| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ray Fischer
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Catholic Priests still mad that Obama won |
 |
|
Patrick <barker_pb@erinot.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote ...
Patrick <barker_pb@erinot.com> wrote:
There is nothing more important than our children. Even Jesus
Christ made mention of people who harm a child - it would be better
if they had a millstone tied around their neck and them being drowned.
Why do you hate liberty?
I don't.
Then why do you demand that people live according to your church's
rules?
I don't.
Then you're pro-choice?
Nope.
|
Then you're a liar who insist that peopel be forced to adopt YOUR
religion's rueles.
| Quote: | This isn't an either-or definition.
|
Yes, it is. You're a liar and you hate religious freedom.
| Quote: | Do you wish to follow the RCC rules?
|
The rules of some corrupt anti-American anti-freedom cult?
No.
| Quote: | If you say "no," then I might claim you believe in murder, theft,
lying, adultery, etc.
|
And damn yourself to hell by your own cult's dogma.
| Quote: | I am merely telling you what is right and wrong.
And what makes you think that you have any clue at all what is right
or wrong?
You are lucky to have me.
|
You didn't answer the question.
| Quote: | Most people don't know the rules yet.
|
You certainly don't.
| Quote: | It is up to you whether you decide to go to heaven or hell
in the afterlife.
According to your cult's propaganda?
According to God's words.
|
No, liar, according to your CHURCH's words.
| Quote: | I am merely a messenger trying to show you the right way.
No, you're trying to push your religion with silly scare tactics.
The truth is sometimes scary.
|
And that's why you hide behind a silly religion.
| Quote: | The catholic church and the pope are intolerant of religious freedom.
They accept no rules except their own.
The Catholic Church has the Word of God to guide it.
Says who? The pope?
Did you forget?
I am the messenger today.
|
Piss off, troll
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
The Atomic Brain
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Obama Must Resign As President NOW - Reinstate Bush As P |
|
|
"Liberals are STILL vermin" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.238ea79e5b049d7b98a1d0@nntp.aioe.org...
Blow me. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Billary/2008
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Why Guns Are Good For Only 1 Thing - Killing Bush Loving |
|
|
| WOW! What did the nurses give you this morning? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Why Guns Are Good For Only 1 Thing - Killing Bush Loving |
|
|
On Nov 20, 6:19 am, Liberals are STILL vermin <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I love hearing about American gun loons going nuts and killing each other
with their trusty guns, it brings me so much joy!
To me, a gun is just another weapon. People who have large stashes of
explosives in their apartments are either not right in the head or are
up to no good. Sooner or later they will kill someone.
The sort of people who amass guns are the very sort of people I trust
least: Republicans, racists, homophobes, whacko Christians who believe
in talking snakes, gang members, loner teens, people who like killing
animals for pleasure...
Statistically the person killed by a gun in your house is far far more
likely to be a family member than an intruder. Keeping gun in your
house is tantamount to attempted murder. To keep a gun, you must have
malicious intent against your family. It akin to keeping oily rags or
barrels of explosives in the basement.
It often extremely hard to convict a criminal beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, if he is carrying an illegal weapon, it is an open
and shut case that takes the criminal off the street. Refusing to
make guns illegal ties police hands. They can be 100% sure the
suspect is guilty with no way to incarcerate him.
Just today there was a report of an 8 year old who committed
premeditated murder, killing his father and uncle. That was a
completely preventable crime. It was a completely unnecessary crime.
That gun had no purpose other than some perversion of the father to
compensate for his tiny penis. He used it to bully others and feel
powerful.
Target shooting is just a sport, not a sacred right. You can still do
it with non-lethal weapons, kept locked up at a gun club when not in
use.
I personally don't approve of hunting, but I think it would be
excessive to ban it. It should not be conducted with concealable
weapons, automatic weapons, or weapons with more than 6 rounds.
The bullets should not be capable of piercing armour. This would make
hunting a much safer sport since hunters could wear kevlar to protect
themselves from fellow hunters.
The constitution is a document written in times very different from
today. People today are just as wise as then, and should be permitted
to choose how to run their society and change the constitution to say
whatever the consensus pleases. However, in the meantime, the literal
meaning of the second amendment should prevail:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
That is all it says. It says nothing about concealed weapons, nothing
about weapons that had not yet been invented at the time, nothing
about the right to shoot intruders, nothing about the right to
organise for the purpose of armed insurrection, nothing about safe
storage, nothing about registration, nothing about weapon design...
