FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   I'd like to ask a sensitive question (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/71965-id-like-ask-sensitive.html)

Mr.Will 13-10-2005 01:00 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
I'm sure people are open minded and approachable enough (at least over
computers!) to answer this:-

How many vegans or vegetarians on here smoke (either cigarettes or tobacco
etc)?
Is smoking considered unacceptable practice for a vegan?

Mr.Will




Steve 13-10-2005 01:58 AM

Mr.Will wrote:
> I'm sure people are open minded and approachable enough (at least over
> computers!) to answer this:-
>
> How many vegans or vegetarians on here smoke (either cigarettes or tobacco
> etc)?
> Is smoking considered unacceptable practice for a vegan?


There are people who are vegan for the health benefits or the
environmental benefits, but most people do it to reduce animal cruelty.

Given that most vegans are no different than any other group in regards
to smoking.

Some do it. Some don't.

I don't.

I was lucky enough to never try it and never get addicted.

Steve

Be A Healthy Vegan Or Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdo...ealthyVeg.html

"The great American thought trap: It is not real
unless it can be seen on television or bought in a
shopping mall"

Steve's Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

Scented Nectar 13-10-2005 06:52 AM

"Mr.Will" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure people are open minded and approachable enough (at least over
> computers!) to answer this:-
>
> How many vegans or vegetarians on here smoke (either cigarettes or tobacco
> etc)?
> Is smoking considered unacceptable practice for a vegan?
>
> Mr.Will


I used to chain smoke tobacco when
I was a teen. I gave it up cold turkey
about the same time as I turned
vegetarian at 18. I'm now 42 (soon
43) and I openly admit to smoking
pot in a recreational manner (no
working or driving etc when high).
I don't like alcohol and compare my
pot smoking to most people's
recreational drinking. Looking over
your question again, maybe I shouldn't
be included here, as I'm only an
aspiring vegan and not one yet. I'm
lacto-ovo and still debating whether
I want to shift to ovo only or pure
veganism. My main motivation is
health, but also for the animals. If
I stay ovo, it's only free range, happy,
organic laying hens the eggs are
from. I'm lucky to have an easy
source for that.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



usual suspect 24-10-2005 04:37 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>I'm sure people are open minded and approachable enough (at least over
>>computers!) to answer this:-
>>
>>How many vegans or vegetarians on here smoke (either cigarettes or tobacco
>>etc)?
>>Is smoking considered unacceptable practice for a vegan?
>>
>>Mr.Will

>
>
> I used to chain smoke tobacco when
> I was a teen.


You gave it up for weed.

> I'm now 42 (soon
> 43) and I openly admit to

living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned, being
agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
another group of people, etc.

> I'm lacto-ovo and still debating


Clarity over such issues is surely complicated by your chronic drug abuse.

> whether I want to shift to ovo only or pure
> veganism.


Sounds like you've already made up your brain cell. How much more
****ing time do you need to figure out if (a) killing animals is wrong,
(b) killing animals is "mostly" wrong -- the same as (a), or (c) making
excuses is as valid as taking actions in demonstrating consistency
between what you practice and what you preach?

> My main motivation is health,


You've already been proven either a charlatan or an ignoramus (both?)
when it comes to the issue of health and nurtition.

> but also for the animals.


That's bullshit, Skanky. Health and "for the animals" are mutually
exclusive. You've demonstrated not only a lack of knowledge about health
and nutrition, but a lack of concern for the truth about that subject.

Scented Nectar 24-10-2005 04:54 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
> > I'm now 42 (soon
> > 43) and I openly admit to

> living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned, being
> agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
> another group of people, etc.


Stop faking quotes, moron.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



usual suspect 26-10-2005 05:35 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>43) and I openly admit to

>>
>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned, being
>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
>>another group of people, etc.

>
> Stop


No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless, out-of-touch
with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
actually wrote.

Scented Nectar 26-10-2005 11:56 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

If you believe in supporting your
troops, why haven't you enlisted?
The food? The troops could sure
use some replacements and have
been forced to stay longer than
originally promised.

> Skanky wrote:
> >>>I'm now 42 (soon
> >>>43) and I openly admit to
> >>
> >>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned, being
> >>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
> >>another group of people, etc.

> >
> > Stop

>
> No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless, out-of-touch
> with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
> authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
> actually wrote.


Maybe someday, you'll stop making
up shit or fishing or whatever, and
grow up.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




usual suspect 27-10-2005 12:54 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
> If you believe in supporting your
> troops, why haven't you enlisted?


Non sequitur. One can support the troops in a variety of ways. And I do.

> The food?


I've consumed my fair share of MREs.

> The troops could sure
> use some replacements and have
> been forced to stay longer than
> originally promised.


"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer enlistees
and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either Afghanistan,
Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any other
nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to know
the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances like
NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
****ing drug-addled ignoramus.

>>Skanky wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
>>>>
>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned, being
>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
>>>>another group of people, etc.
>>>
>>>Stop

>>
>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless, out-of-touch
>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
>>actually wrote.

>
> Maybe


They're valid and you know it, Skanky.

Scented Nectar 27-10-2005 03:42 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> > If you believe in supporting your
> > troops, why haven't you enlisted?

>
> Non sequitur. One can support the troops in a variety of ways. And I do.


Uh, huh...

> > The food?

>
> I've consumed my fair share of MREs.


Uh, huh...

> > The troops could sure
> > use some replacements and have
> > been forced to stay longer than
> > originally promised.

>
> "Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer enlistees
> and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
> the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
> the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
> "promise" made about the duration of our presence in either Afghanistan,
> Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any other
> nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
> first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
> Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to know
> the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
> except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
> adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances like
> NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
> ****ing drug-addled ignoramus.


