Heb ik iets gemist of zo?
Karel Jansens
een van de weinige bekijkbare shows op VT4 -- maar ik ben iets te
vroeg en krijg de omroepfien op de buis. Maar in plaats van het
verwachte "Hier is A.T.J. Veel kijkplezier", begint me die
kijkbuistrut daar een Flair-socialistisch betoog af te steken over hoe
de gezondheidszorg in de VS veel te duur is "omdat ze daar geen
mutualiteiten hebben", en dat "Obama daar toch hopelijk iets aan gaat
veranderen".
Waar haalt die uggo eigenlijk het lef vandaan om te denken dat zij
hersens genoeg zou hebben om over zoiets een opinie te mogen hebben,
laat staan dat ze haar door afslankpillen benevelde mentale
oprispingen aan de ether zou mogen toevertrouwen?
Fatwah, allahverdomme! Alle omropepteven tot over hun oren in het
textiel en verder muile dicht!
Fikkie
T IS geen weer he Karel.
En ze worden hier met den dag zotter en astranter.
Borked Pseudo Mailed
> Ik zet nog eens de teevee aan om naar "According To Jim" te kijken --
> een van de weinige bekijkbare shows op VT4 -- maar ik ben iets te
> vroeg en krijg de omroepfien op de buis. Maar in plaats van het
> verwachte "Hier is A.T.J. Veel kijkplezier", begint me die
> kijkbuistrut daar een Flair-socialistisch betoog af te steken over hoe
> de gezondheidszorg in de VS veel te duur is "omdat ze daar geen
> mutualiteiten hebben", en dat "Obama daar toch hopelijk iets aan gaat
> veranderen".
>
> Waar haalt die uggo eigenlijk het lef vandaan om te denken dat zij
> hersens genoeg zou hebben om over zoiets een opinie te mogen hebben,
> laat staan dat ze haar door afslankpillen benevelde mentale
> oprispingen aan de ether zou mogen toevertrouwen?
>
> Fatwah, allahverdomme! Alle omropepteven tot over hun oren in het
> textiel en verder muile dicht!
Werd Kareltje door de koning himself buitengegooid in het paradijselijke Thailand?
Hayek
TIA Daily • January 26, 2009
Obama's Leftist Onslaught
Obama's first week in office dispels any complacency
about his being a "centrist."
Top News Stories
1. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Automobiles
2. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Power Plants
3. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Banks
4. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Trade
5. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Guns
6. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against the War on
Terrorism
Submit articles, interesting links, letters to editor,
or comments to edi...@TIADaily.com.
Top News Stories
Commentary by Robert Tracinski
1. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Automobiles
Some on the right have allowed themselves to get
complacent during Barack Obama's transition, concluding
from some of his appointments that he would drop his
far-left campaign promises in favor of a Clinton-style
"centrist" agenda.
(Alas, many Objectivists also let themselves get
suckered in. They were too invested in a bogus argument
about how the right, rather than the left, is the main
threat to liberty, so they ignored the abundant evidence
about Obama's background, character, and ideas.)
By contrast, I've been arguing that we should be "as
un-reassured as we have the wits to be"—and the first
week of Obama's presidency has vindicated that warning.
As today's edition of TIA Daily documents, President
Obama is now pushing the left's full agenda.
He is pushing for global warming regulations and for
heavy new regulatory restriction on the financial
industry—and he is now considering outright
nationalization of the banks. He's threatening to
reverse the trend toward free international trade,
openly inviting Congress to impose new gun bans, and
removing the US government from a war footing in its
fight against terrorism.
He's also doing a few things to reverse the agenda of
the religious right—but on a small scale compared to his
assault on the values held dear by those of us on the
secular right: free markets and vigorous national defense.
Let's start with environmentalism. Despite speculation
that the new president would shelve global warming
regulations because of the economic crisis, he has put
up on his new White House website a promise to
"implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."