The way I read it, it is a states right clause, giving the state the
right to keep a militia, with people keeping their weapons at home,
and bearing them for militia duty. Consider the times. States were
very suspicious of each other and of the federal government
overpowering them. They were in a position like today if the USA and
Europe formed a common political union. I know this is not the current
legal interpretation, but it is the literal common-sense meaning. If
it meant some blanket right, the first clause would not have been
included.
There was a news item that Americans are stocking up on all manner of
guns fearing the new administration will restrict their use. They want
a chance to hide them before the sale and possession becomes illegal.
It is odd that folk who claim to worship the constitution are so
clearly planning the break the law. The hypocrisy is not much of a
surprise. These same people refused to say boo when many of the other
clauses of the constitution were trampled, e.g.
the fourth amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation
The sixth amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense.
the eighth amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
On your knees and pray to Bush for forgiveness.
Signed
Richard Anderson - Notorious Canadian pedophile, right wing racist and
mentally ill welfare case.
I live in Toronto, Ontario and my criminal record along with being a
registered sex offender prohibits my entry into the USA.
Charter Member of NAMBLA - A Subsidiary of the Republican National Committee.
|
Please be quiet, we're trying to hear the voices in your head? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Why Guns Are Good For Only 1 Thing - Killing Bush Loving |
|
|
On Nov 20, 6:19 am, Liberals are STILL vermin <rander3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I love hearing about American gun loons going nuts and killing each other
with their trusty guns, it brings me so much joy!
To me, a gun is just another weapon. People who have large stashes of
explosives in their apartments are either not right in the head or are
up to no good. Sooner or later they will kill someone.
The sort of people who amass guns are the very sort of people I trust
least: Republicans, racists, homophobes, whacko Christians who believe
in talking snakes, gang members, loner teens, people who like killing
animals for pleasure...
Statistically the person killed by a gun in your house is far far more
likely to be a family member than an intruder. Keeping gun in your
house is tantamount to attempted murder. To keep a gun, you must have
malicious intent against your family. It akin to keeping oily rags or
barrels of explosives in the basement.
It often extremely hard to convict a criminal beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, if he is carrying an illegal weapon, it is an open
and shut case that takes the criminal off the street. Refusing to
make guns illegal ties police hands. They can be 100% sure the
suspect is guilty with no way to incarcerate him.
Just today there was a report of an 8 year old who committed
premeditated murder, killing his father and uncle. That was a
completely preventable crime. It was a completely unnecessary crime.
That gun had no purpose other than some perversion of the father to
compensate for his tiny penis. He used it to bully others and feel
powerful.
Target shooting is just a sport, not a sacred right. You can still do
it with non-lethal weapons, kept locked up at a gun club when not in
use.
I personally don't approve of hunting, but I think it would be
excessive to ban it. It should not be conducted with concealable
weapons, automatic weapons, or weapons with more than 6 rounds.
The bullets should not be capable of piercing armour. This would make
hunting a much safer sport since hunters could wear kevlar to protect
themselves from fellow hunters.
The constitution is a document written in times very different from
today. People today are just as wise as then, and should be permitted
to choose how to run their society and change the constitution to say
whatever the consensus pleases. However, in the meantime, the literal
meaning of the second amendment should prevail:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
That is all it says. It says nothing about concealed weapons, nothing
about weapons that had not yet been invented at the time, nothing
about the right to shoot intruders, nothing about the right to
organise for the purpose of armed insurrection, nothing about safe
storage, nothing about registration, nothing about weapon design...
The way I read it, it is a states right clause, giving the state the
right to keep a militia, with people keeping their weapons at home,
and bearing them for militia duty. Consider the times. States were
very suspicious of each other and of the federal government
overpowering them. They were in a position like today if the USA and
Europe formed a common political union. I know this is not the current
legal interpretation, but it is the literal common-sense meaning. If
it meant some blanket right, the first clause would not have been
included.
There was a news item that Americans are stocking up on all manner of
guns fearing the new administration will restrict their use. They want
a chance to hide them before the sale and possession becomes illegal.
It is odd that folk who claim to worship the constitution are so
clearly planning the break the law. The hypocrisy is not much of a
surprise. These same people refused to say boo when many of the other
clauses of the constitution were trampled, e.g.
the fourth amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation
The sixth amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense.
the eighth amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
On your knees and pray to Bush for forgiveness.
Signed
Richard Anderson - Notorious Canadian pedophile, right wing racist and
mentally ill welfare case.
I live in Toronto, Ontario and my criminal record along with being a
registered sex offender prohibits my entry into the USA.
