BAAA BAAAA BAAAAA

Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed members of
his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem", and "War on
Terror".

He also outlawed the use of the phrase, "Does anyone know where our
testicles went?"

Most of the British people, except the military, war veterans, and those old
enough to remember WWII, responded, "BAAA BAAAA BAAAAA". A significant
minority responded, "ALLAH AKBAR!"

David

Who has time to listen to Propaganda. I was here first.

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:

> Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed members
> of his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem", and "War on
> Terror".

You are joking, right?

I believe even the Guardian has written that, if necessary, deportation of
all "muslims"
is justified if that will garantee the safety of Citizins wrt these retards.

> He also outlawed the use of the phrase, "Does anyone know where our
> testicles went?"

Certainly not to Holland...

> Most of the British people, except the military, war veterans, and those
> old enough to remember WWII, responded, "BAAA BAAAA BAAAAA". A significant
> minority responded, "ALLAH AKBAR!"

Minoity?

--
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:
>
>> Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed members
>> of his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem", and "War
>> on Terror".
>
> You are joking, right?

Nope.

> I believe even the Guardian has written that, if necessary, deportation of
> all "muslims"
> is justified if that will garantee the safety of Citizins wrt these
> retards.
>
>> He also outlawed the use of the phrase, "Does anyone know where our
>> testicles went?"
>
> Certainly not to Holland...

Yours are big enough for most of the country.

>> Most of the British people, except the military, war veterans, and those
>> old enough to remember WWII, responded, "BAAA BAAAA BAAAAA". A
>> significant minority responded, "ALLAH AKBAR!"
>
> Minoity?

MinoRity. The "r" is sorta' important

David

"DeFacto's NeuroPhysiques." <MrLeVlogue@gmail.com> wrote
> Who has time to listen to Propaganda. I was here first.

<pat pat> Here. Have a cookie.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:

>> You are joking, right?

> Nope.

Wishfull thinking, i guess...

Britain too than. Germany wont say, or do, anything because of that "thingy"
60 years ago.

Perhaps Sarkozy can set of a chain reaction. A domino effect.

>>> He also outlawed the use of the phrase, "Does anyone know where our
>>> testicles went?"

>> Certainly not to Holland...

> Yours are big enough for most of the country.

Our media has been dominated and influenced by the left for 4 decades. But
they never influenced me.
I never trusted them. I knew at a very young age that something was wrong
with them.

I never trusted people who try to be politically correct all the time,
either.

And i tried to convince others, but nobody listened. I hate it when i am
right.

>>> Most of the British people, except the military, war veterans, and those
>>> old enough to remember WWII, responded, "BAAA BAAAA BAAAAA". A
>>> significant minority responded, "ALLAH AKBAR!"

>> Minoity?

> MinoRity. The "r" is sorta' important

R U for real?

--
Pete

"Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:
>
>>> You are joking, right?
>
>> Nope.
>
> Wishfull thinking, i guess...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236

> Britain too than. Germany wont say, or do, anything because of that
> "thingy" 60 years ago.

My daughter just came back from three weeks in Germany in a student exchange
thing. Found the germans quite friendly to Jews...the few left, or visiting.
Visited a concentration camp...on her 17th birthday...and found extreme
remorse expressed.

I told her the lesson to be learned was that even civilized people can
become uncivilized, under the right conditions.

> Perhaps Sarkozy can set of a chain reaction. A domino effect.

We can hope. Too bad he's not as hot as his opponent was.

David

May I have another please (I think I love yOu!)

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:

> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236

>> Britain too than. Germany wont say, or do, anything because of that
>> "thingy" 60 years ago.

> My daughter just came back from three weeks in Germany in a student
> exchange thing. Found the germans quite friendly to Jews...the few left,
> or visiting. Visited a concentration camp...on her 17th birthday...and
> found extreme remorse expressed.

Yes.

And they should be. And as a result, they are afraid to speak up. Because
they are afraid to be linked to the Nazi-regime that ruled in the thirties
and forties.

I know that it soinds weird, but Germans are actually quite friendly to most
people. Most of them really dont care about the color of your skin opr your
religion.

And i know all the stories from my father, who was in Dresden in 42-45. He
claimed that most Germans he worked with were NOT Nazis. I never understood
that as a tenager. I do now.

And what happened way back then... yeah, its weird. Its weird what a group
of large and stupid people are capable of. Given the right (wrong)
conditions and someone with short statue and great knowledge of
mass-psychology.

