Out of the Blue

Bush Signs Anti-Telemarketing Bill (thanks eurodeseo|OSLT) has the good news that some relief from the scourge of telemarketing, as it will create a do-not-call list, with the punishment for calling listed people to be a fine of up to $11,000 for each violation. Of course, there's always a loophole, and the politicians were certainly not going to curtail their own ability to pester us, so: "Charities, surveys and calls on behalf of politicians would be exempt." I can only suspect the worst of this last part: 'Hi, I'm calling on behalf of the U.S. Congress to offer you a way to lower your mortgage rate.'

Link of the Day: Ted Turner Sends Self Back In Time To Prevent AOL Time Warner Merger. Thanks [PIT]SlayerAODsk.
Stories of the Day: French Fries Get New Name in Congress. Thanks Borzoi.
Groundhog Day: The Musical. Thanks loonyboi. "Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you tomorrow, you're also always today."
HBO countersues 'Sopranos' star Gandolfini for $100M. Thanks David.
Weird Science: Gauging age by the smell of urine. Thanks [MP] Wolverine [MP].
Wild Science: Universe as Doughnut: New Data, New Debate (NY Times free registration required). Thanks Mark Siegel.
Media of the Day: Trunk Monkey. Thanks Ant.
Demo. Thanks [PIT]SlayerAODsk.
Beer Is Good For You? Thanks Homer.
Auction of the Day: Instant Girlfriend Kit! Thanks [PIT]SlayerAODsk.
View : : :
91.
 
Re: Boohoohoo, poor widdle Dud
Mar 15, 2003, 15:03
91.
Re: Boohoohoo, poor widdle Dud Mar 15, 2003, 15:03
Mar 15, 2003, 15:03
 
you know??? It seems as though when I reply to your comments you feel the need to instill your brand of horse shit.

As well, I'm sure you're feverishly reading up on your history to compete with what I say and all you have is hot air to exude .. much like a "duck fart". Actually, I am a bit tried of your retrys and belittling . But I still speak out as a voice of objectivity aginst cretins like you that seem to think you have the best understand of how the world should be percieved.

First of all you dickless cadaver screwing yo-yo. N Korea *WAS* supported by the Russian Airforce and Chinese Artilary/ infantry when the US got invovled. and Mac Arthur only succeeded for moments at pushing in the seesaw battle. ending the Korean conflict at the 38th parallel/DMZ which lead to the stalemate we have today.

MacArthur wanted to resort to the atomic bomb. because the one thing the US could never do decisively is call it a win. Due to opposition not giving up. and fighting tooth and nail on their land. The USSR pulled out airsupport after they lost a few planes in dogfights and Chinese pulled out afterwards the N Koreans mantained ground control.

the chinese overwelmed due to their night fighting capabilities you fucking retard... "READ YOUR HISTORY!"

as for the accusation that I said the non-proliferation treaty ended the war.. IF???? I said that? that was most certainly a run-on sentence. You seem to try to use that as you means of twisting the argument. which I'm afraid you don't do a very good job. sorry

personally I think your dumb ass is getting an education from me. Because I know your interjection is fucked up.. you also sound like a attorney???? I do business with them ALL the time. some of them are Self-righteous truth benders... except their is a problem buddy.. I'm not a punk which I think you assume.

and least I forget. The reason why I jump around on subject matter is to give you a hint that I can cover all bases should the need arrive... I'm sure you go scavenging like a mad man over the internet and chasing your friends down for info you retard.

fortunate for me this is all retained in my puny brain.. Granted you implied that I might be one of the esteemed holders of a "double-digit" IQ. hmmmmmmmmmmmm?????? sounds interesting.

But, back to war talk. "OOPS!" I almost forgot... you once again, in your complete and total misguided ignorance, brought up the Elizabeth Smart matter in comparison to the Gary Condent /Chandra Levy incident???? which you:

A: the moron

B: mistook for Elizabeth Smart.. in your futile attempt to circumvent me

C: and made an idiot of yourself trying to prove an unrelated point in history.. because in that case Chandra was found deceased. and this happened a while back


Let me address a few more moments... Napalm was not the main source of munition used in the Pacific Theater... it was heavy artilary shelling from Battleships and bombimg runs (which proved semi ineffective). Then came the flame throwers and ground work and ducks.


