Worse case election scenarios...
-
I`m SO there wrote: Yeah and what is the probability (at any point in time) of a bunch of right wing extremists attempting to take over the country? Above zero? Well there ya go, we'd better watch out! We even have evidence of how pissed off those crazies get when a Democrat is President. You know what I think? I think if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to align themselves with the wing nuts to take over the country! SHIT, I forgot to build my bunker! I would think the probability of that is fairly high. There is obviously commanality between the terrorist and elements on the right also. That could happen. But another "illigitimate" Bush election, which prompted my question, probably would not instigate that. I`m SO there wrote: Do you really believe that the lefties in this country are going to jump ship to wage war against the US with AQ? Just because we don't agree with your vision for it? Get a fucking grip man. No, I don't believe it. I'm just wondering what other people believe. For example, if Bush just up and declared himself king. Would that drive more left wing types to terrorism? What would it take? That is all I'm asking.
Stan Shannon wrote: For example, if Bush just up and declared himself king. Would that drive more left wing types to terrorism? I think if Bush did that, it would be a whole lot more people than just the left who would start the revolution. I don't think it would be a 'terrorism' type revolution though. I also don't think there's much evidence that people on the left want to mass murder people, let alone civilians who happen to be our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. I don't think there's one single thing that could drive any group of people in this country to terrorism. Bush declaring himself King sure wouldn't make me want to kill a whole bunch of civilians. For someone to go to that extreme, they would need to already be psychotic. Even you couldn't say half the USA is actually psychotic. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
I'm not implying that anyone is a terrorist only that given: a) A perceived collapse in democratic institutions within the U.S. b) The already quite real contempt and loathing for Bush, et al. c) The existence of already well organizezd and funded terrorist networks. d) At least some degree of philosophical commonality between the left and the existing terrorist infrastructure (in that they both appear to believe that the economic and military power of the U.S. is a threat, if nothing else). How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Is the probability 0 or higher?
You're still comparing as if there is some similarity. Your ostrich like behavior reminds me of good old Soviet politics. Would it be fair and lump you in the same category of people as old school communists? Think before you type for fuck's sake. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists offended enough to bomb them?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenWould be arguing online if I were? :) -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
Brit wrote: We already know that the US will have a civil war in 2005. John Titor, Is that John Titor's first prediction that can be tested? Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will affect you.
No, apparently "John Titor" made some predictions back in 1999, then he disappeared for a few years and made a whole bunch of statements in 2001 then disappeared again. Apparently, one of his 1999 statements was that Y2K was going to be pretty big: "Y2K is a disaster . Many people die on the highways when they freeze to death trying to get to warmer weather. The gov. tries to keep power by instituting marshal law but all of it collapses when their efforts to bring the power back up fail." I'm gathering from this that he likes to talk about impending disaster. ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. Oh boy, I stopped reading right there! Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
John Carson wrote: If you are referring to the Western countries, then of course not. Believing George Bush is a dangerous idiot is one thing; aligning oneself with medieval fanatics trying to reverse most of the progress of civilisation is something entirely different. I agree. But what if the existing terrorist networks were to re-market themsleves to take advantage of international sentiments? It would not be all that difficult for them to present a facade more in keeping with western values. After all, they do attack centers of capitalism, not centers of religion, it would not be a great leap to make the "economic hegemony of the U.S." the outward focus while playing down Islamic Fundamentalism to the rest of the world. That might have a very broad appeal to many. Read some of the replies above. I don't think it all that absurd a question. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: It would not be all that difficult for them to present a facade more in keeping with western values. After all, they do attack centers of capitalism, not centers of religion, it would not be a great leap to make the "economic hegemony of the U.S." the outward focus while playing down Islamic Fundamentalism to the rest of the world. That might have a very broad appeal to many. It would only appeal to a tiny minority of permanent fringe dwellers. If you live in grinding poverty under an authoritarian regime with a lack of free media and a propagandist education system, then the "economic hegemony of the US" may be something you could be persuaded to get worked up about. If you have a similar standard of living to the US, close to full employment, and broadly similar cultural values, then the role of the US in the world economy is a subject for internet posts and dinner table conversation, but not much else. Stan Shannon wrote: Read some of the replies above. I don't think it all that absurd a question. I noticed before I posted that some people were taking the suggestion seriously. They are just a little too excitable. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
palbano wrote: Your views contradict themselves and can therefore be considered irrelevant. I obviously don't believe they do. Could you cite an example?
