P
Paul Burridge
Guest
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;->
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
;->
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Paul Burridge wrote:
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:42:00 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
Good Luck!
Rich
Remember, a vote for Bush is a vote for death and destruction.It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
Good Luck!
Rich
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:21:45 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:
;-)
Rich
Offer him "sanctuary" to evade prosecution?Fred Bloggs wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!
No no! If the brits want him for PM that's fine with me.
Paul: How are you going to convince him to emigrate?
;-)
Rich
P
Paul Burridge
Guest
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:32:19 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
We'll swap him for Tony Bliar. An exchange of War Criminals.On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:21:45 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!
No no! If the brits want him for PM that's fine with me.
Paul: How are you going to convince him to emigrate?
Offer him "sanctuary" to evade prosecution?
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
J
Jim Yanik
Guest
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:jrq9o0dkdlpapro1ukibh5dpmpb4qr09ge@4ax.com:
The US gained respect after they were succeeded by Republicans.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
news:jrq9o0dkdlpapro1ukibh5dpmpb4qr09ge@4ax.com:
It wasn't dull with Clinton in office,nor with Carter in office.It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
The US gained respect after they were succeeded by Republicans.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Tom Seim wrote:
liar, and Bush is an idiot. If Bush is a dangerous liar then he is a
liar, and if Bush is a dangerous idiot than he is an idiot. It has been
established that Bush dangerous as a liar and an idiot.
dumb as you are. You just don't seem to pick up on details very well-
probably explains why you're a failure and unemployable parasite.
Bush is a dangerous liar, and BUsh is a dangerous idiot,and bUsh is aFred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<4184F1E1.9000305@nospam.com>...
Paul Burridge wrote:
It'd be a dull old world without him. ;-
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!
It used to be a dangerous idiot and liar, can't keep your story
straight?
liar, and Bush is an idiot. If Bush is a dangerous liar then he is a
liar, and if Bush is a dangerous idiot than he is an idiot. It has been
established that Bush dangerous as a liar and an idiot.
Not really- I *know* you're a mental midget- and I am nowhere near asBut it still takes one to know one.
dumb as you are. You just don't seem to pick up on details very well-
probably explains why you're a failure and unemployable parasite.
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:31:30 -0800, Tom Seim wrote:
Obviously, Bush is orders of magnitude more dangerous, and I haven't
caught Fred Bloggs in a lie yet, but Tom Seim is dead right.
Cheers!
Rich
So, you agree. Fred Bloggs and George Bush are dangerous idiots and liars.Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4184F1E1.9000305@nospam.com>...
Paul Burridge wrote:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!
It used to be a dangerous idiot and liar, can't keep your story straight?
But it still takes one to know one.
Obviously, Bush is orders of magnitude more dangerous, and I haven't
caught Fred Bloggs in a lie yet, but Tom Seim is dead right.
Cheers!
Rich
Y
YD
Guest
On 31 Oct 2004 17:31:30 -0800, soar2morrow@yahoo.com (Tom Seim) wrote:
commutative and the qualifier dangerous applies to both parts. This
makes it shorter than writing the full statement dangerous idiot and
dangerous liar. Being commutative you might also write dangerous idiot
and dangerous liar but the two statements being equivalent only one is
needed.
- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
Parse after me. Dangerous (liar AND idiot). Note that the AND isFred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4184F1E1.9000305@nospam.com>...
Paul Burridge wrote:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
But remember- Bush is a dangerous liar and idiot!
It used to be a dangerous idiot and liar, can't keep your story straight?
But it still takes one to know one.
commutative and the qualifier dangerous applies to both parts. This
makes it shorter than writing the full statement dangerous idiot and
dangerous liar. Being commutative you might also write dangerous idiot
and dangerous liar but the two statements being equivalent only one is
needed.
- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:56:55 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:
traitors OR war criminals, and Bush is all four of those things.
Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.
Thanks,
Rich
Maybe, but _those_ republicans weren't dangerous neonazis ORPaul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:jrq9o0dkdlpapro1ukibh5dpmpb4qr09ge@4ax.com:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
It wasn't dull with Clinton in office,nor with Carter in office.
The US gained respect after they were succeeded by Republicans.
traitors OR war criminals, and Bush is all four of those things.
Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar.
Thanks,
Rich
F
Fred Bloggs
Guest
Steve Sands wrote:
was eligible. It takes no guts to be a corrupt president and order
others into war.
don't know the facts?
Right- and that's why George Bush did his best to get out of war when hebill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0411010726.2bc93490@posting.google.com>...
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message news:<Xns9593D4DF4AC69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>...
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:jrq9o0dkdlpapro1ukibh5dpmpb4qr09ge@4ax.com:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
It wasn't dull with Clinton in office,nor with Carter in office.
The US gained respect after they were succeeded by Republicans.
"Respect" implies approval and admiration. You seem to need a better
dictionary.
What Dubbya seems to have won for the US is a place in the queue to be
prosecuted for a variety of war crimes, including a rather distasteful
series of violations of the Geneva convnetions concerning the
treatment of prisoners of war. I'd prefer not to have that kind of
"respect" myself.
--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control. If your type were dealing with Bin
Laden or Saddam you would be the first to break out the K-Y.
War is not for the cowardly.
was eligible. It takes no guts to be a corrupt president and order
others into war.
So that is your dumbass excuse for not throwing insults, because youIt's real easy to sit back and just throw
cheap cowardly insults at the president without the benefit of knowing
the facts.
don't know the facts?
J
John S. Dyson
Guest
In article <4c9fff45.0411011918.52486300@posting.google.com>,
hybridyne2000@yahoo.com (Steve Sands) writes:
John
hybridyne2000@yahoo.com (Steve Sands) writes:
the murders/destruction) has been John Friggen Kerry himself.bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote in message news:<7c584d27.0411010726.2bc93490@posting.google.com>...
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message news:<Xns9593D4DF4AC69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86>...
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in
news:jrq9o0dkdlpapro1ukibh5dpmpb4qr09ge@4ax.com:
It'd be a dull old world without him.
;-
It wasn't dull with Clinton in office,nor with Carter in office.
The US gained respect after they were succeeded by Republicans.
"Respect" implies approval and admiration. You seem to need a better
dictionary.
What Dubbya seems to have won for the US is a place in the queue to be
prosecuted for a variety of war crimes, including a rather distasteful
series of violations of the Geneva convnetions concerning the
treatment of prisoners of war. I'd prefer not to have that kind of
"respect" myself.
--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control. If your type were dealing with Bin
Laden or Saddam you would be the first to break out the K-Y.
The fact is that the true war criminal (personally ordering or doing
John
R
Reg Edwards
Guest
====================================It's real easy to sit back and just throw
cheap cowardly insults at the president without the benefit of knowing
the facts.
The real problem is that the president, who depends on the hopelessly
untruthful CIA, doesn't know the facts either. He is a servant of the
avaricious oil companies, swindling bankers and dishonest insurance
merchants.
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:13:38 -0600, John Fields wrote:
of troops on a mission of mass murder.
Signed,
Rich
A better alternative would be somebody who wouldn't send thousandsOn Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:52:15 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:
John Fields wrote:
I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.
All I am hearing from this sorry-assed excuse for a commander-in-chief
is a bunch of whining about how "hard" it was for *him* to make the
decision to go to war.
---
A better alternative would have been someone who found it _easy_ to go
to war?
of troops on a mission of mass murder.
Signed,
Rich
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:51:57 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
Don't you really only mean that his point of view is different from
yours?
--
John Fields
---Apparently, Dyson is still a nazi sympathizer.
Don't you really only mean that his point of view is different from
yours?
--
John Fields
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:14:55 -0600, John Fields wrote:
Thanks,
Rich
Yes. His is the point of view of a nazi sympathizer, and mine isn't.On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:51:57 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
Apparently, Dyson is still a nazi sympathizer.
---
Don't you really only mean that his point of view is different from
yours?
Thanks,
Rich
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:35:53 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
Here's the exchange, copied from above, for your convenience:
QUOTE
War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control.
---
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs
END QUOTE
Now, since you _must_ know that _I'm_ not a pacifist, and that I was
answering Steve's question about where us non-pacifists would be if
you pacifists were in charge, it seems pretty obvious to me; we'd be
under YOUR thumbs. Got it?
---
Check the records the Nazis kept during WW2 and you'll see what an
outrageously stupid statement that was, even for you.
--
John Fields
---On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:11:28 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:54:01 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:22:26 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On 1 Nov 2004 19:18:24 -0800, hybridyne2000@yahoo.com (Steve Sands)
wrote:
War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control.
---
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs
Which thumbs are those? The Vietnamese?
Fool.
---
HUH???
Pretty early in the day to be a couple of sheets in the wind, even for
you, no?
Well, then, which "thumbs" were you saying "we" would "all be under"?
Here's the exchange, copied from above, for your convenience:
QUOTE
War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control.
---
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs
END QUOTE
Now, since you _must_ know that _I'm_ not a pacifist, and that I was
answering Steve's question about where us non-pacifists would be if
you pacifists were in charge, it seems pretty obvious to me; we'd be
under YOUR thumbs. Got it?
---
---Or are you as devoid of factual information as the rest of
the nazi toadies?\
Check the records the Nazis kept during WW2 and you'll see what an
outrageously stupid statement that was, even for you.
--
John Fields
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:18:02 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
In which way is his point of view like that of a Nazi sympathizer?
--
John Fields
---On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:14:55 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:51:57 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
Apparently, Dyson is still a nazi sympathizer.
---
Don't you really only mean that his point of view is different from
yours?
Yes. His is the point of view of a nazi sympathizer, and mine isn't.
In which way is his point of view like that of a Nazi sympathizer?
--
John Fields
R
Rich Grise
Guest
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:38:19 -0600, John Fields wrote:
2. He thinks killing people is a good thing.
3. He's parroting the party line.
What else do you need?
Thanks
Rich
1. He thinks denying facts makes them not true.On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:18:02 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:14:55 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:51:57 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
Apparently, Dyson is still a nazi sympathizer.
---
Don't you really only mean that his point of view is different from
yours?
Yes. His is the point of view of a nazi sympathizer, and mine isn't.
---
In which way is his point of view like that of a Nazi sympathizer?
2. He thinks killing people is a good thing.
3. He's parroting the party line.
What else do you need?
Thanks
Rich
J
John Fields
Guest
On 1 Nov 2004 19:18:24 -0800, hybridyne2000@yahoo.com (Steve Sands)
wrote:
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs and
they'd all be hovering around just waiting for anyone to make the
slightest move which they considered threatening and then, SQUISH...
---
I think they'd be praying to magically sprout more cheeks.
---
I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.
--
John Fields
wrote:
---War crimes? What a laugh. You pacifists make me wonder where we would
all be if you were in control.
I don't wonder about it at all. We'd all be under their thumbs and
they'd all be hovering around just waiting for anyone to make the
slightest move which they considered threatening and then, SQUISH...
---
---If your type were dealing with Bin
Laden or Saddam you would be the first to break out the K-Y.
I think they'd be praying to magically sprout more cheeks.
---
---War is not for the cowardly. It's real easy to sit back and just throw
cheap cowardly insults at the president without the benefit of knowing
the facts.
I agree. Even "knowing" the facts doesn't convey license to insult,
and destructive criticism doesn't do anything but help to vent the
frustration of the impotent criticizer.
--
John Fields