The Mitten fails again in London

William Clark

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 2:37:29 PM8/7/12

to

The Mitten's dressage horse, Rafalca, failed to get beyond the second
round in the Olympic Dressage competition today. The rider, Jan Ebeling,
was pleased with the horse's performance, but disappointed by the
scoring. There is some speculation that the horse deliberately tanked,
so that it can return quickly to the US and be announced as Mitten's
running mate for the Presidency.

The competition was won, of course, by Great Britain, which once again
proved to be outstanding at all those sports that you can do sitting
down.

MNMikeW

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 2:41:20 PM8/7/12

to

That horse would kick Biden's ass in a debate that's for sure.

John B.

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 3:00:37 PM8/7/12

to

He would also be a better president than Romney.

William Clark

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 3:05:58 PM8/7/12

to

In article
<766ecf26-8cee-4914...@p8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Well, his front end is a perfect complement to Romney,

Horva...@net.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 3:13:35 PM8/7/12

to

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:41:20 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:

>> The competition was won, of course, by Great Britain, which once again
>> proved to be outstanding at all those sports that you can do sitting
>> down.
>>
>That horse would kick Biden's ass in a debate that's for sure.

A horse debating an ass? One would whinny and one would bray.
Let's through in a mule for fun.

Not something the networks would carry.

Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.

MNMikeW

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 3:42:43 PM8/7/12

to

We currently have his excrement as president.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 4:11:49 PM8/7/12

to

Well now Mike. Remember this exchange?

>>>I have never called Romney the names that you have
>>> called Obama. I don't have that hate for anyone. It's blinded you to
>>> reason.
>>>
>> What names have I supposedly used? Clueless? That is more of a state of
>> mind (Obama's).
>
> I haven't collected them, but suffice it to say that you've been less
> than kind in referring to him.

>>But you have no examples. Gotcha.

Gotcha??? You tried to clean it up, but there's no doubt about what
name you mean.

MNMikeW

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 5:01:05 PM8/7/12

to

Ok, I will give you that ONE.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 5:04:26 PM8/7/12

to

Thanks. :-)

BAR

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 7:52:22 PM8/7/12

to

In article <2et228l9hmrb7nd14...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

Look everybody it is the name calling police.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 7:58:55 PM8/7/12

to

Look everybody, it's Bert the Simpleton coming in late again. If he
had only kept up he'd know that I was accused of calling Romney a
name, which wasn't true. So if there was a name calling policeman it
was someone else.
This is only a rejoinder. I know Bert will be diving for the
dictionary for that one. :-)

BAR

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:19:04 PM8/7/12

to

In article <tma328thvdbpvccj0...@4ax.com>,

Why do you argue with everyone about everything.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:28:43 PM8/7/12

to

Obviously you didn't look up the word.

You really are dense Bert. It was no argument but answering a charge
that wasn't true. I'm constantly amazed at what you don't comprehend.

BAR

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:32:29 PM8/7/12

to

In article <1gc328ppli3df8q2a...@4ax.com>,

I an constantly amazed that you believe you are relevant to anyone's
life besides your own.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:42:22 PM8/7/12

to

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:32:29 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>In article <1gc328ppli3df8q2a...@4ax.com>,
>bkn...@conramp.net says...

>> You really are dense Bert. It was no argument but answering a charge
>> that wasn't true. I'm constantly amazed at what you don't comprehend.
>
>I an constantly amazed that you believe you are relevant to anyone's
>life besides your own.
>

Gee Bert. I must be relevant to you. You sure spend a lot of time
responding to me. Oh, and showing your lack of intelligence when
doing so. :-)

William Clark

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:51:34 PM8/7/12

to

Because you are invariably wrong about everything?
--
Posted from my iPhone

BAR

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 10:20:20 PM8/7/12

to

In article <44d328dn5159mlcac...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...

Are you saying that the only people who respond to you are
unintelligent.

BAR

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 10:20:50 PM8/7/12

to

In article <1912533631366079781.170474clark-nospammatsceng.ohio-
stat...@news.eternal-september.org>, cl...@nospammatsceng.ohio-
state.edu says...

Right.

bkn...@conramp.net

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 10:55:34 PM8/7/12

to

Mostly those who need remedial reading lessons. You weren't able to
understand three sentences above so you fall into that genre.

A good hint; I said the words "you" or "your" which are singular in
those three sentences , so why would you think "people"? Rhetorical
question.

William Clark

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 8:14:29 AM8/8/12

to

BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <44d328dn5159mlcac...@4ax.com>,
> bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:32:29 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1gc328ppli3df8q2a...@4ax.com>,
>>> bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>>>> You really are dense Bert. It was no argument but answering a charge
>>>> that wasn't true. I'm constantly amazed at what you don't comprehend.
>>>
>>> I an constantly amazed that you believe you are relevant to anyone's
>>> life besides your own.
>>>
>> Gee Bert. I must be relevant to you. You sure spend a lot of time
>> responding to me. Oh, and showing your lack of intelligence when
>> doing so. :-)
>
> Are you saying that the only people who respond to you are
> unintelligent.

QED!