Since "renewable energy" will not be able to replace
fossil fuels, that means roughly an 80% reduction in our
energy use over the next four decades, which in turns
means roughly an 80% reduction in our standard of
living. It is a plan to make economic depression a
permanent fact of life.
Below is the first substantial part of this new agenda:
a presidential directive ordering the EPA to allow
California and a cabal of other states to impose new
fuel-efficiency regulations on automakers, in the name
of stopping global warming. The irony, of course, is
that this is another devastating blow to the very same
Detroit automakers that the Obama administration has
insisted on bailing out.
"Obama's Order Is Likely to Tighten Auto
Standards," John M. Broder and Peter Baker, New York
Times, January 25
President Obama will direct federal regulators on
Monday to move swiftly on an application by California
and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission
and fuel efficiency standards, two administration
officials said Sunday.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign
pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush
administration policy. Granting California and the other
states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be
one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to
quickly put his stamp on environmental policy….
Once they act, automobile manufacturers will
quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling
cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the
national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule….
The emissions standards are part of an ambitious
California plan to reduce emissions of the gases that
are blamed for the heating of the atmosphere….
California was joined in its plea by 13 other
states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington.
Three other states have indicated they plan to adopt the
California standard. Together they account for about
half of the American market for cars and light trucks.
back to top
2. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Power Plants
In addition to taking up the environmentalist war on the
internal combustion engine, President Obama has also
joined the environmentalist's war against coal-fired
power plants, which supply roughly half of the nation's
electricity. Jack Wakeland sent me the link below
describing "the first opportunity that the Obama
administration's EPA has had to act on a coal power
plant license." He continues:
"This may be the first shot fired in a political
campaign to cripple all coal power plant construction
projects in the regulatory pipeline.
"The EPA placed a hold on licensing the 580 MWe Big
Stone II coal power plant in South Dakota stating that
the design did not meet parts of the Clean Air Act for
reducing SO2, NOx, and heavy metals emissions. But this
is a bogus concern, as explained by the project's owners:
With the addition of Big Stone II, the generating
capacity of the power station will more than double,
while the amount of emissions emitted into the
atmosphere will not increase from current levels. In
fact, the two plants combined will emit the same amount
or less SO2, NOx and mercury than the existing plant
does today.
"The real issue with this South Dakota power plant is
that almost half of the electricity it generates will be
transmitted to users in Minnesota, a state that passed a
law that requires the state Public Utilities Commission
to consider carbon dioxide emissions.
"Last May an administrative law judge in Minnesota
directed the PUC to deny permission for the power line
project (and, thus, the power plant). In June the PUC
turned a simple approval into a six-month ordeal.
Finally on January 15, 2009—the last week of the Bush
administration—the Minnesota PUC approved the power line
after the project owner made assurances that they would
consider carbon sequestration technology in the future.
"This week, by bringing up exaggerated concerns over
compliance with SO2, NOx and heavy metal emission
requirements, the Obama administration is delaying the
project in order to give opponents time to figure out a
way to have Minnesota's carbon emissions guidelines
applied in a more destructive way.
"If the Minnesota PUC won't do it under the direction of
a regulatory 'judge,' how will the project's opponents
get their way? By litigation in federal court. And if
local opponents in Minnesota don't have the resources to
sue, who knows, maybe [new US Attorney General] Eric
Holder will do it for them.
"And if that litigation fails to kill the project
outright, it may delay permitting for the new coal power
plant long enough that the Obama administration's new
'cap-and-trade' CO2 reduction rules will apply.
"If it seems like I'm making a big stretch here,
asserting that the Obama administration's EPA would
spend this much energy over a single coal power station,
think again. This is why Mr. Obama ran for president.
This is why his cabinet-level and sub-cabinet level
appointees have spent their lives in public service.
This could be their first action in the field since the
election was 'stolen' from Al Gore in 2000."
"EPA Raises Objections to Big Stone II Power
Plant," Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio, January 23
The Environmental Protection Agency has thrown up a
major hurdle to the proposed Big Stone II power plant.
The coal-fired plant is being planned for construction
near Milbank, South Dakota, just across the Minnesota
border. The EPA is objecting to a South Dakota air
permit for the plant. The EPA objection could also
impact a recent decision by the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission to approve power lines for the project.
The EPA objection is over an air quality permit
issued last November by the South Dakota Board of
Minerals and Environment. At the time Big Stone II
officials called the approval "a major step forward" for
the plant. Now the EPA's Denver office is questioning
whether the South Dakota air permit is adequate….
Environmental groups are cheering the EPA action.
They say the Big Stone coal plant would add to global
warming problems. In a statement issued from its
Washington, DC headquarters, the Sierra Club says the
decision, "likely spells the end" of Big Stone II.…
Taylor says the required changes in the South
Dakota air permit will make the plant more expensive to
build. Minnesota law requires that new power lines for a
coal plant can only be approved under certain
conditions, she says.
"The applicant, usually a utility, has to prove
that that costs less than using renewable energy or
energy efficiency or a combination of the two," says Taylor.
Her group will ask the PUC to reconsider its power
line permit for Big Stone II. Taylor says the increased
costs of the plant because of the air permit issue will
be one of the issues the group raises. It's possible the
plant's energy will cost more than renewables like wind
power, she says.
back to top
3. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Banks
Meanwhile, in the middle of a financial crisis,
President Obama's primary solution is to impose
crippling new regulations on the financial industry.
According to the New York Times :
Officials say they will make wide-ranging changes,
including stricter federal rules for hedge funds, credit
rating agencies and mortgage brokers, and greater
oversight of the complex financial instruments that
contributed to the economic crisis.
Broad new outlines of the administration's agenda
have begun to emerge in recent interviews with
officials, in confirmation proceedings of senior
appointees and in a recent report by an international
committee led by Paul A. Volcker, a senior member of
President Obama's economic team.
A theme of that report, that many major companies
and financial instruments now mostly unsupervised must
be swept back under a larger regulatory umbrella, has
been embraced as a guiding principle by the
administration, officials said.
Some of these actions will require legislation,
while others should be achievable through regulations
adopted by several federal agencies.
Meanwhile, the moderate left—as represented by the New
York Times editorial board—has picked a new target:
401(k) plans. The Times, echoing several Democratic
congressmen, is proposing to eliminate 401(k)s, which
were designed to offer a tax advantage for individually
owned private retirement accounts, and replace them with
some kind of government-managed or guaranteed retirement
accounts.
But the really scary news is that the Obama
administration is now quietly mulling the prospect of
nationalizing the nation's major banks. To be sure, the
article below is forthright about some of the bad
consequences of government ownership of banks, and it
says that the Obama administration is so far attempting
to avoid public discussion of nationalization.
But even a hint of this idea is likely to discourage
investors from putting a single dime of private money
into the banks—making nationalization a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
The economy was the one issue on which I could see the
argument made by those who predicted that Obama would no
worse than Bush. After all, they asked, is it possible
to get any more socialistic than the Bush
administration's response to the financial crisis? The
Obama administration is giving its answer: "Yes, we can."
"Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look," David
E. Sanger, New York Times, January 26
Only five days into the Obama presidency, members
of the new administration and Democratic leaders in
Congress are already dancing around one of the most
politically delicate questions about the financial
bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge
swath of the nation's banking system?...
Others talk of de facto nationalization, in which
the government owns a sizeable chunk of the banks but
not a majority, with all that connotes….
Many believe this form of hybrid ownership—part
government, part private, with the responsibilities of
ownership unclear—will not prove workable.
"The case for full nationalization is far stronger
now than it was a few months ago," said Adam S. Posen,
the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for
International Economics. "If you don't own the majority,
you don't get to fire the management, to wipe out the
shareholders, to declare that you are just going to take
the losses and start over. It's the mistake the Japanese
made in the '90s."
"I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks,
President Obama and Tim Geithner," he said, referring to
the nominee for Treasury secretary, "will have to come
out and say, 'It's much worse than we thought,' and just
bite the bullet."