The US spends billions of dollars in
overseas politics when it should be
taking care of it's own. Strengthening
levees, fixing potholes, and things like
that.

> >>Skanky wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
> >>>>>43) and I openly admit to
> >>>>
> >>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,

being
> >>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
> >>>>another group of people, etc.
> >>>
> >>>Stop
> >>
> >>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless, out-of-touch
> >>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
> >>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
> >>actually wrote.

> >
> > Maybe

>
> They're valid and you know it, Skanky.


Nope. You're still out fishing.
There's a flashing neon sign on
you that says 'Gone Fishing'.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




usual suspect 27-10-2005 05:44 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>The troops could sure
>>>use some replacements and have
>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>originally promised.

>>
>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer enlistees
>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either Afghanistan,
>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any other
>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to know
>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances like
>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.

>
> The US spends billions of dollars in
> overseas politics


We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.

> when it should be
> taking care of it's own.


We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

> Strengthening levees,


That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the local
idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea level
along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to live
below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and will
no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.

> fixing potholes,


Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
matter for the feds rather than local government?

> and things like that.


We already do. Stupid.

>>>>Skanky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,

>
> being
>
>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop
>>>>
>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless, out-of-touch
>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
>>>>actually wrote.
>>>
>>>Maybe

>>
>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.

>
> Nope.


You know I'm right.

Scented Nectar 27-10-2005 06:35 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" ps wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>The troops could sure
> >>>use some replacements and have
> >>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>originally promised.
> >>
> >>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer enlistees
> >>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
> >>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
> >>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
> >>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either Afghanistan,
> >>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any other
> >>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
> >>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
> >>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to know
> >>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
> >>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
> >>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances like
> >>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
> >>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.

> >
> > The US spends billions of dollars in
> > overseas politics

>
> We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
> or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
>
> > when it should be
> > taking care of it's own.

>
> We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
> (ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.


You know full well that there is
a lot more that could be done
to improve the living conditions
of the poor in the US.

> > Strengthening levees,

>
> That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the local
> idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea level
> along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
> full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to live
> below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
> already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and will
> no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.


Blaming the victims.

> > fixing potholes,

>
> Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
> matter for the feds rather than local government?


Stop getting so worked up.

> > and things like that.

>
> We already do. Stupid.


You don't even have a free medical
system.

> >>>>Skanky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
> >>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,

> >
> > being
> >
> >>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
> >>>>>>another group of people, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Stop
> >>>>
> >>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,

out-of-touch
> >>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
> >>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
> >>>>actually wrote.
> >>>
> >>>Maybe
> >>
> >>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.

> >
> > Nope.

>
> You know I'm right.


Out to lunch, Gone fishing.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




usual suspect 27-10-2005 03:23 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>
>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer enlistees
>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either Afghanistan,
>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any other
>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to know
>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances like
>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>
>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>overseas politics

>>
>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
>>
>>
>>>when it should be
>>>taking care of it's own.

>>
>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

>
> You know full well


We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

> that there is
> a lot more that could be done
> to improve the living conditions
> of the poor in the US.


They can find jobs, for starters. Then they can develop and hone their
marketable skills so they can earn more money. That's how people improve
their living conditions here and around the world, dummy.

>>>Strengthening levees,

>>
>>That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the local
>>idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea level
>>along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
>>full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to live
>>below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
>>already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and will
>>no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.

>
> Blaming the victims.


Do you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level when it's
surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
(Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico)? I
won't even get into the issue of how much money was allocated to
maintaining the levee system over the last four decades and how local
officials have mismanaged and squandered it.

>>>fixing potholes,

>>
>>Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
>>matter for the feds rather than local government?

>
> Stop getting so worked up.


I'm not worked up. I asked you why the federal government should address
potholes instead of local government. Why are you evading it?

>>>and things like that.

>>
>>We already do. Stupid.

>
> You don't even have a free medical
> system.


Neither do you. You pay for it indirectly through your employer (or you
would if you had a job, you carless ****). Your system is NOT free. It's
at least as expensive as ours, but less efficient.

A survey of major Canadian group health insurers shows that cost
increases for prescription drugs provided under
employer-sponsored health care benefit programs will continue at
double-digit rates in 2005....

Canadian employees have not been significantly affected by
prescription drug price increases. "For the most part, employers
are simply absorbing cost increases," said Jackson. "However, we
are beginning to see a limited impact on Canadian consumers as
some employers start to implement dispensing-fee caps or
increase prescription deductibles."
http://www.mellon.com/pressreleases/2005/pr022305.html

Do you think your forced/socialized health care scheme grows on trees?
Stupid, stupid, stupid Skanky.

>>>>>>Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,
>>>
>>>being
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet with
>>>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stop
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,

>
> out-of-touch
>
>>>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to your
>>>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what you
>>>>>>actually wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe
>>>>
>>>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.
>>>
>>>Nope.

>>
>>You know I'm right.

>
> Out to lunch


You sure are, dopey.

Scented Nectar 27-10-2005 05:18 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>The troops could sure
> >>>>>use some replacements and have
> >>>>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>>>originally promised.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer

enlistees
> >>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
> >>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
> >>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
> >>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either

Afghanistan,
> >>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any

other
> >>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
> >>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
> >>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to

know
> >>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
> >>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
> >>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances

like
> >>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
> >>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
> >>>
> >>>The US spends billions of dollars in
> >>>overseas politics
> >>
> >>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
> >>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
> >>
> >>
> >>>when it should be
> >>>taking care of it's own.
> >>
> >>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
> >>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

> >
> > You know full well

>
> We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
> telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.


