Adolph the Great
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: tomorrow on 8 Mar 2010 09:56 On Mar 8, 6:33 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 11:01 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > > > > > > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 6:14 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 7:48 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > > > > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 7:16 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > (snippola) > > > > > > He wasn't nor are any of the rest of the fanatical morons. That is > > > > > the point. > > > > > You're attempting to DEBATE these sociopaths????? > > > > > C'mon Saddlebags, you aren't that stupid. > > > > I gave up when the nincompoop detailed how we are all going to be > > > killed by the followers of Limbaugh in job lots, but yet he really > > > wasn't a fan of Hitler. > > > > Ya know, maybe Bu$h was right illegally spying on US citizens. It > > > appears some of us NEED to be watched... > > > Aw, c'mon... you ain't *that* dangerous! > > Not me champ, I'm talking about the new right wing American holocaust > fans who you like to identify with. I have no idea who you are talking about and what makes you think I "identify" with them, all the more so since I was the one questioning why you would attempt to debate people whom I obviously believe are psychologically disturbed. I thought you were joking when you said that you thought they should be placed under government surveillence, so I joked right back. If you were not joking, that makes you no different than them; just preferring that governmental abuses be directed at your enemies instead of theirs. > But you are correct, when Bu$h was in, I surely would have been one of > the binary folks that was *dangerous* to their plan of unitary > executive power. Just tough to build a kingdom without executing some > folks I suppose. Breathtaking. The guy was voted into office, and left when his term expired. How disappointing that must be for your grandly paranoid theory.
From: S'mee on 8 Mar 2010 09:57 On Mar 8, 4:33 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 11:01 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > > > > > > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 6:14 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 7:48 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" > > > > <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 7:16 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > (snippola) > > > > > > He wasn't nor are any of the rest of the fanatical morons. That is > > > > > the point. > > > > > You're attempting to DEBATE these sociopaths????? > > > > > C'mon Saddlebags, you aren't that stupid. > > > > I gave up when the nincompoop detailed how we are all going to be > > > killed by the followers of Limbaugh in job lots, but yet he really > > > wasn't a fan of Hitler. > > > > Ya know, maybe Bu$h was right illegally spying on US citizens. It > > > appears some of us NEED to be watched... > > > Aw, c'mon... you ain't *that* dangerous! > > Not me champ, I'm talking about the new right wing American holocaust > fans who you like to identify with. > > But you are correct, when Bu$h was in, I surely would have been one of > the binary folks that was *dangerous* to their plan of unitary > executive power. Just tough to build a kingdom without executing some > folks I suppose...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So? You still aren't dangerous.
From: Henry on 8 Mar 2010 10:00 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Mar 8, 6:33 am, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> But you are correct, when Bu$h was in, I surely would have been one of >> the binary folks that was *dangerous* to their plan of unitary >> executive power. Just tough to build a kingdom without executing some >> folks I suppose. > Breathtaking. The guy was voted into office, Bush was appointed to the Presidency by family friends on the Supreme Court. -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Bob Myers on 8 Mar 2010 14:25 BrianNZ wrote: > Well, Adolf Hitler was TIME magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938! :) You are aware, of course, that TIME has repeatedly stated that "Man of the Year" (now "Person of the Year") doesn't necessarily go to someone to honor them - it's supposed to be the person who has had the biggest impact on the news for the year, whether for good or for bad. Bob M.
From: S'mee on 8 Mar 2010 15:17
On Mar 8, 12:25 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > BrianNZ wrote: > > Well, Adolf Hitler was TIME magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1938! :) > > You are aware, of course, that TIME has repeatedly stated that > "Man of the Year" (now "Person of the Year") doesn't necessarily > go to someone to honor them - it's supposed to be the person who > has had the biggest impact on the news for the year, whether for > good or for bad. That's the way it started out also. I've understood that since I was kid, what makes it so hard for the rest of the world to understand that? I don't get you people. |