[N]ationalization can prove contagious. If the
Obama administration took over Bank of America and
Citigroup, two of the largest banks in the United
States, private investors could decide to flee from the
likes of JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, or other major
banks, fearing they could be next.
Moreover, Mr. Obama's advisers say they are acutely
aware that if the government is perceived as running the
banks, the administration would come under enormous
political pressure to halt foreclosures or lend money to
ailing projects in cities or states with powerful
constituencies, which could imperil the effort to steer
the banks away from the cliff.
back to top
4. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Trade
The resurgence of the Old Left brings the revival of bad
ideas by the dozen. So not only do we get a resurrection
of nationalization and central planning; we also get a
resurrection of protectionism.
Thus, President Obama's incoming Treasury secretary has
indicated the new administration's willingness to start
a trade war with China. That's just what we need to
complete the current replay of the Great Depression: a
new Smoot-Hawley tariff to shut down global trade.
This is what the resurgence of the left means: an
attempt to make us forget all of the lessons that we
learned, at great cost, during the economic disasters
and cataclysmic wars of the 20th century.
"Geithner Hints at Harder Line on China Trade,"
Jackie Calmes, New York Times, January 22
Timothy F. Geithner, who moved closer to
confirmation as Treasury secretary on Thursday, told
senators that President Obama believed China was
"manipulating" its currency, suggesting a more
confrontational stance toward that country than under
the Bush administration.
Mr. Geithner's comment was made in writing to the
Senate Finance Committee hours before it voted 18 to 5
to recommend that the full Senate confirm him. The
statement, which is certain to anger the Chinese
government, comes at a particularly sensitive time, with
economies in both the United States and China weakening
and tensions already rising around the globe over trade.
The United States, moreover, is increasingly dependent
on China to finance its ballooning deficit….
It remained unclear whether Mr. Geithner was
signaling that Mr. Obama would officially declare later
this spring that China was engaging in currency
manipulation, when the administration is required by a
20-year-old trade law to report to Congress on exchange
rate issues. Such a finding would begin a legal process
that starts with diplomacy and could end with the
imposition of trade barriers like tariffs. The objective
would be to persuade China to let the value of its
currency, the yuan, freely float—a move that would let
its value rise and would increase the cost of its exports….
The Bush administration purposely did not use the
term "currency manipulator" to avoid antagonizing the
Chinese, even when it was criticizing China's trade
policies….
In his written statement to the Senate panel, Mr.
Geithner further noted Mr. Obama's support as a senator
for "tough legislation to overhaul the US process for
determining currency manipulation and authorizing new
enforcement measures so countries like China cannot
continue to get a free pass for undermining fair trade
principles."
back to top
5. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against Guns
In December, I noted that the one piece of good domestic
political news in 2008 was the Supreme Court decision
recognizing a constitutional right to own guns. The
decision capped off a decade in which the left's
gun-control agenda has seemed to be dying, and candidate
Obama issued a statement approving of the ruling and
pledging his loyalty to the Second Amendment.
You didn't actually believe him, did you?
Jack Wakeland sent me the link below, with the following
comment:
"Remember when the Obama campaign staff took down a
posting—after it was up for only a couple of hours—from
the campaign website that stated Mr. Obama supports
instant background checks for private sales at gun
shows, re-instituting the 1994 'assault weapons' and
large capacity magazine ban, mandating electronic user
recognition technology on handguns, and repealing the
Tiahrt Amendment (against using ATFE gun trace data for
bogus liability suits against gun makers)?
"Well, that posting was not the statement of an
over-enthusiastic campaign volunteer; it was from the
man himself. Now that the inaugural is over, Mr. Obama
has deliberately posted these positions at the White
House's official website.
"Gun owners, welcome back to 1994.
"Are there still any questions about whether or not
Barack Obama will govern from the left?"
"Urban Policy," Whitehouse.gov, January 22
As a community organizer on the South Side of
Chicago, President Obama learned firsthand that urban
poverty is more than just a function of not having
enough in your pocketbook. It's also a matter of where
you live—in some of our inner-city neighborhoods,
poverty is difficult to escape because it's isolating
and it's everywhere. Our job across America is to create
communities of choice, not of destiny, and create
conditions for neighborhoods where the odds are not
stacked against the people who live there. President
Obama is committed to leading a new federal approach to
America's high-poverty areas, an approach that
facilitates the economic integration of families and
communities with efforts to support the current
low-income residents of those areas....
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment,
which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to
access important gun trace information, and give police
officers across the nation the tools they need to solve
gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and
Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the
Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping
guns away from children and from criminals. They support
closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this
country childproof. They also support making the expired
federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
back to top
6. Obama's Leftist Onslaught Against the War on Terrorism
Foreign policy has not been left out of the Obama
administration's leftist revival.
In addition to Obama's pledge to appease "world opinion"
by closing down the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo
Bay, he also gave us an indication of his new policies
by appointing George Mitchell as a special envoy in
charge of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Mitchell last led a Middle East peace commission in
2000, just before Yasser Arafat launched his Second
Intifada, initiating eight more years of war.
More broadly, the Washington Post article below
approvingly surveys efforts by Democratic politicians
and their allies in the press to move the US off of a
war footing in dealing with the threat from Islamic
terrorists—and it hails Obama's first week as the
culmination of that trend.
"Bush's 'War' on Terror Comes to a Sudden End,"
Dana Priest, Washington Post, January 23
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most
controversial tools employed by his predecessor against
terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he
effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as
President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to
the world that the reach of the US government in
battling its enemies will not be limitless….
Key components of the secret structure developed
under Bush are being swept away: The military's
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of
habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees,
will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from
maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad
swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama
nullified every legal order and opinion on
interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive
branch after Sept. 11, 2001….
By [2006], the color-coded terrorist alerts had
ended. Police disappeared from roadblocks around the
Capitol. Washington the fortress drew millions of
visitors again. Some Democratic members of Congress
replaced the "war on terror" phraseology with language
indicating vigilance and persistence, but not unending
combat and military-only options.
Over the next 2-1/2 years, as Democrats gained
power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public
support for the president and as the fear of another
terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret
prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew
louder. Presidential candidates felt comfortable to
include these sensitive subjects in the debate on the
efficiency of Bush's war against terrorists, and even on
the notion that it was still a war.
One-Year Subscription — $74
Six-Month Subscription — $38
Subscribe now!
http://www.tiadaily.com/subscribe
UNQUOTE
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België]
naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Hayek
Het is niet omdat jij overal buitengegooid wordt wegens
ongemanierd, dat iedereen ongemanierd is.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi隴
Luc Van Braekel
> Ik zet nog eens de teevee aan om naar "According To Jim" te kijken --
> een van de weinige bekijkbare shows op VT4 -- maar ik ben iets te
> vroeg en krijg de omroepfien op de buis. Maar in plaats van het
> verwachte "Hier is A.T.J. Veel kijkplezier", begint me die
> kijkbuistrut daar een Flair-socialistisch betoog af te steken over hoe
> de gezondheidszorg in de VS veel te duur is "omdat ze daar geen
> mutualiteiten hebben", en dat "Obama daar toch hopelijk iets aan gaat
> veranderen".
Karel, dit was een citaatje op mijn blog waard: http://lvb.net/item/7055
Maar, belangrijk detail: kan je je nog herinneren wie van deze babes
het precies was? http://www.vt4.be/vt4_personalities.php
Alvast bedankt voor de identificatie,
Luc
boutros gali
aa7d-5e7...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Zeg, Sjarel van de tettenkanker, ik heb je nog niet gehoord nu...
boutros gali
aa7d-5e7...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
"Hoe? Is die nu nog niet dood?"
Was getekend: Vettige Sjarel.
Karel Jansens
wrote:
Ik kijk niet genoeg naar live TV meer om die omroepgezichten te
kennen, maar ik denk dat het die Hanne was, al is ze wel serieus
opgedikt sinds die publiciteitsfoto. Het waren in elk geval niet Ilse,
Veronique of Roos, want die herinner ik me nog.
Dezelfde heeft trouwens nog zo eens een stoot uitgehaald, toen naar
aanleiding van de Simpsons Halloween-aflevering met de Obama-sketch
erin. Ik heb toen nog naar SBS gemaild dat het IQ-niveau van hun
omroepsters bedroevend was als ze in die sketch een promotiefilmpje
voor Obama zag (als ge de aflevering hebt, bekijk ze dan nog maar
eens).
SBS heeft nooit geantwoord; ik ben daar nog altijd triestig over. :)
Karel Jansens
> Karel Jansens <karel.jans...@gmail.com> wrote in news:fad49287-9117-4216-
> aa7d-5e7bd443f...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> "Hoe? Is die nu nog niet dood?"
> Was getekend: Vettige Sjarel.
Er is een verschil: Ik meen dat het overlijden van Farake de wereld
een heel klein beetje beter zou maken.
uncle
news:673c838e-9f47-4fd0...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>Er is een verschil: Ik meen dat het overlijden van Farake de wereld een
>heel klein beetje beter zou maken.
>
De klunz die 1 dergelijke enormiteit durft te debiteren, verdient idd. 1
citaat op http://lvb.net.
u.
Ohm
Moogt gij in Thailand niet binnen sjarel? Geen geld genoeg?
boutros gali
Heb je er al eens aan gedacht je waterput te laten leegpompen?
Tom De Moor
new...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> Heb je er al eens aan gedacht je waterput te laten leegpompen?
>
>
Is er water te kort?
TDM
Karel Jansens
wrote:
> In article <Xns9BA2C9039DEAAnewladahotmail...@69.16.176.253>,
> newl...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Heb je er al eens aan gedacht je waterput te laten leegpompen?
>
> Is er water te kort?
Boutros verwijst naar een publieke biecht die ik ooit op bepol afstak
nav een discussie over zelfmoord. Ik schreef toen dat ik vind dat
iedereen het recht hoort te hebben om zelf een einde aan zijn leven te
maken, dat ik ooit zelf zo diep in de put heb gezeten dat ik er een
einde aan wilde maken, dat ik enkel door puur geluk (dat is natuurlijk
een subjectieve interpretatie) er nog ben en dat het instrument van
mijn "mislukte" autoterminatie in een waterput ligt te roesten.
In wezen is Boutros een predator, iemand die enkel geïnteresseerd is
in het vinden van andermans (vermeende) zwakke punten om die te kunnen
gebruiken om die persoon -- hopelijk -- te kunnen kwetsen. Ik stel mij
zo voor dat Boutros een fichenbakje heeft met voor ieder van zijn
"vijanden" een lijstje pijnpunten die hij kan gebruiken.
Dergelijke sociopaten zijn eigenlijk gevaarlijk; als Boutros Usenet
niet zou hebben als bliksemafleider, zie ik hem probleemloos afglijden
naar serieverkrachtingen of zelfs pedofiele moorden. Bekijk het zo:
Iedereen die Boutros hier bezighoudt, bewijst de samenleving eigenlijk
een dienst...
zoef
> [...] dat ik enkel door puur geluk (dat is natuurlijk
> een subjectieve interpretatie) [...]
Moest er een God zijn, zou de kogel er wel langs het andere oor uitgekomen
zijn.
zoef
Karel Jansens
> "Karel Jansens" <karel.jans...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:376c0927-5751-40ce...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [...] dat ik enkel door puur geluk (dat is natuurlijk
> > een subjectieve interpretatie) [...]
>
> Moest er een God zijn, zou de kogel er wel langs het andere oor uitgekomen
> zijn.
>
> zoef
He, A. L. Ter Ego is ook terug, zie.