Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 15:58 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:46:46 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >When does Bush get impeached ? >> >> Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >> >> >When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >> >> Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >> >> But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >> We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. > >Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be >concerned about it. --- But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't, knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life accordingly. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 16:07 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:02:44 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. You're a real prize, fuckhead.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 16:08 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on >> >business if you want to meet up. >> >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >> >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity >> to use oxygen. > >I'd watch it if I were you. > >That could be seen as a threat. > Wrong again, dumbfuck.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 16:11 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4532835C.860016BC(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >> >> > The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her >> > military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. >> >> Only when our interests collide. Which has not been the case for all our >> "wars." > > There was that little matter over a certain canal though. > And a few islands where the US refused to provide assistance (although there was some, minimal, intelligence sharing). Not much US help in places like Malaya or Borneo either.
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 16:12
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:38:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:57 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on >>> >business if you want to meet up. >>> >>> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >>> >>> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity >>> to use oxygen. >> >>I'd watch it if I were you. >> >>That could be seen as a threat. > >Especially given that new law that applies in the US, about threats >made under pseudonyms, discussed elsewhere in sci.electronics. :) > Since it isn't a threat to begin with, dipshit, it has no bearing. |