Stan Shannon wrote: Could you cite an example? OMG Stan! OK... sure... How about this for a starter http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=4&userid=12343&mode=all&select=885350&df=100&app=50&fr=2793#xx886463xx[^] If you insist I can go find some others where you disappear from the thread once someone poses a logical argument that illustrates the contradictions in your previously stated views. However if you force me to do all that work I am not going to be happy. You might want to consider my new sig. :-D <edit>Aaagggghhh clickity police 911</edit>
Watch out! I'm a CPian on the edge! I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it!
-pete
-
'Peace-loving gun-hating Democrats' vs 'War mongering, gun-loving Republicans' Short war :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Dave
DRHuff wrote: 'Peace-loving gun-hating Democrats' Don't count on it. I have 3 rifles 2 shotguns 2 handguns. DRHuff wrote: Short war Yes it will be. Gun control issue is about M16 AK-47 Uzi type weapons. Why do you suppose they need that sort of fire power? Maybe because they can't shoot worth a crap. So while they are trying to spray my general vicinity with some automatic weapon ( I've seen people try to fire M16 in full auto mode ), bring them on! I'll stand about 200 yards off while aiming my 308 standing sideways ( I don’t present much of a target standing sideways). I will only need one shot per Republican. :laugh: I have excellent night vision and a German Shepard trained as an attack dog. Those Republicans better come in tanks. Of course by the time they come for me I will be in hiding in the wilderness and everyone knows that Attack Republicans can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag so they will never find me to begin with. Maybe they will have a web site that has a talking point that supplies them with my coordinates. :laugh:
Watch out! I'm a CPian on the edge! I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it!
-pete
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Im an Aussie and I cant stand Bush. How anyone could watch or listen to him speak and think that he has any creditablity I dont know. He is just so fake. I think that the US needs a greater seperation between the church and the state. A countries leaders should not make reference to religion. I am not religious at all and comments like "May god bless America" sound as stupid to me as "It is written in the Koran" or "it is every Muslims duty to wage war...." or "come and get a free personality and iq test" from the Scientologits
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. Oh boy, I stopped reading right there! Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
Unfortunately, he didn't stop writing right there. :sigh: -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
Im an Aussie and I cant stand Bush. How anyone could watch or listen to him speak and think that he has any creditablity I dont know. He is just so fake. I think that the US needs a greater seperation between the church and the state. A countries leaders should not make reference to religion. I am not religious at all and comments like "May god bless America" sound as stupid to me as "It is written in the Koran" or "it is every Muslims duty to wage war...." or "come and get a free personality and iq test" from the Scientologits
Uh oh... you're for a secular government! In Stan's eyes, you're about as evil as Usama himself. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Here's another one. -A few days before the elections, a few attacks by terrorist will take place. (remember spain?). -People will start to ask who's behind the attacks and why they attack them. The goverment will be unable to respont to the attacks and give serious answers. -People will start to reallize that the reason that those who bother to attack them, is not just because they are fanatic and hate hollyhood, but also due to the politics of the current goverment. Also they afraid. -The current goverment lose the elections. (remember spain?) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Memory leaks is the price we pay \0 01234567890123456789012345678901234
-
"terries" :confused: peterchen wrote: c) You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections I'm sure the U.S. will ignore any input from that quarter.
