The Absolutly Last Post
Jigsaw1695
Tiger Woods Holiday Poem
Twas the night of Thanksgiving and out of the house
Tiger Woods came a flyin', chased by his spouse.
She wielded a nine iron and wasn't too merry,
Cause a bimbo’s phone number was in his Blackberry.
He’d been cheatin' on Elin, and the story progressed.
Woman after woman stepped up and confessed.
He’d been cheatin’ with Holly, and Jaimee, and Cori,
With Joselyn, and Kalika - The world had the story.
From the top of the Tour to the basement of blues,
Tiger’s sad sordid tale was all over the news.
With hostesses, waitresses, he had lots of sex,
When not in their pants, he was sendin' them texts.
Despite all his cryin’ and beggin' and pleadin',
Tiger’s wife went investin' -- a new home in Sweden.
And I heard her exclaim from her white Escalade,
"If you’re gettin' laid then I’m gettin' paid."
She’s not pouting, in fact, she is of jolly good cheer,
Her prenup made Christmas come early this year.
Runge11
"Jigsaw1695" <Jigsa...@aol.com> a �crit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
fea343ad-54d1-454e...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> This is absolutly, positvely the last post on Tiger Woods,
>
> Tiger Woods Holiday Poem
>
> Twas the night of Thanksgiving and out of the house
> Tiger Woods came a flyin', chased by his spouse.
> She wielded a nine iron and wasn't too merry,
> Cause a bimbo�s phone number was in his Blackberry.
> He�d been cheatin' on Elin, and the story progressed.
> Woman after woman stepped up and confessed.
> He�d been cheatin� with Holly, and Jaimee, and Cori,
> With Joselyn, and Kalika - The world had the story.
> From the top of the Tour to the basement of blues,
> Tiger�s sad sordid tale was all over the news.
> With hostesses, waitresses, he had lots of sex,
> When not in their pants, he was sendin' them texts.
> Despite all his cryin� and beggin' and pleadin',
> Tiger�s wife went investin' -- a new home in Sweden.
> And I heard her exclaim from her white Escalade,
> "If you�re gettin' laid then I�m gettin' paid."
> She�s not pouting, in fact, she is of jolly good cheer,
> Her prenup made Christmas come early this year.
>
> __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la
> base des signatures de virus 3948 (20090319) __________
>
> Le message a �t� v�rifi� par ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3948 (20090319) __________
Le message a �t� v�rifi� par ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Jigsaw1695 wrote:
>
> This is absolutly, positvely the last post on Tiger Woods,
>
> Tiger Woods Holiday Poem
>
> Twas the night of Thanksgiving and out of the house
> Tiger Woods came a flyin', chased by his spouse.
> She wielded a nine iron and wasn't too merry,
> Cause a bimbo�s phone number was in his Blackberry.
> He�d been cheatin' on Elin, and the story progressed.
> Woman after woman stepped up and confessed.
> He�d been cheatin� with Holly, and Jaimee, and Cori,
> With Joselyn, and Kalika - The world had the story.
> From the top of the Tour to the basement of blues,
> Tiger�s sad sordid tale was all over the news.
> With hostesses, waitresses, he had lots of sex,
> When not in their pants, he was sendin' them texts.
> Despite all his cryin� and beggin' and pleadin',
> Tiger�s wife went investin' -- a new home in Sweden.
>
Now, she had a dream about the king of Sweden,
He gave her things that she was needin',
He gave her a home built of gold and steel,
A diamond car with a platinum wheel.
Now, he gave her his townhouse and his racing horses,
Each meal she ate was a dozen courses;
She had a million dollars worth of nickels and dimes,
And she sat around and counted them all a billion times.
Poor Elin, poor Elin, poor Elin.
necromancer
LOL! That's a good one, jiggy. Thanx for sharing...
--
"And the referee's gone across with
his hand in his pocket!
He's... He's been told about it!
Its Off! Its Red! Its Zidane!"
Earl Evleth
fea343ad-54d1-454e...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com,
"Jigsaw1695" <Jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> This is absolutly, positvely the last post on Tiger Woods,
By you, not me. I believe in posting newsworthy items which
provoke comment. Like snow balls etc.
Woods and Palin are heading out of the daily news
along with the birthers.
Tea baggers are in the news because of the health bill
"Tea Party groups protest Hutchison's moves on health care bill"
The Teabaggers are out polling the Republican Party. But this
is just another balloon political movement. It will pass
way to be replace by others.