Charter Member of NAMBLA - A Subsidiary of the Republican National Committee.
|
I just love watching the tv and watching them haul off sick pedophiles
to jail after they figure out where they have been posting their crap
on the internet from cell tower information (lots of internet traffic
gets routed that way, they are connected by fiber optics)? Lets see,
do you report pedophiles to the FBI or Secret Service? Decisions,
decisions.....
Have a nice day! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jeff George
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject: Re: O'Lielly needs to rename his program -- no longer the "N |
|
|
Liberals are STILL vermin <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.238f22621e69e31998a1d4@nntp.aioe.org:
| Quote: |
Here's a list of our activities for the first 10 months of 2008:
|
Damn, but these repressed, closet homosexual Lie-ble Bangers are a sick
group. Why do the rightards never jump in and tell us how they justify this
behaviour? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alan Ferris
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:08:07 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:27:51 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:15:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:01 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:41:26 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:07:49 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:58:18 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
The secret service closes airports to flight operations for AF1, you klutz.
So how come they never closed Heathrow for its arrival?
They did to flight operations.
Nope, that is the point. They closed a single runway so that there
would be no delay to his landing, they did not want him caught up in
the usual traffic which was NOT stopped.
Flight operations are discontinued at the airport when AF1 is approaching,
departing, and on the ground.
Sorry but the facts show you are wrong. Heathrow did not cease any
flight operations.
"The President's entourage will expect landing priority from air
traffic controllers. "
Why would they need priority if the airspace is closed?
That's what closes the airspace.
|
Has nobody ever told you Earl, when in a hole, stop digging.
Priority never closes an airspace, else there would not be a need for
priority as there would be no other aircraft in the airspace for it to
need priority over...DOH you are fucking thick.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(") |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alan Ferris
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:13:50 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | And airport operations are stopped during landing, takeoff, and on the ground by
the SS - WHEN the President is on board - for security purposes. Once he leaves
the aircraft/grounds, the aircraft becomes tail number 28000. And what you saw
was tail number 28000, not AF1 - highly protected by armed military but not AF1.
|
I have never seen the aircraft you fucking twit. I just checked the
CAA logs for the airport..>DOH you just like to keep looking a twit.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(") |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alan Ferris
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:17:32 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I am well aware of the aircraft used as AF1 and AF2.
And now you know that airport flight operations are suspended when AF1 is on the
ground. Security is of paramount importance for the President.
|
It might be to him, but not to us.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(") |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
fasgnadh
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: The New Inquisitors exposed - A case study in dialog with so |
|
|
John Abu'Baker Bash'ir rejected rational debate and abused, as usual:
| Quote: | Carl <saints@nettally.com> wrote suggesting some books:
|
A suggestion for some rational inquiry:
| Quote: | Here are some recommended books
|
Is once again met with hypocritical abuse:
| Quote: | So what, moron? You're living proof that religion of *any* kind is
completely incompatible with intelligence.
|
" Abuse complaint sent." Abu'Baker Bash'er,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHA
How's that Appeal to a Higher Power going Abu'Baker? B^D
Are you still being Kept on Hold by the Grand Inquisitor,
unable to silence those who question you? B^)
As we saw during the Atheist Dark Ages (1917- date) when the Atheist
Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression (USSR) and the Atheist
Red Guard were burning religious books in Maoist China, the atheists
are identical to the small-minded and vindictive fundamentalism of
the Medieval Inquisitors, except they do not have the 'excuse' of
Mass Illiteracy and ignorance,, they exist in the so-called
'Modern'(sic) Era. 8^o
The New Inquisitors exposed;
A case study in dialog with some rabid Atheist fundamentalists -
As you see above they are arrogant, abusive, irrational,
anti-science, relying on lies, intimidation
and threats to silence those they cannot match in rational dispute
A brief history of Atheist jackal-pack witch-hunting, hypocrisy and abuse:
# From: John Baker<nunya@bizniz.net>
# Subject: Re: Atheist recants: probability of God NOT nil! Final
# opinion SOON! B^D Re: Atheist claims
# the probability of God existing is nil - IMPOSSIBLE! B^D
# Re: What IS the 'probability' of God existing? How is it calculated?
# Re: London: 'Buses carry atheist message'
# Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:52:46 -0400
# Message-ID: <ikoag4tafckddbi6a18vdjdp9p3ag5rmaa@4ax.com>
# X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
# X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
# complaint properly
#
#
# On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:30:37 +1100, fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com>
# wrote:
#
# >DanielSan wrote:
# >> fasgnadh wrote:
# >>> DanielSan wrote:
# >>>> fasgnadh wrote:
# >>>>> Lou Ravi stepped up to bat for the believers in atheism:
# >>>>>> fasgnadh wrote:
# >>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
# >>>>>>>> fasgnadh wrote:
# >>>>>>>>> Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote:
# >>>>>>>>>>
# >>>>>>>>>> Buses in London could soon carry the slogan
# >>>>>>>>>> "There's probably no God"
# >>>>>>>>>> as part of an atheist ad campaign.
# >>>>>
# >>>>>
# >>>>> I love it when the atheists admit that there is a
# >>>>> probability that God Exists
# >>>>> .. even if they can't calculate it.
# >>>>
# >
# >And I love it when they can't even explain on what evidence they
# >determined their belief that the probability is as any of the various
# >answers they guess at:
#
# >
# >When asked to explain HOW you determined the probability of
# >God Existing to be low, you simply claimed it's 'infinitesimal'
# >... then you claimed it was 'nil'
# >and when the consequences of that were explained to you, B^)
# >you switched back to 'there is a possibility that God Exists'.
# >
# >And in none of these cases could you provide any evidence in
# >support of your beliefs! B^D
# >
# >You really don't have much of a grasp of mathematical probability,
# >do you.
#
# Mathematical probability has nothing to do with it, halfwit.
From the outset, abu'Baker Bash'er, the Imam of Atheiston,
was a rude, abusive, anti-science bigot and knuckle-dragging thug!
A real 3-F loser: Fanatical Fundie Fuckwit!
# >>> but with no more evidence than the previous one...
# >>> merely another UNSUPPORTED OPINION! B^D
# >>
# >> Actually, it's supported.
# >
# >Great, then tell us on what basis you determined that the
# >probability of the existence of God is BOTH Zero AND
# >Non-ZERO but small! 8^o
# >
# >Does this involve Schroedinger's Cat anytime soon?
# >
# > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
My gentle wit clearly went over this cretin's head and all he
could offer was more moronic ad hom... remember, this was our
first encounter.. me being playful and asking for rational
discussion, abu'Baker being a tiresome slug:
#
# Fucking moron.
This is what passes for 'argumentation' in the Atheist Madrassa!
# >
# >[Please don't use concepts like 'The Trinity' in your
# >explanation, I don't think my sides can split any further
# >from laughing! ;-]
#
# shut the fuck up.
#
# End of story.
So there we have the classic atheist position if you
a) ask them questions which reveal their irrational beliefs
to have no evidence, and even internally contradict,
or
b) if you dare to make fun of their leaden, plodding,
sub-prime intellect! ;-)
He wants no debate, no exchange of views, you either
accept his dogma or 'shut the fuck up' and there is no
discussion with these Mad Mullahs of Materialism:
'End of Story' pffft ONLY for THEM! B^D
--------------------
For someone who came on so instantly ABUSIVE, this
big Butch Bully, abu'Baker, quickly showed himself to be
all piss and wind, a delicate little flower who couldn't
hold up an argument!
..and after a brief petulant outburst of ad hominum abuse....
{this is his ENTIRE second post in my thread on Probability
and Being) he ran for MUMMY!; B^D
# From: John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
# Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:00:10 -0400
# Message-ID: <0b6eg4hkcrob4de38rflr1h6vlt8l7gi66@4ax.com>
#
# I've seen some pretty dim-witted trolls in my day,
# but this 'fasgnadh' character takes stupidity to a
# whole new level. Duke has some real competition here. <G>
... Lots of arrogance and hubris, but it was Imam abu'Baker,
the mewling infant, who folded faster than a deck chair
on the Titanic, wailed to the Powers Above to save him
and ran to his Mummy: B^D
# From: John abu'Baker Bash'ir the Imam of Atheiston <nunya@bizniz.net>
# Subject: Re: Atheists caught lying Re: Atheist recants:
# probability of God NOT nil! # Final opinion SOON! B^D
# Re: Atheist claims the probability of God existing is nil
# - IMPOSSIBLE! B^D
# Re: What IS the 'probability' of God existing? How is it calculated?
# Re: London: 'Buses carry atheist message
# Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:36:04 -0400
# Message-ID: <ssteg4t5a8jjlktrfsv5jr25e7tkrrgett@4ax.com>
#
#
# Abuse complaint sent.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA
So, this WEAK Atheist HYPOCRITE, who couldn't answer a single
one of my reasonable questions about absurd and unscientific
Atheist beliefs, simply snipped and ignored those issues,
abused me from his very FIRST post, and then in an act of
magnificent cowardice and hypocrisy, tried to intimidate me
with the threat of an Atheist Witch Hunt, calling on a Higher
Power to achieve the only thing he wanted.... to silence me!
