The curse of the Terrierborg: corruption

[George Middius]

This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislature:

"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in
a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html


I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the victim of a
political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.



..
..

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislature:
>
> "SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
> Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in
> bribes in
> a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
> wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and
> antiques."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html
>
>
> I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the
> victim of a
> political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk
> response
> from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.
>
>

I'll trade you a Cunningham and a DeLay for a Trafficante and a Jefferson

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislature:
>
> "SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
> Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in
> bribes in
> a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
> wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and
> antiques."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html
>
>
> I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the
> victim of a
> political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk
> response
> from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.
>
>
>
You won't find me defending criminals, George, but this sort of pales in
comparison to things like the House Banking scandal or any of a host of
other government related **** ups. Let's not forget that Gray Davis is gone
becuase of how corrupt he was.

[George M. Middius]

The Bug Eater ****s himself right on cue.

> > Also, I expect a kneejerk response
> > from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.

> Let's not forget that Gray Davis is gone becuase of how corrupt he was.

Here's your bug, Mikey. You're an obedient entomophage.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>>
> You won't find me defending criminals, George, but this sort of pales in
> comparison to things like the House Banking scandal or any of a host of
> other government related **** ups. Let's not forget that Gray Davis is
> gone becuase of how corrupt he was.
>

and/or inept.

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
> This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislature:
>
> "SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
> Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in
> a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
> wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques."
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/congressman.shouse.ap/index.html
>
>
> I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the victim of a
> political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk response
> from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.

No, you won't. I'd like to see him crucified right after he testifies
against the corrupt contractors. 10 years isn't near enough and he
won't get that.

BTW, he's not my rep.... his district is full of the extremely
rich.... money apparently doesn't make people smart. Look closer
at this mess and you might begin to wonder how a scumbag like
Cunningham can get such a lock on a district. Between campaign
financing BS and gerrymandering.... we have no democracy nor
representation. Just a bunch of greedy power hungry lying *******s on
both sides of the aisle. Duke got stupid greedy as wanted to be as
rich as some of his constituents he had to smooze.


Check this joke of a reform out

http://tinyurl.com/bh9tj

and it supposedly going to be the "strongest law in the nation".

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
The more money in a campaign the less free speech. The wealthy special
interest candidate can drown everyone else out screaming louder and
longer in media domination leaving the average voter with a headache
and only one message ringing in their hollow heads.
How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?

ScottW

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
> This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislature:
>

This is what happens when democrats take over city hall.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/guilty-verdict-in-esl-voter-fraud.html


Here's a nice little timeline showing the rampant corruption in both
parties.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/ga/country.aspx?cc=us&act=timeline


ScottW

[George Middius]

Scottw said:

>Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.


..
..
..

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
> Scottw said:
>
> >Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
>
> That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.
>


So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?

ScottW

[George Middius]

The fleas are bitin' today.

>> >Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

>> That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.

> So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
>is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?

That revelation must have rocked your world, Scooter. You asked, and I answered.
What? You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to blame the other party
for the problem? Wow. I'm impressed with your rhetorical acumen and ironclad
principles. You deserve a medal -- a "debating trade" medal. How would that suit
you? ;-)



..
..

[ScottW]

George Middius wrote:
> The fleas are bitin' today.
>
> >> >Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
>
> >> That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.
>
> > So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
> >is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?
>
> That revelation must have rocked your world, Scooter. You asked, and I answered.

I even accepted your answer without proof and gave you perfect
opportunity to show a superior democratic position on the issue.... yet
all you can do is whine about republicans in typical do-nothing but
bitch fashion.

> What? You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to blame the other party
> for the problem?

I seek solutions. The history of campaing finance is too tangled and
sordid to get stuck on the stupidity of who's at fault.

> Wow. I'm impressed with your rhetorical acumen and ironclad
> principles. You deserve a medal -- a "debating trade" medal. How would that suit
> you? ;-)

Bottom line... you can't show me the dems will fix the problem....
you, like your party, do nothing but bitch about republicans but offer
nothing of a legislative agenda to show us how you would do better.
What a waste. I hate democrats for offering nothing to America in the
way of an agenda.... you useless whiny ****s couldn't unseat an idiot
like bush who felt so unthreatened he could abondon his conservative
base, support immigration amnesty, and still win.

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

ScottW

[Schizoid Man]

ScottW wrote:

> Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
> left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
> presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
> a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
> he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
> there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
> idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
> have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
> he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

[ScottW]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
> > left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
> > presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
> > a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
> > he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
> > there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
> > idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
> > have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
> > he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.
>
> I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
> honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
> on 99% of the issues.

I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
there is no difference
between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
filter.
>
> If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
> decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
> decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
little attention, immigration, energy.
>
> I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
> consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
> blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
> the Left and the Right.

it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
secularism is also a point of view not universally held.

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.

ScottW

[Lionel]

In >, Schizoid Man wrote :

> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
>> left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
>> presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
>> a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
>> he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
>> there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
>> idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
>> have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
>> he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.
>
> I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
> honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
> on 99% of the issues.
>
> If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
> decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
> decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

Absolutly true.
If Middius' lobby and similars haven't put so much pressure on the democrat
candidat he would have been elected in place of this ******* of G.W. Bush.


> I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
> consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
> blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
> the Left and the Right.

Don't be so pessimistic.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
..
> How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
> virtually no political track record?
>

By following Hillary's footprints.

[Clyde Slick]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottw said:
>
>>Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
>
> That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.
>


yes, you can have as much free speech as you can afford!

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
> > virtually no political track record?

> By following Hillary's footprints.

Sir Edmund Hillary?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >>Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

> > That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.

> yes, you can have as much free speech as you can afford!

Scooter can't talk now because he's busy fulminating.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
>> > virtually no political track record?
>
>> By following Hillary's footprints.
>
> Sir Edmund Hillary?
>

I meant the frigid bitch not the frozen *******.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
>> left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
>> presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
>> a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
>> he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
>> there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
>> idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
>> have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
>> he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.
>
> I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
> honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans on
> 99% of the issues.
>
> If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
> decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
> decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.
>
If you think a bit more, you'll resalize that it was around 1980 when the
Democrats got 50% of the vote in a presidential election, yet they want us
to believe they are the mainstream.

> I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
> Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
> personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.

No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> > Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
>> > left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
>> > presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
>> > a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
>> > he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
>> > there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
>> > idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
>> > have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
>> > he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.
>>
>> I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
>> honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
>> on 99% of the issues.
>
> I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
> there is no difference
> between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
> the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
> guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
> something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
> Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
> Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
> muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
> in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
> basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
> I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
> my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
> filter.
>>
>> If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
>> decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
>> decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.
>
> There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
> of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
> little attention, immigration, energy.
>>
>> I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
>> consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
>> blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
>> the Left and the Right.
>
> it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
> that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
> extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
> their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
> secularism is also a point of view not universally held.
>
> Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
> growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
> to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
> liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
> that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
> halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
> recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
> by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
> style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
> much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.
>
The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Clyde Slick said:
>>
>>> > How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
>>> > virtually no political track record?
>>
>>> By following Hillary's footprints.
>>
>> Sir Edmund Hillary?
>>
>
> I meant the frigid bitch not the frozen *******.
>
I understand she once claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund, evn
though he had not become a household name when she was hatched.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey needs to be hurted again.

> > I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
> > Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
> > personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.

> No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

Mickey, this kind of nonsense is a prime example of why everybody calls
you an idiot. Or maybe everybody except Arnii Krooger, who is so much
smarter than the rest of us and never, ever causes trouble on Usenet. ;-)

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
>>I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
>>Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
>>personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.
>
>
> No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

Oh yeah, I forgot your school of science is the one that rejects
empirical evidence.

