested the
chief executive of a British bookmaking company on Monday, leaving his
rivals scrambling to figure out whether they could be next.
---
Running a gambling establishment which asserts a presence in the US
is equivalent to the perpetrator being in the US and committing that
crime here.
I look forward to the arrest of US citizens by the British Police for running
'extreme' porn sites when and if the new law comes into force in that case.
Mongo. I don't recall the horse's name.Keith wrote:
Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".
He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out
the horse.
Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,Keith wrote:
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Bunch of damn cowboys.
Yaaa-hoo!
John
Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next
episode of "Deadwood"
John
I'll get out my copy of "Tombstone" ;-)
Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".
I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.
Graham
Was Eisenhower British?John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."
and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."
How would you translate it?
I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly.
---
How brutal. If you didn't understand French and they spoke French to
you, very loudly and very slowly, would you understand what they
were trying to say?
How much sweeter to be able to softly crush an opponent with his own
tongue.
---
There is a
reason we had an Empire.
---
Yes, you took it at swordpoint. Nothing very subtle about that!
---
There's also a reason most French can understand English.
---
American liberation of France in WW2?
*American* liberation ?
---"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cnn5i2p1k9ir7d1k8m6kv3624a08uo9bj1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
By removing the reasons for terrorist action primarily.
---
The reason there's terrorist action against the US is basically
because we won't abandon Israel, and that's non-negotiable.
A terrorist state if ever there was one.
Just shows, today's terrorist is tomorrows head of state.
(And I strongly believe in the rights of Israel to exist!)
---
That'll mean listening to genuine greivances and doing something about
them though.
Just like we did in N. Ireland.
---
Oh, yeah, you did that out of the goodness of your hearts, huh?
Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.
The grievances we'll hear, and that we've hearing all along, will
be that Israel must be allowed to die, which is something we won't
allow to happen.
So, you don't have any real answers, only more of your simplistic
unrealizable bullshit.
Ok, we will listen to your simplistic, unrealisable bullshit then.
Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involveIn article <9VQUg.8418$GR.1968@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:7s57i2h1e9t48lv1d8i1jmfdm9kj4b9iis@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:12 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:
"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0@4ax.com...
The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.
Oh, you mean like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom
from
unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? Yet you're OK when
Bush
ignores those? How about a little consistency in your views? Or do you
just get on Usenet to insult and swear at people?
You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about
Bush.
OK, so what is your stand on his attacks on the Constitutional rights I
listed above?
Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into
without a warrant.
Well, since that's classified information, ya got me there, I can't give
names and addresses....
So, you admit that you have only your paranoia as evidence.
However, the answer to your question is any
household of which the phone has been tapped by the NSA.
Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
You're going to
have to come into the 21st century and understand that searches include not
only a physical search, but also electronic surveillance...or so common
sense and the Supreme Court would tell us.
You're paranoia is showing again.
No, Bush claimed the court didn't even have the right to hear the caseIn article <eg0k2p$e61$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <efugkv$4up$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...
Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many
times
it
says "citizens."
SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it
come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to
apply
in
the US would you?
Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those
people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held
elsewhere.
John
Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no.
Then
he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep
some
prospective EU members out even.
Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in
the matter.
No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the case
should
be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not talking
about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue.
No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress,
but that they were free to do so.
---
Keith
How? Nothing is on paper and they break in while you are out.You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about
Bush. Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into
without a warrant.
9/11 was Bush's failure.Clinton was successful.
Bush is a failure.
Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.
How would you ever know?Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.
Might is Right?Piracy is still a hanging offence.
LOL! And who's going to do the hanging, pray tell?