Small Time Terrorists destroy Parisian Utopian Bike Program

On Nov 5, 11:57*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Paul O wrote:
For the first time I can remember, our newsgroups have been honored
with the Super Crank, Flamer, Troll Trifecta!

We have Bill Baka commenting on a post from Edward Dolan on a thread
started by ComandanteBanana.

Can it get any better than this?

"The horror of that moment I shall never forget", said the king.

"You will", replied the queen, "if you don't make a memorandum of it".

Bill "paraphrasing 'Alice Through The Looking Glass" S.

This moment will recorded for history by the people who write the
history of the Internet.

There must be someone writing that, right?

On Nov 5, 12:36*pm, Paul O wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote, On 11/5/2009 11:57 AM:



Paul O wrote:

For the first time I can remember, our newsgroups have been honored
with the Super Crank, Flamer, Troll Trifecta!

We have Bill Baka commenting on a post from Edward Dolan on a thread
started by ComandanteBanana.

Can it get any better than this?

"The horror of that moment I shall never forget", said the king.

"You will", replied the queen, "if you don't make a memorandum of it".

Bill "paraphrasing 'Alice Through The Looking Glass" S.

Babble Bill and Ed
Comandante chirps his tale
Winter is coming


I see you are speaking in parables...

I always wondered what the hell Jesus was talking about.

But I speak in parables too, JUNGLE PARABLES. Important stuff, you
know...

NEVER, EVER PUSH RED BUTTON in the jungle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X7pwsDWRJM&feature=fvw

Very important for a cyclist or anyone: BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS!

That's what this cop told me about my statement that there were many
predators around where I live. See, they stole one of my bikes right
under my window. And it's not even the DEEP jungle.

On Nov 5, 3:53*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Paul O" wrote in message

...

For the first time I can remember, our newsgroups have been honored with
the Super Crank, Flamer, Troll Trifecta!

We have Bill Baka commenting on a post from Edward Dolan on a thread
started by ComandanteBanana.

Can it get any better than this?

It is not correct to cast Ed Dolan the Great in the same loony bin as Bill
Baka and Comandante Banana. The latter two are diamonds in the rough whereas
Ed Dolan the Great is a polished diamond of eternal magnificence. When I
contemplate Myself I tremble at my own perfection. How is it posssble that
such Greatness and Perfection can perish from this earth? Yea, that is what
I am constantly asking Myself!

"Once I wasn't, then I was, now I ain't again."

* * * * *- Epitaph found on tombstone in Ohio graveyard

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Listen Big Ed, you'd have to name yourself EMPEROR to even have a
chance to reach my "HIS MAJESTY COMANDANTE BANANA KING OF THE APES
I."

On Nov 5, 7:37*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:


Talkin' 'bout
Hey now
Hey now
Haiku haiku an nay
Jockomo feena ah na nay
Jockomo feena nay

(with apologies to Sugar Boy Crawford)- Hide quoted text -


I'd like to learn Esperanto someday...

Meanwhile I can say in Spanish, "Esto es una mierda y una mentira!"

Sorry for the language.

Simon Lewis wrote:
Bill Baka writes:
I'm not just equal. My IQ is well over 140 and I was bored to death in
school. College too. I once got into it with my electronics instructor
for teaching way too slow.

Is it true you once beat Kasparov at chess?

Chess is one thing I don't have patience for.

Bill Baka

dgk wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:33:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Bush will go down in history as a heroic president who began the war on
Islamic extremism.
You are a flipping fruitcake if you buy into that. I'm losing any respect
for you on this Republican rant.

We shall soon see what kind of mess Obama is going to
make of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to bungle Iran too. It is
what happens when you elect a man-child to the presidency.
Enough bull****, Ed. Kennedy was only 43 when he got elected and he did OK
until Dallas. It was either a CIA motivated solution to him and Marilyn
Monroe or a well oiled job set up by LBJ, the one president I really
hated, party not withstanding.
JFK, just like Obama, was too young and inexperienced to be president. He
essentially bungled our relations with the Soviet Union and handled the
Cuban invasion like an idiot. He should have supported the exiles with air
power which would have made all the difference. He also got us into Vietnam
with no idea of how to win the war. People in their 40s, at least in this
country, are still babies. You have to be at least in your 50s in order to
have any sense. In fact, I like our presidents to be in their 60s.


Before the Bay of Pigs, Russia was faced with Cuba being continuously
attacked by the US, and our nuclear missles were on their border. So
they moved missles into Cuba. After the resulting hysteria, we
promised to stop sending terrorists into Cuba, and took our missles
off Russia's border. You would have done what differently? Started a
nuclear war? That's a very likely outcome if we had sent planes into
Cuba.

I followed it on the TV news after school or play time.

Perhaps Castro was not the best leader for Cuba, but since we were
responsible for Batista, that sort of nullfies our moral capital in
the matter. Just like being responsible for the Shah undermines any
moral objection we may have for Iran's current government.

I think we should have helped Batista and kept the communists out, and
then sent some people down there to see what we could do, shadow
government or whatever.

I believe JFK was killed to prevent him from withdrawing from Vietnam.

I know that LBJ was the dimwit that decided to make it a full blown yet
limited joke of a war.

We did, of course, start the whole war to PREVENT free unifying
elections from taking place as required by the 1954 Geneva Convention.
We, of course, being so dedicated to democracy, refused to sign those
accords because they promised free elections. Ho Chi Minh would have
won overwhelmingly.

Politics off.
Bill Baka

On Nov 6, 8:26*am, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:33:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:





"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Bush will go down in history as a heroic president who began the war on
Islamic extremism.

You are a flipping fruitcake if you buy into that. I'm losing any respect
for you on this Republican rant.

We shall soon see what kind of mess Obama is going to
make of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to bungle Iran too. It is
what happens when you elect a man-child to the presidency.

Enough bull****, Ed. Kennedy was only 43 when he got elected and he did OK
until Dallas. It was either a CIA motivated solution to him and Marilyn
Monroe or a well oiled job set up by LBJ, the one president I really
hated, party not withstanding.

JFK, just like Obama, was too young and inexperienced to be president. He
essentially bungled our relations with the Soviet Union and handled the
Cuban invasion like an idiot. He should have supported the exiles with air
power which would have made all the difference. He also got us into Vietnam
with no idea of how to win the war. People in their 40s, at least in this
country, are still babies. You have to be at least in your 50s in order to
have any sense. In fact, I like our presidents to be in their 60s.

Before the Bay of Pigs, Russia was faced with Cuba being continuously
attacked by the US, and our nuclear missles were on their border. So
they moved missles into Cuba. After the resulting hysteria, we
promised to stop sending terrorists into Cuba, and took our missles
off Russia's border. You would have done what differently? Started a
nuclear war? That's a very likely outcome if we had sent planes into
Cuba.

Perhaps Castro was not the best leader for Cuba, but since we were
responsible for Batista, that sort of nullfies our moral capital in
the matter. Just like being responsible for the Shah undermines any
moral objection we may have for Iran's current government.

I believe JFK was killed to prevent him from withdrawing from Vietnam.
We did, of course, start the whole war to PREVENT free unifying
elections from taking place as required by the 1954 Geneva Convention.
We, of course, being so dedicated to democracy, refused to sign those
accords because they promised free elections. Ho Chi Minh would have
won overwhelmingly.

Not only that, but upon assuming power, Castro asked the US for
support and to trade. The US wanted Castro to return the Casinos,
Sugar and tobacco plantations, etc to the the corporations. Since
Castro said no, the US started an anti-Cuban campaign and to try to
undermine Castro's government and supported counterrevolutionary
activity. Castro was forced to ally himself with the Soviet Union. The
same happened in Vietnam. When the Vietnamese expelled the French,
they established a constitution based on the American one. And they
sought alliance with the US. Since the US wanted to inherit France's
colonial control over Vietnam, they opposed the government and
established an opposing government in Saigon. They had little support
from the Vietnamese people and caused a huge mess, murdered tons of
people and eventually left, but continued a cold war for decades
after.

On Nov 6, 3:41*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
dgk wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:33:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Bush will go down in history as a heroic president who began the war on
Islamic extremism.
You are a flipping fruitcake if you buy into that. I'm losing any respect
for you on this Republican rant.

We shall soon see what kind of mess Obama is going to
make of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to bungle Iran too. It is
what happens when you elect a man-child to the presidency.
Enough bull****, Ed. Kennedy was only 43 when he got elected and he did OK
until Dallas. It was either a CIA motivated solution to him and Marilyn
Monroe or a well oiled job set up by LBJ, the one president I really
hated, party not withstanding.
JFK, just like Obama, was too young and inexperienced to be president. He
essentially bungled our relations with the Soviet Union and handled the
Cuban invasion like an idiot. He should have supported the exiles with air
power which would have made all the difference. He also got us into Vietnam
with no idea of how to win the war. People in their 40s, at least in this
country, are still babies. You have to be at least in your 50s in order to
have any sense. In fact, I like our presidents to be in their 60s.

Before the Bay of Pigs, Russia was faced with Cuba being continuously
attacked by the US, and our nuclear missles were on their border. So
they moved missles into Cuba. After the resulting hysteria, we
promised to stop sending terrorists into Cuba, and took our missles
off Russia's border. You would have done what differently? Started a
nuclear war? That's a very likely outcome if we had sent planes into
Cuba.

I followed it on the TV news after school or play time.



Perhaps Castro was not the best leader for Cuba, but since we were
responsible for Batista, that sort of nullfies our moral capital in
the matter. Just like being responsible for the Shah undermines any
moral objection we may have for Iran's current government.

I think we should have helped Batista and kept the communists out, and
then sent some people down there to see what we could do, shadow
government or whatever.



I believe JFK was killed to prevent him from withdrawing from Vietnam.

I know that LBJ was the dimwit that decided to make it a full blown yet
limited joke of a war.

We did, of course, start the whole war to PREVENT free unifying
elections from taking place as required by the 1954 Geneva Convention.
We, of course, being so dedicated to democracy, refused to sign those
accords because they promised free elections. Ho Chi Minh would have
won overwhelmingly.

Politics off.
Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They used to be enemies but now they need each other. To break with
the status quo is always hard and unpredictable.

That's why we can't have a real revolution here. But hey, we can have
in Cuba!

Any Banana Republic for that matter.

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 23:33:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Bush will go down in history as a heroic president who began the war on
Islamic extremism.

You are a flipping fruitcake if you buy into that. I'm losing any
respect
for you on this Republican rant.

We shall soon see what kind of mess Obama is going to
make of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to bungle Iran too. It is
what happens when you elect a man-child to the presidency.

Enough bull****, Ed. Kennedy was only 43 when he got elected and he did
OK
until Dallas. It was either a CIA motivated solution to him and Marilyn
Monroe or a well oiled job set up by LBJ, the one president I really
hated, party not withstanding.

JFK, just like Obama, was too young and inexperienced to be president. He
essentially bungled our relations with the Soviet Union and handled the
Cuban invasion like an idiot. He should have supported the exiles with air
power which would have made all the difference. He also got us into
Vietnam
with no idea of how to win the war. People in their 40s, at least in this
country, are still babies. You have to be at least in your 50s in order to
have any sense. In fact, I like our presidents to be in their 60s.


Before the Bay of Pigs, Russia was faced with Cuba being continuously
attacked by the US, and our nuclear missles were on their border. So
they moved missles into Cuba. After the resulting hysteria, we
promised to stop sending terrorists into Cuba, and took our missles
off Russia's border. You would have done what differently? Started a
nuclear war? That's a very likely outcome if we had sent planes into
Cuba.

I would have supported the Cuban exiles in their attempt to overthrow
Castro. The Soviet Union was never going to go to war with the US over a
third world country. Get real! JFK and his bunch were sissies and cowards
who had no stomach for war. LBJ and his bunch were the exact same as JFK -
good at getting us into a war, but then not knowing how to win it.

Perhaps Castro was not the best leader for Cuba, but since we were
responsible for Batista, that sort of nullfies our moral capital in
the matter. Just like being responsible for the Shah undermines any
moral objection we may have for Iran's current government.

I believe JFK was killed to prevent him from withdrawing from Vietnam.
We did, of course, start the whole war to PREVENT free unifying
elections from taking place as required by the 1954 Geneva Convention.
We, of course, being so dedicated to democracy, refused to sign those
accords because they promised free elections. Ho Chi Minh would have
won overwhelmingly.

The above is spoken like a true communist sympathizer, but that is what I
have been saying about liberals all of my life. All liberals are treasonous
wretches at heart. They are also cowards who never met a war they liked.
Note well how Obama and the liberal Dems are looking for ways to back out of
Afghanistan.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 8:26 am, dgk wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Bush will go down in history as a heroic president who began the war
on
Islamic extremism.

You are a flipping fruitcake if you buy into that. I'm losing any
respect
for you on this Republican rant.

We shall soon see what kind of mess Obama is going to
make of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is going to bungle Iran too. It
is
what happens when you elect a man-child to the presidency.

Enough bull****, Ed. Kennedy was only 43 when he got elected and he did
OK
until Dallas. It was either a CIA motivated solution to him and Marilyn
Monroe or a well oiled job set up by LBJ, the one president I really
hated, party not withstanding.

JFK, just like Obama, was too young and inexperienced to be president. He
essentially bungled our relations with the Soviet Union and handled the
Cuban invasion like an idiot. He should have supported the exiles with
air
power which would have made all the difference. He also got us into
Vietnam
with no idea of how to win the war. People in their 40s, at least in this
country, are still babies. You have to be at least in your 50s in order
to
have any sense. In fact, I like our presidents to be in their 60s.

Before the Bay of Pigs, Russia was faced with Cuba being continuously
attacked by the US, and our nuclear missles were on their border. So
they moved missles into Cuba. After the resulting hysteria, we
promised to stop sending terrorists into Cuba, and took our missles
off Russia's border. You would have done what differently? Started a
nuclear war? That's a very likely outcome if we had sent planes into
Cuba.

Perhaps Castro was not the best leader for Cuba, but since we were
responsible for Batista, that sort of nullfies our moral capital in
the matter. Just like being responsible for the Shah undermines any
moral objection we may have for Iran's current government.

The Cubans were responsible for Batista just like the Iranians were
responsible for the Shah. The Cubans are also responsible for Castro just
like the Iranians are responsible for the Mullahs. Jeez, how do you get to
be so stupid! Are you born that way or do you have to work at it?

I believe JFK was killed to prevent him from withdrawing from Vietnam.
We did, of course, start the whole war to PREVENT free unifying
elections from taking place as required by the 1954 Geneva Convention.
We, of course, being so dedicated to democracy, refused to sign those
accords because they promised free elections. Ho Chi Minh would have
won overwhelmingly.

Not only that, but upon assuming power, Castro asked the US for
support and to trade. The US wanted Castro to return the Casinos,
Sugar and tobacco plantations, etc to the the corporations. Since
Castro said no, the US started an anti-Cuban campaign and to try to
undermine Castro's government and supported counterrevolutionary
activity. Castro was forced to ally himself with the Soviet Union. The
same happened in Vietnam. When the Vietnamese expelled the French,
they established a constitution based on the American one. And they
sought alliance with the US. Since the US wanted to inherit France's
colonial control over Vietnam, they opposed the government and
established an opposing government in Saigon. They had little support
from the Vietnamese people and caused a huge mess, murdered tons of
people and eventually left, but continued a cold war for decades
after.

The above type of argument assumes that the US has more power in world
affairs than it actually has. Foreign leaders have minds of their own and
are never "forced" to do anything they do not want to do. Castro and Ho Chi
Minh were committed communists and were only too anxious to ally themselves
with the Soviet Union.

In any event, the history of how the Vietnam War came about has next to
nothing to do with the above explanation.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota