Re: Fatass Drug Addict Rush Limbaugh Thinks Women Shouldn't Be in Military, But Still Too Pussy to Sign Up For For Iraq.
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
>"Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><1169927440.2...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>>>
>>> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>>>
>>> Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>>>
>>> On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
>>> military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>>> what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>>> babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>>> foxholes."
>>
>>Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>>1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>
>Generally true.
>
>>2) Women can't handle pressure.
>
>False.
>
>>3) Women get scared easily.
>
>No more easily than men.
>
>Why do you hate women?
So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
them because you want to kill them?!
Explain that "logic".
Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
laid?
>
>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
What, no comments about Private Lynch's "heroic" actions?
Free Lunch
Thank you for your comments. It is clear that I need to avoid your
hateful attitude toward the world.
>>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
>>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>
>What, no comments about Private Lynch's "heroic" actions?
The DOD invented the heroics. Look at her MOS.
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
I notice you haven't addressed the questions and therefor I assume
that you recognize the mistake in your postition.
Being as deceitful as you are, you will never admit it of course.
>
>>>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
>>>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>>>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>>>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>>>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>>>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>>
>>What, no comments about Private Lynch's "heroic" actions?
>
>The DOD invented the heroics. Look at her MOS.
And she happily went along with it, didn't she?
Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
have been there in the first place?
Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
the face of danger.
That's what women, genius!
Richard Catto
>> Why do you hate women?
> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> them because you want to kill them?!
> Explain that "logic".
> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> laid?
it seems to be the case.
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
he is out!
And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
>
> <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>
> >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>
> > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>
> > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > foxholes."
>I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
> Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
> beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
What part of the question is "propaganda"?
> While I can sympathize
> with the sentiment of not wanting to see beautiful young girls getting
> killed, I doubt this sentiment is what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh.
> There is something else they have in common, and it isn't love of
> women.
So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
them?
Richard Catto
>>>> Why do you hate women?
>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
>>> them because you want to kill them?!
>>> Explain that "logic".
>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
>>> laid?
>> it seems to be the case.
> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> he is out!
> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
oh well. lethal injection.
and that's just for being atheist.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 5:58 pm, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:15:35 +0200, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com>
> >> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> >>>> Why do you hate women?
> >>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> >>> them because you want to kill them?!
> >>> Explain that "logic".
> >>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> >>> laid?
> >> it seems to be the case.
> > Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > he is out!
> > And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!oh well. lethal injection.
>
> and that's just for being atheist.
He is one of them long haired hippie type pinko fags,
I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
Richard Catto
you should mow that lawn.
Tuco Ramirez
AZ Nomad wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> >1) Women are physically weaker than men.
> It takes little strength to pull a trigger.
How about carrying 80 pounds of supplies on your back, how much
strength does it require to walk 10 miles a day with that, eh?
>
>
> >2) Women can't handle pressure.
> >3) Women get scared easily.
> Bullshit.
> Even if that were true, training eliminates such learned weakness.
All the training in the world can't eliminate what their nature is.
Aren't you atheists suppossed to be into Evolution? The evolutionary
process, by natural selection, has "chosen" women who flee danger,
that's just the way it is whether you like it or not.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 6:18 pm, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jan., 23:26, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:15:35 +0200, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> > >>> Why do you hate women?
> > >> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> > >> them because you want to kill them?!
> > >> Explain that "logic".
> > >> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> > >> laid?
>
> > >it seems to be the case.Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > he is out!
> > And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>Brilliant: an antisemite, a woman-hater, a religious fanatic and a
> moronic right-winger...
> Tell us, Tuco, is there anything AT ALL good in you?
> Must suck to be you... Can't blame you for trolling here...
Hey Catto, this one is another commie, atheist, jewish (not sure),
faggot, and on top of that I think he is a darkie!
Tuco Ramirez
Good idea! I think I am going to hire me a Mexican for the job, wait
a minute I is one!
Fuck that, Tuco is ready for a siesta!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 6:21 pm, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jan., 20:50, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>
> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>
> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>
> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > > foxholes."Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> > 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>You don't need physical strenght to pilot a jet, drive a jeep or use a
> gun.
The G-forces require a certain degree of physical fitness to be able
to witstand them.
Army jeeps don't have power steering.
These are not plastic toys, they are heavy, and there are supplies to
carry.
Why do you want to kill women?
>
> > 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>False. Why do you hate women?
The question is why do YOU? You are the one who wants to kill them
pal!
I want them safe at home where they don't get in the way and therefore
put themselves and those around them in danger.
You can't legislate biology, you dumbass, they don't belong in the
battlefield. Simple as that.
>
> > 3) Women get scared easily.
>False. Obviously, you don't have the faintest idea what a woman is.
> Are you sure you're not gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that
> but that would certainly explain your funny ideas about women...
I want them alive so I can fuck them, you want them dead.
Who is the gay one?
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>"Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:1169938308.0...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 27, 5:43 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>> Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> innews:tdknr2h1vpkb8la08...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >>Why is his body shape an issue about anything? Do people with a fat
>>> >>ass lose the right to free expression?
>>>
>>> > It would disqualify over 99% of the posters in this group.
>>
>>
>>>Including yourself, Maria?
>>
>> I left that opening to see who would bite, you are one predictable
>> dumbass Aunt Vickie; You are still relatively lucid, so I gather you
>> still haven't hit those reefers very heavily today, eh? See Vickie,
>> these "exploratory situations" I create allow me to gather
>> information, but I won't go into further details and overwhelm your
>> fragile mind.
>>
>
>If they call the wind Maria, does that make you a fart?
You already started hitting them joints, eh? I guess this means 6
p.m. eastern time is when the fun start at Aunt Vickie's house!
Have a nice trip, Aunt Vickie!
Richard Catto
> On Jan 27, 6:18 pm, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan., 23:26, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:15:35 +0200, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Why do you hate women?
>>>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
>>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
>>>>> Explain that "logic".
>>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
>>>>> laid?
>>>> it seems to be the case.Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
>>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
>>> he is out!
>>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>> Brilliant: an antisemite, a woman-hater, a religious fanatic and a
>> moronic right-winger...
>> Tell us, Tuco, is there anything AT ALL good in you?
>> Must suck to be you... Can't blame you for trolling here...
> Hey Catto, this one is another commie, atheist, jewish (not sure),
> faggot, and on top of that I think he is a darkie!
<club>
sorry, ma'am. i should have done that long ago.
Richard Catto
oh, put your hands down. i'm not going to club you again. promise.
there... that's better.
<club>
Richard Catto
> I want them alive so I can fuck them, you want them dead.
> Who is the gay one?
in this case... YOU!
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Yo trippin' my niggah!
655321
"Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
> >
> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >
> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >
> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >
> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh
You mean draft-evader Limbaugh? There's an authority on military
matters to be sure.
> > > criticized the
> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > > foxholes."
>
> > I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
>
> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
Ask Rush that. He should know, seeing how he can't spread enough of the
stuff.
"...round up babes and send them off..."
As if "babes" is a term that is solely restricted to women. I'm a
hetero guy, but take a look at a picture of Elvis back in his military
service days... now *that* is a babe.
So what Rush said is not propaganda? Maybe he's just mad that he won't
have a chance (as if he ever did) with them if they're sent half way
across the globe. Face it. He just want's to stir shit up.
> > While I can sympathize with the sentiment of not wanting to see
> > beautiful young girls getting killed, I doubt this sentiment is
> > what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh. There is something else they
> > have in common, and it isn't love of women.
>
> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
> them?
Exactly what about sending people to war has *anything* to do with love?
Fool.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
Richard Catto
>>> I want them alive so I can fuck them, you want them dead.
>>> Who is the gay one?
>> in this case... YOU!
> Yo trippin' my niggah!
<club>
Richard Catto
> Fool.
if Tuco gets uppity, just club him. that's what i do.
Tuco Ramirez
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
>> >
>> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>> >
>> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>> >
>> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>> >
>> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh
>
>You mean draft-evader Limbaugh? There's an authority on military
>matters to be sure.
When did I say he was?
>
>> > > criticized the
>> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>> > > foxholes."
>>
>> > I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
>> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
>> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
>>
>> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
>
>Ask Rush that. He should know, seeing how he can't spread enough of the
>stuff.
I'm asking you; hint: A question is never propaganda.
>
>"...round up babes and send them off..."
>
>As if "babes" is a term that is solely restricted to women. I'm a
>hetero guy,
Are you one of them "metrosexual" men?
You faggots come up with clever shit to sneak fagottry into the
mainstream. As a general rule, you fags are much more clever than the
typical straight man, I give you fags credit for that.
>but take a look at a picture of Elvis back in his military
>service days... now *that* is a babe.
>
>So what Rush said is not propaganda? Maybe he's just mad that he won't
>have a chance (as if he ever did) with them if they're sent half way
>across the globe. Face it. He just want's to stir shit up.
That's his job, fool!
He's in the entertaining business, dumbass!
What business did you think he is in?
>
>
>> > While I can sympathize with the sentiment of not wanting to see
>> > beautiful young girls getting killed, I doubt this sentiment is
>> > what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh. There is something else they
>> > have in common, and it isn't love of women.
>>
>> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
>> them?
>
>Exactly what about sending people to war has *anything* to do with love?
Ah, if you love them then you don't want them dead, see?
Is that so complicated?
Even though she is a crazy-ass bitch, I wouldn't want to see Angelina
Jolie sent to fight the Iraquies, but I am all in favor of sending
fatass-loudmouth-brainless Rosie to the front of the line.
See the difference?
That Rosie bitch has achieved the almost-impossible, thanks to her,
and his response to her attack, I find myself
almost-but-not-quite-there liking Donald Trump.
>
>Fool.
You is a jive turkey!
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Yo is my hard-ass niggah!
I is gonna have to get medieval on yo ass!
I ain't playin' with ya,
Tuco don't go foh that shit!
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Thank you for your comments. It is clear that I need to avoid your
> >hateful attitude toward the world.
>
> I notice you haven't addressed the questions and therefor I assume
> that you recognize the mistake in your postition.
> Being as deceitful as you are, you will never admit it of course.
>
> >
> >>>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
> >>>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> >>>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
> >>>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
> >>>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> >>>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
> >>
> >>What, no comments about Private Lynch's "heroic" actions?
> >
> >The DOD invented the heroics. Look at her MOS.
>
> And she happily went along with it, didn't she?
Actually, no, she specifically repudiated what the Pentagon said about
her and tried to distance herself from being used as a proaganda poster
girl, which made her a pariah to many of her neighbors. That took a lot
more guts than most people have, as few in this country are willing to
go against the herd.
> Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
> have been there in the first place?
> Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
> the face of danger.
> That's what women, genius!
She was severely wounded and passed out after her convoy was ambushed.
She didn't have a chance to fight.
--Sean C
Sean C
Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
> >
> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >
> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >
> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >
> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > > foxholes."
>
> >I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
>
> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
The part where they imagine themselves to be morally superior to the
Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
society. Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
have to be armed and trained just in case.
> > While I can sympathize
> > with the sentiment of not wanting to see beautiful young girls getting
> > killed, I doubt this sentiment is what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh.
> > There is something else they have in common, and it isn't love of
> > women.
>
> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
> them?
I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
participate in the military in a combat role or not.
--Sean C
Tuco Ramirez
<red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>In article <bsinr2plgj6sn7ahg...@4ax.com>, Tuco Ramirez
><tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >Thank you for your comments. It is clear that I need to avoid your
>> >hateful attitude toward the world.
>>
>> I notice you haven't addressed the questions and therefor I assume
>> that you recognize the mistake in your postition.
>> Being as deceitful as you are, you will never admit it of course.
>>
>> >
>> >>>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
>> >>>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>> >>>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>> >>>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>> >>>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>> >>>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>> >>
>> >>What, no comments about Private Lynch's "heroic" actions?
>> >
>> >The DOD invented the heroics. Look at her MOS.
>>
>> And she happily went along with it, didn't she?
>
>Actually, no, she specifically repudiated what the Pentagon said about
>her and tried to distance herself from being used as a proaganda poster
>girl, which made her a pariah to many of her neighbors. That took a lot
>more guts than most people have, as few in this country are willing to
>go against the herd.
