What - Intelligent Thought?

"Joe Cipale" wrote in message
...

This reminds me of when ray-gun was shot - the lame-ass Sect of Def Haig
was standing in front of the press and exclaiming 'I am in charge here!'.
Poor ******* had no frickin clue about the line of succession:

And apparently you never actually knew what happened and what he said. But
then short fat runts of the litter seldom do.

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

No, Tom. It was actually a responnse to a request for guidance on the
matter made
by (1) Sergeant at Arms Livingood and (2) Pelosi's staff. Livingood made
the initial
request for guidance.

Baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaa.

On Feb 18, 10:30 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Feb 17, 9:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
I might remind you that I'm not the one posting on a bicycle group that
can't ride a bicycle.- Hide quoted text -

Gee Tom, I guess that since I can't ride much right now means I can't
love riding, or racing anymore.

Nahh, it means that you can come here and act as if you can.

You're still delusional and can't read for comprehension. I'm pretty
sure noone else thinks I'm pretending about anything, let alone my
cycling ability.
So how much do you have to be able to ride to be a "Cyclist" or
"Racer", Tom?
If I show up and do the N.E. TT championship race, which is a real
race and finish DFL by three hours does that make me a "Real Racer"?
Fill us in on what it takes to be allowed to be part of your sport.
I'll look forward to bouncing it off some of our senior officials,
promoters, etc..., who do massively more than I ever do, who also, for
various reasons can't ride much anymore. They'll be glad to hear they
are posers.
Bill C

On 2/18/07 12:23 AM, in article , "Kyle
Legate" wrote:

ST wrote:

Well...... I and many others do not believe you are straight.. We are even
then.

Kurgan has scoliosis?

Peyronies

On Feb 17, 8:39 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/17/07 8:27 PM, in article
om, "Kurgan Gringioni"





wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST wrote:

The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......

Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
(intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like working
at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
succeed.

snip

Dumbass -

Have you changed?

You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
supported you.

Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yo Ass Bag....
I have college education AND am still moving up.......



Dumbass -


Do you remember when your excuse for both of them was not having a
trust fund?

Personal responsibility baby, it's a good thing.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On 2/18/07 1:48 PM, in article
, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

On Feb 17, 8:39 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/17/07 8:27 PM, in article
om, "Kurgan Gringioni"





wrote:
On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, ST wrote:

The MORE government intervention there is for every little hangnail or job
layoff the MORE personal responsibility goes down......

Why?? Because the government will always be there to save your bacon. How
can the Dems on one hand say "We are all equal and on the same level"
(intelligence wise...) Yet those that never move ahead in life (like
working
at the Burger King when still 45 and wanting a "living wage" for it...) We
are told by the Dems that they were denied the opportunity or ability to
succeed.

snip

Dumbass -

Have you changed?

You used to claim that the reason you don't have a college education
or weren't able to move up in bike racing was that your parents never
supported you.

Well, if you believe in personal responsibility truly, and apply it to
yourself, good for you. I'm not sure that I believe it though.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Yo Ass Bag....
I have college education AND am still moving up.......



Dumbass -


Do you remember when your excuse for both of them was not having a
trust fund?

Personal responsibility baby, it's a good thing.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


What a ****in miscomprehending duchbag.....

What I previously said was Not everyone has the ability to do anything in
the world without making large sacrifices to even try, let alone succeed.

Not all of us have parents that will pay for our college. Most do not have a
trust fund. Most are expected to leave at 18 and fend for themselves......

You, on the other hand had much more...
Your sad attempt at saying "I had a hard childhood" I had to share a room!!
(child abuse!!) is a bunch of crap.........

You are the LAST person to be judging others lives for decisions they have
had to make to get ahead.

Henry -- "WHAT?!? You are not a 2 yet! You are lazy!"

On 16 Feb 2007 16:04:12 -0800, "y_p_w" wrote:


These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
service.

New speaker asks a question, you provide a complete answer with
references so that they have a background. No different than we do
when we get a new member of the board - we let them know what is paid,
what isn't and who to talk to in a special case.

Other than for Mr. Bull, not hard to understand at all.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Feb 18, 2:42 pm, Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 16:04:12 -0800, "y_p_w" wrote:



These could be either answering honest questions, or they could just
be part of a thorough statement of DoD policy on the Speaker's shuttle
service without being a direct answer to a question. It's easy to
take an isolated line out of context when the letter was supposed to
be a full disclosure of the policies governing the Speaker's shuttle
service.

New speaker asks a question, you provide a complete answer with
references so that they have a background. No different than we do
when we get a new member of the board - we let them know what is paid,
what isn't and who to talk to in a special case.

Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
was in fact asked.

Members of the executive branch regularly use military VIP
transporation to political functions and personal trips as a security
measure. I'm sure that VP Cheney could have taken one of these AF
executive jets on his hunting trips, along with his hunting buddies.
Given that Pelosi's staff were unfamiliar with the limits, I don't
find it surprising that they asked. So they were answered "no" about
some aspects - big deal. That doesn't mean the questions were out of
line.

On Feb 18, 2:09 pm, ST wrote:
fend for themselves......

You, on the other hand had much more...
Your sad attempt at saying "I had a hard childhood" I had to share a room!!
(child abuse!!) is a bunch of crap.........

You are the LAST person to be judging others lives for decisions they have
had to make to get ahead.

Henry -- "WHAT?!? You are not a 2 yet! You are lazy!"



Dumbass -


Most Cat 1s/pros are very poor. The achievement level doesn't have
anything to do with money.

It's not laziness, it's different levels of desire. Fatness, on the
other hand . . .


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"y_p_w" wrote in message
ups.com...

Well - in researching more to this story, it does appear that parts of
the DoD letter were based on questions asked. The legalese doesn't
seem to be however. Essentially the letter set the ground rules for
the size of aircraft. Speaker Pelosi's staff indicated that the
question of family and or friends (based on available space available)
was in fact asked.

That was my point. Look, there isn't any question that she wanted to put an
ABSCAM Unendicted Co-conspirator into an extremely sensitive position.
Neither is there any question that she had intended to put an impeached
Federal Judge Alsee Hastings who had been impeached for accepting bribes
into one of the most sensitive intelligence positions in this country if she
could have gotten Murtha in.

After something like that you're going to argue that she's a pure as the
driven snow?