Kuwait/ Saudia Arabia what do they have in common? Well if not for the Saudia's allowing US forces to use their bases the US would not have the appropriate coverage. Kuwait is a tiny provience that formed due to it's oil discovery.. and still treats it's citizens with indifference.

the agreement with US troops on Arab soil was a temporary stay..the US simply overstayed their visit. There is a lot of opposition to get them off but if you know the good ole US. when they arrive they want to take over and change the politics.

Much like you display. trying to twist your will around others.. but face it jerk.. I am bit to seasoned for you... matter a fact I kow your running to your history books getting the Anglocan sides of the story.

Hannibal Lector.. Dud.. Ms Cleo.. you are very funny.. HA HA.. my side is splitting.

Weapons of mass destruction? that is one of your comments against me. Well doesn't the US persist with bombing campaigns on any nation that's in it's eyesight. Is that the objective of peace? threaten to bomb an entire village to get rid of one person?

As an adjunctant. Doesn't the US threaten to kill PMs of small countries that don't comply with it's programs? and label them as war criminals.

and lastly CRAW this is getting very old.. because you have a minority idea of a concensous that doesn't agree with you. "All of this posturing over what?"

A FUCKING FRENCH FRY..

... Which brings us back to the origin of what precipitated this whole thing. You are a "DICK!" and your girlfriend knows it and know. The whole world knows it. You just can't win... can you? "Mr. Persuasive!"

SO if I were you I'd go back to coddling your frog or duck collection and sucking farts.


P.S. before I leave I thought I'd address another unrelated matter you said I brought up: "6) matter of fact the Isrealies have the edge due to aircraft. tanks are vulnerable in structured areas. blow a tank track off and you've got problems"

Because, Isreal is engaged in a self-imposed unconventional battle of occupation ( key word "occpied territory" which is illegal)whereby they can disregard Geneva Convention rules and use tanks and aircraft missles on civilians and enact "quo warantoa" ( I think I said that right???). It gives them to right to do/ take what they need? "right?!" much like colonist do when arriving on natives soil. and the US provides Isreal with all the funding it needs to research and modify weapons.

Granted, I don't think the palistinians plight of suicide bombing is correct. But what do refugee status civilians do when all the have are rocks and sling shots ward off aggressive tactics by a government armed with tanks and machiery pushing them out of home and land.

You really are stupid CRAW... for me to even egage in this education of your deficientcies because you are so blind and rightous.

Do you even know how the state of Isreal came into being... before the UN Intervened? Historically you will see a tie-in to the transition of power.. if your self-appointed omnipotence gets the picture... hmmmmmmmmmmmm? can you?

A key question to all of this is... was there ever a Palestine? I know the answer do you?

How did the fall of Automan Empire lead to the division of nations?

I can see you burning brain cells right now.. your computer screen is hazy from all the smoke output.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 16:58.
-The Dude-

Vic B.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
2.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
6.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
 Re:
3.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
4.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
5.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
7.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
8.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
13.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
17.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
32.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
9.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
10.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
12.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
21.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
22.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
23.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
24.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
30.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
28.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
33.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
38.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
     WoMD
63.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
      Re: WoMD
64.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
       Re: WoMD
68.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
       Re: WoMD
25.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
26.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
56.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
57.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
58.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
59.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
60.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
61.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
11.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
14.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
15.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
16.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
18.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
19.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
20.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
27.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
31.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
34.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
42.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
62.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
    Re: to Craw
29.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
35.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
36.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
39.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
43.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
45.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
37.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
41.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
44.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
46.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
48.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
51.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
52.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
54.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
55.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
40.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
47.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
49.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
50.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
53.
Mar 12, 2003Mar 12 2003
65.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
66.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
67.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
69.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
70.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
73.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
74.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
71.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
72.
Mar 13, 2003Mar 13 2003
75.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
76.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
77.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
78.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
79.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
80.
Mar 14, 2003Mar 14 2003
 Re:
81.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
  Re:
82.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
   Re:
83.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
    Re:
85.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
     Re:
86.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
 91.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
       Re: Boohoohoo, poor widdle Dud
84.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
    Re:
87.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
88.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
89.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
90.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
92.
Mar 15, 2003Mar 15 2003
93.
Mar 16, 2003Mar 16 2003
94.
Mar 16, 2003Mar 16 2003