You know this is bull; she didn't change he story until months after;
I don't know the details but I guarantee you that she changed it only
because the truth was going to be revealed by some journalist that
wasn't going along with the "program".
If you want to get into a pissing contest over this, I will dig into
this.
>
>> Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
>> have been there in the first place?
>> Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
>> the face of danger.
>> That's what women, genius!
>
>She was severely wounded and passed out after her convoy was ambushed.
>She didn't have a chance to fight.
>
Reminds me a 1930's movie, where women would faint for the silliest
reasons.
The black girl didn't faint.
Her actions after the rescue weren't exactly classy, to say the least.
I remember that when the Iraqui doctor who revealed where she was (at
great danger to himself and his family!) came to visit the US, she
didn't "have the time" to see him! What an ungrateful bitch!
Tuco Ramirez
<red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
>> >
>> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>> >
>> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>> >
>> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>> >
>> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
>> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>> > > foxholes."
>>
>> >I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
>> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
>> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
>>
>> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
>
>The part where they imagine themselves to be morally superior
How is what one imagines "propaganda"?
If the question is invalid, irrelevant, illogical, etc. then it should
not be a problem for you to answer it and refute any perceived bias
that the question is trying to create.
Why are you avoiding answering the question, and instead attack the
proponents of the question? Is my question "propaganda" too? It must
be because I don't bow to Israel, eh!
> to the
>Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
>keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
>society.
That's their culture, who the hell are you to tell them how to live
their lifes.
I don't see you criticizing Israel for torturing and mutilating (male)
babies, among other things.
>Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
>have to be armed and trained just in case.
That's sexist! I thought you were against that!
>
>> > While I can sympathize
>> > with the sentiment of not wanting to see beautiful young girls getting
>> > killed, I doubt this sentiment is what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh.
>> > There is something else they have in common, and it isn't love of
>> > women.
>>
>> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
>> them?
>
>I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
>harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
>prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
>stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
>and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
>participate in the military in a combat role or not.
Regardless of qualification?
I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
Tuco Ramirez
<ktay...@getnet.net> wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>< Piggy Backing, cuz I kill filed this little fucker some time ago >
>>
>>> Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>>> 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>>
>Bullshit. You've obviously never met any of the women of the U. S.
>Coast Guard you little fucker.
>>
>> Irrelevent. It takes little strength to pull a trigger.
>>
>>
>>> 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>>
>Yeah, that's why women have been in command of USCG ships since the
>early 70's. That's why they are rescue swimmers and members of flight
>crews, cuz they can't handle pressure.
It's called "affirmative action", fool.
>
>Hey, Taco, when was the last time you drove a small boat into a hurricane?
When a hurricane is coming, Tuco goes the other way. Tuco ain't no
fool.
>>
>>> 3) Women get scared easily.
>>
>Bullshit. Everyone gets scared easily in various situations.
Real men have no fear.
> I'd lay
>odds that the first time you faced a raging sea, you'd shit yourself
>like mad and cry for your mommy to come and save you.
>
>Little fuckers like you are a dime a dozen Taco. And lest you think I
>only mention the Coast Guard because I was a member,
I am the marines in the audience will be impressed!
> don't forget:
>
>Women firefighters. (Another job you'd shit yourself over)
"Affirmative Action".
>
>Women Police officers. (Taco shitting himself again)
"Affirmative Action".
>
>Sally Ride and Crista McCullugh (Taco shitting all over the space shuttle)
"Affirmative Action".
>
>Yes Taco, despite your right wing loony tunes, there are many, MANY
>women, doing jobs that you are too fucking scared to do yourself.
>
>To bad you don't have balls enough to even try and keep up with them.
Yang, AthD (h.c)
wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 27, 6:21 pm, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan., 20:50, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>>
>> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>>
>> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>>
>> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
>> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>> > > foxholes."Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>> > 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>
>>You don't need physical strenght to pilot a jet, drive a jeep or use a
>> gun.
>
>The G-forces require a certain degree of physical fitness to be able
>to witstand them.
Is that why the woman pilot here kicked all the guys ass?
http://videos.netscape.com/story/2006/09/09/pilot-training
>Army jeeps don't have power steering.
>These are not plastic toys, they are heavy, and there are supplies to
>carry.
>Why do you want to kill women?
>
>
>>
>> > 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>
>>False. Why do you hate women?
>
>The question is why do YOU? You are the one who wants to kill them
>pal!
>I want them safe at home where they don't get in the way and therefore
>put themselves and those around them in danger.
>You can't legislate biology, you dumbass, they don't belong in the
>battlefield. Simple as that.
>
>
>>
>> > 3) Women get scared easily.
>
>
>>False. Obviously, you don't have the faintest idea what a woman is.
>> Are you sure you're not gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that
>> but that would certainly explain your funny ideas about women...
>
>I want them alive so I can fuck them, you want them dead.
>Who is the gay one?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3063 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
Tuco Ramirez
<andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 27, 9:16 pm, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2007 19:05:20 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil"
>>
>> <andrewfhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 27, 8:55 pm, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 27 Jan 2007 18:40:33 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil"
>>
>> >> <andrewfhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 27 Jan 2007 18:10:59 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil"
>>
>> >> >> <andrewfhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 27, 5:25 pm, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > >Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>> >> >> >> > >1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>> >> >> >> > Irrelevent.
>> >> >> >> > It takes little strength to pull a trigger.How about carrying 80 pounds of supplies on your back, how much
>> >> >> >> strength does it require to walk 10 miles a day with that, eh?
>>
>> >> >> >More strength than some women have. Those that don't have the
>> >> >> >strength shouldn't be in positions where they have to do so.
>> >> >> >More strength than some men have. Those that don't have the strength
>> >> >> >shouldn't be in positions where they have to do so.
>> >> >> >In the case of each gender, those that can do so should not be
>> >> >> >disqualified for the job.
>>
>> >> >> And those that can't do should not be "qualified" for the job thru
>> >> >> "affirmative action".
>>
>> >> >I dion't want any woman given a position simply because of her gender.
>>
>> >> Good.
>>
>> >> >You want women specifically disqualified only because of their gender.
>>
>> >>No I don't.
>>
>> >Yes, you do.
>>
>> >You wrote:
>> >"You can't legislate biology, you dumbass, they [women] don't belong
>> >in the
>> >battlefield. Simple as that."
>>
>> >You want people disqualified from serving in combat simply because of
>> >their gender. The "they" you reference are women. Humans of the
>> >female gender.The vast majority don't belong in the battlefield.
>>
>> > You don't care about merit.Wrong, I care mostly about merit.
>> What the typical dumbass understands are short answers (why do you
>> think politicians speak in sound bytes?)?
>> Since you appear to be intelligent, I am telling you that those were
>> "broad strokes" statements.
>> I am telling you that nobody should be "qualified" or "unqualified"
>> for any position based on any criteria other than what is relevant to
>> the position in consideration, clear enough?
>> Now, are you going to pretend that merit is the determinant factor in
>> government positions?
>
>Nope.
>
>I'm going to wait until you demonstrate that unqualified women are
>serving in combat simply because they are women. Which is to say, I
>will wait endlessly, because you can't do that.
Ok, you randomly choose 100 women from the military (hey, I am not
going to do all the work in this project), and then send them my way
(I am not paying for anybody's expenses, this is your idea), and I
will put them through a physical exam which an over the hill, many
times injured, man can do (that would be me); if they fail, then we
can safely assume that they don't belong in the military (based on
physical condition).
>
>I've served with women. I've served with men.
You didn't "serve", you were getting paid, weren't you?
What's with this bullshit from military personnel, politicians and
dumbass government employees in general about "serving"? You are
"serving" shit, you are getting paid.
>I've seen women I'd be
>happy to serve alongside under fire and those I want nothing to do
>with under such circumstances. I've seen men I'd be happy to serve
>alongside under fire and those I want nothing to do with under such
>circumstances.
>
>You sit on your ass and watch "Cops" and think it tells you something
>meaningful about women and how they can perform in the United States
>Armed Forces.
As long as there are plenty of dumbasses willing to put themselves in
danger so W's pals can make a few bucks, why should I move an inch?
Tuco Ramirez
<andrew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 27, 9:09 pm, Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2007 18:37:01 -0800, "Andrew F. Heil"
>>
>> <andrewfhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 27, 5:34 pm, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 27, 6:21 pm, "Parsifal" <jeanpascalvac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 27 Jan., 20:50, "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>>
>> >> > > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>>
>> >> > > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>>
>> >> > > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
>> >> > > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>> >> > > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>> >> > > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>> >> > > > foxholes."Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>> >> > > 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>> >> >You don't need physical strenght to pilot a jet, drive a jeep or use a
>> >> > gun.
>> >> The G-forces require a certain degree of physical fitness to be able
>> >> to witstand them.
>>
>> >Yep. Those who can't withstand the g-forces shouldn't be permitted to
>> >pilot jets.
>>
>> >Hint - that works on an individual basis.
>>
>> >Here's the thing, using pilots as an example. Every year, the five
>> >branches of the United States military will need X number of new
>> >pilots to replace those lost for various reasons - retirement,
>> >redeployment, medical conditions, deaths. Now, I have no idea how
>> >many pilots X might represent, though considering that there are over
>> >13000 pilots in the USAF alone, 1000 seems a very conservative
>> >estimate. But let us use 1000 as an example.
>>
>> >Now, in order to fill those 1000 slots the military will have several
>> >thousand prospective pilots. Most will be men. After all, there are
>> >far more men than women pilots in the civilian world as well. But
>> >some will be women. Now, when those pilots are tested for both
>> >physical skills pertinent to the job as well as mental aptitude
>> >relevant to the job, there will be 1000 individuals who come in at the
>> >top. Most will be men, but some will be women. What percent of those
>> >top 1000 will be women? I don't know. Let's say 4.1%, as this number
>> >represents the current ratio of USAF pilots that are female. That
>> >means roughly 41 pilots out of our "Top 1000" are female. Their exact
>> >ranking will be dispersed amongst those 1000, some being near the top,
>> >others near the bottom. If we space them out evenly, the most
>> >qualified female pilot will come in around slot number 24. What do we
>> >do with her?
>>
>> She appears (same as the other candidates) qualified. I say
>> "appears" because" she hasn't been tested in combat. The world is
>> full of people who are "brave" when thing are going great, but when
>> the shit hits the fan ....
>
>No pilot initially accepted into the military has been tested in
>combat.
Obvious.
> So they are tested based upon standards refined over
>decades.
Logical.
> And all you can do is deny, without a shred of evidence,
>that a female is qualified.
Read the "She appears..." paragraph above.
> And what is your reason? You don't have
>one. You just end a sentence with ellipses, and hope everyone is dumb
>enough to see this is a substantive argument.
I am practicing for a governmental career.
I want to "serve".
>
>> > Personally, I want her in the cockpit of an F-15 or an F-16. She's
>> >near the top of this year's class; I want her flying the most taxing
>> >aircraft. What do you want?
>
>> Same as you, so far.
>
>Wrong. You've already stated that women do not belong on the
>battlefield.
Generally, overwhelmingly speaking.
>Try not contradicting yourself. It makes you look less
>idiotic, which is always useful when presenting a point of view.
>
>> If she, or anybody, proves unworthy in combat then somebody else
>> should take that position.
>> Like I said, not everybody has the "balls", let's say.
>
>And here, again, you make the point that possessing testicles is
>critical to being a combat pilot.
Did you notice the quotation marks aroung the word balls (that would
be the symbol "); are you familiar with its meaning?
>You might actually try backing that
>up with evidence, as opposed to your endless nebulous assertions.
>Your desperate wishes that women cannot be effective combat pilots
>doesn't make them so. If they are ineffective, then present the
>evidence.
What if they are having a baby in the middle of combat?
Are you going to disqualify pregnant women from combat just because
they are pregnant?
Present proof!!!
>
>> As an analogy, so far she, and the rest of her class, have done great
>> in batting practice against the hitting coach.
>> We still need to see how she, and the rest of her class, will do in
>> the regular season against top pitchers.
>> I don't follow baseball that much anymore, but:
>> 1) Alex Rodriguez plays great in the regular season, but sucks in the
>> playoffs; from the little bit that I have seen, my guess is that he
>> can't handle the pressure, he doesn't have the "balls".
>> 2) Barry Bonds: Same story.
>> 3) Mark McGuire: Same story.
>>
>> Point being that the regular season, like the military training, is
>> part of the story. Strength of character and courage is yet to be
>> determined.
>>
>> >You want her disqualifed because she has a vagina. And you want the
>> >1001st candidate to take her place because he has a penis.
>>
>> Not if she is qualified.
>
>Wrong. She has a vagina. And you've already stated that "they" do
>not belong on the battlefield.
>
>Hint - arguing with points you yourself have previously presented not
>only is counterproductive, it really makes you look like a fool.
And you is arguing with me, which makes you a damn fool!
>
>> >I want the most qualified individuals we can entice to fly for the
>> >United States Armed Forces to be flying the aircraft, from the C-130s
>> >to the F-18s, the A-10s, the Blackhawks, the U-2s and everything else.
>>
>> >You want social engineering.
>>
>> I am completely against it.
>
>No, you keep arguing for it. You want to artificially select out of
>service otherwise qualified individuals simply because humans with
>vaginas, to use your own words, "do not belong on the battlefield".
>
>Social engineering personified.
>
>> >I served. I made it through Army basic training and AIT. I became a
>> >Chemical Operations Specialist and later an Armor Crewman. I passed
>> >all the physical requirements as well as all the aptitude tests. And
>> >I know damn well there are women stronger, fitter, and smarter than
>> >myself.
>>
>>What % would you guess?
>> What %of men would you guess?
>> See the difference?
>
>Yep. And it is irrelevant. I care about merit.
You care about getting the approval of your girlfriend who is looking
over your shoulder to make sure you type the "right" comments.
I understand your wanting to please the little woman.
Tuco don't have a problem with that.
> You care about
>judging an individual not on individual merits but on the average
>abilities of the group to which they belong.
>
>> > I couldn't care less what percentage of women are, whatever
>> >percentage it is, if I was worthy of serving - and I proved that I was
>> >- then the aforementioned women are as well.
>>
>> True.
>
>When you say "true", you look like an idiot for previously claiming
>that "they" [women] do not belong on the battlefield.
>
>> >To disqualify them not on merit but because it offends your
>> >sensibilities is not only nonsensical, but it deprives our nation of
>> >the most qualified individuals serving in her defense.
>> In the case of the US, it's offense.
>
>It's defense, genius. Military engagements are all, ultimately,
>wisely or foolishly, undertaken for reason of national security.
You poor ignorant fool.
> In
>other words, defense.
Conquests, commercial empires, etc.
> Campaigns may be offensive. The strategic goal
>is defensive.
Right, the USA has never attacked any country!
>
>> There was a time when the Department of Defense was called the War
>> Department. Not so much bullsit in those good old days, eh?
>>
>>
>>
>> >It's every bit as idiot as drumming out of the Army gay linguists
>> >fluent in Arabic and Pashtun at a time when those individuals are in
>> >critically short supply.
>>
>> In my opinion the armed services are full of repressed faggots; who
>> the fuck wants to spend 8 months in a submarine with 200 other men,
>> for example?
>
>Thankfully, thousands of men (and, uselessly thus far, women) do.
>Their sexual orientation does not concern me. Again, merit concerns
>me, not your social engineering obsessions.
Their sexual orientation concerns me in the shower.
>
>> >Once again, social engineers deprive our
>> >armed forces of desperately needed individuals in order to advance
>> >their social agenda.
>>
>> >Merit matters.
>>
>> In a good world, it would be what matters most.
>
>And in the real world where idiotic social engineers such as yourself
>are constantly meddling, it is a never-ending battle to see that merit
>and not your dogma carries the day.
>
>> > Your uptight agenda doesn't count for shit. Get used
>> >to it.
>> Tuco doesn't have to get used to shit!
>
>True. You can wring your hands and be endlessly pissed because women
>want to serve.
I don't mind a woman who can serve me a good home-cooked meal.
They should be happy being women, and stop listening to a bunch of
lesbian bitches' bullshit about what it means to be a woman.
>
>Your loss, you laughable little loser.
Tuco Ramirez
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
>On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, "Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>>>
>>> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>>>
>>> Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>>>
>>> On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
>>> military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
>>> what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
>>> babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
>>> foxholes."
>>
>>Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
>>1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>>2) Women can't handle pressure.
>>3) Women get scared easily.
>
>So why are all these women in Iraq while you're sitting on your fatass
>jacking off to FOX News?
You have to admit that Fox News has a few babes on the roster.
Them bitches kan give this niggah d news anytime, yessih!
>
>>Is that who you want protecting your back?
>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>
>
>
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:58:36 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:49:11 -0500, in alt.atheism
> >>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:02:17 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>> That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> >>>>> military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> >>>>> what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> >>>>> babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> >>>>> foxholes."
> >>>>
> >>>>Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> >>>>1) Women are physically weaker than men.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>2) Women can't handle pressure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>3) Women get scared easily.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why do you hate women?
> >>
> >>
> >>them because you want to kill them?!
> >>Explain that "logic".
> >>Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> >>laid?
> >
> >hateful attitude toward the world.
>
> I notice you haven't addressed the questions and therefor I assume
> that you recognize the mistake in your postition.
> Being as deceitful as you are, you will never admit it of course.
>
> >
> >>>>One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> >>>>heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
> >>>>already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
> >>>>fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> >>>>stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
> >>
> >
> >The DOD invented the heroics. Look at her MOS.
>
> And she happily went along with it, didn't she?
No. They exploited the fact that she had been traumatized and couldn't
remember the details, due to being severely injured and drifting in and
out of consciousness. She never tried to take credit for things she
didn't do. The Bush admin lied about her, like they liked about Bush's
own service and like they lie about everything.
> Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
> have been there in the first place?
> Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
> the face of danger.
Hey, it kept her alive, so it worked. That what being scared is supposed
to do -- help keep you alive. It's only cowards likely yourself that you
are so paralyzed by fear that you can't function.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
quibbler
> > Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > he is out!
> > And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>
> oh well. lethal injection.
>
> and that's just for being atheist.
Your homicidal, sociopathic urges are noted.
quibbler
> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> >>>> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> >>>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> >>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
> >>>>> Explain that "logic".
> >>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> >>>>> laid?
> >>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> >>> he is out!
> >> and that's just for being atheist.
> > I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
> > He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
>
And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
injection" for being stupid.
peachy ashie passion
>
> I don't mind a woman who can serve me a good home-cooked meal.
> They should be happy being women, and stop listening to a bunch of
> lesbian bitches' bullshit about what it means to be a woman.
>
Oh, Tuco Tuco Tuco...
I am disappointed in you dear. That whole misogyny thing is such an
EASY troll.
Not at all advamced trolling, honey.
It's all too easy to say a couple of things denigrating women and get
people all riled up.
Douglas D. Anderson
"quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
>
> Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
> intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
> sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
> later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
>
around telling people "Don't be like the hypocrites!". So there you are, posting
to an atheist group yet so steeped in Christian tradition you don't even begin to
see it. You really are transparently hypercritical.
Uncle Vic
Naw, I stay out of them joints...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Convicted by Earthquack
Plonked by Fester
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 12:02 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <epgmo5$6l...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, rrca...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 5:58 pm, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:15:35 +0200, Richard Catto <rrca...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> Tuco Ramirez wrote:
> > >>>>>> Why do you hate women?
> > >>>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> > >>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
> > >>>>> Explain that "logic".
> > >>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> > >>>>> laid?
> > >>>> it seems to be the case.
> > >>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > >>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > >>> he is out!
> > >>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!oh well. lethal injection.
> > >> and that's just for being atheist.
> > > He is one of them long haired hippie type pinko fags,
> > > I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
> > > He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
>
> > you should mow that lawn.
>And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
> injection" for being stupid.
You is clever, ain't ya boy?!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 12:00 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <epglf4$6a...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, rrca...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > > he is out!
> > > And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>
> > oh well. lethal injection.
>
> > and that's just for being atheist.
>Your homicidal, sociopathic urges are noted.
You seem turned on.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 11:59 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <7aknr2lejtn4b9fjf1l58cdqolpstg0...@4ax.com>,
> tucod...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
>Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
> intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
> sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
> later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
No, you are! Why was it ok for Russell to make such statements and
not for me, eh?
You elitist hypocrite! You can't keep Tuco down!
I notice you have denied being one of them commie, atheist, jewish
fags.
I say you are probably all, and certainly at least 3.
Identify yourself I demand!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 9:38 am, "Douglas D. Anderson" <d...@rr.rochester.com>
wrote:
> "quibbler" <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote> tucod...@yahoo.com says...
See, the poor dumbass doesn't even know what the word means, but he
knows that it is something "bad", so he instinctively throws it around
as a defence mechanism.
I feel sorry for the poor demented monkey.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 11:27 pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> Free Lunch explained :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > <1169927440.275764.287...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>
> >>>http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>
> >>> Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>
> >>> On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> >>> military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> >>> what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> >>> babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> >>> foxholes."
>
> >> Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> >> 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
> > Generally true.
>Depends on what is meant by "physically weaker". If you mean
> short-term physical ability (as in lifting heavy items), you are
> correct - which is why women keep men around to do such menial tasks.
Ok.
> If you refer to the ability to withstand physical pain, ask a woman
> about childbirth - let alone nine months of pregnancy.
They complain because they can't stand it which proves their lack of
tolerance of pain.
Women have made suckers of most men with all this bullshit about
pregancy discomforts, birthing pains, and best of all "post natal
depression syndrome" or whatever the fuck the asshole who invented
this "disease" named it.
If almost feel sorry for suckers who believes the bullshit.
Now excuse me, I think I am coming from a case of "post breakfast
depression syndrome" and I am going to kill my neighbor's dog?
I am sure he will forgive me, after all it's not my fault, it's the
PBDS.
> If you are
> referring to physical stamina, compare a woman who runs a household,
> manages the children, and holds a job to a man who has a job.
Who are the top marathon runners?
Point, game, set, and match to Tuco!
>
> >> 2) Women can't handle pressure.
> > False.
> >> 3) Women get scared easily.
> > No more easily than men.
> > Why do you hate women?
> >> Is that who you want protecting your back?
> >> One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> >> heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
> >> already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
> >> fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> >> stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!--
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 11:48 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1169927440.275764.287...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tucod...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>
> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>
> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>
> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > > foxholes."
>
> > Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> > 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>It sure takes a lot of physical strength to pull a trigger. Women have
> fought in the Israeli
No, they haven't. They are there to remind the men what they are
fighting for. They are kept away from any fighting.
> and Russian army
Commies.
> as well as in many guerilla
> conflicts.
Commies.
> Physical strength hasn't been the main factor on the
> battlefield in many decades.
It's a factor, and more importantly is stamina which women lack.
> The japanese rampaged all over the pacific
> and they were short little bastards.
And them Japs were rice-eaters too!
>We did finally beat them, but only
> with atomic bombs, which also didn't require physical prowess.
When was the last time you bench pressed 8 tons?
>
> > 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>You just finished criticizing Bertrand Russell for saying that men were
> smarter than women, on average. Of course in 1929 it might have seemed
> that way, due to the fact that they were denied proper access to higher
> education, careers outside the home, etc. Now here you are trying to
> pull the same maneuver you criticized when it came from a liberal atheist
> like Russell.
What doesn handling pressure and smarts have to do with each other,
you dumbass?!
Why was it ok for your hero to put down women but not for me to make
an accurate description of the situation?
Like a typical liberaaaaallllllll, you are one of them cowardly closet
racists!
>
> > 3) Women get scared easily.
>People who aren't scared by reasonable dangers are morons.
Guess who make the best soldiers, you dumbass?
Hint: Idiots who will put themselves in danger for someone's benefit,
for an evil cause, all for a medal.
> You don't
> have to lack fear, so long as it doesn't paralyze you.
Don't be inventing words now, you dumbass.
>Not that you'd
> probably know anything about real valor.
Anytime you want to test me, we can arrange a "meeting of the minds"
so you can straighten me out.
>
>
>
> > Is that who you want protecting your back?
>I certainly wouldn't trust you to do it, taco.
>
> > One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> > heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia
>You mean Jessica Lynch. She was from West Virginia, not that you'd know
> the difference.
West Virginia is in Virginia dumbass, that's why it's called West
Virginia.
She's one of them hillbillies.
> That was a fabrication by the reich-wing Bush admin in
> an attempt to bolster their failing war effort.
And she went along with it, and made a million bucks from a buck full
of lies, etc.
>
> > (I forgot her name
> > already, thank God),
>There is no god and I doubt that you ever knew that much about her to
> begin with.
I already said that, fool.
>
> > the truth eventually came out that when the
> > fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> > stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>Seeking cover is precisely what soldiers are trained to do
And where does shooting at the enemy come into play, you dumbass!!?
>and ones who
> are too dumb to do that don't live very long. Now then, what was her job
> description, since you think you know so much. I'll tell you. She
> wasn't expected or trained to be shooting
How much training do you need, dumbass?
Maybe I will help you:
1) Go get your gun.
2) Put it against your head
3) Pull the trigger.
See how easy that was?
>it out with hard core
> operators. Her weapon jammed.
Sure it did.
> Only an idiot wouldn't seek cover under
> those conditions.
>
That's a winning strategy! When they shoot at you, don't shoot back,
just hide!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 27, 11:54 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <bsinr2plgj6sn7ahg89ld1c61juaeb7...@4ax.com>,
> tucod...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:58:36 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:49:11 -0500, in alt.atheism
> > >Tuco Ramirez <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > ><v3inr21sknqqls7bbc3b6bv3bcn5hph...@4ax.com>:
> > >>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:02:17 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> > >>wrote:
>
> > >>>On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> > >>>"Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > >>><1169927440.275764.287...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Why would she be "traumatized", after all according to you women have
the mental strength to withstand combat?
>and couldn't
> remember the details, due to being severely injured and drifting in and
> out of consciousness.
If she was unconscious, what "traumatized" her?
Your/her story doesn't withstand the least bit of scrutiny you
dumbass!!
> She never tried to take credit for things she
> didn't do.
Really, and what was the million dollar book signing, the talk shows
tour, etc. about?
Now, the negress did her job and what did she get?
She wasn't "traumatized", she didn't hide like a coward, she fought
back like she is supposed to do!
That negress was a credit to her race and her sex, unlike your
fraudulent hillbilly girl.
> The Bush admin lied about her, like they liked about Bush's
> own service and like they lie about everything.
Do they lie about lying?
>
> > Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
> > have been there in the first place?
> > Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
> > the face of danger.
>Hey, it kept her alive, so it worked.
Is that the strategy they are teaching in the Army? When the enemy
confronts you, hide!
And who is supposed to kill the enemy then, you dumbass!!?
> That what being scared is supposed
> to do -- help keep you alive.
Exactly, that's why evolution (aren't you dumbasses supposed to be big
believers in evolution?) has chosen women who stay away from danger,
and when confronted, flee from danger, you dumbass! That's what
women do, it's part of being a woman.
> It's only cowards likely yourself that you
> are so paralyzed by fear that you can't function.
What's "paralyzed"?
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 1:00 am, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:27:09 -0700, Pangur Ban
>
>
>
>
>
> <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Free Lunch explained :
> >> On 27 Jan 2007 11:50:40 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> <1169927440.275764.287...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>> On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
>
> >>>>http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
>
> >>>> Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
>
> >>>> On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> >>>> military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> >>>> what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> >>>> babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> >>>> foxholes."
>
> >>> Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> >>> 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>
> >> Generally true.
>
> >Depends on what is meant by "physically weaker". If you mean
> >short-term physical ability (as in lifting heavy items), you are
> >correct - which is why women keep men around to do such menial tasks.
> >If you refer to the ability to withstand physical pain, ask a woman
> >about childbirth - let alone nine months of pregnancy. If you are
> >referring to physical stamina, compare a woman who runs a household,
> >manages the children, and holds a job to a man who has a job.
>Or that a women are more likely to live through harsh conditions than
> men. Just ask all the Donner Party survivors.
Because all the dumbass men were tripping over themselves to help the
women instead of fighting for their own survival.
As if you didn't know it!
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>
> >> False.
>
> >>> 3) Women get scared easily.
>
> >> No more easily than men.
>
> >> Why do you hate women?
>
> >>> Is that who you want protecting your back?
> >>> One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> >>> heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
> >>> already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
> >>> fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> >>> stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!-----
> Yang
> a.a. #28
> AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
> a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
> EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
>
> The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
> The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
> The Bush Iraq lie: -3074 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
>
> Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless
>
> newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
> in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's bullshit:
>
> rec.art.scifi.written
> sci.archaeology
> soc.history.what-if- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 1:16 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:24:45 GMT, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:00:09 -0800, in alt.atheism
> >"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
> ><kteor2ddlbsn00rtdtbrttph7ff7iis...@4ax.com>:
> >Agreed with both of your points. There is a reason that women live
> >longer than men.
>I would imagine the ability to live through harsh conditions was a
> good soldiering skill to have in 1941 Stalingrad
That's a brilliant deduction!
> >>soc.history.what-if-----
Douglas D. Anderson
"Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> On Jan 27, 11:27 pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>> If you refer to the ability to withstand physical pain, ask a woman
>> about childbirth - let alone nine months of pregnancy.
>
> They complain because they can't stand it which proves their lack of
> tolerance of pain.
>
wimp-out c-sections, who fell down the stairs and shattered her wrist a few
years ago, who did not hesitate to say that shattering her wrist was far more
painful than childbirth ever was, and that the pain went on at the same level
of intensity for hours, while childbirth was over in a relatively shorter amount
of time. So don't let the women fool you with that childbirth routine. Women
who make the claim about childbirth, which obviously can't be substantiated,
should be required to go into combat until they sustain debilitating injuries and
then come back and fill out a survey about what was more painful.)
Tuco Ramirez
In my country, women go into the bushes, gather some dry bushes to
cushion the fall, bend their kness as if taking a shit standing up,
and out comes the baby. End of story.
Here is a general rule for you: The richer a country is, the more
"diseases" are invented by doctors trying to drum up business.
Celebrities in the USA occassionally suffer from "fatigue", now that's
a rich bitch's "disease" if I ever heard of one!
Only in the USA and other "advanced" western countries, do people
suffer such bullshit ailments as post-childbirth depression, or
post-traumatic stress disorder, and so on.
Oh shit, it's 5 p.m. and I haven't had lunch: I think I am suffering
from Late-Lunch Stress Disorder!
Somebody save me, please!
Richard Catto
>>>>>>>> Why do you hate women?
>>>>>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
>>>>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
>>>>>>> Explain that "logic".
>>>>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
>>>>>>> laid?
>>>>>> it seems to be the case.
>>>>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
>>>>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
>>>>> he is out!
>>>>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!oh well. lethal injection.
>>>> and that's just for being atheist.
>>> He is one of them long haired hippie type pinko fags,
>>> I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
>>> He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
>> you should mow that lawn.
> And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
> injection" for being stupid.
<club>
655321
Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:29:50 GMT, 655321
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tuco Ramirez" <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
> >> >
> >> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> >> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >> >
> >> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >> >
> >> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >> >
> >> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh
> >
> >You mean draft-evader Limbaugh? There's an authority on military
> >matters to be sure.
>
> When did I say he was?
You didn't. It was more of a question of his being a reliable source
about anything of value.
> >> > > criticized the
> >> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> >> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> >> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> >> > > foxholes."
> >>
> >> > I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
> >> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
> >> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
> >>
> >> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
> >
> >Ask Rush that. He should know, seeing how he can't spread enough of the
> >stuff.
>
> I'm asking you; hint: A question is never propaganda.
Nonsense. A loaded, manipulative question with a built-in answer is
often asked for the purposes of propaganda. The alleged Hezbollah
question certainly smacks of propaganda.
> >"...round up babes and send them off..."
> >
> >As if "babes" is a term that is solely restricted to women. I'm a
> >hetero guy,
>
> Are you one of them "metrosexual" men?
No. I've heard many women refer to guys as babes. It's just a point of
fact.
> You faggots
You goofed again. I was just making an observation, and you can't stop
your knee from jerking.
> come up with clever shit to sneak fagottry into the
> mainstream.
Quit raving and settle down. Your fear is showing.
> As a general rule, you fags are much more clever than the
> typical straight man, I give you fags credit for that.
Again: quit raving and settle down. Tie your knee to your chair and pay
attention to what's being said.
> >but take a look at a picture of Elvis back in his military
> >service days... now *that* is a babe.
No response? Or are you overcome by your fear-based knee spasms?
> >So what Rush said is not propaganda? Maybe he's just mad that he won't
> >have a chance (as if he ever did) with them if they're sent half way
> >across the globe. Face it. He just want's to stir shit up.
>
> That's his job, fool!
Well, he fails to do so to me. I know crap for what it is, and I don't
let it manipulate me. It's comical and sad when other people take what
he says as anything other than a series of word farts.
> He's in the entertaining business, dumbass!
And for some people think that he is... a pretty sad state of affairs.
> What business did you think he is in?
Procuring illegal drugs? Not much else for him to do since he's
allegedly quit carrying Republican water since November.
> >> > While I can sympathize with the sentiment of not wanting to see
> >> > beautiful young girls getting killed, I doubt this sentiment is
> >> > what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh. There is something else they
> >> > have in common, and it isn't love of women.
> >>
> >> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
> >> them?
> >
> >Exactly what about sending people to war has *anything* to do with love?
>
> Ah, if you love them then you don't want them dead, see?
I don't send anyone to war. That's the government's doing, not mine.
And now the propaganda's yours to spread. Aren't men loved as well? We
should keep them from battle as well?
Whoops! Now we're just being pacifist. Can't do that. That would mean
war would end, and that's good business.
> Is that so complicated?
Your view seems pretty simple. No one who is loved by someone else
should be sent to war. Only the truly lonely should be sent to battle.
Is that what you're saying?
> Even though she is a crazy-ass bitch, I wouldn't want to see Angelina
> Jolie sent to fight the Iraquies, but I am all in favor of sending
> fatass-loudmouth-brainless Rosie to the front of the line.
> See the difference?
I see that you are insane. Your idea of an army defending *you* is one
that is composed of people *you* don't like. After all, Rosie is in
fact loved by someone. But of course that doesn't matter to you.
Because *you* hate her (though you don't even know her in person, just
as a TV character) she should be drafted into combat.
That way, you have no motive to, as the cliche goes, 'Support the
Troops.'
> That Rosie bitch has achieved the almost-impossible, thanks to her,
> and his response to her attack, I find myself
> almost-but-not-quite-there liking Donald Trump.
Now you're ranting again. Actually, you've never stopped.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
655321
Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:49:29 -0500, Sean C
> <red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> >Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <ml9nr29b2cg13joagqdoto47e4cbjh8...@4ax.com>, h.c
> >> >
> >> > <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
> >> > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >> >
> >> > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >> >
> >> > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >> >
> >> > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> >> > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> >> > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> >> > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> >> > > foxholes."
> >>
> >> >I recall a propaganda site by Hezbollah with pictures of gorgeous
> >> > Israeli girls in uniform where they asked what kind of society sends
> >> > beautiful girls like this out to fight and die.
> >>
> >> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
> >
> >The part where they imagine themselves to be morally superior
>
> How is what one imagines "propaganda"?
The question is definitely asked as a means of spreading propaganda.
That you don't see it is telling. But given your fantasy military
(populated by people you hate), your own mind is just sufficiently
tenderized such that you wouldn't recognize propaganda, and is easily
manipulated by it.
> If the question is invalid, irrelevant, illogical, etc. then it should
> not be a problem for you to answer it and refute any perceived bias
> that the question is trying to create.
There is a simple answer: a society that sends beautiful girls out to
fight and die is one that does not use gender-bias to disqualify someone
who is otherwise equally (or more) capable to do the job.
Your ideal military, on the other hand, would be composed of people you
are not sexually attracted to, regardless of how poorly they can do
what's asked of them.
[snip]
> >> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
> >> them?
> >
> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
>
> Regardless of qualification?
Qualification is clearly something you don't care about. Why bring it
up now? For you the sole qualification for the military is that you
wish them dead.
Case in point:
> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
'Cause you are an idiot.