There is a supply of idiots around who will get involved
in this sort of thing. I am pleased we have several of
your type on this group, to poke fun at.
Jigsaw1695
>
> "Jigsaw1695" <Jigsaw1...@aol.com> wrote:
> > This is absolutly, positvely the last post on Tiger Woods,
>
> By you, not me. I believe in posting newsworthy items which
> provoke comment. �Like snow balls etc.
>
> Woods and Palin are heading out of the daily news
> along with the birthers.
>
> Tea baggers are in the news because of the health bill
>
> "Tea Party groups protest Hutchison's moves on health care bill"
>
> The Teabaggers are out polling the Republican Party. �But this
> is just another balloon political movement. It will pass
> way to be replace by others.
>
> There is a supply of idiots around who will get involved
> in this sort of thing. I am pleased we have several of
> your type on this group, to poke fun at.
We do not consider what Obama is doing and has done to this country as
fun.
Jigsaw
Earl Evleth
325d9a5b-bce5-4adc...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com,
"Jigsaw1695" <Jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> We do not consider what Obama is doing and has done to this country as
> fun.
Jesus was not well considered either, people of your ilk hated
him and acted it out.
Donna Evleth
> From: Jigsaw1695 <Jigsa...@aol.com>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:59:38 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: The Absolutly Last Post
>
> On Dec 22, 4:36?am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> On 21/12/09 21:34, in article
>> fea343ad-54d1-454e-8df2-2145c0dcf...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com,
>>
>> "Jigsaw1695" <Jigsaw1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> This is absolutly, positvely the last post on Tiger Woods,
>>
>> By you, not me. I believe in posting newsworthy items which
>> provoke comment. ?Like snow balls etc.
>>
>> Woods and Palin are heading out of the daily news
>> along with the birthers.
>>
>> Tea baggers are in the news because of the health bill
>>
>> "Tea Party groups protest Hutchison's moves on health care bill"
>>
>> The Teabaggers are out polling the Republican Party. ?But this
>> is just another balloon political movement. It will pass
>> way to be replace by others.
>>
>> There is a supply of idiots around who will get involved
>> in this sort of thing. I am pleased we have several of
>> your type on this group, to poke fun at.
>
> We do not consider what Obama is doing and has done to this country as
> fun.
Some of us didn't consider what Bush did to our country as fun. Two wars
with no way to pay for them, relations with needed allies trashed, borrow
and spend, encourage people who couldn't afford to buy homes to buy them
anyway (the ownership society), and I could go on, but never mind, what I
have already said is enough.
Donna Evleth
>
> Jigsaw
John Rennie
You used a strange example to prove your point, Earl.
Jesus was a construct designed to suit all. Perhaps
Lincoln would be a better choice?
Earl Evleth
"John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> You used a strange example to prove your point, Earl.
> Jesus was a construct designed to suit all. Perhaps
> Lincoln would be a better choice?
I am posting in the Christmas spirit.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
To? Bush was a great president.
> Two wars
> with no way to pay for them,
>
Why is it always the wars that can't be paid for and not the social
programmes?
> relations with needed allies trashed, borrow
>
Trashed? How? Bush worked with allies in Afghanistan. And he did as
well in Iraq. If you'll recall, he had a coalition of the willing
which included about as many members than his father had when he
lead the effort to eject Saddam from Kuwait back in 1991. What you
are really saying is that Bush wouldn't let the French (and that
sort) push him around.
> and spend, encourage people who couldn't afford to buy homes to buy them
> anyway (the ownership society),
>
So owning your own home is wrong now?
> and I could go on, but never mind, what I
> have already said is enough.
>
You haven't really said anything. OTOH, what has Obama done? He's a
wussy so the nations that want to just push him around. He
certainly isn't paying for his various programmes.
--
Tiger tells eleven mistresses, "I will leave my wife for you."
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:30:02 +0000
Bush certainly didn't for that matter, and in addition he was an
international bully. Arrogant all the way. And snippy about it.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Note that Bush had deficits that were a few hundred billion out of
$2550bn or more a year. Obama gets in office for a few minutes and
he hs a deficit over $1tn. And to what effect?
> and in addition he was an
> international bully. Arrogant all the way. And snippy about it.
>
How was Bush a bully? I see it as the French being the ones who
want to tell other countries what to do. The Americans aren't
bullies.
Mitchell Holman
news:4B31233A...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> The Americans aren't bullies.