Such a wonderful country, and look
what you rednecks want to do with it.

> > that there is
> > a lot more that could be done
> > to improve the living conditions
> > of the poor in the US.

>
> They can find jobs, for starters. Then they can develop and hone their
> marketable skills so they can earn more money. That's how people improve
> their living conditions here and around the world, dummy.


There aren't enough jobs. If you
were able to keep out illegals, maybe
there would be.

> >>>Strengthening levees,
> >>
> >>That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the local
> >>idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea level
> >>along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
> >>full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to live
> >>below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
> >>already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and will
> >>no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.

> >
> > Blaming the victims.

>
> Do you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level when it's
> surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
> (Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico)? I
> won't even get into the issue of how much money was allocated to
> maintaining the levee system over the last four decades and how local
> officials have mismanaged and squandered it.
>
> >>>fixing potholes,
> >>
> >>Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
> >>matter for the feds rather than local government?

> >
> > Stop getting so worked up.

>
> I'm not worked up. I asked you why the federal government should address
> potholes instead of local government. Why are you evading it?


Your taxes, that you probably are
against, go to both.

> >>>and things like that.
> >>
> >>We already do. Stupid.

> >
> > You don't even have a free medical
> > system.

>
> Neither do you. You pay for it indirectly through your employer (or you
> would if you had a job, you carless ****). Your system is NOT free. It's
> at least as expensive as ours, but less efficient.
>
> A survey of major Canadian group health insurers shows that cost
> increases for prescription drugs provided under
> employer-sponsored health care benefit programs will continue at
> double-digit rates in 2005....


Almost all employees get free
prescriptions. And all the poor
get free ones too.

> Canadian employees have not been significantly affected by
> prescription drug price increases. "For the most part, employers
> are simply absorbing cost increases," said Jackson. "However, we
> are beginning to see a limited impact on Canadian consumers as
> some employers start to implement dispensing-fee caps or
> increase prescription deductibles."
> http://www.mellon.com/pressreleases/2005/pr022305.html
>
> Do you think your forced/socialized health care scheme grows on trees?
> Stupid, stupid, stupid Skanky.


We've got one of the best medical
systems in the world.

> >>>>>>Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
> >>>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,
> >>>
> >>>being
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet

with
> >>>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Stop
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,

> >
> > out-of-touch
> >
> >>>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to

your
> >>>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what

you
> >>>>>>actually wrote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe
> >>>>
> >>>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.
> >>>
> >>>Nope.
> >>
> >>You know I'm right.

> >
> > Out to lunch

>
> You sure are, dopey.


What are you, all of 12 years old?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



usual suspect 28-10-2005 07:41 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer

>
> enlistees
>
>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part of
>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long as
>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either

>
> Afghanistan,
>
>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any

>
> other
>
>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to the
>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to

>
> know
>
>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they can
>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances

>
> like
>
>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>>>
>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>>>overseas politics
>>>>
>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>when it should be
>>>>>taking care of it's own.
>>>>
>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
>>>
>>>You know full well

>>
>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

>
> Such a wonderful country


Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development dopes
from Toronto.

>>>that there is
>>>a lot more that could be done
>>>to improve the living conditions
>>>of the poor in the US.

>>
>>They can find jobs, for starters. Then they can develop and hone their
>>marketable skills so they can earn more money. That's how people improve
>>their living conditions here and around the world, dummy.

>
> There aren't enough jobs.


There are plenty of jobs. There are "help wanted" signs all over town.
You want improvements in the New Orleans area? Employers are unable to
fill jobs so prevailing starting wages are climbing. The going rate for
physical labor -- never mind if you're a skilled worker -- there now is
approaching $20 an hour. Why are the natives still here in Texas (and
mostly unemployed) instead of working on a fresh start at home?

> If you were able to keep out illegals, maybe
> there would be.


The irony is the illegals come here and find jobs and work. The idle
slacking welfare class doesn't work -- they don't have to because we
subsidize their sloth. Nuevo Orleans is being flooded with immigrant
labor now because the natives aren't going back even for inflated wages.
As much as I wish we'd enforce our borders, I won't ever begrudge those
who come here to work the opportunity to outshine the welfare-slacker class.

>>>>>Strengthening levees,
>>>>
>>>>That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the local
>>>>idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea level
>>>>along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
>>>>full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to live
>>>>below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
>>>>already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and will
>>>>no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.
>>>
>>>Blaming the victims.

>>
>>Do you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level when it's
>>surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
>>(Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico)?


HELLO????!

>>I won't even get into the issue of how much money was allocated to
>>maintaining the levee system over the last four decades and how local
>>officials have mismanaged and squandered it.
>>
>>
>>>>>fixing potholes,
>>>>
>>>>Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
>>>>matter for the feds rather than local government?
>>>
>>>Stop getting so worked up.

>>
>>I'm not worked up. I asked you why the federal government should address
>>potholes instead of local government. Why are you evading it?

>
> Your taxes, that you probably are
> against, go to both.


Go to both what? The question was about which level of government is
best situated to deal with potholes. Why the **** should a bureaucrat in
DC care if there's a hole on a side street in Austin when Austin has its
own road crews? You imbecile.

>>>>>and things like that.
>>>>
>>>>We already do. Stupid.
>>>
>>>You don't even have a free medical
>>>system.

>>
>>Neither do you. You pay for it indirectly through your employer (or you
>>would if you had a job, you carless ****). Your system is NOT free. It's
>>at least as expensive as ours, but less efficient.
>>
>>A survey of major Canadian group health insurers shows that cost
>>increases for prescription drugs provided under
>>employer-sponsored health care benefit programs will continue at
>>double-digit rates in 2005....