Tuco Ramirez
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
What's the "built-in" answer dumbass?
Could it be the "truth"?
I know that for you evildoers, the "truth" is just a tool to be
manipulated, but for some of us it is a guiding light.
> is
>often asked for the purposes of propaganda. The alleged Hezbollah
>question certainly smacks of propaganda.
How is it propaganda?
You still haven't answered, for the obvious reason.
>
>> >"...round up babes and send them off..."
>> >
>> >As if "babes" is a term that is solely restricted to women. I'm a
>> >hetero guy,
>>
>> Are you one of them "metrosexual" men?
>
>No. I've heard many women refer to guys as babes. It's just a point of
>fact.
You did.
>
>> You faggots
>
>You goofed again. I was just making an observation, and you can't stop
>your knee from jerking.
You are one of them "bi-curious" "straight" men, ain't ya boy?
>
>> come up with clever shit to sneak fagottry into the
>> mainstream.
>
>Quit raving and settle down. Your fear is showing.
>
>> As a general rule, you fags are much more clever than the
>> typical straight man, I give you fags credit for that.
>
>Again: quit raving and settle down. Tie your knee to your chair and pay
>attention to what's being said.
You don't say much.
>
>> >but take a look at a picture of Elvis back in his military
>> >service days... now *that* is a babe.
>
>No response? Or are you overcome by your fear-based knee spasms?
>
>> >So what Rush said is not propaganda? Maybe he's just mad that he won't
>> >have a chance (as if he ever did) with them if they're sent half way
>> >across the globe. Face it. He just want's to stir shit up.
>>
>> That's his job, fool!
>
>Well, he fails to do so to me.
Who has 100% audience control, you dumbass?
> I know crap for what it is, and I don't
>let it manipulate me.
In that case, congratulations!
> It's comical and sad when other people take what
>he says as anything other than a series of word farts.
But you are too smart for that.
>
>> He's in the entertaining business, dumbass!
>
>And for some people think that he is... a pretty sad state of affairs.
>
>> What business did you think he is in?
>
>Procuring illegal drugs? Not much else for him to do since he's
>allegedly quit carrying Republican water since November.
No, that's what he does with the money he makes in his business, you
dumbass!
First you make the money (that's where the business part comes in),
then you procure the drugs (with the money you make), see dumbass?
>
>> >> > While I can sympathize with the sentiment of not wanting to see
>> >> > beautiful young girls getting killed, I doubt this sentiment is
>> >> > what motivates Hezbollah or Limbaugh. There is something else they
>> >> > have in common, and it isn't love of women.
>> >>
>> >> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
>> >> them?
>> >
>> >Exactly what about sending people to war has *anything* to do with love?
>>
>> Ah, if you love them then you don't want them dead, see?
>
>I don't send anyone to war. That's the government's doing, not mine.
Then why do you want the government to send babes to their deaths?
Why do you hate women?
>
>And now the propaganda's yours to spread. Aren't men loved as well? We
>should keep them from battle as well?
A man who doesn't love combat isn't worthy.
Real Americans love the sting of battle.
>
>Whoops! Now we're just being pacifist. Can't do that. That would mean
>war would end, and that's good business.
Pinko-commie.
>
>> Is that so complicated?
>
>Your view seems pretty simple. No one who is loved by someone else
>should be sent to war. Only the truly lonely should be sent to battle.
>
>Is that what you're saying?
Are you lonely?
>
>> Even though she is a crazy-ass bitch, I wouldn't want to see Angelina
>> Jolie sent to fight the Iraquies, but I am all in favor of sending
>> fatass-loudmouth-brainless Rosie to the front of the line.
>> See the difference?
>
>I see that you are insane. Your idea of an army defending *you* is one
>that is composed of people *you* don't like. After all, Rosie is in
>fact loved by someone.
Nobody loves that fat-ass bitch.
> But of course that doesn't matter to you.
>Because *you* hate her (though you don't even know her in person, just
>as a TV character) she should be drafted into combat.
>
>That way, you have no motive to, as the cliche goes, 'Support the
>Troops.'
Why do you hate our brave soldiers?
>
>> That Rosie bitch has achieved the almost-impossible, thanks to her,
>> and his response to her attack, I find myself
>> almost-but-not-quite-there liking Donald Trump.
>
>Now you're ranting again. Actually, you've never stopped.
Do you ever stop using your same "standard" responses?
You are very predictable and boring.
Tuco Ramirez
What propaganda?
>That you don't see it is telling.
Why don't you enlighten me?
> But given your fantasy military
>(populated by people you hate), your own mind is just sufficiently
>tenderized such that you wouldn't recognize propaganda, and is easily
>manipulated by it.
>
>> If the question is invalid, irrelevant, illogical, etc. then it should
>> not be a problem for you to answer it and refute any perceived bias
>> that the question is trying to create.
>
>There is a simple answer: a society that sends beautiful girls out to
>fight and die is one that does not use gender-bias to disqualify someone
>who is otherwise equally (or more) capable to do the job.
Nonsense.
How do you know that a society that sends beautiful girls out to
fight and die is one that does not use gender-bias to disqualify
someone from driving a car, or hunting, etc?
You is one stupid dumbass!
>
>Your ideal military, on the other hand, would be composed of people you
>are not sexually attracted to, regardless of how poorly they can do
>what's asked of them.
That sounds like a great idea.
Commie-pinko's like you should recognize it as your previous leaders
have used such tactics extensively.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> So sending women to their deaths is how YOU would show them you love
>> >> them?
>> >
>> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
>> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
>> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
>> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
>> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
>> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
>>
>> Regardless of qualification?
>
>Qualification is clearly something you don't care about. Why bring it
>up now? For you the sole qualification for the military is that you
>wish them dead.
>
>Case in point:
>
>> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
>
>'Cause you are an idiot.
Rosie would make a great Tank.
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Actually, no, she specifically repudiated what the Pentagon said about
> >her and tried to distance herself from being used as a proaganda poster
> >girl, which made her a pariah to many of her neighbors. That took a lot
> >more guts than most people have, as few in this country are willing to
> >go against the herd.
>
>
> You know this is bull; she didn't change he story until months after;
> I don't know the details but I guarantee you that she changed it only
> because the truth was going to be revealed by some journalist that
> wasn't going along with the "program".
> If you want to get into a pissing contest over this, I will dig into
> this.
It was never *her* story to begin with. It was completely fabricated by
the Pentagon and the media. After she recovered from what were very
severe and multiple injuries, she started to speak the truth about what
happened, as far as she was able to recall as she was unconscious
through at least part of her ordeal, and she strongly criticized those
who had lied about her. She had eveything to gain by playing along with
the lie, and everything to lose by speaking the truth, but she came out
on the side of honor and principle. That makes her a hero in my eyes.
> >> Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
> >> have been there in the first place?
> >> Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
> >> the face of danger.
> >> That's what women, genius!
> >
> >She was severely wounded and passed out after her convoy was ambushed.
> >She didn't have a chance to fight.
> >
>
> Reminds me a 1930's movie, where women would faint for the silliest
> reasons.
> The black girl didn't faint.
She had multiple broken bones and a head injury. Those are not "the
silliest reasons."
> Her actions after the rescue weren't exactly classy, to say the least.
> I remember that when the Iraqui doctor who revealed where she was (at
> great danger to himself and his family!) came to visit the US, she
> didn't "have the time" to see him! What an ungrateful bitch!
I'd like to see the evidence of that. Part of the official propaganda
story that particularly angered Lynch was where they claim she had been
abused by staff at the hospital, and she took pains to point out that
they had in fact been very kind to her, with one nurse even singing her
to sleep.
--Sean C
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:49:29 -0500, Sean C
> <red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> >Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The part where they imagine themselves to be morally superior
>
> How is what one imagines "propaganda"?
> If the question is invalid, irrelevant, illogical, etc. then it should
> not be a problem for you to answer it and refute any perceived bias
> that the question is trying to create.
> Why are you avoiding answering the question, and instead attack the
> proponents of the question? Is my question "propaganda" too? It must
> be because I don't bow to Israel, eh!
I think it's because you're a moron who doesn't make any sense.
> > to the
> >Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
> >keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
> >society.
>
> That's their culture, who the hell are you to tell them how to live
> their lifes.
> I don't see you criticizing Israel for torturing and mutilating (male)
> babies, among other things.
I don't see where it was relevant to the conversation.
> >Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
> >have to be armed and trained just in case.
>
> That's sexist! I thought you were against that!
I never said it wasn't, genius.
> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
>
> Regardless of qualification?
> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
Of course, soldiers have to be qualified. Many female soldiers are
better qualified at the jobs they do then their male countrparts, and I
would be willing to bet that would include being a combat soldier. I
can think of a few women I know who I'd rather have at my side in a
battle then some of the punks I went through Basic Training with.
--Sean C
Sean C
Anderson <d...@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
Women have died in childbirth. How many people have died from a broken
wrist?
Although I agree sticking your head up your ass is probably as painful
as childbirth.
--Sean C
Richard Catto
>>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
>>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
>>> he is out!
>>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>> oh well. lethal injection.
>> and that's just for being atheist.
> Your homicidal, sociopathic urges are noted.
I see no evidence of this. Where is your proof?
Are you another lying American?
Robibnikoff
"Douglas D. Anderson" <d...@rr.rochester.com> wrote in message
news:45bd1121$0$5229$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Ya know, I'd like to see Taco Bell grow through having to try to push out a
kid for two hours, without pain killers, and bursting almost every blood
vessel in he/she/its eyeballs because of it >:[
When it was all over, my husband told me "I never saw anyone work that hard
in my entire life.: Ha!
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Robibnikoff
"Sean C" <red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:280120071922152300%red...@burnspammersalive.com...
Ouch!
Tuco Ramirez
Women's bodies are designed for childbirth. The hip bones get
dislocated and expand, tissue is flexible, etc.
You ain't fooling nobody.
Tuco Ramirez
If the baby is not positioned properly, then problems will arise,
sure.
Hell, about 2 months ago I felt a need take a shit but was sleepy so I
went to sleep. Well, during my sleep, the shit must have turned 90
degrees because when I woke up it was impossible to defecate. I
struggled on and off for about an hour, a couple of times I almost
passed out.
My asshole didn't feel right for about 5-6 days.
Similarly, if the baby isn't positioned head first, and instead it's
at a 90 degree angle, that can be hell, but it rarely happens, and if
it does somebody can stick his hands in there and problem solved.
>
>Although I agree sticking your head up your ass is probably as painful
>as childbirth.
Your asshole isn't designed for sticking stuff into it.
Tuco Ramirez
<red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>In article <ps2or2li6t2ukfo72...@4ax.com>, Tuco Ramirez
><tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:49:29 -0500, Sean C
>> <red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1169938486.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Tuco Ramirez <tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >The part where they imagine themselves to be morally superior
>>
>> How is what one imagines "propaganda"?
>> If the question is invalid, irrelevant, illogical, etc. then it should
>> not be a problem for you to answer it and refute any perceived bias
>> that the question is trying to create.
>> Why are you avoiding answering the question, and instead attack the
>> proponents of the question? Is my question "propaganda" too? It must
>> be because I don't bow to Israel, eh!
>
>I think it's because you're a moron who doesn't make any sense.
Which part doesn't make sense, dumbass?
Maybe I will use sentences not longer than 5 words, would that help?
>
>> > to the
>> >Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
>> >keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
>> >society.
>>
>> That's their culture, who the hell are you to tell them how to live
>> their lifes.
>> I don't see you criticizing Israel for torturing and mutilating (male)
>> babies, among other things.
>
>I don't see where it was relevant to the conversation.
Because you are a dumbass!
>
>> >Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
>> >have to be armed and trained just in case.
>>
>> That's sexist! I thought you were against that!
>
>I never said it wasn't, genius.
So I am a moron because I am sexist, and you are a genius because you
are sexist!
You is one special dumbass, ain't ya boy?
>
>> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
>> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
>> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
>> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
>> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
>> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
>>
>> Regardless of qualification?
>> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
>
>Of course, soldiers have to be qualified. Many female soldiers are
>better qualified at the jobs they do then their male countrparts, and I
>would be willing to bet that would include being a combat soldier. I
>can think of a few women I know who I'd rather have at my side in a
>battle then some of the punks I went through Basic Training with.
Angelina Jolie, that crazy-ass bitch, can figth alongside with me
anytime, but I would prefer Rosie to be in front of us; if anyone
should get shot, it should be that fat-ass man-hating liberal bitch.
In the meantime, Angie baby can play with my guns while we watch that
mountain of lard die.
Tuco Ramirez
It's all over the internet, do some research. It was a lawyer, not a
doctor who led the Americans to her.
knock yourself out, dummy.
Richard Catto
>>>>> What part of the question is "propaganda"?
>>>> Ask Rush that. He should know, seeing how he can't spread enough of the
>>>> stuff.
>>> I'm asking you; hint: A question is never propaganda.
>> Nonsense. A loaded, manipulative question with a built-in answer
> What's the "built-in" answer dumbass?
> Could it be the "truth"?
> I know that for you evildoers, the "truth" is just a tool to be
> manipulated, but for some of us it is a guiding light.
you won't get an answer. atheists have a lot of pride. they can never
admit when they're wrong.
>> is
>> often asked for the purposes of propaganda. The alleged Hezbollah
>> question certainly smacks of propaganda.
> How is it propaganda?
> You still haven't answered, for the obvious reason.
daddy bush told him that hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.
it must be. it's fighting AGAINST Israel.
that is strictly verboten. anyone fighting against Israel is by
definition a nazi.
it's the new rules.
Israel scatters cluster bombs in civilian areas = good defensive action
Hezbollah lobs a few rockets into a suburb = terrorist action (bastards!
bastards! bastards!) and of course, now we can do anything we like, and
it's all good.
because they're the terrorists and we are as pure as the driven snow.
>>>> "...round up babes and send them off..."
>>>> As if "babes" is a term that is solely restricted to women. I'm a
>>>> hetero guy,
>>> Are you one of them "metrosexual" men?
>> No. I've heard many women refer to guys as babes. It's just a point of
>> fact.
> You did.
this guy is a maniac. only women can be babes. only a fag would call a
man a babe.
>>> You faggots
>> You goofed again. I was just making an observation, and you can't stop
>> your knee from jerking.
> You are one of them "bi-curious" "straight" men, ain't ya boy?
he's way past that stage. he's coming to South Africa to marry his gay
lover.
Pangur Ban
> Ok.
How many children have you born? You must really be an expert on the
subject. Frankly, I suspect a very constipated bowel movement would
have you in bed for a week.
>> If you are
>> referring to physical stamina, compare a woman who runs a household,
>> manages the children, and holds a job to a man who has a job.
> Who are the top marathon runners?
> Point, game, set, and match to Tuco!
And who is taking care of the details of life so these runners can run?
Either a woman - or someone else hired to take care of everything.
Men seem to do best when they concentrate on one activity at a time - a
job, running, football, etc.
Physical stamina is not just running some stupid course which ends at a
specific point. Physical stamina is getting up every day and taking
care of everyone in the household - from children to husband - and then
getting up the next morning to do it all over again.
>>>> 2) Women can't handle pressure. False.
>>>> 3) Women get scared easily.
>>> No more easily than men.
>>> Why do you hate women?
>>>> Is that who you want protecting your back?
>>>> One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
>>>> heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
>>>> already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
>>>> fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
>>>> stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!--
--
Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist
Douglas D. Anderson
"Sean C" <red...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote
off both ulna and radius, requiring three complex and high tech surgeries to re-
attach with partial loss of use even so. In the era in which women died in child-
birth, 75 + years ago, people would also died of gangrene infection due
to damaged arteries and veins in such an injury. Be that as it may, the point was
"pain", women don't die of "pain" in childbirth. It looks like you're the one with
your head up your ass.
Douglas D. Anderson
Ah.... a "Breach Crap".... that can be very serious.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 8:03 pm, Pangur Ban <PangurBanThe...@worldnet.att.net>
I am not a car, but I am an expert on auto warranties.
Any other questions?
>
> >> If you are
> >> referring to physical stamina, compare a woman who runs a household,
> >> manages the children, and holds a job to a man who has a job.
> > Who are the top marathon runners?
> > Point, game, set, and match to Tuco!
>And who is taking care of the details of life so these runners can run?
> Either a woman - or someone else hired to take care of everything.
> Men seem to do best when they concentrate on one activity at a time - a
> job, running, football, etc.
You are a woman, aren't you?
>
> Physical stamina is not just running some stupid course which ends at a
> specific point. Physical stamina is getting up every day and taking
> care of everyone in the household - from children to husband - and then
> getting up the next morning to do it all over again.
9-11 a.m.: watch morning show
11 a.m. 12p.m : talk with friend for 1 hours on the phone and bitch
about how there is not enough time in the day to do all the things one
needs to do.
12 - 12:30: lunch
12:30 - 1:00pm: talk with friend for 1/2 hour on the phone and bitch
about how there is not enough time in the day to do all the things one
needs to do.
1-4: soap operas
4-5: Oprah, can't forget Queen Oprah!
5-6: the News
6-7: Complain to husband that there is not enough time, and that you
need him to pull his own weigth around the house.
Tuco don't fall for that bullshit.
>
> >>>> 2) Women can't handle pressure. False.
> >>>> 3) Women get scared easily.
> >>> No more easily than men.
> >>> Why do you hate women?
> >>>> Is that who you want protecting your back?
> >>>> One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> >>>> heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia (I forgot her name
> >>>> already, thank God), the truth eventually came out that when the
> >>>> fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> >>>> stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!----
> Pangur Ban - nonchristian theist- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 8:16 pm, "Douglas D. Anderson" <d...@rr.rochester.com>
wrote:
> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:22:15 -0500, Sean C
> > <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <45bd1121$0$5229$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Douglas D.
> > >Anderson <d...@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
>
> > >> "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote
At the time it was serious business; Tuco's asshole's restoration to
its previous state and time has brought out the comedic value of my
predicament.
It was "serious shit" at the time it happened.
>
>
>
> > My asshole didn't feel right for about 5-6 days.
>
> > Similarly, if the baby isn't positioned head first, and instead it's
> > at a 90 degree angle, that can be hell, but it rarely happens, and if
> > it does somebody can stick his hands in there and problem solved.
>
> > >Although I agree sticking your head up your ass is probably as painful
> > >as childbirth.
>
> > Your asshole isn't designed for sticking stuff into it.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Richard Catto
> I'd like to see the evidence of that. Part of the official propaganda
> story that particularly angered Lynch was where they claim she had been
> abused by staff at the hospital, and she took pains to point out that
> they had in fact been very kind to her, with one nurse even singing her
> to sleep.
it's a ridiculous fairy tale.
i would have shot her out of hand.
those Iraqis were soft. Americans invade my country, i'm gonna kill
every American which comes under my power. no hostages.
you just get corpses back. if that.
end of story.
Richard Catto
> I'd like to see the evidence of that. Part of the official propaganda
> story that particularly angered Lynch was where they claim she had been
> abused by staff at the hospital, and she took pains to point out that
> they had in fact been very kind to her, with one nurse even singing her
> to sleep.
it's a ridiculous fairy tale.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 8:11 pm, "Douglas D. Anderson" <d...@rr.rochester.com>
wrote:
> "Sean C" <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > In article <45bd1121$0$5229$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Douglas D.
> > Anderson <d...@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Tuco Ramirez" <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote
Point, game, set, and match to Mr. Anderson.
I think we won't be hearing from the dumbass on this subject anymore.
Joshua E.
>
>> I know crap for what it is, and I don't
>>let it manipulate me.
>
>In that case, congratulations!
>
>> It's comical and sad when other people take what
>>he says as anything other than a series of word farts.
>
>But you are too smart for that.
>
Jesus Christ, this whole conversation is hilarious, but that
particular passage almost gives me a hardon (I'm probably a fag and
just am too stupid to realize it).
Tuco, you're my fucking hero. Is it really true that no one else who
has posted in this thread has the slightest clue as to its nature, or
is their sense of irony just so much more refined than my own that I'm
falling for their poker faces and missing the sweet subtlty of their
repartee?
I can be a real dumbass, myself, I don't mind tellin' ya.
Josh
"Dread is rare due to fallenness."
- M. Heidegger
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> >And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
> > injection" for being stupid.
>
> You is clever, ain't ya boy?!
More clever than you, that's for sure.
>
>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
quibbler
> quibbler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Why do you hate women?
> >>>>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
> >>>>>>> Explain that "logic".
> >>>>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> >>>>>>> laid?
> >>>>>> it seems to be the case.
> >>>>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> >>>>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> >>>>> he is out!
> >>>> and that's just for being atheist.
> >>> I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
> >>> He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
> >> you should mow that lawn.
> > And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
> > injection" for being stupid.
>
Ah a literal argumentum ad baculum from you. That means you've formally
lost the point. You could have tried to be clever and at least suggested
that you were going to mow the lawn with a riding mower. Sheesh, just
euthanize yourself already and stop wasting other people's air by
breathing.
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> On Jan 28, 12:00 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <epglf4$6a...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, rrca...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > > Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > > > he is out!
> > > > And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
> >
> > > oh well. lethal injection.
> >
> > > and that's just for being atheist.
>
>
Certainly not by the pair of you two cattshit tacos.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 8:33 pm, Joshua E. <n...@available.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007:
>
>
>
> >> I know crap for what it is, and I don't
> >>let it manipulate me.
>
> >In that case, congratulations!
>
> >> It's comical and sad when other people take what
> >>he says as anything other than a series of word farts.
>
> >But you are too smart for that.
>Jesus Christ, this whole conversation is hilarious, but that
> particular passage almost gives me a hardon (I'm probably a fag and
> just am too stupid to realize it).
If you need help deciding, Catto will be happy to assist you.
>
> Tuco, you're my fucking hero.
I have the "hero" part under control, now if can only get people to
start giving me their money for a ticket to the resurrection I will be
set for life.
> Is it really true that no one else who
> has posted in this thread has the slightest clue as to its nature, or
> is their sense of irony just so much more refined than my own that I'm
> falling for their poker faces and missing the sweet subtlty of their
> repartee?
If you sit down at a Poker table and can't see who the sucker is, then
it's you.
>
> I can be a real dumbass, myself, I don't mind tellin' ya.
You have plenty of company.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 8:55 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <epj7fm$cf...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, rrca...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > quibbler wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Why do you hate women?
> > >>>>>>> So I hate them because I don't want them to get killed, but you love
> > >>>>>>> them because you want to kill them?!
> > >>>>>>> Explain that "logic".
> > >>>>>>> Why do you want the bitches to get killed, is it because you can't get
> > >>>>>>> laid?
> > >>>>>> it seems to be the case.
> > >>>>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> > >>>>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> > >>>>> he is out!
> > >>>>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!oh well. lethal injection.
> > >>>> and that's just for being atheist.
> > >>> He is one of them long haired hippie type pinko fags,
> > >>> I think he's got a commie flag up in his garage.
> > >>> He is a snake in the grass I tell ya!
> > >> you should mow that lawn.
> > > And get your stupid ass bitten by a snake. That's your "lethal
> > > injection" for being stupid.
>
> > <club>
>Ah a literal argumentum ad baculum from you. That means you've formally
> lost the point.
Really? Where can I learn some of them fancy Latin words?
Once I learn me some of them fancy Latin words, folks is gonna think
is one smart niggah, yessih!
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That wasn't a shit, you idiot. It was your father's love child.
> >Although I agree sticking your head up your ass is probably as painful
> >as childbirth.
>
> Your asshole isn't designed for sticking stuff into it.
Tell that to your father.
--Sean C
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I think it's because you're a moron who doesn't make any sense.
>
> Which part doesn't make sense, dumbass?
> Maybe I will use sentences not longer than 5 words, would that help?
It would make your posts less tedious.
> >> > to the
> >> >Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
> >> >keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
> >> >society.
> >>
> >> That's their culture, who the hell are you to tell them how to live
> >> their lifes.
> >> I don't see you criticizing Israel for torturing and mutilating (male)
> >> babies, among other things.
> >
> >I don't see where it was relevant to the conversation.
>
> Because you are a dumbass!
Yes, my ass is dumb, which is why I use it to sit and shit, and not to
think. You should try the same, sometime.
> >> >Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
> >> >have to be armed and trained just in case.
> >>
> >> That's sexist! I thought you were against that!
> >
> >I never said it wasn't, genius.
>
> So I am a moron because I am sexist, and you are a genius because you
> are sexist!
> You is one special dumbass, ain't ya boy?
Agreed. I am a genius, and you are a moron.
> >> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
> >> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
> >> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
> >> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
> >> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
> >> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
> >>
> >> Regardless of qualification?
> >> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
> >
> >Of course, soldiers have to be qualified. Many female soldiers are
> >better qualified at the jobs they do then their male countrparts, and I
> >would be willing to bet that would include being a combat soldier. I
> >can think of a few women I know who I'd rather have at my side in a
> >battle then some of the punks I went through Basic Training with.
>
> Angelina Jolie, that crazy-ass bitch, can figth alongside with me
> anytime, but I would prefer Rosie to be in front of us; if anyone
> should get shot, it should be that fat-ass man-hating liberal bitch.
> In the meantime, Angie baby can play with my guns while we watch that
> mountain of lard die.
Well you see Tuco, there are two kinds of people in the world: those
with loaded guns, and those who dig. Since no sane person would trust
you with live ammo, you'd be digging a nice foxhole for Angelina and
her pal Rosie like the servile little rightwing bitch you are.
--Sean C
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 9:06 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> In article <2igqr29ldt2ssgg50fckfg3v4vma4fd...@4ax.com>, Tuco Ramirez
Why is you trippin' niggah?
Sean C
<tuco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It wasn't a lawyer that adminstered her medical care to her, though
I'll grant you're easily fooled.
--Sean C
Sean C
<rrc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Though I don't doubt your capacity to shoot unarmed women in cold
blood, to get an American under you power usually requires some combat
ability, which would rule you out right away.
--Sean C
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 9:19 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> In article <ubhqr2hqech59sm1aottaqbqb0vpeud...@4ax.com>, Tuco Ramirez
I doubt anybody has "adminstered" anything to her, dumbass!
Richard Catto
i'm pretty confident we will, actually.
never underestimate the dumbassishness of a dumbass.
quibbler
> quibbler wrote:
> >>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
> >>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
> >>> he is out!
> >>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
> >> oh well. lethal injection.
> >> and that's just for being atheist.
>
That you can't see something is proof only of your willful blindness, not
a lack of evidence.
>Where is your proof?
How about Webster's dictionary, dickhead. "hostile or harmful to
organized society". You claimed that a person should receive a lethal
injection for being atheist (and possibly for being a jew, a fag or a
commie too). Anyone who actually believes that meets the definition of a
sociopath/anti-social personality.
> Are you another lying American?
You just can't stop with your irrational bigotry, can you CattShit?
Richard Catto
> Tuco, you're my fucking hero.
he's my niggah, Josh! go get your own!
Sean C
Anderson <d...@rr.rochester.com> wrote:
So I take it you think dying in childbirth is a painless process. And
it still happens today, as many as 1 in 1000 women will die in
childbirth in developed countries and 1 in 16 in the third world. And
the pain of pregnancy doesn't begin and end with childbirth. Many women
suffer severe back and pelvic pain during pregnancy, and some women
will develop chronic low back pain, which is the leading cause of
disability in the US today, and still others may develop pelvic
function disorder, which can also be severely disabling. There are many
other risks and problems associated with pregnancy, and it isn't the
cakewalk you in your ignorance think it is.
But then, other people's suffering is always so easy for you wingnuts
to bear.
--Sean C
quibbler
d...@rr.rochester.com says...
>
> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
> >
> > intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
> > sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
> > later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
> >
> Are you prejudiced against hypocrites? It was Jesus who started all that, going
> around telling people "Don't be like the hypocrites!".
He couldn't have been the first or there wouldn't have already been a
term for it. Of course, Jebus did set the standard for being a hypocrite
himself while idiotically trying to condemn others.
> So there you are, posting
> to an atheist group yet so steeped in Christian tradition
I agree that xians are traditionally hypocrites, but justly condemning
them as such is no offense.
> you don't even begin to
> see it.
Perhaps because there is nothing to see, like the hollow space inside
your cranium.
> You really are transparently hypercritical.
"hypercritical"? You called xians hypocrites too and now you're trying
to criticize me for telling the truth.
Tuco Ramirez
No need to fight my bitches, there's enough Tuco to go around.
As my papa used to say:
I luv my niggahs,
but I need my bitches!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 9:23 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> In article <epjim8$g1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, Richard Catto
You is one of them tough "internet marines", ain't ya boy?
Life ain't no video game, sonny boy!
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 9:18 pm, Sean C <redh...@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:
> In article <30hqr2ljbh12oot1d65dqhu63780ca8...@4ax.com>, Tuco Ramirez
>
> <tucod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I think it's because you're a moron who doesn't make any sense.
>
> > Which part doesn't make sense, dumbass?
> > Maybe I will use sentences not longer than 5 words, would that help?It would make your posts less tedious.
>
> > >> > to the
> > >> >Israelis because they don't send their women out to fight, but instead
> > >> >keep them covered from head-to-toe and deny them an active role in
> > >> >society.
>
> > >> That's their culture, who the hell are you to tell them how to live
> > >> their lifes.
> > >> I don't see you criticizing Israel for torturing and mutilating (male)
> > >> babies, among other things.
>
> > >I don't see where it was relevant to the conversation.
>
> > Because you are a dumbass!
>Yes, my ass is dumb,
We got that cleared up in a hurry, now we can move along to the next
topic.
>which is why I use it to sit and shit, and not to
> think. You should try the same, sometime.
>
> > >> >Female Israeli soldiers do not serve in combat units, but they
> > >> >have to be armed and trained just in case.
>
> > >> That's sexist! I thought you were against that!
>
> > >I never said it wasn't, genius.
>
> > So I am a moron because I am sexist, and you are a genius because you
> > are sexist!
> > You is one special dumbass, ain't ya boy?
>Agreed.
So you agree you is one special dumbass, good boy.
The question now, how special a dumbass are you?
>I am a genius, and you are a moron.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> >I would prefer not to see women in combat roles or see them put in
> > >> >harm's way, but not because I don't think they can do the job. I would
> > >> >prefer to see nobody put in harm's way by avoiding unnecessary and
> > >> >stupid wars in the first place. But it should be the right of women,
> > >> >and not Rush Limbaugh, to make the decision whether they will
> > >> >participate in the military in a combat role or not.
>
> > >> Regardless of qualification?
> > >> I would be willing to make an exception for Rosie!
>
> > >Of course, soldiers have to be qualified. Many female soldiers are
> > >better qualified at the jobs they do then their male countrparts, and I
> > >would be willing to bet that would include being a combat soldier. I
> > >can think of a few women I know who I'd rather have at my side in a
> > >battle then some of the punks I went through Basic Training with.
>
> > Angelina Jolie, that crazy-ass bitch, can figth alongside with me
> > anytime, but I would prefer Rosie to be in front of us; if anyone
> > should get shot, it should be that fat-ass man-hating liberal bitch.
> > In the meantime, Angie baby can play with my guns while we watch that
> > mountain of lard die.
>Well you see Tuco, there are two kinds of people in the world: those
> with loaded guns, and those who dig.
That means you dig, dig.
> Since no sane person would trust
> you with live ammo,
Don't matter none, Tuco makes his own luck, fool.
There are two kinds of people in the world:
Those who make things happen, and those who dig, you dig.
>you'd be digging a nice foxhole for Angelina and
> her pal Rosie like the servile little rightwing bitch you are.
Not if Angie-babie has a say on the matter!
Once she gets a hold of my pistolas, she will want me to fire them
again and again.
Every gun makes its own tune, and Angie-babie and me will be making
love to the tune of my pistolas while that fat-ass man-hating liberal
bitch is digging the shithole where she will be buried.
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>In article <epjf0q$dum$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, rrc...@gmail.com says...
>> quibbler wrote:
>> >>> Like a lawyer, I seldom ask questions I don't know the answer to.
>> >>> I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes and
>> >>> he is out!
>> >>> And for a bonus, he is a fucking commie!
>> >> oh well. lethal injection.
>> >> and that's just for being atheist.
>> > Your homicidal, sociopathic urges are noted.
>>
>> I see no evidence of this.
>
>That you can't see something is proof only of your willful blindness, not
>a lack of evidence.
>
>
>>Where is your proof?
>
>How about Webster's dictionary, dickhead. "hostile or harmful to
>organized society". You claimed that a person should receive a lethal
>injection for being atheist (and possibly for being a jew, a fag or a
>commie too). Anyone who actually believes that meets the definition of a
>sociopath/anti-social personality.
What's wrong with getting rid of decent Society's waste?
>
>
>> Are you another lying American?
>
>You just can't stop with your irrational bigotry, can you CattShit?
You is!
Tuco Ramirez
wrote:
>In article <45bcb56f$0$1360$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
>d...@rr.rochester.com says...
>>
>> "quibbler" <quibb...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > tuco...@yahoo.com says...
>> > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
>> >
>> > Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
>> > intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
>> > sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
>> > later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
>> >
>> Are you prejudiced against hypocrites? It was Jesus who started all that, going
>> around telling people "Don't be like the hypocrites!".
>
>He couldn't have been the first or there wouldn't have already been a
>term for it.
Nonsense, you poor dimwit! There are no MFEM systems in existence, and
there is your term, dumbass!
MFCM = Magnetic-free electronic memory system
When I finish building it, I will send you the prototype for you to
inspect, your opinion means a lot to me.
> Of course, Jebus did set the standard for being a hypocrite
>himself while idiotically trying to condemn others.
How can one be a good hypocrite if one doesn't condemn other
hypocrites?!!
You sure is one dumbass fool!
You is a dumbass nigger, ain't ya?
>
>
>> So there you are, posting
>> to an atheist group yet so steeped in Christian tradition
>
>I agree that xians are traditionally hypocrites, but justly condemning
>them as such is no offense.
>
>
>> you don't even begin to
>> see it.
>
>Perhaps because there is nothing to see, like the hollow space inside
>your cranium.
>
>
>> You really are transparently hypercritical.
>
>"hypercritical"? You called xians hypocrites too and now you're trying
>to criticize me for telling the truth.
You just don't get it, eh?
Must he fill his posts with pictures for you to understand?
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> On Jan 27, 11:59 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <7aknr2lejtn4b9fjf1l58cdqolpstg0...@4ax.com>,
> > tucod...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
>
>
> >Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
> > intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
> > sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
> > later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
>
It's pathetic that you thought that was a decent comeback.
> Why was it ok for Russell to make such statements and
> not for me, eh?
Because (1) Russell repudiated the comments and (2) I didn't say that it
was OK for Russell to make those statements. You moronically believe
that if I quote Russell on one subject that I have to believe every thing
he says. It was understandable that Russell made some of the comments he
did in the historical context, while you are a part of a very different
time, so it would be reasonable to apply a different standard to you. If
you still don't understand this, which is highly likely, then you've just
proven yourself to be an absolute moron.
> You elitist hypocrite!
Stop cursing yourself in that mirror, Taco. Even though you're
objectively worthless, you should still try to lie to yourself for self-
esteem purposes.
> You can't keep Tuco down!
You keep yourself down, moron.
>
> I notice you have denied being one of them commie, atheist, jewish
> fags.
Atheist is the only category above that describes me.
> I say you are probably all, and certainly at least 3.
You're wrong again. How typical.
> Identify yourself I demand!
You can cram your demand up your syphillitic twat (aka your mother).
I've never hid the fact that I'm an atheist, nor should I. If you had
even a reasonably functioning brain then you'd be an atheist too.
Instead, you're so paranoid about communism that you can't accept that
they were right about atheism, though clearly wrong about a fair bit of
economic theory.
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> On Jan 27, 11:48 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <1169927440.275764.287...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > tucod...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 27, 2:25 pm, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > That big puss in his ass keeps getting in the way.
> >
> > > >http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/26/limbaugh-demeans-american-service...
> >
> > > > Limbaugh demeans American servicewomen.
> >
> > > > On his radio show today, right-wing host Rush Limbaugh criticized the
> > > > military for allowing women to fight for the United States, asking
> > > > what "it says about a cultured civilized society that it will round up
> > > > babes send them off to basic training and send them off to the
> > > > foxholes."
> >
> > > Despite all the politically correct bullshit you may want to believe:
> > > 1) Women are physically weaker than men.
>
>
> >It sure takes a lot of physical strength to pull a trigger. Women have
> > fought in the Israeli
>
> No, they haven't.
Are you a liar, or just stupid, or both, taco?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
> They are there to remind the men what they are
> fighting for. They are kept away from any fighting.
Bzzzzzzt. You've been proven wrong.
>
> > and Russian army
>
> Commies.
Yeah, those evil commies treat women like people.
>
> > as well as in many guerilla
> > conflicts.
>
> Commies.
>
Bzzzzzzzt. You've been proven stupid, or a liar, or both again.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women20.html
> > Physical strength hasn't been the main factor on the
> > battlefield in many decades.
>
> It's a factor, and more importantly is stamina which women lack.
I don't know what you're talking about and obviously neither do you.
You've apparently never known a woman who could go all night.
>
> > The japanese rampaged all over the pacific
> > and they were short little bastards.
>
> And them Japs were rice-eaters too!
Didn't stop them from kicking ass on the british and inflicting pretty
serious casualties on the much taller, stronger american forces either.
>
> >We did finally beat them, but only
> > with atomic bombs, which also didn't require physical prowess.
>
> When was the last time you bench pressed 8 tons?
You mean kilotons, dickweed and it's not eqivalent to lifting the
kilotons. That's kilotons of high explosive. In any event, you appear
to be refuting your own point. Watch the amazing Taco debate with
himself and still lose.
>
>
> >
> > > 2) Women can't handle pressure.
>
>
>
> >You just finished criticizing Bertrand Russell for saying that men were
> > smarter than women, on average. Of course in 1929 it might have seemed
> > that way, due to the fact that they were denied proper access to higher
> > education, careers outside the home, etc. Now here you are trying to
> > pull the same maneuver you criticized when it came from a liberal atheist
> > like Russell.
>
> What doesn handling pressure and smarts have to do with each other,
> you dumbass?!
Gee, the fact that you're too stupid to see the connection hardly means
that there isn't one. Smart people generally have the thinking skills to
handle problems and stress more rationally. But I didn't claim that
there had to be a direct connection. I just said that bias was similar
to the one you criticized from Russell.
> Why was it ok for your hero
He's not my hero, but he's a lot smarter than you and a better person
than that scumbag Jesus the so-called Christ that you like to fellate
with both hands.
> to put down women
He didn't put them down. His statement probably seemed justified, given
the fact that many women were systematically denied access to education
and encouraged not to develop their minds.
> but not for me to make
> an accurate description of the situation?
Because (1) your statement is not accurate and (2) you've shown bigotry
in a number of other areas, from anti-semitism to homophobia. Therefore,
since bigotry is usually not an isolated event, it's evidence that you're
also bigoted about women (i.e. a misogynist).
> Like a typical liberaaaaallllllll, you are one of them cowardly closet
> racists!
Nope, I'm not a racist. I don't deny that some so-called stereotypes
might have some vague basis in reality either. But I don't think that
race is signficant, compared to enculturation.
>
>
>
> >
> > > 3) Women get scared easily.
>
>
> >People who aren't scared by reasonable dangers are morons.
>
> Guess who make the best soldiers, you dumbass?
You're the dumbass and generalizing about who makes "the best soldiers"
is pretty silly. Meatheads might be good as soldiers on a certain level,
but brains will beat brawn in the long run, contrary to what dipshits
like you might think.
> Hint: Idiots who will put themselves in danger for someone's benefit,
> for an evil cause, all for a medal.
Whatever.
>
> > You don't
> > have to lack fear, so long as it doesn't paralyze you.
>
> Don't be inventing words now, you dumbass.
Eh?
>
> >Not that you'd
> > probably know anything about real valor.
>
> Anytime you want to test me, we can arrange a "meeting of the minds"
> so you can straighten me out.
You're not worth the five seconds it would take to snap you like a
toothpick.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Is that who you want protecting your back?
>
> >I certainly wouldn't trust you to do it, taco.
> >
> > > One example: Despite all the made up bullshit propaganda about the
> > > heroic actions of that female soldier from Virginia
>
>
> >You mean Jessica Lynch. She was from West Virginia, not that you'd know
> > the difference.
>
> West Virginia is in Virginia dumbass, that's why it's called West
> Virginia.
No, stupid fuck, it's a separate state. It isn't just the west part of
virginia.
> She's one of them hillbillies.
It's hard to get people who aren't hillbillies to want to go to Iraq and
get their asses shot off for 12 grand a year.
>
> > That was a fabrication by the reich-wing Bush admin in
> > an attempt to bolster their failing war effort.
>
> And she went along with it, and made a million bucks from a buck full
> of lies, etc.
That's the fricken "american way"(tm), bitch.
>
> >
> > > (I forgot her name
> > > already, thank God),
>
>
> >There is no god and I doubt that you ever knew that much about her to
> > begin with.
>
> I already said that, fool.
You already demonstrated that you're a fool, that's for sure.
>
> >
> > > the truth eventually came out that when the
> > > fighting started she rushed to a hiding place and that's where she
> > > stayed throughout the fight. What a hero!
>
>
> >Seeking cover is precisely what soldiers are trained to do
>
> And where does shooting at the enemy come into play, you dumbass!!?
You do that after you take cover, assfuck.
>
> >and ones who
> > are too dumb to do that don't live very long. Now then, what was her job
> > description, since you think you know so much. I'll tell you. She
> > wasn't expected or trained to be shooting
>
> How much training do you need, dumbass?
> Maybe I will help you:
> 1) Go get your gun.
> 2) Put it against your head
> 3) Pull the trigger.
That's apparently the kind of training you got. You just forgot the part
about putting the barrel in your mouth before firing.
> See how easy that was?
I'm afraid I'll need you to demonstrate.
>
> >it out with hard core
> > operators. Her weapon jammed.
>
> Sure it did.
Do you really think she wouldn't want to use her weapon to defend herself
from enemy forces who easily might have killed her, rather than taking
her prisoner?
>
>
> > Only an idiot wouldn't seek cover under
> > those conditions.
> >
> That's a winning strategy! When they shoot at you, don't shoot back,
> just hide!
No, fool, when your weapon jams, it's time to get the fuck out of dodge.
quibbler
tuco...@yahoo.com says...
> >No. They exploited the fact that she had been traumatized
>
> Why would she be "traumatized", after all according to you women have
> the mental strength to withstand combat?
Firstly, I meant physical trauma, as in a broken leg, fractured
vertebrae, etc, etc. Secondly, men get psychologically traumatized in
combat too. Ever heard of PTSD, dickwad.
>
> If she was unconscious, what "traumatized" her?
The physical injuries of the car crash. Furthermore, the later captivity
was traumatic.
> Your/her story doesn't withstand the least bit of scrutiny you
> dumbass!!
No, you just have no thinking ability.
>
>
>
> > She never tried to take credit for things she
> > didn't do.
>
> Really, and what was the million dollar book signing, the talk shows
> tour, etc. about?
As if you wouldn't cash in too. Please. I though you said you weren't a
commie?
> Now, the negress did her job and what did she get?
You're talking about her best friend Lori? Well, she couldn't get a book
dead, since she was dead and all. Unless you take the term "ghost
writer" literally, that is. <tee hee>
> She wasn't "traumatized", she didn't hide like a coward, she fought
> back like she is supposed to do!
What did you want her to do, throw rocks at her attackers?
> That negress was a credit to her race and her sex, unlike your
> fraudulent hillbilly girl.
It was the racist bush admin who decided to turn lynch into some
centerfold poster girl for their bullshit war.
>
>
>
> > The Bush admin lied about her, like they liked about Bush's
> > own service and like they lie about everything.
>
> Do they lie about lying?
Perhaps occasionally, just out of habit, which would mean that they might
accidentally tell the truth occasionally.
>
>
> >
> > > Don't her "heroic" action during the battle prove that she shouldn't
> > > have been there in the first place?
> > > Only politically correct dummies would expect a woman not to panic in
> > > the face of danger.
>
>
>
> >Hey, it kept her alive, so it worked.
>
> Is that the strategy they are teaching in the Army?
It's called fighting smarter and it's already standard.
> When the enemy
> confronts you, hide!
When you don't have an option, yes.
> And who is supposed to kill the enemy then, you dumbass!!?
Not somebody with a jammed gun, idiot.
>
> > That what being scared is supposed
> > to do -- help keep you alive.
>
> Exactly, that's why evolution (aren't you dumbasses supposed to be big
> believers in evolution?)
Do you think that's some big fabrication too, like the Apollo program?
> has chosen women who stay away from danger,
Not exactly. It said that men are more disposable, because sperm is easy
to come by, while bearing a child takes a bit more effort.
> and when confronted, flee from danger, you dumbass!
You'd be the first person running from the battlefield, I'm sure.
> That's what
> women do, it's part of being a woman.
Your generalization is far less tenable than anything Russell might have
said.
>
>
>
>
> > It's only cowards likely yourself that you
> > are so paralyzed by fear that you can't function.
>
> What's "paralyzed"?
It's american spelling, assweed. We use 'z's. Get a dictionary.
Tuco Ramirez
On Jan 28, 11:02 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1170013910.195590.102...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> tucod...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:59 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7aknr2lejtn4b9fjf1l58cdqolpstg0...@4ax.com>,
> > > tucod...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > > > I think he is one of them atheist jewish faggots, that's 3 strikes
>
> > >Again, here you are expressing anti-semitism, homophobia and religious
> > > intolerance and yet you try to criticize Bertrand Russell for making
> > > sexist or racist remarks, even when he repudiated them several years
> > > later. You really are transparently hypocritical, taco.
>
> > No, you are!
>It's pathetic that you thought that was a decent comeback.
A clear sign that I hurt you.
>
> > Why was it ok for Russell to make such statements and
> > not for me, eh?
>Because (1) Russell repudiated the comments
Ok, in 50 years I will repudiate mine, if that makes you happy, eh
dumbass!
> and (2) I didn't say that it
> was OK for Russell to make those statements.
yes you did; you have spent an inordinate amount of time and effor to
defend the scoundrel. Atheist, commie fags allways stick up for each
other.
> You moronically believe
> that if I quote Russell on one subject that I have to believe every thing
> he says.
You have shown that you worship the man.
> It was understandable that Russell made some of the comments he
> did in the historical context, while you are a part of a very different
> time, so it would be reasonable to apply a different standard to you.
Wrong, keep your marxist bullshit to yourself.
> If
> you still don't understand this, which is highly likely, then you've just
> proven yourself to be an absolute moron.
And your last statement clearly proves in no uncertain terms that you
are a mentally challenged fool.
>
> > You elitist hypocrite!
>Stop cursing yourself in that mirror, Taco. Even though you're
> objectively worthless, you should still try to lie to yourself for self-
> esteem purposes.
Is that what works for you?
I have news for you dimwit, you still are a dimwit!
>
> > You can't keep Tuco down!
>You keep yourself down, moron.
Now that's what I call a comeback!
Please don't hurt me!
>
>
>
> > I notice you have denied being one of them commie, atheist, jewish
> > fags.
>Atheist is the only category above that describes me.
You are clearly a commie fag. Jewish we can let slide.
How about a photograph, preferably a profile? Let's get a look at
that crooked nose!
>
> > I say you are probably all, and certainly at least 3.
>You're wrong again. How typical.
>
> > Identify yourself I demand!
>You can cram your demand up your syphillitic twat (aka your mother).
> I've never hid the fact that I'm an atheist, nor should I.
Proud, ain't we?
> If you had
> even a reasonably functioning brain then you'd be an atheist too.
Don't try to recruit me into your church, and I keep all my money,
fool!
> Instead, you're so paranoid about communism that you can't accept that
> they were right about atheism,
They weren't atheists, fool, their church was the State. You sure is
dumb!
>though clearly wrong about a fair bit of
> economic theory.
"A fair bit"?
Admit it, you are a commie fag.