The countries the US has attacked since WWII
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Kook Alert.
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
Another notestream ended by a Bonde non-answer.
Sigh................
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
How many dozens if not hundreds of times have you posted a list of
countries that the US has supposedly "attacked" which proves in
your stupid mind that the US is something bad? How is the US a
"bully" for freeing Kuwait in 1991 from Saddam? Explain that right
here ----->
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
How many times have you responded with a childish
"kook alert" to a posted fact that proves you wrong?
Earl Evleth
Xns9CEA8CD6A37Dn...@216.196.97.130, "Mitchell Holman"
<noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> How many times have you responded with a childish
> "kook alert" to a posted fact that proves you wrong?
I think he is just informing you that he is the kook
and alert. We all are in agreement that he
is a kook but being alert is not Bill.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:51:22 +0000
Bush was a bully. Think Iraq, where there were no WMDs. Think torture.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Your posts don't prove me wrong. Kook Alerts are public services
showing without much comment that the material presented isn't
worth comment, is essentially without merit. There's a reason why
you get them a lot. Are you going to explain how freeing the people
of Kuwait from Saddam back in 1991 is an example of the US being a
"bully"?
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Do you think that the US was a bully for freeing the people of
Kuwait from Saddam in 1991? Just answer yes or no.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
You are talking about Bush Jr and removing Saddam from power?
That's not the issue in play. Although it is also clear that Bush
Jr freed the people of Iraq from Saddam. Most of them were very
happy to be free from Saddam. Of course you can find Sunni Arabs
who liked their upper class existence even if it meant bad things
for the Kurds and the Shia.
John Rennie
>
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>> On 23/12/09 7:51, in article
>> Xns9CEA8CD6A37Dn...@216.196.97.130, "Mitchell Holman"
>> <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> How many times have you responded with a childish
>>> "kook alert" to a posted fact that proves you wrong?
>> I think he is just informing you that he is the kook
>> and alert. We all are in agreement that he
>> is a kook but being alert is not Bill.
>>
> Do you think that the US was a bully for freeing the people of
> Kuwait from Saddam in 1991? Just answer yes or no.
>
>
>
>
you and Mitch have overlooked.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
In Holman's list of countries that the US was supposedly a "bully"
in attacking, many are actions that were given the green light by
the UN. Many were also multinational.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:59:45 +0000
Saddam could surely have been removed without turning the whole country into
a battlefield, largely by appealing to his neighbors, most if not all of
whom also hated him. And you conveniently forget once again, Bill, that
what got the American people galvanized to move against Iraq was not Saddam
(how could it be, since we have that beautiful photo of the good old buddies
Rumsfeld and Saddam) but the threat of WMDs. The "let's get rid of Saddam
the awful dictator" was cooked up as a reason after the attempt to find the
WMDs failed. Later on this, "building democracy in the nation of Iraq" was
brought in, although at an earlier time, Bush Jr. stated firmly that he did
not want to do nation building.
Donna Evleth
necromancer
<john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>It was a United Nations action. Something both
>you and Mitch have overlooked.
And something that the USA would have had as little to do with as
possible were Kuwait not awash in oil...
--
bush lies...
america (sic) dies...
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
Of course they do.
All the time.
Haven't you been paying attention?
"This is no different to Obama picking Lieberman,
although in that case the balance was that Lieberman
actually has experience."
Bill Bonde, Oct 20, 2009. Obama never "picked" Joe
Lieberaman for anything.
"Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
Mitchell Holman
in news:o235j5183prhjuqgc...@4ax.com:
1974 - Turkey invades Cyprus
US response - none
1975 - Libya invades Chad
US response - none
1975 - Indonesia invades Timor
US response - none
1978 - Vietnam invades Cambodia
US response - none
1979 - Tanzania invades Uganda
US response - none
1982 - Argentina invades the Falklands.
US response - none
1982 - Israel invades Lebanon
US response - none
1989 - Iraq invades Iran
US response - none
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait.
US response - Desert Shield, Desert Storm,
all out war for "freedom", Emir put back on his
throne, create US Bases in Saudi Arabia, sparking
the creation of Al-Queda.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
So you aren't going to explain how America was being a bully for
freeing the people of Kuwait from Saddam, instead you want to post
something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
>
You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
to you repeatedly.
Now explain how the US was being a bully by removing Saddam from
Kuwait. Put that right here ----->
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
necromancer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:39:22 +0000, John Rennie
> <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >It was a United Nations action. Something both
> >you and Mitch have overlooked.