[Schizoid Man]

wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message

>>Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
>>growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
>>to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
>>liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
>>that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
>>halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
>>recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
>>by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
>>style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
>>much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.
>>
>
> The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
> of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
> Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

True. One of the reasons that the United States is not (yet) going down
the road of social and economic meltdown like Germany or France. There
is a large, young, working population whose tax contributions are enough
to keep social services sustainable.

That being said, I honestly could not give a toss whether a man wants to
marry another, or whether Darwin's book contributes one sentence in the
Bible.

How about a debate on energy, trade and the economy? Personally, I'd
forget about the war on terror. I think I've heard the words 'freedom',
'democracy' and 'victory' mentioned enough for several lifespans.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> >> ScottW wrote:
> >>
> >> > Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
> >> > left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
> >> > presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
> >> > a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
> >> > he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
> >> > there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
> >> > idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
> >> > have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
> >> > he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.
> >>
> >> I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
> >> honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
> >> on 99% of the issues.
> >
> > I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
> > there is no difference
> > between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
> > the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
> > guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
> > something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
> > Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
> > Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
> > muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
> > in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
> > basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
> > I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
> > my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
> > filter.
> >>
> >> If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
> >> decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
> >> decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.
> >
> > There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
> > of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
> > little attention, immigration, energy.
> >>
> >> I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
> >> consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
> >> blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
> >> the Left and the Right.
> >
> > it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
> > that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
> > extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
> > their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
> > secularism is also a point of view not universally held.
> >
> > Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
> > growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
> > to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
> > liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
> > that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
> > halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
> > recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
> > by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
> > style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
> > much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.
> >
> The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
> of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.

Depends when you factor out the immigrants but in general...we'd be
slightly increasing to flat.

> Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
encourages in the US.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> >>Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
> >>growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
> >>to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
> >>liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
> >>that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
> >>halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
> >>recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
> >>by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
> >>style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
> >>much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.
> >>
> >
> > The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
> > of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
> > Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
>
> True. One of the reasons that the United States is not (yet) going down
> the road of social and economic meltdown like Germany or France. There
> is a large, young, working population whose tax contributions are enough
> to keep social services sustainable.

Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
million or more added to the mix?

ScottW

[Schizoid Man]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>"ScottW" > wrote in message

>>Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
>
>
> Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
> immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
> encourages in the US.

Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
in the States.

[Schizoid Man]

ScottW wrote:

> Schizoid Man wrote:

> Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
> population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
> population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
> then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
> indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
> million or more added to the mix?

On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to Tookie?

[ScottW]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
>
> > Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
> > population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
> > population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
> > then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
> > indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
> > million or more added to the mix?
>
> On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to Tookie?

Same thing that happenned to his victims.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> >>Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
> >
> >
> > Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
> > immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
> > encourages in the US.
>
> Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
> our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
> in the States.

and your families managed to immigrate here legally I presume.

ScottW

[Schizoid Man]

ScottW wrote:
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>>ScottW wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
>>>immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
>>>encourages in the US.
>>
>>Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
>>our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
>>in the States.
>
>
> and your families managed to immigrate here legally I presume.

Completely legal.

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...


>. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
>mentioned enough for several lifespans.

I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...

>
> Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and our
> finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here in
> the States.

and so, all over the world. your diaspora is even more than we Jews.

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>> Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
>> population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
>> population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
>> then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
>> indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
>> million or more added to the mix?
>
> On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to
> Tookie?

Let the Bloods handle him.

[Margaret von B.]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>>>I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
>>>Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For
>>>me personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the
>>>Right.
>>
>>
>> No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot your school of science is the one that rejects empirical
> evidence.

The only rejection that is really at work here is Scott's wife's rejection
of him. She's probably discovered that size *does* matter....

Cheers,

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> >. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
> >mentioned enough for several lifespans.

> I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

When they're mouthed by a twerp like Dubya and his evil cohort, they lose
all meaning.

[Schizoid Man]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
>>. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
>>mentioned enough for several lifespans.
>
> I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

Admirable ideals, no doubt. However, how exactly would you define 'total
victory' in Iraq?

There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
vanquish to be totally victorious?

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>>>. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
>>>mentioned enough for several lifespans.
>>
>> I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.
>
> Admirable ideals, no doubt. However, how exactly would you define 'total
> victory' in Iraq?
>
> There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
> vanquish to be totally victorious?


Same as total victory against:
SLA
Red Brigade
Bader-Meinhof Gang
Black Panthers

That is, when they become to weak, disorganized,
and dispirited to reamin a viable threat.

[Schizoid Man]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

>>There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
>>vanquish to be totally victorious?
>
> Same as total victory against:
> SLA
> Red Brigade
> Bader-Meinhof Gang
> Black Panthers
>
> That is, when they become to weak, disorganized,
> and dispirited to reamin a viable threat.

Tell me you didn't just compare the Islamic extremism to the 50-member SLA?

Isn't that sort of an apples and oranges comparison?

Or more like Mount Everest to a small molehill?

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
>>>There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
>>>vanquish to be totally victorious?
>>
>> Same as total victory against:
>> SLA
>> Red Brigade
>> Bader-Meinhof Gang
>> Black Panthers
>>
>> That is, when they become to weak, disorganized,
>> and dispirited to reamin a viable threat.
>
> Tell me you didn't just compare the Islamic extremism to the 50-member
> SLA?
>
> Isn't that sort of an apples and oranges comparison?
>
> Or more like Mount Everest to a small molehill?

No, I just told you the conditions for victory.
The analogy was to the conditions.

"At least" you admit that Al Queda is a much greater threat
than those other terrorists, yes, the comparable threat level
is like a molehill to Mount Everest. I am glad you recognize that.
Fight, or flight?

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote

> and so, all over the world. your diaspora is even more than we Jews.

Are you really a jewish ?
I remember that you told me that you don't believe in God and that you
wasn't religious.
Is Jewish a religious word or an ethnic one ?

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> Schizoid Man wrote:
>
>> Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
>> population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
>> population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
>> then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
>> indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
>> million or more added to the mix?
>
> On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to
> Tookie?

Sooner rather than later. He's still guilty, 4 people are still dead, and
he can't evern tell the truth about his trial. He claims, and the media
let's it go unchallenged, that he was convicted because he had an all white
jury, which I guess is news for two of the jurors, a Black and a Hispanic.

Then of course there's the AP story that he's still involved in running the
Crips.

What the **** is the deal about his being co-author of a book for kids?
What did it sell? About 35,000 copies.
http://www.johnandkenshow.com/blogimages/tookievictim3adweb.jpg

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/blogimages/tookievictim1adweb.jpg

http://www.johnandkenshow.com/blogimages/tookievictim1adweb.jpg

Aside from the fact that I don't beleive that he's been redeemed or
rehabilitated, or whatever he's claiming, the people in the above pictures
will never see the light of day again.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>
>>>Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
>>
>>
>> Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
>> immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
>> encourages in the US.
>
> Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and our
> finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here in
> the States.

As is the case for the vast majority of legal immigrants to the U.S..

Most of them are here to pursue the freedom and prospertity that is the
logical consequence of obeying the law, getting a good education, and
working hard.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>>>I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
>>>Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For
>>>me personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the
>>>Right.
>>
>>
>> No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot your school of science is the one that rejects empirical
> evidence.

Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Schizoid Man > wrote:

> ScottW wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> >>Perhaps the birth rate has changed?
> >
> >
> > Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
> > immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
> > encourages in the US.
>
> Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
> our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
> in the States.

Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
"can't afford" it.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

> Is Jewish a religious word or an ethnic one ?
>

That is an excellent and very perceptive question.
It is both; Jewish has two different meanings,
ethic and religious.
One can be ethnically a Jew and not be religious,
however, a religious Jew is always considered
an ethnic Jew, even if he/she is a convert.
That is automatic acceptance into the clan.
Of course, the above is a statement in general.

In particular, the Jewish religion accepts one as a Jew, even though one is
not religious.
This is as long as one's mother was Jewish, and she
need not be a religious Jew.

