Adolph the Great
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 8 Mar 2010 19:11 On Mar 8, 4:07 pm, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 9:57 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > To right wingers like your Gunner buddy, EVERYONE who isn't in lock > step with their Nazi ideals is dangerous. heh, I'd like you to meet Commrade Stalin... "You are either with us or against us and just to be sure you'll be killed anyway." J. Stalin But George was a nicer "person"
From: S'mee on 8 Mar 2010 19:22 On Mar 8, 2:21 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > The Japanese scum bags > > were as racist as the Germans. > > Not quite, no. quite yes...I could introduce you to my MIL. She grew up during WWII, nice lady makes a MEAN kimchee.
From: saddlebag on 8 Mar 2010 19:52 On Mar 8, 7:11 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 4:07 pm, saddlebag <saddle...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 9:57 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > To right wingers like your Gunner buddy, EVERYONE who isn't in lock > > step with their Nazi ideals is dangerous. > > heh, I'd like you to meet Commrade Stalin... > > "You are either with us or against us and just to be sure you'll be > killed anyway." J. Stalin Yeah, well when you start seeing lefties yucking up the idea of killing people who are scientific illiterates, generally hate education, and prefer we all just pray for a better life and sent our money to the captains of industry, then I'll lambast them too. Like it or not, overwhelmingly, sadomasochistic motherfuckers with fantasies (many of which have been carried out recently) of killing the latest enemy they've conjured up are conservatives. Faux News feeds the simple heads of these people everyday with great success. > But George was a nicer "person" He was good at dodging shoes anyway.
From: Twibil on 8 Mar 2010 20:30 On Mar 8, 1:56 pm, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: > Twibil wrote: > > The fact that the ACLU is strictly non-partisan, and will defend *any* > > viewpoint -if they think there's a question of Constitutional law > > involved that needs to be clarified- never seems to cross these > > folks' minds: only the fact that ACLU once did something that *they* > > didn't like remains, and that's enough to inspire an irrational, life- > > long hatred. > > The ACLU may be non-partisan but they definitely have their political > leanings: > > http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment So? Who doesn't? But the so-called "Liberal" ACLU has gone to court to defend Nazis (and won), and if that isn't bending over backwards to be fair to someone or something you detest then the concept doesn't exist. More importantly; the ACLU -now listen closely here- does *not* render judicial decisions. All the ACLU does is take interesting cases to court and present their evidence. At that point the judge or judges in the case render a decision, and *that's* who decides what the law is; which is just the way the system is supposed to work.
From: BryanUT on 8 Mar 2010 21:01
On Mar 8, 2:43 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 12:17 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > It's the same ingrown personality trait that causes people of all > sorts to decry the ACLU because it has in the past defended someone - > or some principal- that they disagree with. > > The fact that the ACLU is strictly non-partisan, and will defend *any* > viewpoint -if they think there's a question of Constitutional law > involved that needs to be clarified- never seems to cross these > folks' minds: only the fact that ACLU once did something that *they* > didn't like remains, and that's enough to inspire an irrational, life- > long hatred. > > By that same line of reasoning, any magazine that puts someone like > Hitler on bin Ladin on their cover must naturally be fawning upon > them, QED. > > Never expect logic when you're dealing with the masses. Them asses. WUT? A Repubican supporting the ACLU? Admit it Pete, you are a closet liberal. Its ok. Take YOUR party back from the whack jobs. Please. |