>
> And something that the USA would have had as little to do with as
> possible were Kuwait not awash in oil...
>
Kook Alert.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> necromancer <a_septic_yank@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote
> in news:o235j5183prhjuqgc...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:39:22 +0000, John Rennie
> > <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>It was a United Nations action. Something both
> >>you and Mitch have overlooked.
> >
> > And something that the USA would have had as little to do with as
> > possible were Kuwait not awash in oil...
> >
> > --
> > bush lies...
> > america (sic) dies...
> >
>
> 1974 - Turkey invades Cyprus
> US response - none
>
> 1975 - Libya invades Chad
> US response - none
>
> 1975 - Indonesia invades Timor
> US response - none
>
> 1978 - Vietnam invades Cambodia
> US response - none
>
> 1979 - Tanzania invades Uganda
> US response - none
>
You keep posting this stuff. Where does it come from? How do you
know that the US didn't respond at all? Consider that Amin, a
monster, was removed from power ending a series of wars between
these two countries:
#begin quote
The Uganda-Tanzania War (usually referred to in Uganda as the
Liberation War) was fought between Uganda and Tanzania in
1978�1979, and led to the overthrow of Idi Amin's regime. Idi
Amin's forces included thousands of troops sent by Muammar
al-Gaddafi.
#end quote
So it's known as the "Liberation War" in Uganda? Does that sound
like the US needed to become directly involved in order for the
right outcome to occur?
> 1982 - Argentina invades the Falklands.
> US response - none
>
As I've pointed out before, this is a lie. The US helped the UK
behind the scenes but was allies with Argentina in the area and
didn't become directly involved. Furthermore, why should the US
become directly involved when the UK was showing that it could
fight a war without the US being directly there leading operations?
> 1982 - Israel invades Lebanon
> US response - none
>
> 1989 - Iraq invades Iran
> US response - none
>
I think we'll find various UNSC resolutions that the US was
involved in regarding this conflict.
> 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait.
> US response - Desert Shield, Desert Storm,
> all out war for "freedom", Emir put back on his
> throne, create US Bases in Saudi Arabia, sparking
> the creation of Al-Queda.
--
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
He was quickly removed without a lot of fuss. The problem was
afterwards.
> largely by appealing to his neighbors, most if not all of
> whom also hated him.
>
What would his neighbours do? They'd done nothing so far.
> And you conveniently forget once again, Bill, that
> what got the American people galvanized to move against Iraq was not Saddam
> (how could it be, since we have that beautiful photo of the good old buddies
> Rumsfeld and Saddam)
>
This is just crap. Rumsfeld went on a diplomatic mission and
behaved properly.
> but the threat of WMDs.
>
WMDs were one issue. They didn't have to be stockpiles.
> The "let's get rid of Saddam
> the awful dictator" was cooked up as a reason after the attempt to find the
> WMDs failed.
>
It wasn't cooked up. Dealing with the Saddam problem was always the
direct reason for the action. As long as Saddam was in power, the
Middle East would not move forward and bin Ladenism would continue
to escalate. We've seen this as it went on for years.
> Later on this, "building democracy in the nation of Iraq" was
> brought in, although at an earlier time, Bush Jr. stated firmly that he did
> not want to do nation building.
>
I believe that he complained about Clinton's nation building in
Europe. That was during the campaign. In fairness, Clinton did have
his people claim that the action there would last about a year. It
was still going on when Bush became president.
Mitchell Holman
How does putting the unelected emir back on
his throne amount to "freeing" the people of Kuwait?
> instead you want to post
> something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
> noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
> is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
>
>
You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
Case closed.
>
>
>
>> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
>> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
>> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
>> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
>>
> You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
> deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
> isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
> does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
> to you repeatedly.
Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
the top of any list.
You were wrong, deal with it.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Freeing them from Saddam. I don't see why pretend otherwise.
> > instead you want to post
> > something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
> > noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
> > is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
> >
> >
>
> You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
>
> Case closed.
>
Your posts don't prove me wrong, Holman. I never said that I didn't
post typos or the like. The content of what I said is correct. And
you still haven't explained how the US was being a bully.
> >> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
> >> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
> >> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
> >> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
> >>
> > You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
> > deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
> > isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
> > does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
> > to you repeatedly.
>
> Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
> invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
> the top of any list.