But the Germans were living in extreme poverty (as a direct result of WW1)
and cannot be compared with the situation we are dealing with in Europe now.
Europe is wealthy. We are doing fine. As i speak, The Netherlands has the
lowest rate, about 3%, of unemployed of all Europe. Followed closely by
Denmark.

Anyone who thinks we need a scapegoat for anything is just a fucking idiot.
Scapegoat for what?
We almost drown in wealth. Even people who live on welfare for MANY years
are buying supersized fridges and 50 inch screens.

> I told her the lesson to be learned was that even civilized people can
> become uncivilized, under the right conditions.

Wrong conditions...

The only thing i can say at this moment is this;

The "mussys" are fucking with Europe in a bad, BAD, terrible way. And a lot
of Europeans are still blindfolded.
I want them dead. I want them ALL dead.

Or they can leave. I prefer that. I really do. And that shouldnt be a
problem. Most of have 2 nationalities.

But... if they stay, we CANNOT live in peace with them. It can NOT happen
and it it will NOT happen.

>> Perhaps Sarkozy can set of a chain reaction. A domino effect.

> We can hope. Too bad he's not as hot as his opponent was.

Sarky is a cute little fella. If i met him, i will tap him on his head (4
times)
Anyone who opposes the "mussys" cant be all bad...

--
Pete

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:

> Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed members
> of his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem", and "War on
> Terror".

David, i read the article, and i think its a misinterpretation on your part.

Its the **FUCKING** EU that is trying to shove those guidelines down the
throats of the people in the British Government. Which the British will NOT
accept!

We, and the French for that matter, voted AGAINST the European Constitution
2 years ago. And now, under the leadership of that... Fucking Former East
German Commie Angela Merkel (who participated in programs that helped former
DDR athletes, but that aside...) there is going to be a "treaty."

Whatever the FUCK that means!

Oh, wait...

I know what it means. Its just a constitution all over again, but they gave
it a new name!
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE BE GOING TO BE HERE IN EROPE ?!?!?!

Did all those cheap drugs destroyed our brain cells after all ?!?!?!

People of Europe...

Dont be an asshole. FIGHT against the new "treaty."

--
Pete

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:
>
>> Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed
>> members of his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem",
>> and "War on Terror".
>
> David, i read the article, and i think its a misinterpretation on your
> part.

It is, and it's also just wrong. It's not a ban on using those words, it's
a ban on using them as a way of describing the current bunch of
terrorists.

And, as the first commenter points out, there is some sense in this. The
terrorists are, or at least claim to be, muslims, no doubt about it. But
there are quite a few people who are also muslims who are not terrorists,
and don't support the terrorists. So, calling the terrorists "muslim
terrorists" is a bit of a slap in the face to them. How would papists have
felt if we'd called the IRA "catholic terrorists"? I can promise you that
if some inbred loonjobs from Podunk, Alabama came over the the UK and
started blowing things up because they didn't like us driving on the left,
and we started calling them "American terrorists", you'd be the first
person to launch a cuss-filled tirade against us for it. We really don't
gain anything by needlessly antagonising non-terrorist muslims, so why do
it?

Anyway, look, the word to use here is "islamist"; it means something
specific, a belief that islamic teachings should be extended to the
political sphere, whether people like it or not, and it accurately
describes the agenda of these terrorists. It's accurate, precise, and not
offensive (well, not very), so why don't we just use it?

> Its the **FUCKING** EU that is trying to shove those guidelines down the
> throats of the people in the British Government.

Yep. I'm generally pretty europhile, but this does strike me as very
silly.

> Which the British will NOT accept!

It's not up to the British people to accept it or not, since it's a
direction aimed at governments.

tom

--
I think it would be a good idea -- Mohandas Gandhi, on Western
civilisation

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:
>>
>>> Great Britain's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has instructed members
>>> of his government to avoid use of the words "Islam", "Moslem", and "War
>>> on Terror".
>>
>> David, i read the article, and i think its a misinterpretation on your
>> part.
>
> It is, and it's also just wrong. It's not a ban on using those words, it's
> a ban on using them as a way of describing the current bunch of
> terrorists.

"Yesterday the Daily Express reported how Gordon Brown's ministers had been
told to avoid inflammatory language when speaking about the attempted car
bomb attacks in London and Glasgow. Neither the Prime Minister in a major
interview nor Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the Commons referred to Muslims
or Islam."

Ah, I got it, Tom. It's fine to use the words in sentences like "Islam is
the religion of Peace" or "I hope the Moslems use lube when they fuck us in
the ass", but DO NOT say "The Islamic terrorists just nuked Buckingham
Palace", 'cause that would be mean to the Islamic terrorists.

I'm gonna' have to try and find an online Englich-Sheep translator to avoid
these errors again.