>
> Almost all employees get free
> prescriptions.


Not free. Someone is paying an arm and leg for them.

> And all the poor get free ones too.


Liar. You're paying for them. Arm and leg. And the annual increase in
the rates for socialized prescriptions is double-digit.

>>Canadian employees have not been significantly affected by
>>prescription drug price increases. "For the most part, employers
>>are simply absorbing cost increases," said Jackson. "However, we
>>are beginning to see a limited impact on Canadian consumers as
>>some employers start to implement dispensing-fee caps or
>>increase prescription deductibles."
>>http://www.mellon.com/pressreleases/2005/pr022305.html
>>
>>Do you think your forced/socialized health care scheme grows on trees?
>>Stupid, stupid, stupid Skanky.

>
> We've got one of the best medical
> systems in the world.


I think a lot of Canadians forced to get treatment in the US and
elsewhere to avoid the waiting lists for procedures would beg to differ.

>>>>>>>>Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>>>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting stoned,
>>>>>
>>>>>being
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet

>
> with
>
>>>>>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stop
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,
>>>
>>>out-of-touch
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to

>
> your
>
>>>>>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what

>
> you
>
>>>>>>>>actually wrote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>You know I'm right.
>>>
>>>Out to lunch

>>
>>You sure are, dopey.

>
> What are you


Productive, sober, sane, virile, charming, and cute. Things you never
were or will be.

Scented Nectar 29-10-2005 06:17 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>The troops could sure
> >>>>>>>use some replacements and have
> >>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>>>>>originally promised.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer

> >
> > enlistees
> >
> >>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part

of
> >>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long

as
> >>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
> >>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either

> >
> > Afghanistan,
> >
> >>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any

> >
> > other
> >
> >>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to

the
> >>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
> >>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to

> >
> > know
> >
> >>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
> >>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they

can
> >>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances

> >
> > like
> >
> >>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
> >>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
> >>>>>overseas politics
> >>>>
> >>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
> >>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>when it should be
> >>>>>taking care of it's own.
> >>>>
> >>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
> >>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****

yourself.
> >>>
> >>>You know full well
> >>
> >>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
> >>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.

> >
> > Such a wonderful country

>
> Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development dopes
> from Toronto.


How old are you, little boy? Why are
you still stuck in the namecaller stage?

> >>>that there is
> >>>a lot more that could be done
> >>>to improve the living conditions
> >>>of the poor in the US.
> >>
> >>They can find jobs, for starters. Then they can develop and hone their
> >>marketable skills so they can earn more money. That's how people improve
> >>their living conditions here and around the world, dummy.

> >
> > There aren't enough jobs.

>
> There are plenty of jobs. There are "help wanted" signs all over town.
> You want improvements in the New Orleans area? Employers are unable to
> fill jobs so prevailing starting wages are climbing. The going rate for
> physical labor -- never mind if you're a skilled worker -- there now is
> approaching $20 an hour. Why are the natives still here in Texas (and
> mostly unemployed) instead of working on a fresh start at home?


Almost no one chooses to be poor
over having a good paying job. Is
your welfare system giving out too
much money to be an incentive? I
still say that the good jobs are likely
few and far between.

> > If you were able to keep out illegals, maybe
> > there would be.

>
> The irony is the illegals come here and find jobs and work. The idle
> slacking welfare class doesn't work -- they don't have to because we
> subsidize their sloth. Nuevo Orleans is being flooded with immigrant
> labor now because the natives aren't going back even for inflated wages.
> As much as I wish we'd enforce our borders, I won't ever begrudge those
> who come here to work the opportunity to outshine the welfare-slacker

class.

How much does a single person on
welfare get? How much does a
family get?

> >>>>>Strengthening levees,
> >>>>
> >>>>That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the

local
> >>>>idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea

level
> >>>>along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
> >>>>full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to

live
> >>>>below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
> >>>>already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and

will
> >>>>no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.
> >>>
> >>>Blaming the victims.
> >>
> >>Do you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level when it's
> >>surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
> >>(Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico)?

>
> HELLO????!


Hello what? You're still blaming the
victims.

> >>I won't even get into the issue of how much money was allocated to
> >>maintaining the levee system over the last four decades and how local
> >>officials have mismanaged and squandered it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>fixing potholes,
> >>>>
> >>>>Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
> >>>>matter for the feds rather than local government?
> >>>
> >>>Stop getting so worked up.
> >>
> >>I'm not worked up. I asked you why the federal government should address
> >>potholes instead of local government. Why are you evading it?

> >
> > Your taxes, that you probably are
> > against, go to both.

>
> Go to both what? The question was about which level of government is
> best situated to deal with potholes. Why the **** should a bureaucrat in
> DC care if there's a hole on a side street in Austin when Austin has its
> own road crews? You imbecile.


Your taxes go to all levels of gov't.
What's the matter with you? You
must still be in school because only
schoolkids are namecallers in such
a large amount.

> >>>>>and things like that.
> >>>>
> >>>>We already do. Stupid.
> >>>
> >>>You don't even have a free medical
> >>>system.
> >>
> >>Neither do you. You pay for it indirectly through your employer (or you
> >>would if you had a job, you carless ****). Your system is NOT free. It's
> >>at least as expensive as ours, but less efficient.
> >>
> >>A survey of major Canadian group health insurers shows that cost
> >>increases for prescription drugs provided under
> >>employer-sponsored health care benefit programs will continue at
> >>double-digit rates in 2005....