>
Why do you keep lying about what I said? The issue with Iraq is
dealing with the *threat* from bin Ladenism. That threat is
promoted by the hopelessness of the region, as I've said.
> You were wrong, deal with it.
>
I was not wrong.
Mitchell Holman
Saddam freed the Kuwaitis from the Emir,
the US freed the Kuwaitis from Saddam. Neither
was hardly a victory for democracy.
>> > instead you want to post
>> > something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
>> > noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
>> > is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
>>
>> Case closed.
>>
> Your posts don't prove me wrong, Holman. I never said that I didn't
> post typos or the like. The content of what I said is correct. And
> you still haven't explained how the US was being a bully.
Posting "Lieberman" instead of "Biden" is
not a typo. In fact you spelled both correctly.
You were simply wrong, which I would not have
even brought up but for your claim that you
never wrong.
>> >> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
>> >> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
>> >> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
>> >> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
>> >>
>> > You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
>> > deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
>> > isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
>> > does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
>> > to you repeatedly.
>>
>> Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
>> invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
>> the top of any list.
>>
> Why do you keep lying about what I said? The issue with Iraq is
> dealing with the *threat* from bin Ladenism. That threat is
> promoted by the hopelessness of the region, as I've said.
>
You said Bush had a "list" and "Bin Laden's threat"
was at the top of it.
So, post this "list".
Or admit you were wrong, your choice.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Kook Alert.
> the US freed the Kuwaitis from Saddam. Neither
> was hardly a victory for democracy.
>
You are seriously cracked. No one said that Bush was going to
remove Saddam and install any specific new government in Kuwait.
What he did was remove Saddam and put back the government that was
removed by Saddam. That would seem reasonable since Kuwaitis can
then decide what Kuwaitis want to do in future. Regarding Iraq,
Saddam earned being removed and there was no previous government
that was legitimate there. In any case, the situations are totally
different.
> >> > instead you want to post
> >> > something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
> >> > noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
> >> > is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
> >>
> >> Case closed.
> >>
> > Your posts don't prove me wrong, Holman. I never said that I didn't
> > post typos or the like. The content of what I said is correct. And
> > you still haven't explained how the US was being a bully.
>
> Posting "Lieberman" instead of "Biden" is
> not a typo.
>
Yes it is.
> In fact you spelled both correctly.
>
A typo isn't just a word that is misspelled.
> You were simply wrong, which I would not have
> even brought up but for your claim that you
> never wrong.
>
Why can't you stop lying?
> >> >> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
> >> >> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
> >> >> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
> >> >> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
> >> >>
> >> > You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
> >> > deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
> >> > isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
> >> > does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
> >> > to you repeatedly.
> >>
> >> Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
> >> invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
> >> the top of any list.
> >>
> > Why do you keep lying about what I said? The issue with Iraq is
> > dealing with the *threat* from bin Ladenism. That threat is
> > promoted by the hopelessness of the region, as I've said.
> >
>
> You said Bush had a "list" and "Bin Laden's threat"
> was at the top of it.
>
> So, post this "list".
>
I did not claim that he literally had a list.
> Or admit you were wrong, your choice.
>
I'm not wrong.
Earl Evleth
Xns9CEAA02165039...@216.196.97.130, "Mitchell Holman"
<noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This is no different to Obama picking Lieberman,
> although in that case the balance was that Lieberman
> actually has experience."
> Bill Bonde, Oct 20, 2009. Obama never "picked" Joe
> Lieberaman for anything.
He may mean Kerry. Obama has tried to sweet talk
Lieberman a number of times, irritation the purists
like me. But it is a waste of time. Lieberman's
egocentric agenda remains in place.
John Rennie
feels that much better off.
John Rennie
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:57:53 +0000
> Subject: Re: The Absolutly Last Post
>
>
>
> necromancer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:39:22 +0000, John Rennie
>> <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It was a United Nations action. Something both
>>> you and Mitch have overlooked.
>>
>> And something that the USA would have had as little to do with as
>> possible were Kuwait not awash in oil...
>>
> Kook Alert.
A kook alert on poor necro? And right before Christmas? Aren't you afraid
this famous Bill attack will ruin his Christmas dinner?
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:17:14 +0000
Boy, is that ever an understatement. Bush Jr. rushed in headlong, without
any idea about what would happen afterwards. "Afterwards" has turned out to
be a major problem.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:57:53 +0000
> > Subject: Re: The Absolutly Last Post
> >
> >
> >
> > necromancer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:39:22 +0000, John Rennie
> >> <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It was a United Nations action. Something both
> >>> you and Mitch have overlooked.
> >>
> >> And something that the USA would have had as little to do with as
> >> possible were Kuwait not awash in oil...
> >>
> > Kook Alert.
>
> A kook alert on poor necro? And right before Christmas? Aren't you afraid
> this famous Bill attack will ruin his Christmas dinner?
>
It's not an attack, it's a public service. The point is, something
has been refuted so many times, or it's just crazy at the outset,
therefore there's no need to seriously address it. Regarding the US
only cares if the place has oil, why is the US in Afghanistan and
Pakistan? Did Vietnam or Korea have a lot of oil? No. This has been
gone through, claiming that the US only acts if there's oceans of
oil at stake has been refuted.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
The emir is the legitimate ruler of Kuwait. Saddam isn't that. Most
people can understand the concept of freeing a nation from some
evil, say freeing the French from the Nazis, without demanding that
the resulting future government be installed by those who freed the
nation.
> > instead you want to post
> > something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
> > noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
> > is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
> >
> >
>
> You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
>
Your postings don't prove me wrong. All you did was point out a
typo. What I was saying is that you don't engage in debate on valid
issues and win in that debate, instead you play word games, looking
for typos and other nonsense to attack with. You are a twerp.
> Case closed.
>
Does this mean that I won't have to put up with you bringing up
Lieberman when I mean Biden?
> >> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
> >> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
> >> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
> >> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
> >>
> > You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
> > deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
> > isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
> > does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
> > to you repeatedly.
>
> Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
> invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
> the top of any list.
>
The reason for Iraq is to deal with the wider problems in the
Middle East. That is fact. I look at that as bin Ladenism. It's not
limited to his "policies", of course. But by dealing with Iraq, the
US opens up options for others in the Middle East. Let's hope that
they are taken in a positive way.
> You were wrong, deal with it.
>
I'm expressing my opinion, which cannot be "wrong".
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
But it is true.
> Bush Jr. rushed in headlong, without
> any idea about what would happen afterwards.
>
You can't know exactly what will happen if you do something like
this. It's really up to Iraqis to behave and to create a society
that is functional. Americans can't do that for Iraqis. Americans
can help and give a chance, just like they did for France during
WWII, just like France did for America during its Revolutionary
War.
> "Afterwards" has turned out to
> be a major problem.
>
I think that it has required time. People think that the surge is
what did it, that helped get over a tough spot, but really what it
was was time. The people of Iraq had to see how bad anarchy there
was.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
The Shia were the ones who are oppressed by Saddam, so of course
Shia would feel better off. The big problem generally in Iraq has
been security. Correct that and the people will be happier by far.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Was the US being a "bully" when it went into Somalia to feed the
starving? Was it being a "bully" when it interacted with situation
in Bosnia?
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
What do you mean by "legitimate"? He is a KING,
not a president.
> Saddam isn't that.
What makes him any less "legitimate" than unelected
rulers the US and UK do business with?
>
>
>> > instead you want to post
>> > something you don't cite properly and which in the past has been
>> > noted as simply the writing of the wrong person's name. What I said
>> > is correct other than I wrote "Lieberman" instead of "Biden".
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You asked for proof you were wrong, I provided it.
>>
> Your postings don't prove me wrong. All you did was point out a
> typo. What I was saying is that you don't engage in debate on valid
> issues and win in that debate, instead you play word games, looking
> for typos and other nonsense to attack with. You are a twerp.
>
That's rich, coming from some whose only response
to being prove wrong is "kook alert".
>
>
>> Case closed.
>>
> Does this mean that I won't have to put up with you bringing up
> Lieberman when I mean Biden?
If you cannot defend your claims that is
your problem, not mine.
>> >> "Bush invaded for numerious reasons. Dealing with bin
>> >> Laden's threat is at the top of the list."
>> >> Bill Bonde, Jan. 20, 2008. In fact Bush never cited
>> >> Bin Laden as a reason for invading Iraq.
>> >>
>> > You keep posting this but it is fact that the US removed Saddam to
>> > deal with the bin Ladenism problem in the Middle East. Bin Laden
>> > isn't in the Middle East therefore dealing with that problem there
>> > does require dealing with other people there. I've explained this
>> > to you repeatedly.
>>
>> Bush never cited Bin Laden as a reason for
>> invading Iraq, not to mention putting him at
>> the top of any list.