terrorists. There are more than two parties on this world, it is not as simple as Evildoers vs. Rightdoers. It looks like the European/Leftist fractions has a stronger notion of "appropriate means", whereas the US/Rightists tend more to "end justifies means". Under this criteria, we would love to see Bush tumble, but cooperation with terrorists is the wrong way. That's not just me, not even from most extreme Anti-American people I ever heard the mere idea of "using" the terrorist threat" to help topple Bush, thinking "we" could cooperate with terrorists against "you" is well beyond all limits of sanity. It's easier to find WMD in Iraq than one person who hates Bush *that* much. Stan Shannon wrote: I'm sure the U.S. will ignore any input from that quarter. Ah damn. We would of course be willing to invade you to help buil democratic structures - but I'm afraid we wouldn't be back in time for the Oktoberfest. ;P
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
terrorists. There are more than two parties on this world, it is not as simple as Evildoers vs. Rightdoers. It looks like the European/Leftist fractions has a stronger notion of "appropriate means", whereas the US/Rightists tend more to "end justifies means". Under this criteria, we would love to see Bush tumble, but cooperation with terrorists is the wrong way. That's not just me, not even from most extreme Anti-American people I ever heard the mere idea of "using" the terrorist threat" to help topple Bush, thinking "we" could cooperate with terrorists against "you" is well beyond all limits of sanity. It's easier to find WMD in Iraq than one person who hates Bush *that* much. Stan Shannon wrote: I'm sure the U.S. will ignore any input from that quarter. Ah damn. We would of course be willing to invade you to help buil democratic structures - but I'm afraid we wouldn't be back in time for the Oktoberfest. ;P
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: There are more than two parties on this world, it is not as simple as Evildoers vs. Rightdoers. Yes, but how much complexity are we expected to deal with. Sometimes the best approach is Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot. peterchen wrote: It looks like the European/Leftist fractions has a stronger notion of "appropriate means", whereas the US/Rightists tend more to "end justifies means". And from the US perspective the Europeans have lead the world into many disasters with their approach. But I'm not certain that any approach to the current problems will not look like a disaster in the making. By its very nature, terrorism can and will make any solution a messy one. peterchen wrote: Under this criteria, we would love to see Bush tumble, but cooperation with terrorists is the wrong way. That's not just me, not even from most extreme Anti-American people I ever heard the mere idea of "using" the terrorist threat" to help topple Bush, thinking "we" could cooperate with terrorists against "you" is well beyond all limits of sanity. It's easier to find WMD in Iraq than one person who hates Bush *that* much. Fair enough. As I said, my question was prompted by a certain degree of paranoia. There is certainly enough vitriol directed against Bush to warrent the question, IMO. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
You're still comparing as if there is some similarity. Your ostrich like behavior reminds me of good old Soviet politics. Would it be fair and lump you in the same category of people as old school communists? Think before you type for fuck's sake. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: You're still comparing as if there is some similarity. As a conservative, I am ever aware that Timothy McVeigh killed nearly 200 of my fellow Oklahomans for many principles that he and I share in common. Even though I cannot imagine the circumstances that would prompt me to want to murder innocents in the defense of my political beliefs, I have to remain aware that there are those who would do so. For you not to realize that you might, in fact, share idealogies with those who are capable of going far beyond what you would is dangerously naive. Of course their are similarities, overtly so. You just refuse to see them. I think my question was a legitimate one: How much would it take to motivate some significant fraction of them to join some sort of terrorist effort? Even if its "only" cyber or economic terrorism of some sort. (Frankly, I don't blame the people of the world for being concerned about the U.S. Our democracy does have antiquated institutions and we, as a people, are not committed to the same secularist world view that most of the rest of the world, outside of Islam, is, and we do allow the forces of capitalism to have much more free reign than other nations seem comfortable with. It must be very worrisome from the outside looking in.) "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
peterchen wrote: There are more than two parties on this world, it is not as simple as Evildoers vs. Rightdoers. Yes, but how much complexity are we expected to deal with. Sometimes the best approach is Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot. peterchen wrote: It looks like the European/Leftist fractions has a stronger notion of "appropriate means", whereas the US/Rightists tend more to "end justifies means". And from the US perspective the Europeans have lead the world into many disasters with their approach. But I'm not certain that any approach to the current problems will not look like a disaster in the making. By its very nature, terrorism can and will make any solution a messy one. peterchen wrote: Under this criteria, we would love to see Bush tumble, but cooperation with terrorists is the wrong way. That's not just me, not even from most extreme Anti-American people I ever heard the mere idea of "using" the terrorist threat" to help topple Bush, thinking "we" could cooperate with terrorists against "you" is well beyond all limits of sanity. It's easier to find WMD in Iraq than one person who hates Bush *that* much. Fair enough. As I said, my question was prompted by a certain degree of paranoia. There is certainly enough vitriol directed against Bush to warrent the question, IMO. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but how much complexity are we expected to deal with. Well... if you (meaning the US at this point) wants Europe as ally against terrorism, you have to deal with the complexity of allies not aghreeing with all of the current policies of the white house. If however want to see us as enemies for sake of simplicity, well, we hope we can stop you. Stan Shannon wrote: But I'm not certain that any approach to the current problems will not look like a disaster in the making. By its very nature, terrorism can and will make any solution a messy one full ack. Every side distrusts the methods of the other, and both with reasons. But if we cannot find a way of cooperation, how can we "win the hearts" of terrorists-in-the-making? (I don't insist on their hearts, we could also drown them in money, I just doubt that trying to drown them in explosives will make them breed faster) An interesting side note that just crossed my mind: To most of europe, the risen terrorism seems to be a US American problem. Look at Madrid: it was labeled "The European 9/11" by an US American mainstream newspaper. But it rather did show that it was everything else but. Increasing terrorism will largely be seen as result of US policies, and terrorism would have to go much further before the "we are in the same boat" thought gets enough room in the majority of heads.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, but how much complexity are we expected to deal with. Well... if you (meaning the US at this point) wants Europe as ally against terrorism, you have to deal with the complexity of allies not aghreeing with all of the current policies of the white house. If however want to see us as enemies for sake of simplicity, well, we hope we can stop you. Stan Shannon wrote: But I'm not certain that any approach to the current problems will not look like a disaster in the making. By its very nature, terrorism can and will make any solution a messy one full ack. Every side distrusts the methods of the other, and both with reasons. But if we cannot find a way of cooperation, how can we "win the hearts" of terrorists-in-the-making? (I don't insist on their hearts, we could also drown them in money, I just doubt that trying to drown them in explosives will make them breed faster) An interesting side note that just crossed my mind: To most of europe, the risen terrorism seems to be a US American problem. Look at Madrid: it was labeled "The European 9/11" by an US American mainstream newspaper. But it rather did show that it was everything else but. Increasing terrorism will largely be seen as result of US policies, and terrorism would have to go much further before the "we are in the same boat" thought gets enough room in the majority of heads.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Well... if you (meaning the US at this point) wants Europe as ally against terrorism, you have to deal with the complexity of allies not aghreeing with all of the current policies of the white house. If however want to see us as enemies for sake of simplicity, well, we hope we can stop you. If the disagreement is purely related to issues of foreign policy than there should be no problem. If the Europeans are going to try to influence internal US politics by supporting one administration differntly than they do another, as many Americans suspect, that is another issue altogether. peterchen wrote: how can we "win the hearts" of terrorists-in-the-making? (I don't insist on their hearts, we could also drown them in money, I just doubt that trying to drown them in explosives will make them breed faster) I think any effort to win hearts is doomed to failure. The more you do to influence one part of their culture, the more you anger another part. Either way you go, you have some group wanting to kill you for what ever you try. The only thing you can do is to convince them in no uncertain terms that you believe completely in the values of your own culture and that you will not accept any threat to it - ever. Than you convince them that if they do represent a threat to you, you will destroy them to what ever extent necessary to eliminate that threat. If they still want to fight about it, let them, and we will just see who wins. It is precisely as simple as that. peterchen wrote: To most of europe, the risen terrorism seems to be a US American problem. Look at Madrid: it was labeled "The European 9/11" by an US American mainstream newspaper. But it rather did show that it was everything else but. Increasing terrorism will largely be seen as result of US policies, and terrorism would have to go much further before the "we are in the same boat" thought gets enough room in the majority of heads. But looking at it rationally, what have we done to make any sane person mad enough to slaughter 3000+ people? Nothing. What did the Spanish do to deserve the slaughter of so many? Nothing but trying to help liberate Islamic people from a tyrant. For that they died. Thats insane, and the longer you try to ignore the lunatics the more you empower them. They will controll you in the end. Of course we have done things that would make people angry, but the level of anger is simply out of pro
-
Chris Losinger wrote: actually, Moore doesn't hate America any more than you, or anyone else who thinks Those Other Americans Are Going To Destroy Us All do. Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees.
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees. :omg: And that's the country that claims to be the leader of The free world! "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
DRHuff wrote: 'Peace-loving gun-hating Democrats' Don't count on it. I have 3 rifles 2 shotguns 2 handguns. DRHuff wrote: Short war Yes it will be. Gun control issue is about M16 AK-47 Uzi type weapons. Why do you suppose they need that sort of fire power? Maybe because they can't shoot worth a crap. So while they are trying to spray my general vicinity with some automatic weapon ( I've seen people try to fire M16 in full auto mode ), bring them on! I'll stand about 200 yards off while aiming my 308 standing sideways ( I don’t present much of a target standing sideways). I will only need one shot per Republican. :laugh: I have excellent night vision and a German Shepard trained as an attack dog. Those Republicans better come in tanks. Of course by the time they come for me I will be in hiding in the wilderness and everyone knows that Attack Republicans can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag so they will never find me to begin with. Maybe they will have a web site that has a talking point that supplies them with my coordinates. :laugh:
Watch out! I'm a CPian on the edge! I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it!
-pete
palbano wrote: I have 3 rifles 2 shotguns 2 handguns. Ah, but you only got 2 hands, I assume... :~ "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees. :omg: And that's the country that claims to be the leader of The free world! "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: And that's the country that claims to be the leader of The free world! That is what it took to help lead Europe back to freedom in WWII. But of course, I don't suppose arabs are as important as Europeans. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."