Here's a summary of John Bakers entire argument
"fucking moron" - ad hominum abuse!
"shut the fuck up" - neo-nazi cult dogma only!
"Abuse complaint sent." - hypocritical TOSSER runs away!! B^D
Well, I'm still here, and I can only imagine that whatever
Superior Authority Jackoff John invoked, it is still laughing
at the little puke!
Just like I am!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!
The Atheists, who have a tendency to stereotype and
project straw man caricatures onto their opponents,
appear to have assumed I was a turn-the-other-cheek
Christian.. easy meat for their Jackal-pack hunting
tactics of browbeating, co-ordinated abuse,
misrepresentation and idle threats in pathetic attempts
to intimidate those whose arguments they cannot rationally
dispute!
B^]
"nemo me impune lacessit!" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bush to automakers - "Good luck, suckers! I'm outta here |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:37:38 -0800, Judge Piglet <pontius@uscb.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:12:45 GMT, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.
wrote:
TigerLuck <TigerLuck@wild_kingdom.com> wrote in
news:ZUZUk.7441$x%.6107@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats suggested Wednesday that a bill to
rescue Detroit's Big Three automakers was stalled and challenged the
Bush administration to take steps to save the industry if
congressional efforts falter. *The White House quickly rebuffed the
suggestion*.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbjFY-o07QeryRxtFR3oC
1w_v1PwD94I5MKG0
He won't stop destroying American cities until Innauguration Day.
Ain't that the truth! 1/20 can't come soon enough.
One thing to watch for is that he will probably pardon all his cronies
connected with the firings of those attorneys. Some have been
subpoened but what do you bet Bush lets them and himself off the hook?
|
'rat willie made a bad name of himself for pardoning his crooked buddies.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:34:56 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | Why would they need priority if the airspace is closed?
That's what closes the airspace.
Has nobody ever told you Earl, when in a hole, stop digging.
|
You're down there, stinky. I'm trying to get to you.
| Quote: | Priority never closes an airspace, else there would not be a need for
priority as there would be no other aircraft in the airspace for it to
need priority over...DOH you are fucking thick.
|
No, stinky, **YOU** are the one that previously stated he got priority
clearance. It's not priority clearance, it's priority security. When AF1 is
approaching, departing and on the ground, airport flight operations are
suspended.
I tried to tell you this, but noooooooo, you're too hard-headed to listen, and
so now you can stick your thumbs up your rectum and run away.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:36:23 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:13:50 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
And airport operations are stopped during landing, takeoff, and on the ground by
the SS - WHEN the President is on board - for security purposes. Once he leaves
the aircraft/grounds, the aircraft becomes tail number 28000. And what you saw
was tail number 28000, not AF1 - highly protected by armed military but not AF1.
I have never seen the aircraft you fucking twit. I just checked the
CAA logs for the airport..>DOH you just like to keep looking a twit.
|
And the logs say that flight operations on the airport were suspended when AF1
is approaching, departing, and on the ground.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:16:15 -0800, Judge Piglet <pontius@uscb.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | I am well aware of the aircraft used as AF1 and AF2.
And now you know that airport flight operations are suspended when AF1 is on the
ground. Security is of paramount importance for the President.
Yes and I'm well aware that airports are not closed down.
|
I have been using the words "flight operations suspended" for many days now,
piggy.
| Quote: | the Court
prounounced this issue resolved and the Judge has the last word.
|
And you re the village idiot. You got caught in your ignorance, and now you're
running away.
When the president needs to fly to locations that have runways too short for the
VC-25A, a Boeing C-32 is used instead.[citation needed] An Air Force aircraft
carrying the Vice President of the United States is designated as Air Force Two.
Airports do not close in the presence of AF1.
Good, because I said that flight operations are suspended when AF1 lands, takes
off, and is on the ground. It's not FAA regs, it's the SS.
You just had your ass handed to you, piggy. Now sew it back on like a good
little boy and go find somebody else to try to confuse.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
duke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Worst president |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:36:44 +0000, Alan Ferris <hairy.ferrit@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:17:32 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
I am well aware of the aircraft used as AF1 and AF2.
And now you know that airport flight operations are suspended when AF1 is on the
ground. Security is of paramount importance for the President.
It might be to him, but not to us.
|
You don't get a vote.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
***** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