>>
> The reason for Iraq is to deal with the wider problems in the
> Middle East. That is fact.
You claimed Bush had a "list", and Bin Laden
was "on top of it".
So post this "list".
> I look at that as bin Ladenism. It's not
> limited to his "policies", of course. But by dealing with Iraq, the
> US opens up options for others in the Middle East. Let's hope that
> they are taken in a positive way.
>
>
>
>> You were wrong, deal with it.
>>
> I'm expressing my opinion, which cannot be "wrong".
>
And, as you have told us, nothing you post is
factual, it is ALL just your opinion.
"Everything I say is my opinion, I don't have to
preface anything with "in my opinion", just assume."
Bill Bonde, June 18, 2008
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:56:28 +0000
Your "kook alerts" are not a public service, they are merely a particularly
silly way of responding to someone you disagree with.
I didn't know the US had attacked Pakistan. When did this happen???
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:50:29 +0000
I am not sure the anarchy is completely over. We still hear about car bombs
that kill people. The real test - do you have figures? - will be if and
when the Iraqis who have fled to other countries decide that it is safe
enough to come home.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:54:19 +0000
You have ignored John's point, which was about how the average Muslim female
might feel under a religious regime. Do you have an answer to that one, or
do you believe that what Muslim females, especially Shia, might feel is
irrelevant, as long as your arch villain Saddam is gone?
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
He specifically brought up the Shia.
> Do you have an answer to that one, or
> do you believe that what Muslim females, especially Shia, might feel is
> irrelevant, as long as your arch villain Saddam is gone?
>
Why would the Shia have a problem with the government they are most
responsible for *electing*?
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Oh but they are. I care about the public.
> they are merely a particularly
> silly way of responding to someone you disagree with.
>
No, they are used most often when I've already responded to the
claim numerous times. For example, Holman saves up texts for years
and reposts them ignoring the detailed responses I've made. What do
you think of that? Do you even know that?
> I didn't know the US had attacked Pakistan. When did this happen???
>
What do you think that Predator missile attacks are?
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Terrorism doesn't define anarchy. 9/11 occurred in the United
States and it has a very stable government.
> The real test - do you have figures? - will be if and
> when the Iraqis who have fled to other countries decide that it is safe
> enough to come home.
>
It doesn't have to just be safe, jobs have to exist. I'm sure
there's enough to do in Iraq, it's a bit of a mess.
necromancer
wrote:
>A kook alert on poor necro? And right before Christmas?
Did Blonde say something of substance, or was he admitting defeat -
yet again - by calling me a k00k? He's safely tucked away in my
killfile, so I didn't see it...
>Aren't you afraid this famous Bill attack will ruin his
>Christmas dinner?
<fx: googles>
Don't worry about it. If anything, making Blonde froth at the mouth
made my day... :)
--
necromancer - ECHM
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
necromancer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:59:40 +0100, Donna Evleth <dev...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >A kook alert on poor necro? And right before Christmas?
>
> Did Blonde say something of substance, or was he admitting defeat -
> yet again - by calling me a k00k? He's safely tucked away in my
> killfile, so I didn't see it...
>
You are a kook.
necromancer
wrote:
>I didn't know the US had attacked Pakistan. When did this happen???
As far as I know, the USA hasn't - yet, but it was using Pakistan to
get to Afghanistan when the shrub admin had us duped into believing
that the USA was after bin Laden...
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:17:35 +0000
You still haven't answered the question, and the fact that you put quotes
around the word "electing" indicates to me some doubt about the fairness of
their elections.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:19:24 +0000
I phrased it badly. I should have said that I didn't know the US had
invaded Pakistan. You did talk about the US being "in" Pakistan. Predator
missile attacks do not imply troops on the ground. Being "in" Pakistan
does. So when did the US invade Pakistan???
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:53:59 +0000
> Subject: Re: The Absolutly Last Post
> You are a kook.
Here's a song for you, kook:
1) Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree,
Merry, merry king of the bush is he,
Laugh, Kookaburra, Laugh, Kookaburra,
Gay your life must be.
2) Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree
Eating all the gumdrops he can see
Stop, Kookaburra, Stop, Kookaburra
Leave some there for me.
3) Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree,
Counting all the monkeys he can see
Stop, Kookaburra, Stop, Kookaburra,
That's no monkey, that's me.
This song seemed to fit you perfectly, especially the last line.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
Those are not quotes, they are splats which on usenet can be used
to show emphasis.