This can get very complicated, for there are
several branches of Juddaism. There can be
a situation like this:

A person is converted to be Jewish in America
in a Reformed or even Conservative synagogue;
however, it the person were to emigrate
to Israel, he would not be considered Jewish until he
converts again, in an Orthodox synagogue.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>

VIive La France!!!

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...

..
>
> Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
> "can't afford" it.
>

Gee, you would think a richer family would have more fields to plow!

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote :

> Jewish has two different meanings,
> ethic and religious.

Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> .
> >
> > Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
> > "can't afford" it.
> >
>
> Gee, you would think a richer family would have more fields to plow!

They can afford to hire field-hands and move to the city. Or raise
subdivisions instead.

Stephen

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>
>
> VIive La France!!!

"Vive la France" only one "i".

BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?

Good I guess that once again it is one of your

Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>
>
> VIive La France!!!

"Vive la France" only one "i".

BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?

I guess that once again it is part of your republican propaganda. Just like
WMDs...

Good job, Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
the political dogmas. What a progress ! what a courageous man you are ! ;-)




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>> Jewish has two different meanings,
>> ethic and religious.
>
> Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D
>

Considering ethical implications of behavior is a big
part of Jewish religious thought. I know it is
difficult for
you to understand Judaism, but thenks for trying anyway.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> .
>> >
>> > Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
>> > "can't afford" it.
>> >
>>
>> Gee, you would think a richer family would have more fields to plow!
>
> They can afford to hire field-hands and move to the city. Or raise
> subdivisions instead.
>

Raze farms to raise subdivisions.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>>
>>
>> VIive La France!!!
>
> "Vive la France" only one "i".
>
> BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
> above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?
>
> Good I guess that once again it is one of your
>
> Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
> political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)
>

Mikey is the one who wrote that.
Now, turn your attention back to your pitiful
country and tax yourself into prosperity.

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>> Jewish has two different meanings,
>>> ethic and religious.
>>
>> Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D
>>
>
> Considering ethical implications of behavior is a big
> part of Jewish religious thought.

This is the same for all the religions, Arthur.
You are reinventing the evidences. You was the dunce of the theology class,
don't you ?

> I know it is
> difficult for
> you to understand Judaism

Not especialy more difficult than to understand the monotheist religions in
general. Why do you say that ? What are you imagining ?



> but thenks for trying anyway.


Is it an other freudian slip ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> .
> >> >
> >> > Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
> >> > "can't afford" it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gee, you would think a richer family would have more fields to plow!
> >
> > They can afford to hire field-hands and move to the city. Or raise
> > subdivisions instead.
> >
>
> Raze farms to raise subdivisions.

Yes!

Stephen

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>>>
>>>
>>> VIive La France!!!
>>
>> "Vive la France" only one "i".
>>
>> BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
>> above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?
>>
>> Good I guess that once again it is one of your
>>
>> Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
>> political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)
>>
>
> Mikey is the one who wrote that.
> Now, turn your attention back to your pitiful
> country and tax yourself into prosperity.

Who has written "VIive La France!!!" ? Mikey ?
If yes, so many apologizes.

If it's you Arthur, my answer to you remains opportune.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>> Jewish has two different meanings,
>>> ethic and religious.
>>
>> Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D
>>
>
> Considering ethical implications of behavior is a big
> part of Jewish religious thought.

This is the same for all the religions, Arthur.
You are reinventing the obviousness. You was the dunce of the theology
class, don't you ?

> I know it is
> difficult for
> you to understand Judaism

Not especialy more difficult than to understand the monotheist religions in
general. Why do you say that ? What are you imagining ?



> but thenks for trying anyway.


Is it an other freudian slip ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> The fleas are bitin' today.
>
>>> >Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
>
>>> That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.
>
>> So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
>>is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?
>
> That revelation must have rocked your world, Scooter. You asked, and I
> answered.
> What? You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to blame the other
> party
> for the problem? Wow. I'm impressed with your rhetorical acumen and
> ironclad
> principles. You deserve a medal -- a "debating trade" medal. How would
> that suit
> you? ;-)
>
>
>
Lack of answer to question noted. As usual.
I nominate George for Poster Boy of the Do Nothng But Bitch Party.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>> Jewish has two different meanings,
>>>> ethic and religious.
>>>
>>> Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D
>>>
>>
>> Considering ethical implications of behavior is a big
>> part of Jewish religious thought.
>
> This is the same for all the religions, Arthur.
> You are reinventing the evidences. You was the dunce of the theology
> class,
> don't you ?
>

Not to the extent and pervasiveness that it is in Judaism, among the
religious.
I am not saying Jews are more ethical, they
just study it and argue about it more.

You can accept it or not, it's waht I have seen.



>> I know it is
>> difficult for
>> you to understand Judaism
>
> Not especialy more difficult than to understand the monotheist religions
> in
> general. Why do you say that ? What are you imagining ?
>
> >
>> but thenks for trying anyway.
>
>
> Is it an other freudian slip ? ;-)
>
>


My Freudian finger slipped, as always.
>
> --
> "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
> But what's new around here?"
>
> Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> .
>> >> >
>> >> > Besides, family size drops when income increases, not because they
>> >> > "can't afford" it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Gee, you would think a richer family would have more fields to plow!
>> >
>> > They can afford to hire field-hands and move to the city. Or raise
>> > subdivisions instead.
>> >
>>
>> Raze farms to raise subdivisions.
>
> Yes!
>

AS long as Americans have lots of babaies babies and immigrants come to the
US,more
farms will be razed for subdivision. Also, here in Washington, each time the
governemnt grows, there are more jobs, nore
consultants and more people needing houses.

This happens continuously, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> VIive La France!!!
>>>
>>> "Vive la France" only one "i".
>>>
>>> BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
>>> above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?
>>>
>>> Good I guess that once again it is one of your
>>>
>>> Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
>>> political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Mikey is the one who wrote that.
>> Now, turn your attention back to your pitiful
>> country and tax yourself into prosperity.
>
> Who has written "VIive La France!!!" ? Mikey ?
> If yes, so many apologizes.
>
> If it's you Arthur, my answer to you remains opportune.
>
>

I assumed you wer referring to:
"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
when you said
"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)"

Mikey was the one who said:
"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."

[Ruud Broens]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
:
: > Yes!
: >
:
: AS long as Americans have lots of babaies babies and immigrants come to the
: US,more
: farms will be razed for subdivision. Also, here in Washington, each time the
: governemnt grows, there are more jobs, nore
: consultants and more people needing houses.
:
: This happens continuously, whether Democrats or Republicans are in charge.
:
he, are you about to market O'clyde'decoders, slick ?

btw, that Krookoder wit module patch i got from Sander
comes highly recommended,
i'll note
R.

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>
>>>>> Jewish has two different meanings,
>>>>> ethic and religious.
>>>>
>>>> Your freudian slips are always very loquacious. :-D
>>>>
>>>
>>> Considering ethical implications of behavior is a big
>>> part of Jewish religious thought.
>>
>> This is the same for all the religions, Arthur.
>> You are reinventing the evidences. You was the dunce of the theology
>> class,
>> don't you ?
>>
>
> Not to the extent and pervasiveness that it is in Judaism, among the
> religious.


This is because you don't know the european life.


> I am not saying Jews are more ethical,


I understood that.


> they
> just study it and argue about it more.


When I see fundamentalist morons like GeoStink I seriously doubt of the
above.


> You can accept it or not, it's waht I have seen.


You also use to speak tons about France and you have never leave CDG
terminal. So... :-(



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> VIive La France!!!
>>>>
>>>> "Vive la France" only one "i".
>>>>
>>>> BTW I'm afraid that you will not be able to prove what you have written
>>>> above. Any OCDE statistics to support your claim ?
>>>>
>>>> Good I guess that once again it is one of your
>>>>
>>>> Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>>> the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mikey is the one who wrote that.
>>> Now, turn your attention back to your pitiful
>>> country and tax yourself into prosperity.
>>
>> Who has written "VIive La France!!!" ? Mikey ?
>> If yes, so many apologizes.
>>
>> If it's you Arthur, my answer to you remains opportune.
>>
>>
>
> I assumed you wer referring to:
> "Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
> when you said
> "Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
> political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)"


I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
"VIive La France!!!"