David

On Jul 4, 8:31 am, "Pete" <phouts...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> "David Cohen" <sammies...@earthlink.net> schreef:
>
> >http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236
> >> Britain too than. Germany wont say, or do, anything because of that
> >> "thingy" 60 years ago.
> > My daughter just came back from three weeks in Germany in a student
> > exchange thing. Found the germans quite friendly to Jews...the few left,
> > or visiting. Visited a concentration camp...on her 17th birthday...and
> > found extreme remorse expressed.
>
> Yes.
>
> And they should be. And as a result, they are afraid to speak up. Because
> they are afraid to be linked to the Nazi-regime that ruled in the thirties
> and forties.
>
> I know that it soinds weird, but Germans are actually quite friendly to most
> people. Most of them really dont care about the color of your skin opr your
> religion.
>
> And i know all the stories from my father, who was in Dresden in 42-45. He
> claimed that most Germans he worked with were NOT Nazis. I never understood
> that as a tenager. I do now.
>
> And what happened way back then... yeah, its weird. Its weird what a group
> of large and stupid people are capable of. Given the right (wrong)
> conditions and someone with short statue and great knowledge of
> mass-psychology.
>
> But the Germans were living in extreme poverty (as a direct result of WW1)
> and cannot be compared with the situation we are dealing with in Europe now.
> Europe is wealthy. We are doing fine. As i speak, The Netherlands has the
> lowest rate, about 3%, of unemployed of all Europe. Followed closely by
> Denmark.
>
> Anyone who thinks we need a scapegoat for anything is just a fucking idiot.
> Scapegoat for what?
> We almost drown in wealth. Even people who live on welfare for MANY years
> are buying supersized fridges and 50 inch screens.
>
> > I told her the lesson to be learned was that even civilized people can
> > become uncivilized, under the right conditions.
>
> Wrong conditions...
>
> The only thing i can say at this moment is this;
>
> The "mussys" are fucking with Europe in a bad, BAD, terrible way. And a lot
> of Europeans are still blindfolded.
> I want them dead. I want them ALL dead.
>
> Or they can leave. I prefer that. I really do. And that shouldnt be a
> problem. Most of have 2 nationalities.
>
> But... if they stay, we CANNOT live in peace with them. It can NOT happen
> and it it will NOT happen.
>
> >> Perhaps Sarkozy can set of a chain reaction. A domino effect.
> > We can hope. Too bad he's not as hot as his opponent was.
>
> Sarky is a cute little fella. If i met him, i will tap him on his head (4
> times)
> Anyone who opposes the "mussys" cant be all bad...
>
> --
> Pete



Seems to me that the Europeans are like the fatty who smokes and eats
junk food and then wants to sue McDonald's for his health problems.
Why were Euros not making enough babies? Too stoned to do one's own
manual labor? So now the natives of former colonies have turned the
former empires into colonies...can't y'all appreciate the poetic
effect of irony? Like some rich boy with a case of AIDS after a wild
night out, hehe....

I actually live in a Muslim neigbhorhood here in NYC. I can certify
that the women are hot hot hot. Big breasts, a big but round ass, a
thin waist and beautiful faces. Maybe only the pretty ones wind up
making it to America, but I can think of worse fates than having to
live in an Islamic society where I can have four of such girls!

Like the current one with the Jews running things, forcing
homosexuality on the popular imagination....

Just playing devil's advocate...I say, it's nothing more than a matter
of choosing your poison...there's really no difference between Pepsi
and Coke and Fanta, I say...Israel or Ishmael -- what's the
difference? Those Semites will fuck you up one way or the other --
it's in their own Holy Books, how they cheated and genocided their way
across the Middle East!


=)

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:

>> David, i read the article, and i think its a misinterpretation on your
>> part.

> It is, and it's also just wrong. It's not a ban on using those words, it's
> a ban on using them as a way of describing the current bunch of
> terrorists.

I meant that David was wrong because it seems the article implied that GB
was forcing his ministers to avoid certain terms, while its the EU that is
trying to shove "political correctness" down their throat.

> And, as the first commenter points out, there is some sense in this. The
> terrorists are, or at least claim to be, muslims, no doubt about it.

Eh... when someone claims that he is "muslim", he/she/IT IS "muslim." Last
time i checked, you dont need a certificate to proof that you are "muslim."
You are because you *SAY* you are.

> But there are quite a few people who are also muslims who are not
> terrorists, and don't support the terrorists.

Lying to infidils is "taqiyaa." Thats part of the "islamic" "religion."

And "islam" is NOT a religion! Its a *political* *indoctrination* that is
passed on by birth!

> So, calling the terrorists "muslim terrorists" is a bit of a slap in the
> face to them.

I disagree. They were "muslim" AND terrorists, so the are "muslim"
terrrists.

> How would papists have felt if we'd called the IRA "catholic terrorists"?

They ARE catholic terrorists, arent they?

> I can promise you that if some inbred loonjobs from Podunk, Alabama came
> over the the UK and started blowing things up because they didn't like us
> driving on the left, and we started calling them "American terrorists",
> you'd be the first person to launch a cuss-filled tirade against us for
> it. We really don't gain anything by needlessly antagonising non-terrorist
> muslims, so why do it?

Because they are needlessly undermining Europe?

Slowly.

Sorry man, but i stopped giving a flying fuck about those retards a long
time ago.
They wont get any sympathy from me. Not anymore.

> Anyway, look, the word to use here is "islamist"; it means something
> specific, a belief that islamic teachings should be extended to the
> political sphere, whether people like it or not, and it accurately
> describes the agenda of these terrorists. It's accurate, precise, and not
> offensive (well, not very), so why don't we just use it?

Why should be NOT be offensive to "muslims"?

They are offensive towards us.

I think THAT is what David is trying to say.

We ARE afraid to offend them!

I say fuck em. FUCK EM!

I hope mosqs are going to be blown to Smithereens. See if they like it. I
sure as hell do!

>> Its the **FUCKING** EU that is trying to shove those guidelines down the
>> throats of the people in the British Government.

> Yep. I'm generally pretty europhile, but this does strike me as very
> silly.

The whole concept of this gigantic European superstate is silly.
You know what we should do? Form a North/West European union.

Ireland, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium,
Luxemburg, Austria and Spain & Italy.
And then build HUUUUGE iron curtain between us and Eastern Europe.

The unemployement rate, of that union i suggest, will take a nosedive!

Oh wait! It used to be like that way back then! Silly me...

And shield the Southern borders at the meditiranean coast

We really dont need, or want, Eastern Europe. We can use them as a "buffer"
between us the middle East. It used to be a buffer between us and the USSR,
but that seems obsolete right now.

Georgie is talking with Vladimir about setting up a missile shield defense
system. Sure, a few things need to be smoothened out, but at least they are
talking.

I am on Vladimirs side. IF the middle Eastern "countries" are stupid enough
(and let us agree here that they ARE stupid) to attack us i prefer that the
base they are trying to get rid off is stationed in Russia instead of
Tsjechia. Thats practically next door!

I say we support Vladimir! Set up that defense system! In Russia! Let us
drink Vodka! Lets eat Caviar! Yeah!

>> Which the British will NOT accept!

> It's not up to the British people to accept it or not, since it's a
> direction aimed at governments.

Vote right. The other option is wrong.

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Seems to me that the Europeans are like the fatty who smokes and eats
> junk food and then wants to sue McDonald's for his health problems.

I am not sure if i understand this analogy. Despite my very viovid
imagination.

> Why were Euros not making enough babies?

Civilization? Birth control?

> Too stoned to do one's own
> manual labor?

Some drugs can actually improve your sex-life, if used wisely.

> So now the natives of former colonies have turned the
> former empires into colonies...

Eh, no.

You see, what they do is just screwing around here. These retards running
the Netherlands? Do you have any comprehension about the complex
infrastructure we have here?

The only experience these retards have is running a semi-desert.

>can't y'all appreciate the poetic
> effect of irony?

NO!

> Like some rich boy with a case of AIDS after a wild
> night out, hehe....

You come up with the weirdest amalogys...

> I actually live in a Muslim neigbhorhood here in NYC. I can certify
> that the women are hot hot hot. Big breasts, a big but round ass...

I never said the women were ugly. Yes, they ARE pretty. Some of them.
And yes, they are build better than Dutch women. More feminin.

> a thin waist and beautiful faces.

Prettiest girl i ever saw in junior high was a Turkish girl. She was
gorgeous. Her brother was the ugliest creature i ever saw. And each
succeeding year, he become more uglier.

He looked like as if scientist were trying to clone a Chinses, but failed.
Shit, i even found pictures of him, since i checked out the site of the
school i went. Scary...

If you saw them, it was extremely hard to accept they were dirct
relatives...

> Maybe only the pretty ones wind up
> making it to America, but I can think of worse fates than having to
> live in an Islamic society where I can have four of such girls!

Sounds good to me.

> Like the current one with the Jews running things, forcing
> homosexuality on the popular imagination....

Huh?

> Just playing devil's advocate...I say, it's nothing more than a matter
> of choosing your poison...there's really no difference between Pepsi
> and Coke and Fanta, I say...Israel or Ishmael -- what's the
> difference? Those Semites will fuck you up one way or the other --
> it's in their own Holy Books, how they cheated and genocided their way
> across the Middle East!

Okay.

--
Pete

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> schreef:
>
>>> David, i read the article, and i think its a misinterpretation on your
>>> part.
>>
>> It is, and it's also just wrong. It's not a ban on using those words, it's
>> a ban on using them as a way of describing the current bunch of
>> terrorists.
>
> I meant that David was wrong because it seems the article implied that
> GB was forcing his ministers to avoid certain terms, while its the EU
> that is trying to shove "political correctness" down their throat.

I know. I was pointing out he'd misinterpreted it in another way as well.

>> And, as the first commenter points out, there is some sense in this. The
>> terrorists are, or at least claim to be, muslims, no doubt about it.
>
> Eh... when someone claims that he is "muslim", he/she/IT IS "muslim."
> Last time i checked, you dont need a certificate to proof that you are
> "muslim." You are because you *SAY* you are.

I don't agree. To be a muslim, you have to follow the rules of muslimness.
One of those rules is, i understand, not killing innocent people. If you
kill innocent people, you pretty much can't be a muslim. In much the way
that George Bush isn't really a christian.

> And "islam" is NOT a religion! Its a *political* *indoctrination* that
> is passed on by birth!

No, that's incorrect.

>> So, calling the terrorists "muslim terrorists" is a bit of a slap in the
>> face to them.
>
> I disagree. They were "muslim" AND terrorists, so the are "muslim"
> terrrists.
>
>> How would papists have felt if we'd called the IRA "catholic terrorists"?
>
> They ARE catholic terrorists, arent they?

Yes. They were also human terrorists, male terrorists, mostly right-handed
terrorists, etc. Those aren't good descriptions either.

>> Anyway, look, the word to use here is "islamist"; it means something
>> specific, a belief that islamic teachings should be extended to the
>> political sphere, whether people like it or not, and it accurately
>> describes the agenda of these terrorists. It's accurate, precise, and
>> not offensive (well, not very), so why don't we just use it?
>
> Why should be NOT be offensive to "muslims"?
>
> They are offensive towards us.

NOT ALL OF THEM. I know a few muslims, and they're all good people.
They're each ten times the person that Cohen is. I see no reason to think
millions of other muslims aren't the same.

>>> Its the **FUCKING** EU that is trying to shove those guidelines down the
>>> throats of the people in the British Government.
>>
>> Yep. I'm generally pretty europhile, but this does strike me as very
>> silly.
>
> The whole concept of this gigantic European superstate is silly.

Agreed.

> You know what we should do? Form a North/West European union.

What? No.

> Ireland, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany, France,
> Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria and Spain & Italy.

I'm not joining anything with Spain, Italy or Austria in it. Ireland is
going to be more trouble than it's worth.

The UK, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, maybe Germany if they're good.
That'll do.

> And then build HUUUUGE iron curtain between us and Eastern Europe.
>
> The unemployement rate, of that union i suggest, will take a nosedive!
>
> Oh wait! It used to be like that way back then! Silly me...

Yes, silly you. Without cheap immigrant labour, the city i live in would
collapse into anarchy inside a week, so no thanks.

> And shield the Southern borders at the meditiranean coast

No, burn down the european countries bordering the med, and use them as a
buffer zone.

> Georgie is talking with Vladimir about setting up a missile shield
> defense system. Sure, a few things need to be smoothened out, but at
> least they are talking.
>
> I am on Vladimirs side. IF the middle Eastern "countries" are stupid
> enough (and let us agree here that they ARE stupid) to attack us i
> prefer that the base they are trying to get rid off is stationed in
> Russia instead of Tsjechia. Thats practically next door!

The UK is sort of in the process of putting a ship-based BMD system into
action, which avoids the whole problem. SLBMs vs ICBMs all over again.

> I say we support Vladimir! Set up that defense system! In Russia!

Also, Russian BMD technology is vastly better than American.

> Let us drink Vodka!

Yeah!

> Lets eat Caviar!

No!

> Yeah!

Yeah!

tom

--
3118110161 Pies

On Jul 6, 3:38 am, "Pete" <phouts...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>
> I am not sure if i understand this analogy. Despite my very viovid
> imagination.

"You make your bed and you lie in it."

> Civilization? Birth control?

Low sperm count and WWII, I think. =)

> Some drugs can actually improve your sex-life, if used wisely.

LOL...I think those drugs just make people think that, that's all!

> Eh, no.
>
> You see, what they do is just screwing around here. These retards running
> the Netherlands? Do you have any comprehension about the complex
> infrastructure we have here?
>
> The only experience these retards have is running a semi-desert.

I'm just saying that they're taking over; whether that's a good thing
is not the point -- which is "you make your bed, you lie it in."

Besides, these things happen in cycles...obviously the West is in a
period of prolonged decline...it's just begun, but it's
happening...like a business cycle, no big deal. Those same desert
types were quite adept at running their Islamic empire when most of
Europe were still using perfumes since they didn't bathe but once a
week at most. Why, at least half of the heritage of which Spain is so
proud owes its grandeur to Muslim rule.

> NO!

Without an appreciation of poetry, one is no more than a soul burdened
by a corpse: a drop of semen today, a handful of ashes tomorrow
(Marcus Aurelius).

> You come up with the weirdest amalogys...

If the shoe fits, wear it!

> I never said the women were ugly. Yes, they ARE pretty. Some of them.
> And yes, they are build better than Dutch women. More feminin.

Well, I never said you said anything about Muslim women, I was just
bringing it up to make my other point about worse conceivable
fates....

> Prettiest girl i ever saw in junior high was a Turkish girl. She was
> gorgeous. Her brother was the ugliest creature i ever saw. And each
> succeeding year, he become more uglier.

Hmmm, sounds like some kinda classic love/hate relationship to me....

> He looked like as if scientist were trying to clone a Chinses, but failed.
> Shit, i even found pictures of him, since i checked out the site of the
> school i went. Scary...

Genghis Khan?

> If you saw them, it was extremely hard to accept they were dirct
> relatives...

Well, beauty and ugliness are but two sides of the same coin, aren't
they....

> Sounds good to me.

See, if the Mormons hadn't abandoned their polygamous teachings
(though only under threat of state violence, to be sure), most of the
world would be Mormon (Christian) instead of Muslim.

> Huh?

As Susan Sonntag noted, the Twentieth Century may be defined as being
informed by a Jewish concern for social justice and a homosexual
aesthetic in everyday life.

> Okay.

Yeah, so it's so grating to hear the Jews complain about the Holocaust
or the Muslims when, let's face it, it's monotheism itself which
creates that mindset of intolerance and fanaticism (one God = one
right way).

Of course, it must be noted that the Jews have since evolved away from
such primitive tribalism as enshrined in their holy books, but you
know, the Muslims of today are just the Jews of yesterday....

Don't get me wrong: I basically support Bush's War on Terror, and I
applaud a War on Islam as well (if only folks would have the balls to
just come out and do it). But let's not fool ourselves: we're not
much better, so let's cut the self-righteous crap about this. To me,
this Islam vs. Jews, Islam vs. the West, Islam vs. the World is a bit
like them bodybuilding contests where the contestants all look,
basically, the same...sure you can split hairs over whose ass has the
most striations, etc., but ultimately, they're basically the same, you
know....

> --
> Pete

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Pete wrote:

>> Why should be NOT be offensive to "muslims"?
>>
>> They are offensive towards us.
>
> NOT ALL OF THEM. I know a few muslims, and they're all good people.
> They're each ten times the person that Cohen is. I see no reason to think
> millions of other muslims aren't the same.

They're each ten times more talented at blowing up your cars and trains and
plains than I could ever be.

That doesn't seem to bother you.

Leave a draft "OK, I was wrong" post with a trusted person. After your
Muslim friends blow your ass into the next life, we can read your posthumous
words. Then we can all post our fond memories, like, "Ah, Tom, quite a fine
chap. Too bad he was so fatally naive."

David

Cohen wrote:
> "Tom Anderson" wrote
> > Pete wrote:
> >> Why should be NOT be offensive to "muslims"?
>
> >> They are offensive towards us.
>
> > NOT ALL OF THEM. I know a few muslims, and they're all good people.

I have had Muslim students. I suspect they canNOT build bombs. And,
yes, although I have no way of being certain of that suspicion's
accuracy, I'm going to stick with that position regardless of what you
say.

> > They're each ten times the person that Cohen is. I see no reason to think
> > millions of other muslims aren't the same.
>
> They're each ten times more talented at blowing up your cars and trains and
> plains

heh ) Plains.

While I guess there are terrorists hellbent on blowing up plains, I
suspect you meant planes. NOT that I'm correcting your spelling, of
course. I wouldn't do that.

> than I could ever be.

Oh, don't be so down on yourself, David.

> That doesn't seem to bother you.
>
> Leave a draft "OK, I was wrong"

Funny, you never struck me as a low self-esteem guy, but you do seem
to be all about the "OK, I was wrong" and "I was incorrect" recently.
What's up with that?

> post with a trusted person.

Trust no one.

(Well, except KING, naturally.)

> After your Muslim friends blow your ass into the next life,

Ouch.

> we can read your posthumous words. Then we can all
> post our fond memories, like, "Ah, Tom, quite a fine
> chap. Too bad he was so fatally naive."
>
> David

There's a question for the magic calculator/answer machine:

What are the odds of X person being shot in a driveby versus Y person
being blown to smithereens by a terrorist? Or, rewording that, Which
is more likely to take place, a) being blasted in a casino shootout or
b) being blown up by an IED?

--
Curt

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote
> Cohen wrote:

>> They're each ten times more talented at blowing up your cars and trains
>> and
>> plains
>
> heh ) Plains.
>
> While I guess there are terrorists hellbent on blowing up plains, I
> suspect you meant planes. NOT that I'm correcting your spelling, of
> course. I wouldn't do that.

Ever think I might occasionally throw in one of those just to pull your net
nanny puppet strings? The way Brink, Williams, et al, pull your troll puppet
strings?

DANCE, CURT, DANCE!!

Or, maybe I just fuck up spelling and grammer...or is that grammar?

> What are the odds of X person being shot in a driveby versus Y person
> being blown to smithereens by a terrorist? Or, rewording that, Which
> is more likely to take place, a) being blasted in a casino shootout or
> b) being blown up by an IED?

Tom has a higher chance of being blown up by an IED.

I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.

David

Cohen wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
> > Cohen wrote:
> >> They're each ten times more talented at blowing up your
> >> cars and trains and plains
>
> > heh ) Plains.
>
> > While I guess there are terrorists hellbent on blowing up
> > plains, I suspect you meant planes. NOT that I'm correcting
> > your spelling, of course. I wouldn't do that.
>
> Ever think

Occasionally, but I try to avoid that most of the time. Aneurysms, ya
know. OW! My brain!

> I might occasionally throw in one of those just to

Whatever the reason, David, I appreciate the word search aspect of it
all. Thank you veddy much!

(tosses KING a doggie treat)

> pull your net nanny puppet strings?

What is this net nanny puppet strings of which you speak?

> The way Brink, Williams, et al,

It's et al., David. Note the punctuation. An abbreviation for the
Latin phrase et alii meaning "and others."

(That's alii and not alli, the explosivegreasypoop thingy, btw.)

> pull your troll puppet strings?

Now you're just talking nonsense.

> DANCE, CURT, DANCE!!

(tosses KING another doggie treat)

He's in a festive mood, isn't he?

> Or, maybe I just [expletive deleted] up spelling and grammer...or is that grammar?

Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies! And, as an added bonus,
you'll also avoid all future instances of Oliver Goldsmith quotes.

> > What are the odds of X person being shot in a driveby versus Y person
> > being blown to smithereens by a terrorist? Or, rewording that, Which
> > is more likely to take place, a) being blasted in a casino shootout or
> > b) being blown up by an IED?
>
> Tom has a higher chance of being blown up by an IED.
>
> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.
>
> David

Oh, dear. Well, here's wishing neither event takes place.

A drink chip (and some more doggie treats for KING) awaits both you
and Tom at the MFW juice bar. Salud!

--
Curt

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.
>
Any local details on that casino shootout?

I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds. None
fatal. He was tackled while reloading. And he did the whole thing in the
presence of numerous military and LEO's as well as the casino security.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
>
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>>
>> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.
>>
> Any local details on that casino shootout?

It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out!

> I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds. None
> fatal. He was tackled while reloading. And he did the whole thing in the
> presence of numerous military and LEO's as well as the casino security.

My initial concern was the fact that they didn't release the name of the
shooter for quite a while. Definitely an "uh-oh, gonna' be Shadigg el
Towelhead", but, luckily, just a depressed nutjob.

<insert Tom/Curt> See, you can't pevent the random nutjob, so, let's not
bother preventing the camelfuckers from blowing us up. </Tom/Curt>

Nice that he got tackled by four tourists: two LEOs and two military
reservists. We have the best tourists.

Locals would have shot him.

David

In article <CV_ji.5492$Od7.4855@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>
> >> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.
> >>
> > Any local details on that casino shootout?
>
> It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out!
>
> > I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds. None
> > fatal. He was tackled while reloading. And he did the whole thing in the
> > presence of numerous military and LEO's as well as the casino security.
>
> My initial concern was the fact that they didn't release the name of the
> shooter for quite a while. Definitely an "uh-oh, gonna' be Shadigg el
> Towelhead", but, luckily, just a depressed nutjob.
>
> <insert Tom/Curt> See, you can't pevent the random nutjob, so, let's not
> bother preventing the camelfuckers from blowing us up. </Tom/Curt>
>
> Nice that he got tackled by four tourists: two LEOs and two military
> reservists. We have the best tourists.
>
> Locals would have shot him.
>
> David

Isn't licensed concealed carry verboten in casinos?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
>> > "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>> >>
>> >> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino
>> >> shootout.
>> >>
>> > Any local details on that casino shootout?
>>
>> It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out!
>>
>> > I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds.
>> > None
>> > fatal. He was tackled while reloading. And he did the whole thing in
>> > the
>> > presence of numerous military and LEO's as well as the casino security.
>>
>> My initial concern was the fact that they didn't release the name of the
>> shooter for quite a while. Definitely an "uh-oh, gonna' be Shadigg el
>> Towelhead", but, luckily, just a depressed nutjob.
>>
>> <insert Tom/Curt> See, you can't pevent the random nutjob, so, let's not
>> bother preventing the camelfuckers from blowing us up. </Tom/Curt>
>>
>> Nice that he got tackled by four tourists: two LEOs and two military
>> reservists. We have the best tourists.
>>
>> Locals would have shot him.
>
> Isn't licensed concealed carry verboten in casinos?

No.

Why would it be?

David

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 01:06:11 -0400, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>>
>> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.
>>
>Any local details on that casino shootout?
>
>I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds. None
>fatal. He was tackled while reloading.

Compared to San Francisco PD or LAPD officers responding to infamous armed bank robberies,
he's Annie Fucking Oakley.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:16:47 GMT, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote
>> Cohen wrote:
>
>>> They're each ten times more talented at blowing up your cars and trains
>>> and
>>> plains
>>
>> heh ) Plains.
>>
>> While I guess there are terrorists hellbent on blowing up plains, I
>> suspect you meant planes. NOT that I'm correcting your spelling, of
>> course. I wouldn't do that.
>
>Ever think I might occasionally throw in one of those just to pull your net
>nanny puppet strings? The way Brink, Williams, et al, pull your troll puppet
>strings?
>
>DANCE, CURT, DANCE!!
>
>Or, maybe I just fuck up spelling and grammer...or is that grammar?
>
>> What are the odds of X person being shot in a driveby versus Y person
>> being blown to smithereens by a terrorist? Or, rewording that, Which
>> is more likely to take place, a) being blasted in a casino shootout or
>> b) being blown up by an IED?
>
>Tom has a higher chance of being blown up by an IED.
>
>I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino shootout.

That's why psychos in casinos should be armed only with Kimbers with Wilson Combat mags.

In article <x00ki.5760$zA4.3521@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> > "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote
> >> > "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> I, apparently, have a higher chance of being shot in a casino
> >> >> shootout.
> >> >>
> >> > Any local details on that casino shootout?
> >>
> >> It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly, a shot rang out!
> >>
> >> > I understand that he was a lousy shot. 19 shots and only 4 wounds.
> >> > None
> >> > fatal. He was tackled while reloading. And he did the whole thing in
> >> > the
> >> > presence of numerous military and LEO's as well as the casino security.
> >>
> >> My initial concern was the fact that they didn't release the name of the
> >> shooter for quite a while. Definitely an "uh-oh, gonna' be Shadigg el
> >> Towelhead", but, luckily, just a depressed nutjob.
> >>
> >> <insert Tom/Curt> See, you can't pevent the random nutjob, so, let's not
> >> bother preventing the camelfuckers from blowing us up. </Tom/Curt>
> >>
> >> Nice that he got tackled by four tourists: two LEOs and two military
> >> reservists. We have the best tourists.
> >>
> >> Locals would have shot him.
> >
> > Isn't licensed concealed carry verboten in casinos?
>
> No.
>
> Why would it be?
>
> David

Ok, I re-checked our laws.
I guess that since alcohol is not the major source of income in a
casino, that statute would not cover it. ;-) Laws vary so much from
state to state. And we don't have Casinos here.

I'm glad to hear that it's not.

Thanks.

Now when I come to Vegas, I'll just have to check the Reciprocity.

But I'll visit there in the winter! ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Cohen wrote:
[...]

> <(snip)/Curt> (snip) <(snip)/Curt>

Your html is screwed.

/net nanny sarcasm

--
Curt