I am answering the question, the Shia elected their government, why
would they especially be dissatisfied with it? And if they are, why
not just elect someone better?
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
"Invaded" and "attacked" are subtly different.
> You did talk about the US being "in" Pakistan.
>
The US is *in* Pakistan although not in the sense of an invasion.
> Predator
> missile attacks do not imply troops on the ground.
>
They are often directed by special forces on the ground, because
anyone on the ground is vulnerable if they directly attack the
target.
> Being "in" Pakistan
> does. So when did the US invade Pakistan???
>
There is no doubt that special forces and CIA are in Pakistan. It's
ironic that they were there for decades monitoring the situation in
Afghanistan, often unable to go into Afghanistan because of US
policy. Now they are restricted the other way. But they are in
Pakistan.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:59:50 +0000
First time I ever heard of "splats". Some of us have a life outside of
usenet (meaning we really get outside from time to time), and thus cannot
know all of your language. It went splat for me.
>
> I am answering the question, the Shia elected their government, why
> would they especially be dissatisfied with it? And if they are, why
> not just elect someone better?
You still have not mentioned the condition of women. I have asked you more
than once now (not including the time John asked you), and you have evaded
the question each time. I am going to have to conclude that the condition
of women means nothing to you. Perhaps you believe that the Shia men beat
the Shia women into voting they way they want, and that's democracy.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> <tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 18:06:14 +0000
SPLAT!
(Real life definition of SPLAT as opposed to usenet definition, courtesy of
Webster's Dictionary: noun: a splattering or wet, slapping sound; verb
intransitive: to make such a sound; to flatten on impact.)
I think it is the second definition of the intransitive verb which applies
here.
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
But you do know what the * character is, right? It's not the "
character. In any case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk
#begin quote
An asterisk (*) (Latin asteriscum "little star", from Greek
??????????) is a typographical symbol or glyph. It is so called
because it resembles a conventional image of a star. Computer
scientists and mathematicians often pronounce it as star (as, for
example, in the A* search algorithm or C* algebra). The word
"asterisk" is often mispronounced as "asterick" or "asterix".
The asterisk is derived from the need of the printers of family
trees in feudal times as a symbol to indicate date of birth. The
original shape was seven-armed, each arm like a teardrop shooting
from the center. For this reason, in some computer circles it is
called a splat, perhaps due to the "squashed-bug" appearance of the
asterisk on many early line printers.
#end quote
I believe that the "splat" terminology came from APL although they
seem to be calling it a "star" now. Anything to make APL less
difficult, I suppose.
> Some of us have a life outside of
> usenet (meaning we really get outside from time to time),
>
I would hope that most everyone gets outside from time to time.
> and thus cannot
> know all of your language. It went splat for me.
>
Keep in mind that you claimed it was a " and not a *. The word I
use for the char doesn't really change that.
> > I am answering the question, the Shia elected their government, why
> > would they especially be dissatisfied with it? And if they are, why
> > not just elect someone better?
>
> You still have not mentioned the condition of women. I have asked you more
> than once now (not including the time John asked you), and you have evaded
> the question each time.
>
I didn't evade it at all, I said that they'd elected the people who
ran the country so if there's a problem, elect someone else.
> I am going to have to conclude that the condition
> of women means nothing to you.
>
That's nonsense, I've never supported the mistreatment of anyone.
> Perhaps you believe that the Shia men beat
> the Shia women into voting they way they want, and that's democracy.
>
I don't really know what they do. If anyone is beating anyone into
voting a certain way, they should be arrested and that sort of
thing should be stopped.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
I'm not sure what you are saying, that the US can't be in a country
without invading it? I don't agree with that claim if it is what
you're saying.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Saddam could surely have been removed without turning the whole country into
> a battlefield, largely by appealing to his neighbors, most if not all of
> whom also hated him.
Which is why he should not have been removed. His neighbours were mostly
Islamic fundamentalist whackjobs and Saddam ran a secular state right in the
middle of them. If anything, he should have been supported by the USA,
regardless of how morally repugnant that may have seemed.
That's realpolitik for you. Such a pity that Bush was a foamy-mouthed
ideologue.
--
A face full of divertamenti
Planet Visitor II
<noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
><tribuylt...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>news:4B31233A...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>>
>> The Americans aren't bullies.
>
>
Why do you hate the U.S., Mitchell???
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
You idiot. You fuckwit. You _caricature_ of the uneducated, racist fuck.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix'
(Dan Quayle)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>