> >
> > Almost all employees get free
> > prescriptions.

>
> Not free. Someone is paying an arm and leg for them.
>
> > And all the poor get free ones too.

>
> Liar. You're paying for them. Arm and leg. And the annual increase in
> the rates for socialized prescriptions is double-digit.
>
> >>Canadian employees have not been significantly affected by
> >>prescription drug price increases. "For the most part, employers
> >>are simply absorbing cost increases," said Jackson. "However, we
> >>are beginning to see a limited impact on Canadian consumers as
> >>some employers start to implement dispensing-fee caps or
> >>increase prescription deductibles."
> >>http://www.mellon.com/pressreleases/2005/pr022305.html
> >>
> >>Do you think your forced/socialized health care scheme grows on trees?
> >>Stupid, stupid, stupid Skanky.

> >
> > We've got one of the best medical
> > systems in the world.

>
> I think a lot of Canadians forced to get treatment in the US and
> elsewhere to avoid the waiting lists for procedures would beg to differ.


The only reason we have (some)
waiting lists is that we care for every
person needing help. Your lists are
smaller because fewer people can
afford care.

> >>>>>>>>Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
> >>>>>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting

stoned,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>being
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet

> >
> > with
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Stop
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,
> >>>
> >>>out-of-touch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to

> >
> > your
> >
> >>>>>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what

> >
> > you
> >
> >>>>>>>>actually wrote.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Maybe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Nope.
> >>>>
> >>>>You know I'm right.
> >>>
> >>>Out to lunch
> >>
> >>You sure are, dopey.

> >
> > What are you

>
> Productive, sober, sane, virile, charming, and cute. Things you never
> were or will be.


LOL. I sincerely doubt you're any of
those things. That must be a wishlist.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/




usual suspect 31-10-2005 06:27 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
>>>
>>>enlistees
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part

>
> of
>
>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as long

>
> as
>
>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
>>>
>>>Afghanistan,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any
>>>
>>>other
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to

>
> the
>
>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should let
>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you to
>>>
>>>know
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no promises
>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they

>
> can
>
>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have alliances
>>>
>>>like
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>>>>>overseas politics
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't feed
>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>when it should be
>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto
>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****

>
> yourself.
>
>>>>>You know full well
>>>>
>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
>>>
>>>Such a wonderful country

>>
>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development dopes
>>from Toronto.

>
> How old are you


Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.

>>>>>that there is
>>>>>a lot more that could be done
>>>>>to improve the living conditions
>>>>>of the poor in the US.
>>>>
>>>>They can find jobs, for starters. Then they can develop and hone their
>>>>marketable skills so they can earn more money. That's how people improve
>>>>their living conditions here and around the world, dummy.
>>>
>>>There aren't enough jobs.

>>
>>There are plenty of jobs. There are "help wanted" signs all over town.
>>You want improvements in the New Orleans area? Employers are unable to
>>fill jobs so prevailing starting wages are climbing. The going rate for
>>physical labor -- never mind if you're a skilled worker -- there now is
>>approaching $20 an hour. Why are the natives still here in Texas (and
>>mostly unemployed) instead of working on a fresh start at home?

>
> Almost no one chooses to be poor


Bullshit. Many choose mediocrity (or worse) in school. Many drop out.
Many don't learn skills or continue to educate themselves in a field in
which they can earn a living. Many don't avail themselves of entry-level
opportunities and instead opt to suck off the tit of the welfare state.

> over having a good paying job. Is
> your welfare system giving out too
> much money to be an incentive? I
> still say that the good jobs are likely
> few and far between.


WTF does it have to do with "good jobs"? They're not taking entry-level
jobs or improving themselves through education or job training. Not very
many people start out at or even near the top. Every job is a good job.

>>>If you were able to keep out illegals, maybe
>>>there would be.

>>
>>The irony is the illegals come here and find jobs and work. The idle
>>slacking welfare class doesn't work -- they don't have to because we
>>subsidize their sloth. Nuevo Orleans is being flooded with immigrant
>>labor now because the natives aren't going back even for inflated wages.
>>As much as I wish we'd enforce our borders, I won't ever begrudge those
>>who come here to work the opportunity to outshine the welfare-slacker
>>class.

>
> How much does a single person on
> welfare get?


Any amount is too much.

> How much does a family get?


Any amount is too much.

>>>>>>>Strengthening levees,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an issue I wish the federal government should leave to the

>
> local
>
>>>>>>idiots who think it's wise to build a fairly large city below sea

>
> level
>
>>>>>>along the coast. Our federal government shouldn't operate as a
>>>>>>full-insurer for such boneheaded urban planning. If people want to

>
> live
>
>>>>>>below sea level, let them pay for it themselves. That said, we've
>>>>>>already spent billions of federal dollars on those leaky levees and

>
> will
>
>>>>>>no doubt spend a lot more. Way too much more.
>>>>>
>>>>>Blaming the victims.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level when it's
>>>>surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
>>>>(Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico)?

>>
>>HELLO????!

>
> Hello what? You're still blaming the
> victims.


I asked if you think it's wise to build a large city below sea level
when it's surrounded by a major river (the Mississippi), a large lake
(Pontchartrain), and within a few miles of the sea (Gulf of Mexico).
That's not blaming victims, it's asking if you or they have a ****ing
clue about sound urban planning. Further, why do you insist people who
don't live there fund such benighted efforts of building in flood plains
(or worse -- below ****ing sea level)?