> Mikey was the one who said:
> "Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, Ruud Broens wrote :

>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : > Yes!
> : >
> :
> : AS long as Americans have lots of babaies babies and immigrants come to
> : the US,more
> : farms will be razed for subdivision. Also, here in Washington, each time
> : the governemnt grows, there are more jobs, nore
> : consultants and more people needing houses.
> :
> : This happens continuously, whether Democrats or Republicans are in
> : charge.
> :
> he, are you about to market O'clyde'decoders, slick ?


LOL, Sackman/Tsechmeister's english is just a little bit better than mine
this is why I'm one of his prefered interlocutor. :-D


> btw, that Krookoder wit module patch i got from Sander
> comes highly recommended,
> i'll note
> R.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> This is because you don't know the european life.
>
>

I am beginning to experience the better part of it,
that is, not France.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I assumed you wer referring to:
>> "Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>> when you said
>> "Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for the
>> political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are ! ;-)"
>
>
> I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
> "VIive La France!!!"
>

Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
made it all happen.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
> made it all happen.

France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.

[Lionel]

Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> I assumed you wer referring to:
>>> "Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>>> when you said
>>> "Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>> the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>> ;-)"
>>
>>
>> I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>> "VIive La France!!!"
>>
>
> Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
> made it all happen.


Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> This is because you don't know the european life.
>>
>>
>
> I am beginning to experience the better part of it,
> that is, not France.


Agreed.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Jenn]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
> > made it all happen.
>
> France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
> better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.

Thank God.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>> made it all happen.
>
> France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
> better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.
>

at a cost of about 15,000 cars.

our degree of separation is about right.
No school led prayers.
Darwinism in, intellient design, out
we can still say Merry Christmas in the school hallway.
Jewish teachers can still wear a "yalmake".
Now, Let's hear from Slutella!

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>> "Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>>>> when you said
>>>> "Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>>> the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>>> ;-)"
>>>
>>>
>>> I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>> "VIive La France!!!"
>>>
>>
>> Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>> made it all happen.
>
>
> Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>

Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :



> Now, Let's hear from Slutella!




LOL !!!
Arthur, your wink is as subtle as a whore's proposal. :-D




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>>>"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>>>>>when you said
>>>>>"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>>>>the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>>>>;-)"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>>>"VIive La France!!!"
>>>>
>>>
>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>made it all happen.
>>
>>
>>Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>>
>
>
> Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.



You're a dunce Arthur, deal with it.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>>I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>>>>"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>>>>>>when you said
>>>>>>"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>>>>>the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>>>>>;-)"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>>>>"VIive La France!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>>made it all happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.
>
>
>
> You're a dunce Arthur, deal with it.
>

So, illuminate all of us, please, tell us all about France's
prospertity, and how high taxes
made it all happen.

[Lionel]

Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :


> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>>>>>"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you get."
>>>>>>>when you said
>>>>>>>"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets for
>>>>>>>the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are !
>>>>>>>;-)"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>>>>>"VIive La France!!!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>>>made it all happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.
>>
>>
>>
>>You're a dunce Arthur, deal with it.
>>
>
>
> So, illuminate all of us, please, tell us all about France's
> prospertity, and how high taxes
> made it all happen.


Why are you such a dunce Sackman/Tsechmeister ?

Let me remember you the origin of this exchange :
McKelvy has written : "The more you tax, the less prosperity you get"
*You* have answered : "VIive La France!!!"

Now if you want to compare France prosperity with the rest of the world
I suggest you to check the OECD statistics resources :
http://www.oecd.org/

BTW since you was speaking about the number of cars immolated during
november I suggest you to compare US/France criminality statistics and
let me have your comments. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>>>>>>"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you
>>>>>>>>get."
>>>>>>>>when you said
>>>>>>>>"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets
>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are
>>>>>>>>!
>>>>>>>>;-)"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>>>>>>"VIive La France!!!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>>>>made it all happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a dunce Arthur, deal with it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, illuminate all of us, please, tell us all about France's
>> prospertity, and how high taxes
>> made it all happen.
>
>
> Why are you such a dunce Sackman/Tsechmeister ?
>
> Let me remember you the origin of this exchange :
> McKelvy has written : "The more you tax, the less prosperity you get"
> *You* have answered : "VIive La France!!!"
>
> Now if you want to compare France prosperity with the rest of the world I
> suggest you to check the OECD statistics resources :
> http://www.oecd.org/
>
> BTW since you was speaking about the number of cars immolated during
> november I suggest you to compare US/France criminality statistics and let
> me have your comments. ;-)

I was just reading of a survey that
Arabs prefer France to USA. This is
because we have much safer antiflammability
standards for our cars. Yours are so much easier to immolate.

AS far as criminality goes, pehaps
that is because France has so fewer things
worth stealing.
More seriously, the police in France
don't even venture into the projects to take
crime reports, and of course,
this is where the most crime is.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I assumed you wer referring to:
>>>>>>>>>"Quite the contrary. The more you tax, the less prosperity you
>>>>>>>>>get."
>>>>>>>>>when you said
>>>>>>>>>"Good job Tsechmeister/Sackman you have left the religious tenets
>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>the political dogmas. What a progress, what a courageous man you are
>>>>>>>>>!
>>>>>>>>>;-)"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I was just refering to your obvious support to McKelvy thought :
>>>>>>>>"VIive La France!!!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>>>>>made it all happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Waste of time, you're such a dunce Arthur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gimme a break, even Greenspan couldn't figure that one out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're a dunce Arthur, deal with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So, illuminate all of us, please, tell us all about France's
>>>prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>made it all happen.
>>
>>
>>Why are you such a dunce Sackman/Tsechmeister ?
>>
>>Let me remember you the origin of this exchange :
>>McKelvy has written : "The more you tax, the less prosperity you get"
>>*You* have answered : "VIive La France!!!"
>>
>>Now if you want to compare France prosperity with the rest of the world I
>>suggest you to check the OECD statistics resources :
>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>
>>BTW since you was speaking about the number of cars immolated during
>>november I suggest you to compare US/France criminality statistics and let
>>me have your comments. ;-)
>
>
> I was just reading of a survey that
> Arabs prefer France to USA.

Not only Arabs BTW.


> This is
> because we have much safer antiflammability
> standards for our cars. Yours are so much easier to immolate.
>
> AS far as criminality goes, pehaps
> that is because France has so fewer things
> worth stealing.
> More seriously, the police in France
> don't even venture into the projects to take
> crime reports, and of course,
> this is where the most crime is.


I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
Blah, blah, blah...

You are pitiful, you're a dunce. :-(



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman a écrit :


> I was just reading of a survey that
> Arabs prefer France to USA. This is
> because we have much safer antiflammability
> standards for our cars. Yours are so much easier to immolate.


An other evidence (if needed) of you disgusting racism and xenophobia.


> AS far as criminality goes, pehaps
> that is because France has so fewer things
> worth stealing.
> More seriously, the police in France
> don't even venture into the projects to take
> crime reports, and of course,
> this is where the most crime is.


I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
like a fundamentalist mollah.
Blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah...

"you have left the religious tenets for the political dogmas"

Sorry, you can cancel "political dogmas" and replace it by "senile ranting".

You're so pitiful, you're a dunce. :-(






--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Ruud Broens]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
: Clyde Slick a écrit :
: > "Lionel" > wrote in message
: > ...

: I propose to you in fact, have a great figure
: and you are just you
: we're just raving and
: imprecating like a funlah.
: Blah, blah, blah...
:
: You are pitiful, you're a dance. :-(
:
he, give my computer a break
with all them rao codecs running, having to add one more
it may become unstable - you don't want _that_
on your conscience, eh, Lionel ?
;-)
R.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
> imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
> Blah, blah, blah...
>

Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
keep facts and figures of each time they
fail to take a police report in the project slums.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman a écrit :
>
>
>> I was just reading of a survey that
>> Arabs prefer France to USA. This is
>> because we have much safer antiflammability
>> standards for our cars. Yours are so much easier to immolate.
>
>
> An other evidence (if needed) of you disgusting racism and xenophobia.
>
>
>> AS far as criminality goes, pehaps
>> that is because France has so fewer things
>> worth stealing.
>> More seriously, the police in France
>> don't even venture into the projects to take
>> crime reports, and of course,
>> this is where the most crime is.
>
>
> I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
> like a fundamentalist mollah.
> Blah, blah, blah...
> Blah, blah, blah...
>
> "you have left the religious tenets for the political dogmas"
>
> Sorry, you can cancel "political dogmas" and replace it by "senile
> ranting".
>
> You're so pitiful, you're a dunce. :-(
>

We are still waiting for you to tell us
how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
vibrant French nation!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> We are still waiting for you to tell us
> how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
> vibrant French nation!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1402200455/103-2615155-5255022?v=glance&
n=283155

Apologies in advance if you've caught Scott's antipathy to books. 'At
least' this one's in paperback...

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:56:33 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
>like a fundamentalist mollah.

You've been listening to elevator music again, haven't you?

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Clyde Slick a écrit :
> : > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : > ...
>
> : I propose to you in fact, have a great figure
> : and you are just you
> : we're just raving and
> : imprecating like a funlah.
> : Blah, blah, blah...
> :
> : You are pitiful, you're a dance. :-(
> :
> he, give my computer a break
> with all them rao codecs running, having to add one more
> it may become unstable - you don't want _that_
> on your conscience, eh, Lionel ?
> ;-)
> R.

Moreover if you consider that my codec need is a very gluttonous in term
of processor resources.

I'm going to burn your box, Rudy... :-D





--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :


> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
>>imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>
>
>
> Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
> keep facts and figures of each time they
> fail to take a police report in the project slums.

Even if it's true Arthur this propension is transnational.
So you can establish a ponderation and compare the criminality statistics...

What ?
Nothing forget it... :-(



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :


> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was just reading of a survey that
>>>Arabs prefer France to USA. This is
>>>because we have much safer antiflammability
>>>standards for our cars. Yours are so much easier to immolate.
>>
>>
>>An other evidence (if needed) of you disgusting racism and xenophobia.
>>
>>
>>
>>>AS far as criminality goes, pehaps
>>>that is because France has so fewer things
>>>worth stealing.
>>>More seriously, the police in France
>>>don't even venture into the projects to take
>>>crime reports, and of course,
>>>this is where the most crime is.
>>
>>
>>I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
>>like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>
>>"you have left the religious tenets for the political dogmas"
>>
>>Sorry, you can cancel "political dogmas" and replace it by "senile
>>ranting".
>>
>>You're so pitiful, you're a dunce. :-(
>>
>
>
> We are still waiting for you to tell us
> how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
> vibrant French nation!

No Arthur.
Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already consulted
http://www.oecd.org/
and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.

Only a subhuman dunce like you can insist now.
But what can we wait from a moron who speak tons about a country and who
have never leaved the airport terminal.

After your recent demonstration of racism and xenophobia, your political
credibility equals fundamentalist mullahs' one.

....You are my dunce republican Mullah. ;-)



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

MINe 109 a écrit :
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>
>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>vibrant French nation!
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1402200455/103-2615155-5255022?v=glance&
> n=283155
>
> Apologies in advance if you've caught Scott's antipathy to books. 'At
> least' this one's in paperback...

LOL !!! 320 pages !!!
It's just 319 beyond Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman intellectual faculties. :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:56:33 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
>>like a fundamentalist mollah.
>
>
> You've been listening to elevator music again, haven't you?


This is the only alternative you know to your beloved marshmallow music,
don't you ? :-D




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Clyde Slick a écrit :
> : > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : > ...
>
> : I propose to you in fact, have a great figure
> : and you are just you
> : we're just raving and
> : imprecating like a funlah.
> : Blah, blah, blah...
> :
> : You are pitiful, you're a dance. :-(
> :
> he, give my computer a break
> with all them rao codecs running, having to add one more
> it may become unstable - you don't want _that_
> on your conscience, eh, Lionel ?
> ;-)
> R.

Moreover you should consider that my codec is very gluttonous in term of
processor resources.
I'm going to burn your box, Rudy... :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
>>>imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
>> keep facts and figures of each time they
>> fail to take a police report in the project slums.
>
> Even if it's true Arthur this propension is transnational.
> So you can establish a ponderation and compare the criminality
> statistics...
>

That is a lie.
That is peculiar to France.
It doesn't happen in the US.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>> We are still waiting for you to tell us
>> how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>> vibrant French nation!
>
> No Arthur.
> Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already consulted
> http://www.oecd.org/
> and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>
>

The very first item is summarized as thus:
"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
barriers to trade, investment and competition.

THAT PROVES MY POINT!

[dave weil]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:23:33 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:56:33 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
>>>like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>
>>
>> You've been listening to elevator music again, haven't you?
>
>
>This is the only alternative you know to your beloved marshmallow music,

Whatever THAT is. Sounds like the elevator music has turned your brain
into that, though...

I guess we should start calling you Marzipan Man.

[Schizoid Man]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>
>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>made it all happen.
>
>
> France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
> better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.

Not only church and state, but also basic human rights.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
>>>>imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
>>>keep facts and figures of each time they
>>>fail to take a police report in the project slums.
>>
>>Even if it's true Arthur this propension is transnational.
>>So you can establish a ponderation and compare the criminality
>>statistics...
>>
>
>
> That is a lie.
> That is peculiar to France.
> It doesn't happen in the US.

That's a lie it doesn't happen in France.
That is peculiar to USA.
End of discussion... :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>vibrant French nation!
>>
>>No Arthur.
>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already consulted
>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>
>>
>
>
> The very first item is summarized as thus:
> "a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
> could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
> barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>
> THAT PROVES MY POINT!

What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 10:23:33 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:56:33 +0100, Lionel >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I propose you facts and figures and you're just raving and imprecating
>>>>like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>>
>>>
>>>You've been listening to elevator music again, haven't you?
>>
>>
>>This is the only alternative you know to your beloved marshmallow music,
>
>
> Whatever THAT is. Sounds like the elevator music has turned your brain
> into that, though...


Sounds that you are smeared in the marshmallow music old man. Perhaps
you should check if some isn't still sticking in your heasr.


> I guess we should start calling you Marzipan Man.


Why we ? Do you feel alone Dave ? :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

> > France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
> > better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.

> Not only church and state, but also basic human rights.

Maybe, but they wouldn't have the current rash of riots if they'd started
using the death penalty judiciously 20 years ago.

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>> Clyde Slick said:
>>
>>
>>>Please, Tell us all about France's prospertity, and how high taxes
>>>made it all happen.
>>
>>
>> France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
>> better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.
>
> Not only church and state, but also basic human rights.

Unfortunately, our right to torch cars
is not protectedd by the Constitution.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
>>>>>imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>>>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
>>>>keep facts and figures of each time they
>>>>fail to take a police report in the project slums.
>>>
>>>Even if it's true Arthur this propension is transnational.
>>>So you can establish a ponderation and compare the criminality
>>>statistics...
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is a lie.
>> That is peculiar to France.
>> It doesn't happen in the US.
>
> That's a lie it doesn't happen in France.
> That is peculiar to USA.
> End of discussion... :-D
>

So, the police DO patrol the North African slums.
than we read is totally wrong.
And you are saying ours DO NOT parol our slums?
Our police presence is very strong in the poore areas.
This is actually a point of contention put up
against us by the far left, that our presence is too strong.
What planet do you live on?

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>
>>>No Arthur.
>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already consulted
>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The very first item is summarized as thus:
>> "a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>> could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>> barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>
>> THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>
> What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>

That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
because of socialist barriers to growth,
like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
and competition.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur "Dunce" Sackman/Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I propose you facts and figures and you are just you're just raving and
>>>>>>imprecating like a fundamentalist mollah.
>>>>>>Blah, blah, blah...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, lionel, the police DO NOT
>>>>>keep facts and figures of each time they
>>>>>fail to take a police report in the project slums.
>>>>
>>>>Even if it's true Arthur this propension is transnational.
>>>>So you can establish a ponderation and compare the criminality
>>>>statistics...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That is a lie.
>>>That is peculiar to France.
>>>It doesn't happen in the US.
>>
>>That's a lie it doesn't happen in France.
>>That is peculiar to USA.
>>End of discussion... :-D
>>
>
>
> So, the police DO patrol the North African slums.

Yes, regularly.
BTW I don't know what is a North African slum. An other US Republican lie.
You should leave CDG terminal sometime.

> than we read is totally wrong.

*YES*. But you have the habit since the WMDs...

Oh, I have seen the funniest map of France on CNN during the "events".
What a journalistic work !!! :-D

> And you are saying ours DO NOT parol our slums?

I never said that.

> Our police presence is very strong in the poore areas.
> This is actually a point of contention put up
> against us by the far left, that our presence is too strong.
> What planet do you live on?

Blah, blah, blah. I don't understand what you are speaking about.


PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per inhabitant.
Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
murders... ;-)


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>>
>>>>No Arthur.
>>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already consulted
>>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The very first item is summarized as thus:
>>>"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>>>could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>>>barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>>
>>>THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>>
>>What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>>
>
>
> That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
> because of socialist barriers to growth,
> like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
> and competition.


This is not what the statistics say.
You are a dunce Arthur.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
> inhabitant.
> Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
> murders... ;-)
>

"At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
offspring, and the death taxes are not too high

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>>>
>>>>>No Arthur.
>>>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already
>>>>>consulted
>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The very first item is summarized as thus:
>>>>"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>>>>could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>>>>barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>>>
>>>>THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>>>
>>>What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
>> because of socialist barriers to growth,
>> like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
>> and competition.
>
>
> This is not what the statistics say.
> You are a dunce Arthur.
>


2004, from CIA factbook

USA GDP 4.4% growth
France GDP 2.1% growth

USA unemployment rate 5.5%
France unemployment rate 10.1 %

USA 2.3% inflation
France 2.3% inflation

USA debt 65 % of GDP
France debt 67.7% of GDP

USA GDP per capita $40,100
France GDP per capita $28, 400

[paul packer]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 13:16:50 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Schizoid Man said:
>
>> > France may have burdensome system of public welfare, but they've done a
>> > better job at separating church and state than we have in the USA.
>
>> Not only church and state, but also basic human rights.
>
>Maybe, but they wouldn't have the current rash of riots if they'd started
>using the death penalty judiciously 20 years ago.

Apart from the fact that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman,
and no deterrent to anyone except the victim, how does it relate to
the riots? Would the rioters have stayed home for fear of receiving
the death penalty?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >Maybe, but they wouldn't have the current rash of riots if they'd started
> >using the death penalty judiciously 20 years ago.
>
> Apart from the fact that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman,
> and no deterrent to anyone except the victim, how does it relate to
> the riots? Would the rioters have stayed home for fear of receiving
> the death penalty?

Apparently you've lapsed on your Bible thumping. God wants Christians to
execute unbelievers -- er, I mean criminals. This is a Known Christian
Fact. I'm surprised at you, paulie.

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>
> Apart from the fact that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman,
> and no deterrent to anyone except the victim, how does it relate to
> the riots? Would the rioters have stayed home for fear of receiving
> the death penalty?

It's more comfortable than most deaths, and is empahitacally moral.
There is no more moral act than for society to exorcise
its worst murderers.
As far as a deterrent, it s irrelevant, no more a deterrent than the
alternative, life withut parole

However, I am for abolishing the death penalty, but only because we
cannot assure that the innocent are not executed. We are not good enough to
do that,
even with DNA analysis.

However, while we have it, lets use it for those
who are truly deserving and whose guilt is without
credible doubt, such as Tookie Williams.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> >Maybe, but they wouldn't have the current rash of riots if they'd
>> >started
>> >using the death penalty judiciously 20 years ago.
>>
>> Apart from the fact that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman,
>> and no deterrent to anyone except the victim, how does it relate to
>> the riots? Would the rioters have stayed home for fear of receiving
>> the death penalty?
>
> Apparently you've lapsed on your Bible thumping. God wants Christians to
> execute unbelievers -- er, I mean criminals. This is a Known Christian
> Fact. I'm surprised at you, paulie.
>

More Chrisitians are executed than those of any other religion.
A Chrsitian buddy of mne ministers to those on death row and Supermax in
Maryland.
He has no shortage of 'parishoners".

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
>>inhabitant.
>>Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
>>murders... ;-)
>>
>
>
> "At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
> offspring, and the death taxes are not too high


You should tell that to the victims og Katrina, you moron.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No Arthur.
>>>>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already
>>>>>>consulted
>>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The very first item is summarized as thus:
>>>>>"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>>>>>could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>>>>>barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>>>>
>>>>What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
>>>because of socialist barriers to growth,
>>>like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
>>>and competition.
>>
>>
>>This is not what the statistics say.
>>You are a dunce Arthur.
>>
>
>
>
> 2004, from CIA factbook
>
> USA GDP 4.4% growth
> France GDP 2.1% growth
>
> USA unemployment rate 5.5%
> France unemployment rate 10.1 %
>
> USA 2.3% inflation
> France 2.3% inflation
>
> USA debt 65 % of GDP
> France debt 67.7% of GDP
>
> USA GDP per capita $40,100
> France GDP per capita $28, 400


Poverty ?


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Arthur Tsechmeister "Sackman" :


> 2004, from CIA factbook

Oh, oh Arthur nothing new about WMDs I hope ?
Don't you have an other source ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
>>inhabitant.
>>Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
>>murders... ;-)
>>
>
>
> "At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
> offspring, and the death taxes are not too high


LOL !
Tell them that, you coward.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No Arthur.
>>>>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already
>>>>>>consulted
>>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The very first item is summarized as thus:
>>>>>"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>>>>>could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>>>>>barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>>>>
>>>>What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
>>>because of socialist barriers to growth,
>>>like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
>>>and competition.
>>
>>
>>This is not what the statistics say.
>>You are a dunce Arthur.
>>
>
>
>
> 2004, from CIA factbook
>
> USA GDP 4.4% growth
> France GDP 2.1% growth

I remember that you have written "stagnation". :-)

> USA unemployment rate 5.5%
> France unemployment rate 10.1 %

If the unemployment check was as tiny as the US one this number would
decrease dramaticaly... ;-)

> USA 2.3% inflation
> France 2.3% inflation


So what ?


> USA debt 65 % of GDP
> France debt 67.7% of GDP

So what ?


> USA GDP per capita $40,100
> France GDP per capita $28, 400

Poverty ?


BTW why are you comparing France with USA ? One can object that USA is a
very large country with a lot of natural resources, etc...
No, no it's too easy Arthur. IMHO you would be *really* more successful
in comparing my country with Switzerland, Luxembourg or Norway... :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
>>>inhabitant.
>>>Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
>>>murders... ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> "At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
>> offspring, and the death taxes are not too high
>
>
> You should tell that to the victims og Katrina, you moron.
>

Our country is richer than yours,
even our poor people are better off than yours.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We are still waiting for you to tell us
>>>>>>>>how high taxes has created a wealthy, healthy, and
>>>>>>>>vibrant French nation!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No Arthur.
>>>>>>>Intelligent persons interested in this discussion have already
>>>>>>>consulted
>>>>>>>http://www.oecd.org/
>>>>>>>and have built their own POV based on solid facts and figures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The very first item is summarized as thus:
>>>>>>"a new OECD study highlights the gains in prosperity that
>>>>>>could be achieved in developed countries by reducing
>>>>>>barriers to trade, investment and competition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>THAT PROVES MY POINT!
>>>>>
>>>>>What was your point, Arthur ? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That yours is a stagnant and suffereing economy,
>>>>because of socialist barriers to growth,
>>>>like high taxes. That is a barrier to investment
>>>>and competition.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not what the statistics say.
>>>You are a dunce Arthur.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2004, from CIA factbook
>>
>> USA GDP 4.4% growth
>> France GDP 2.1% growth
>>
>> USA unemployment rate 5.5%
>> France unemployment rate 10.1 %
>>
>> USA 2.3% inflation
>> France 2.3% inflation
>>
>> USA debt 65 % of GDP
>> France debt 67.7% of GDP
>>
>> USA GDP per capita $40,100
>> France GDP per capita $28, 400
>
>
> Poverty ?
>

There is no standardized measure between nations.
Each country has its own methods of calculation.
Poverty in the US is not at all comparable to
poverty in poor African nations, and it is not readily
comparable to more developed, but
still inferior, nations like France.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> BTW why are you comparing France with USA ? One can object that USA is a
> very large country with a lot of natural resources, etc...
> No, no it's too easy Arthur. IMHO you would be *really* more successful in
> comparing my country with Switzerland, Luxembourg or Norway... :-D
>

The point was to compare it with the more vibrant economy of a less
restricted
system

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
>>>>inhabitant.
>>>>Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
>>>>murders... ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
>>> offspring, and the death taxes are not too high
>>
>>
>> You should tell that to the victims og Katrina, you moron.
>>
>
> Our country is richer than yours,

So what.

> even our poor people are better off than yours.


I bet that you have never said that to one of your poor people.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> BTW why are you comparing France with USA ? One can object that USA is a
>> very large country with a lot of natural resources, etc...
>> No, no it's too easy Arthur. IMHO you would be *really* more successful
>> in comparing my country with Switzerland, Luxembourg or Norway... :-D
>>
>
> The point was to compare it with the more vibrant economy of a less
> restricted
> system

This wasn't your point. You are a dunce Arthur, a senile one.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> BTW why are you comparing France with USA ? One can object that USA is a
>>> very large country with a lot of natural resources, etc...
>>> No, no it's too easy Arthur. IMHO you would be *really* more successful
>>> in comparing my country with Switzerland, Luxembourg or Norway... :-D
>>>
>>
>> The point was to compare it with the more vibrant economy of a less
>> restricted
>> system
>
> This wasn't your point. You are a dunce Arthur, a senile one.
>

Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Clyde Slick a écrit :
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>PS : maybe you could start by comparing the ratio of murder per
>>>>>inhabitant.
>>>>>Oh I see ! You will pretend that the French police also hides the
>>>>>murders... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "At least" our victims have some wealth to leave to their
>>>> offspring, and the death taxes are not too high
>>>
>>>
>>> You should tell that to the victims og Katrina, you moron.
>>>
>>
>> Our country is richer than yours,
>
> So what.
>
>> even our poor people are better off than yours.
>
>
> I bet that you have never said that to one of your poor people.
>


Believe me, I am not thinking about France all the time.
I had other things to say.

[ScottW]

Lionel wrote:
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
> >
>
> I bet that you have never said that to one of your poor people.
>

I personally don't have any poor people. How many do you have
Lionel?

ScottW

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

> Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.

Even if you have forget it, you senile oldster ?


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :


> Believe me, I am not thinking about France all the time.
> I had other things to say.

Prove it !!! :-D




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In . com>, ScottW wrote :

>
> Lionel wrote:
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>> >
>>
>> I bet that you have never said that to one of your poor people.
>>
>
> I personally don't have any poor people. How many do you have
> Lionel?


Ask Arthur Sackman/Tsechmeister. It's his last fantasy.

(Don't repeat him but I even don't know what he was speaking about) ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>> Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.
>
> Even if you have forget it, you senile oldster ?
>

Even if you have changed and distorted it with your lies.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:33:57 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>> Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.
>
>Even if you have forget it, you senile oldster ?

Gramps, go back to your elevator music. And check the wife's purse for
motel matches.

[Lionel]

dave "marshmallow" weil wrote :

> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:33:57 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>> Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.
>>
>>Even if you have forget it, you senile oldster ?
>
> Gramps, go back to your elevator music.


At least I can hear it !!! :-D


> And check the wife's purse for
> motel matches.


No way, Dave, I will not insult your family members. No need to insist like
that. ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:11:46 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "marshmallow" weil wrote :
>
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:33:57 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>>
>>>> Don't tell me waht my point is, you disgusting moron.
>>>
>>>Even if you have forget it, you senile oldster ?
>>
>> Gramps, go back to your elevator music.
>
>
>At least I can hear it !!! :-D

Not from what you've written around here. You seem half deaf. Plus,
you're incapable of reading English in order to actually discern
what's being written.

>> And check the wife's purse for
>> motel matches.
>
>
>No way, Dave, I will not insult your family members. No need to insist like
>that. ;-)

I see. Taking the "high road" eh? So what changed your mind after a
couple of years of taking the low road (especially since you've been
personally attacking what I've written regardless of the subject for
all of that time)?

Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
After all, you're in front of the computer during 'family time".

BTW, I'm glad that I have at least one person perusing everything I
write, as well as promoting me in every post.

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.


Experience speaking...

This "if I were you" speaks tons about you, Dave.
IMHO, it finaly gives to your past confidences an interesting
enlightment... :-D



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:09:56 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>
>
>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>
>
>Experience speaking...

Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.

You lose.

Again.

>This "if I were you" speaks tons about you, Dave.
>IMHO, it finaly gives to your past confidences an interesting
>enlightment... :-D

Rocking chair enlightenment. Interesting.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:09:56 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>>
>>
>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>
>>
>>Experience speaking...
>
> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.

This is exactly my point.
You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me what
you would do in such situation.

> You lose.


I confirm that IMHO *you* lost and you're still losing...


> Again.


Compare to *your* loss this one is really, hmm... petty. ;-)


>>This "if I were you" speaks tons about you, Dave.
>>IMHO, it finaly gives to your past confidences an interesting
>>enlightment... :-D
>
> Rocking chair enlightenment. Interesting.


The one who ignores history is condemned... :-D


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:32:31 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:09:56 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Experience speaking...
>>
>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>
>This is exactly my point.
>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me what
>you would do in such situation.

So what does that have to do with "experience"?

Thanks for taking a page from the Arnold "Sudden Literal Reading"
playbook. If I were you, I wouldn't read "If I were you" so literally.

>> You lose.
>
>
>I confirm that IMHO *you* lost and you're still losing...
>
>
>> Again.
>
>
>Compare to *your* loss this one is really, hmm... petty. ;-)
>
>
>>>This "if I were you" speaks tons about you, Dave.
>>>IMHO, it finaly gives to your past confidences an interesting
>>>enlightment... :-D
>>
>> Rocking chair enlightenment. Interesting.
>
>
>The one who ignores history is condemned... :-D

This is the French Irony Paradox.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>
>>This is exactly my point.
>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>what you would do in such situation.
>
> So what does that have to do with "experience"?


People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
because they have had different experience. Because their life before the
stimulis or the situation has been different.

I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept to a
moron like you.

> Thanks for taking a page from the Arnold "Sudden Literal Reading"
> playbook. If I were you, I wouldn't read "If I were you" so literally.

See above idiot.



>>The one who ignores history is condemned... :-D
>
> This is the French Irony Paradox.


Jealous... ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>n >, dave weil wrote :
>
>>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>>
>>>This is exactly my point.
>>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>>what you would do in such situation.
>>
>> So what does that have to do with "experience"?
>
>
>People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
>2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
>because they have had different experience. Because their life before the
>stimulis or the situation has been different.
>
>I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept to a
>moron like you.

Considering the absurdity of the rocking chair explanation, I'm not
surprised that you are reduced to name-calling.

>> Thanks for taking a page from the Arnold "Sudden Literal Reading"
>> playbook. If I were you, I wouldn't read "If I were you" so literally.
>
>See above idiot.

Your abuse of my name in order to score points in subject headers in
Google is typical of your weird obsession with me. No wonder your wife
is cheating on you.

[dave weil]

BTW, this thread is the perfect example of why your condemnation of
geosynch's avoidance of using his real name rings hollow. It's because
of unscrupulous people like you that some prefer not to use their real
names.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>n >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>>>
>>>>This is exactly my point.
>>>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>>>what you would do in such situation.
>>>
>>> So what does that have to do with "experience"?
>>
>>
>>People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
>>2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
>>because they have had different experience. Because their life before the
>>stimulis or the situation has been different.
>>
>>I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept to
>>a moron like you.
>
> Considering the absurdity of the rocking chair explanation, I'm not
> surprised that you are reduced to name-calling.

LOL, I see that you was waiting anxiously for my answer in front of your
computer.
These are the bases of the sociology, you môron.

;-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:37:34 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>n >, dave weil wrote :
>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>>>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>>>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is exactly my point.
>>>>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>>>>what you would do in such situation.
>>>>
>>>> So what does that have to do with "experience"?
>>>
>>>
>>>People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
>>>2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
>>>because they have had different experience. Because their life before the
>>>stimulis or the situation has been different.
>>>
>>>I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept to
>>>a moron like you.
>>
>> Considering the absurdity of the rocking chair explanation, I'm not
>> surprised that you are reduced to name-calling.
>
>LOL, I see that you was waiting anxiously for my answer in front of your
>computer.

Ahhh, I see that you were (note correct verb form) waiting anxiously
for my answer in front of your computer.

It looks like you're the fish saying, "Boy, I've got a big one on the
line".

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> BTW, this thread is the perfect example of why your condemnation of
> geosynch's avoidance of using his real name rings hollow.


Thank you for supporting Geostink's KKK-like behaviour.
This speaks tons about you.

YOU ARE A *DISGUSTING* CRYBABY !!!


> It's because
> of unscrupulous people like you that some prefer not to use their real
> names.


Unscrupulous ???? LOL !!!
Because you are deadly vexed you are insulting my family since one week now.
Are you hypocritely pretending that you wasn't hoping for a reaction from
me, eh moron ? :-D

BTW I have predicted that you would have this reaction very soon. You always
use the same old childish tactic and when you get what you was looking for
you start to cry like the little old disgusting crybaby that you are.
You are a pitiful whining oldster, I can't help you.


Time to return to my *rocking* chair now... ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:37:34 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>n >, dave weil wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>>>>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>>>>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is exactly my point.
>>>>>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>>>>>what you would do in such situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what does that have to do with "experience"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
>>>>2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
>>>>because they have had different experience. Because their life before
>>>>the stimulis or the situation has been different.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept
>>>>to a moron like you.
>>>
>>> Considering the absurdity of the rocking chair explanation, I'm not
>>> surprised that you are reduced to name-calling.


These are the bases of the sociology, you moron.


Even not 10 minutes to answer to my first post of the evening !!!
LOL, I see that you was waiting anxiously for my answer in front of your
computer.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> BTW, this thread is the perfect example of why your condemnation of
>> geosynch's avoidance of using his real name rings hollow.
>
>
> Thank you for supporting Geostink's KKK-like behaviour.
> This speaks tons about you.
>
> YOU ARE A *DISGUSTING* CRYBABY !!!
>
>
>> It's because
>> of unscrupulous people like you that some prefer not to use their real
>> names.
>
>
> Unscrupulous ???? LOL !!!
> Because you are deadly vexed you are insulting my family since one week
> now.
> Are you hypocritely pretending that you wasn't hoping for a reaction from
> me, eh moron ? :-D
>
> BTW I have predicted that you would have this reaction very soon. You
> always
> use the same old childish tactic and when you get what you was looking for
> you start to cry like the little old disgusting crybaby that you are.
> You are a pitiful whining oldster, I can't help you.
>
>
> Time to return to my *rocking* chair now... ;-)
>

For you, Lionel
www.kleenex.com

[dave weil]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:57:01 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> BTW, this thread is the perfect example of why your condemnation of
>> geosynch's avoidance of using his real name rings hollow.
>
>
>Thank you for supporting Geostink's KKK-like behaviour.
>This speaks tons about you.
>
>YOU ARE A *DISGUSTING* CRYBABY !!!

Uh oh, someone's "vexed".

>> It's because
>> of unscrupulous people like you that some prefer not to use their real
>> names.
>
>
>Unscrupulous ???? LOL !!!
>Because you are deadly vexed you are insulting my family since one week now.

And you've been insulting me through permanent subject headers using
my real name for a couple of years now, and you've accelerated the
practice. So quit your crybaby tactics and take your medicine like the
senile oldster that you are.

I*ll take this time to remind you that it's YOU who made everything
personal between the two of us. Because I offend your odd
sensibilities (apparently originally you didn't like me picking on
Howard Ferstler by holding him accountable for his odd views), you've
made it your mission to harass me for a couple of years. Well, pay the
piper, peachpit.

>Are you hypocritely pretending that you wasn't hoping for a reaction from
>me, eh moron ? :-D

Oh, are YOU pretending that I wouldn't play along with your disgusting
tactics? Sure, I'll get down in the mud with you, since that seems to
rock your world. Of course, you can end it all anytime you want, since
it's YOU who's made it personal.

>BTW I have predicted that you would have this reaction very soon.

Sure you have, Nostradamus.

> You always
>use the same old childish tactic and when you get what you was looking for
>you start to cry like the little old disgusting crybaby that you are.

Awwww, pumpkin - did I press some buttons? Here, have a pacifier.

>You are a pitiful whining oldster, I can't help you.

>Time to return to my *rocking* chair now... ;-)

And get an AIDS check while you're at it. You're possibly at risk.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:15:09 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:37:34 +0100, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Lionel >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>n >, dave weil wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still, I'd be checking for phone numbers in her purse if I were
>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Experience speaking...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should check out the use of the subjunctive tense in
>>>>>>>> English (German has the same tense). It's called "contrary to fact",
>>>>>>>> which means that it's simply a hypothetical situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is exactly my point.
>>>>>>>You are imagining that you are in my "situation" and you're telling me
>>>>>>>what you would do in such situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what does that have to do with "experience"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People reactions are mostly directed by experience.
>>>>>2 people react differently to the same stimulis or to the same situation
>>>>>because they have had different experience. Because their life before
>>>>>the stimulis or the situation has been different.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not really surprised to be obliged to explain such *basic* concept
>>>>>to a moron like you.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the absurdity of the rocking chair explanation, I'm not
>>>> surprised that you are reduced to name-calling.
>
>
>These are the bases of the sociology, you moron.
>
>
>Even not 10 minutes to answer to my first post of the evening !!!

Matching your nine minute reply to one of mine, I guess. Only thing
is, you have a family craving your attention, little fish.

[Lionel]

Arthur Tsechmeister/Sackman wrote :


> For you, Lionel
> www.kleenex.com

For you Arthur :
http://www.nafc.org/
:-D



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


> And get an AIDS check while you're at it. You're possibly at risk.


Onanist envy... :-D




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[dave weil]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:42:13 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave "deaf" weil wrote :
>
>
>> And get an AIDS check while you're at it. You're possibly at risk.
>
>
>Onanist envy... :-D

Why would I be envious of your masturbation habits?