And as to your wild claim that I'm blaming victims, consider the following:

* Katrina victims in Atlanta spent their vouchers on $800 Louis Vuitton
handbags and other luxury items.
* Katrina victims in Atlanta, Houston, and Massachusetts reportedly
spent their vouchers on lap dances and booze in strip clubs.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=46361
http://tinyurl.com/dw983
Etc.

Three hurricane evacuees in Pasadena, Texas, are under arrest for
murdering an elderly woman who provided them assistance.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3426879

>>>>I won't even get into the issue of how much money was allocated to
>>>>maintaining the levee system over the last four decades and how local
>>>>officials have mismanaged and squandered it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>fixing potholes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Local issue, not federal. Why do you think *everything* should be a
>>>>>>matter for the feds rather than local government?
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop getting so worked up.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not worked up. I asked you why the federal government should address
>>>>potholes instead of local government. Why are you evading it?
>>>
>>>Your taxes, that you probably are
>>>against, go to both.

>>
>>Go to both what? The question was about which level of government is
>>best situated to deal with potholes. Why the **** should a bureaucrat in
>>DC care if there's a hole on a side street in Austin when Austin has its
>>own road crews? You imbecile.

>
> Your taxes go to all levels of gov't.


The taxes for pot hole repairs are distinct -- the money for that isn't
sent to DC to be skimmed before we get cents back for every dollar we
send. It's local. Similarly, my local government doesn't send pothole
repair funds to DC for the war effort.

>>>>>>>and things like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We already do. Stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't even have a free medical
>>>>>system.
>>>>
>>>>Neither do you. You pay for it indirectly through your employer (or you
>>>>would if you had a job, you carless ****). Your system is NOT free. It's
>>>>at least as expensive as ours, but less efficient.
>>>>
>>>>A survey of major Canadian group health insurers shows that cost
>>>>increases for prescription drugs provided under
>>>>employer-sponsored health care benefit programs will continue at
>>>>double-digit rates in 2005....
>>>
>>>Almost all employees get free
>>>prescriptions.

>>
>>Not free. Someone is paying an arm and leg for them.


That means you, dummy.

>>>And all the poor get free ones too.

>>
>>Liar. You're paying for them. Arm and leg. And the annual increase in
>>the rates for socialized prescriptions is double-digit.
>>
>>>>Canadian employees have not been significantly affected by
>>>>prescription drug price increases. "For the most part, employers
>>>>are simply absorbing cost increases," said Jackson. "However, we
>>>>are beginning to see a limited impact on Canadian consumers as
>>>>some employers start to implement dispensing-fee caps or
>>>>increase prescription deductibles."
>>>>http://www.mellon.com/pressreleases/2005/pr022305.html
>>>>
>>>>Do you think your forced/socialized health care scheme grows on trees?
>>>>Stupid, stupid, stupid Skanky.
>>>
>>>We've got one of the best medical
>>>systems in the world.

>>
>>I think a lot of Canadians forced to get treatment in the US and
>>elsewhere to avoid the waiting lists for procedures would beg to differ.

>
> The only reason we have (some)
> waiting lists is that we care for every
> person needing help. Your lists are
> smaller because fewer people can
> afford care.


Bullshit. Everyone is treated here regardless of insurance or ability to
pay. Everyone.

>>>>>>>>>>Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm now 42 (soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>43) and I openly admit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>living at home, taking the bus, not owning a car, getting

>
> stoned,
>
>>>>>>>being
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>agoraphobic, lying to one group of people about having to meet
>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>another group of people, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stop
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No. Those are valid descriptions of what you are (carless,
>>>>>
>>>>>out-of-touch
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>with reality, agoraphobic pothead), and I didn't attribute it to
>>>
>>>your
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>authorship by sticking it to the right of the signs denoting what
>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>actually wrote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Maybe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They're valid and you know it, Skanky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>>>Out to lunch
>>>>
>>>>You sure are, dopey.
>>>
>>>What are you

>>
>>Productive, sober, sane, virile, charming, and cute. Things you never
>>were or will be.

>
> LOL.


In your pathetic plaight at 43, you should be crying instead of laughing.

Scented Nectar 01-11-2005 07:38 AM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
> >>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
> >>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>>>>>>>originally promised.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
> >>>
> >>>enlistees
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part

> >
> > of
> >
> >>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as

long
> >
> > as
> >
> >>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
> >>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
> >>>
> >>>Afghanistan,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any
> >>>
> >>>other
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to

> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should

let
> >>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you

to
> >>>
> >>>know
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no

promises
> >>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they

> >
> > can
> >
> >>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have

alliances
> >>>
> >>>like
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
> >>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
> >>>>>>>overseas politics
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't

feed
> >>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>when it should be
> >>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from

Toronto
> >>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****

> >
> > yourself.
> >
> >>>>>You know full well
> >>>>
> >>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
> >>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
> >>>
> >>>Such a wonderful country
> >>
> >>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development dopes
> >>from Toronto.

> >
> > How old are you

>
> Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.


Grow up. For your gratuitous insults,
I will not answer the rest of this post.
You blew it.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

[--snip--]




usual suspect 02-11-2005 05:57 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
>>>>>
>>>>>enlistees
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will; part
>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as

>
> long
>
>>>as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to any
>>>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
>>>>>
>>>>>Afghanistan,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or any
>>>>>
>>>>>other
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only to
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should

>
> let
>
>>>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you

>
> to
>
>>>>>know
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no

>
> promises
>
>>>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until they
>>>
>>>can
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have

>
> alliances
>
>>>>>like
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions. You
>>>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>>>>>>>overseas politics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't

>
> feed
>
>>>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>when it should be
>>>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from

>
> Toronto
>
>>>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****
>>>
>>>yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>You know full well
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
>>>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>Such a wonderful country
>>>>
>>>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development dopes
>>>
>>>>from Toronto.
>>>
>>>How old are you

>>
>>Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.

>
> Grow up.


That's very rich coming from an arrested-development pothead with
agoraphobia.

> For your gratuitous insults,


They're not gratuitous. They're spot-on.

> I will not answer the rest of this post.
> You blew it.


Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment, lol?

WRT your whining about blaming victims, consider this from USA TODAY
this morning:

Two months after Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of New Orleans
businesses are ready to resume normal operations, but it's not
water or wind damage that stands in their way. There's no one to
mind the store. New Orleans needs waiters, cooks, housekeepers,
dry cleaners, paralegals, cab drivers, doctors, nurses, ship
builders, oil workers and more.

The number of openings in New Orleans has more than tripled
since Katrina hit on Aug. 29. Before the storm, the state
Department of Labor averaged 708 job openings a month in Orleans
Parish; a recent check showed postings for about 2,500 jobs. And
that's just employers who have listed openings. Businesses large
and small are desperately seeking workers, and in many
industries, wages are rising....

Contractor Jose Garcia lost half of his workers and now pays
double to compete with $22-an-hour cleanup jobs. Restaurants
that used to pay the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage are offering $8
or more. And everyone is talking about the $6,000 bonus Burger
King will give anyone who signs on for a year.

Don Hutchinson, director of the Mayor's Office of Economic
Development, is excited about the wages. "Between the high
demand for employees and the amount that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is paying workers, the wage rate across the
board is going up," he says. "The ultimate outcome we are
looking for is that we have a much larger middle class than
we've ever had before...."

[Woody] Oge sees one other problem. Evacuees "have been living
rent-free and eating free food through subsidies from FEMA and
the Red Cross," he says. "I think in many cases that grant money
needs to subside, to give people an incentive to come back."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...business_x.htm

So there ARE jobs, and they're paying very damn well. The problem is
that these people -- most of whom are destitute because they didn't plan
their lives well enough to take care of themselves BEFORE Katrina --
have no intention of returning OR of working.

In the meantime, the number of complaints about evacuees getting drunk
or acting obscene in public, not paying rent for their new apartments,
being involved in crimes (including murder of those assisting them),
spending voucher funds on lap dances and luxury handbags and lingerie,
etc., continue to rise.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/...e/13054132.htm
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/3424792
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...fenders01.html
http://tinyurl.com/737xx
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4435
Etc.

We offered to help, but many of them won't even help themselves. No good
deed goes unpunished. Ever.

Scented Nectar 02-11-2005 06:22 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
> >>>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
> >>>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>enlistees
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will;

part
> >>>
> >>>of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as

> >
> > long
> >
> >>>as
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to

any
> >>>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Afghanistan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or

any
> >>>>>
> >>>>>other
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only

to
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should

> >
> > let
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you

> >
> > to
> >
> >>>>>know
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no

> >
> > promises
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until

they
> >>>
> >>>can
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have

> >
> > alliances
> >
> >>>>>like
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions.

You
> >>>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
> >>>>>>>>>overseas politics
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't

> >
> > feed
> >
> >>>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the

world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>when it should be
> >>>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from

> >
> > Toronto
> >
> >>>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****
> >>>
> >>>yourself.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>You know full well
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
> >>>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Such a wonderful country
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development

dopes
> >>>
> >>>>from Toronto.
> >>>
> >>>How old are you
> >>
> >>Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.

> >
> > Grow up.

>
> That's very rich coming from an arrested-development pothead with
> agoraphobia.
>
> > For your gratuitous insults,

>
> They're not gratuitous. They're spot-on.
>
> > I will not answer the rest of this post.
> > You blew it.

>
> Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment, lol?


Yep, go away now, little boy.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

> WRT your whining about blaming victims, consider this from USA TODAY
> this morning:
>
> Two months after Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of New Orleans
> businesses are ready to resume normal operations, but it's not
> water or wind damage that stands in their way. There's no one to
> mind the store. New Orleans needs waiters, cooks, housekeepers,
> dry cleaners, paralegals, cab drivers, doctors, nurses, ship
> builders, oil workers and more.
>
> The number of openings in New Orleans has more than tripled
> since Katrina hit on Aug. 29. Before the storm, the state
> Department of Labor averaged 708 job openings a month in Orleans
> Parish; a recent check showed postings for about 2,500 jobs. And
> that's just employers who have listed openings. Businesses large
> and small are desperately seeking workers, and in many
> industries, wages are rising....
>
> Contractor Jose Garcia lost half of his workers and now pays
> double to compete with $22-an-hour cleanup jobs. Restaurants
> that used to pay the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage are offering $8
> or more. And everyone is talking about the $6,000 bonus Burger
> King will give anyone who signs on for a year.
>
> Don Hutchinson, director of the Mayor's Office of Economic
> Development, is excited about the wages. "Between the high
> demand for employees and the amount that the Federal Emergency
> Management Agency is paying workers, the wage rate across the
> board is going up," he says. "The ultimate outcome we are
> looking for is that we have a much larger middle class than
> we've ever had before...."
>
> [Woody] Oge sees one other problem. Evacuees "have been living
> rent-free and eating free food through subsidies from FEMA and
> the Red Cross," he says. "I think in many cases that grant money
> needs to subside, to give people an incentive to come back."
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...business_x.htm
>
> So there ARE jobs, and they're paying very damn well. The problem is
> that these people -- most of whom are destitute because they didn't plan
> their lives well enough to take care of themselves BEFORE Katrina --
> have no intention of returning OR of working.
>
> In the meantime, the number of complaints about evacuees getting drunk
> or acting obscene in public, not paying rent for their new apartments,
> being involved in crimes (including murder of those assisting them),
> spending voucher funds on lap dances and luxury handbags and lingerie,
> etc., continue to rise.
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/...e/13054132.htm
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...story2/3424792
>

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...fenders01.html
> http://tinyurl.com/737xx
> http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4435
> Etc.
>
> We offered to help, but many of them won't even help themselves. No good
> deed goes unpunished. Ever.




usual suspect 02-11-2005 07:25 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>enlistees
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will;

>
> part
>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as
>>>
>>>long
>>>
>>>
>>>>>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to

>
> any
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Afghanistan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or

>
> any
>
>>>>>>>other
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object only

>
> to
>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US should
>>>
>>>let
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect you
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no
>>>
>>>promises
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until

>
> they
>
>>>>>can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have
>>>
>>>alliances
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions.

>
> You
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>>>>>>>>>overseas politics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who can't
>>>
>>>feed
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the

>
> world.
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>when it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from
>>>
>>>Toronto
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****
>>>>>
>>>>>yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You know full well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
>>>>>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Such a wonderful country
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development

>
> dopes
>
>>>>>>from Toronto.
>>>>>
>>>>>How old are you
>>>>
>>>>Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.
>>>
>>>Grow up.

>>
>>That's very rich coming from an arrested-development pothead with
>>agoraphobia.
>>
>>
>>>For your gratuitous insults,

>>
>>They're not gratuitous. They're spot-on.
>>
>>
>>>I will not answer the rest of this post.
>>>You blew it.

>>
>>Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment, lol?

>
>
> Yep


It's more like you're doing me a favor, you old bat.

Scented Nectar 02-11-2005 07:32 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>enlistees
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will;

> >
> > part
> >
> >>>>>of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as
> >>>
> >>>long
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>as
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to

> >
> > any
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Afghanistan,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or

> >
> > any
> >
> >>>>>>>other
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object

only
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US

should
> >>>
> >>>let
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect

you
> >>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>know
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no
> >>>
> >>>promises
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until

> >
> > they
> >
> >>>>>can
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have
> >>>
> >>>alliances
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>like
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions.

> >
> > You
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
> >>>>>>>>>>>overseas politics
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who

can't
> >>>
> >>>feed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the

> >
> > world.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>when it should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from
> >>>
> >>>Toronto
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****
> >>>>>
> >>>>>yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>You know full well
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
> >>>>>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Such a wonderful country
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development

> >
> > dopes
> >
> >>>>>>from Toronto.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How old are you
> >>>>
> >>>>Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.
> >>>
> >>>Grow up.
> >>
> >>That's very rich coming from an arrested-development pothead with
> >>agoraphobia.
> >>
> >>
> >>>For your gratuitous insults,
> >>
> >>They're not gratuitous. They're spot-on.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I will not answer the rest of this post.
> >>>You blew it.
> >>
> >>Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment, lol?

> >
> >
> > Yep

>
> It's more like you're doing me a favor, you old bat.


Well now, that's an interesting insult.
Do you fear getting older?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



usual suspect 02-11-2005 07:36 PM

I'd like to ask a sensitive question
 
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The troops could sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>use some replacements and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>been forced to stay longer than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>originally promised.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Forced" is a very strong word when used to refer to volunteer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>enlistees
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and those who applied for commissions by their own free will;
>>>
>>>part
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the deal includes going where the government sends them for as
>>>>>
>>>>>long
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the government sends them. Also, you're lying with respect to
>>>
>>>any
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"promise" made about the duration of our presence in either
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Afghanistan,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Iraq, Germany, the UK, Korea, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Italy, or
>>>
>>>any
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>other
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nation where we have troops stationed (I assume you object

>
> only
>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>first two when a very strong case can be made that the US

>
> should
>
>>>>>let
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Europe defend itself at its own expense), but I don't expect

>
> you
>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the difference or truth about any of it. There have been no
>>>>>
>>>>>promises
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>except that we'll maintain our troops in those nations until
>>>
>>>they
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>can
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adequately secure their own borders or as long as we have
>>>>>
>>>>>alliances
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NATO which call for us to maintain troops in certain regions.
>>>
>>>You
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****ing drug-addled ignoramus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The US spends billions of dollars in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>overseas politics
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>We spend billions more in feeding and caring for people who

>
> can't
>
>>>>>feed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>or care for themselves in a variety of shit holes around the
>>>
>>>world.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>when it should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>taking care of it's own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>We do, and we sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from
>>>>>
>>>>>Toronto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>(ahem) telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go ****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You know full well
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We sure as hell don't need muddleheaded dopes from Toronto (ahem)
>>>>>>>>>>telling us how to run our wonderful country. So go **** yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Such a wonderful country
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, because we ignore carless, muddleheaded, arrested-development
>>>
>>>dopes
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>from Toronto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How old are you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Too young (and smart) for you, you carless whore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Grow up.
>>>>
>>>>That's very rich coming from an arrested-development pothead with
>>>>agoraphobia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For your gratuitous insults,
>>>>
>>>>They're not gratuitous. They're spot-on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I will not answer the rest of this post.
>>>>>You blew it.
>>>>
>>>>Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment, lol?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep

>>
>>It's more like you're doing me a favor, you old bat.

>
> Well now


It's not punishing me.

> that's an interesting insult.


No, it's another truth. You're older than I am. I normally respect my
elders, but your arrested development makes you (at least emotionally)
my junior.

> Do you fear getting older?


No. Why do you fear growing up?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter