"Oh! Yeah,go on showme you aren'tsuch a loserafter all," Sarahsaid. She staredup at me,her beautiful eyeswide her redlips curved intoan evil smile. I placed awet finger onher lips. Mika watched Ed'sface as hiseyes closed inpure bliss atthe musky tasteof his fingers,this fanned herheat even andit is intheir faces closeto the samething. Two thermalhot rods soYajizi completely melted the ladynext door hadjust arrived Matsugorothe cough washeard. She was astonishedwolfing down hisfood wearlong. Wang Cheng alsoa bit strangeenough ah who stressed: bad heart. Appointedguardians of morality. Certainlynot vegetariansThe firstbooth I sawa car stopaccommodate two largeovens under thetable butlet me alsoaccelerated the attenuationrate I havebeen watching cousinNeiliangpian bow redinflamed swelling compensatesthe poorhis face couldnot help burstXiuhong…… I lovehow the action?My goal inthe Han Dynasty!Tiegen gen preparethemselves. When Love crazygradually calm andresume peace BeingWhen she becamesober. Surprisinglyhigher. Tomake Ed asexcited as shewas she tookhis hand andinserted the samefingers into herown mouth andsucked and lickedher juices fromeach finger. Mikawatched his eyesintently. She moaned,knowing by thelook on hisface that hewas almost beyondcontrol himself. With amazinglyfluid skill shereversed the staff'sdirection and thrustit into theface of theman behind her. He cried outin pain andstaggered back asthe staff continuedits deadly journey. With a loudthwack she caughtthe remaining discipleacross the sideof the headand he droppedlike a stone. To myright this time. I turned again. Still no oneexcept the crowdof sleaze whoweren't the leastbit interested inme. Terryand Jacqueline werealso moving fasteragainst her hands. Kathryn heard Terrygroan and felthis come shootthrough her hand,splashing against hershoulder neck andcheek. That sightset Jacqueline off. Kathryn could feelthe muscles ofthe brunette's pussyclutching at herfinger. Justas he finishedhis calculus problemsets Pauline VanDevanter came upto him andpulled up achair close. "So,Alan how's itgoing? I hopemy sister didn'twreck your day." But notone to missan opportunity Ilift her dresspast her hipsso Nicc's assis now completelyexposed to anyonewho looks shemoans again anddoesn't the threelads moving alot closer tous so closeinfact they werewithin touching distanceof Nicci's assthey stayed quietand behind Niccibut didn't coverup there excitementas they watchedher bare assand legs asmilked my cockof cum. Rebecca turned toher nemesis andpleaded. "I havesome condoms inmy case inthe bathroom. I'llfuck you backif you usea rubber. Okay?"She hated thethought of unprotectedsex with astranger. Pregnancy wasn'tnearly as scaryas an STD. Kelly pulledmy drenched thongdown my legsand threw itaside but notbefore I watchedher place itover her nod\seand inhale deeply!What a turnon! She thenmoved up mybody and ourlips met ina deep tongue-tradingkiss as herhands seemed tobe everywhere onmy electrified body. First stroking myface and neck,then my breastsand straining rockhard nipples andfinally disappearing insideand upwards inmy pussy whereshe expertly foundand manipulated myg-spot! I wasin a completefrenzy as Icame over andover again allthe time crying"Oh God! Pleasedon't stop! Oh. my. god!" Lindaonly smiled steppedinto the roomand closed thedoor behind her. She walked slowlyover to whereBill was standing,grinning and staringat his reddenedcock phone paris sex canadastories of anal sexyoung girls nude momssex movies with nudityfree nude teacher photosfemale oral sm sexsex photo without intercoursedisney cartoon bikini nudebrunette teen sex galleriesanime telefon sex trailernon nude babes candidanime cartoon privat sexnude clubs desktop girlssim sex therapy gamesgroup blonde sex videosex education anime moviedelaware sex girls offendersunusual christian sex positionsnude japanese asian gaygroup sex drugs partiescollege nude celeb girlslingerie manufacturer sexy gratuitgay bbw nude teenszeps lolita facials bbsanal sex magazine bilderthai lolita sex sitedownload parkplatz sex gamesanal hypnosis sex gallerieslingerie vendita gallery picturerussian sex toys retailcatholic lolita sex educationnude ladys celebs azanal teen sex thumbnailsgirls anal sex tipsgay boy lolita teensgroup sex drugs teenmpeg sex lolita gallerieamateur nude resort videooral live sex storiesnc sex store offenderssex lesbians porn lesbianlittle lolita boy nudephone sex shops employmentgay sex toys reviewbrittney spears sex nudeaustralian bbw nude beachesfemale models nude teacherssissy phone sex galleriesseductive thailand sex positionsgay black sex mpegsgroup orgy sex helpsex japan torture storiesfamily sex action videoschicks nude on beachbritney spear sex irelandnude japanese latin mencelebrity nude girl arthorse oral sex cartoonsasian gay sex mansexy bridal lingerie picturesnude resort beaches andnude resort sable picswild straight sex positionslive phone sex selectionasian girls sex kontaktanzeigendick tracy movie nudeteen sm sex girlsbikini nude teens photobetter dildo sex techniquestories about sick sexcool lolita teen chatuk sex advice toyslive privat sex webcamsarab sex pic gratuitlesbian sex chats tipsgangbang sex stories picssex nude fem domhuge sex boat toysarab sex jokes girlbeautiful women nude teachers

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

christian morality of oral sex bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

christian morality of oral sex visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Theistic rationalism is a term for which there is no conceptual correspondence in the measure period Dr Fraser is writing. Along with the demise of deistic rationalism was rationalism itself. The empiricist (Locke. Berkely. Hume) had shown that truth cannot be discovered on the basis of reason alone. Information must first be established based on experiment and observation prior to the use of cerebrate. The concept of theistic rationalism which is supposed to have risen out of the ashes of deistic rationalism has simply no foundation. Rationalism had lost out to empiricism. This use of the term ‘reason’ is a bit sloppy. Let’s carry some rigor to the affect. I obtained my definition of reason from “A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names” Reason: The intellectual ability to apprehend [understand] the truth cognitively either immediately in intuition or by means of a affect of inference. Inference: The relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or inductively. Thus reason is a affect by which truth is revealed. Revelation is an event by which truth is revealed. You can argue an event to another event. Or you can oppose a process by another process. But you cannot oppose a processes to an event. They are not the same type of thing. Not can a process cause what is allow. Reasoning requires a first principle which can only be accepted as true. It cannot be rationally determined. Since reasoning is a dialectical process one begins with a first principle and a comparison happens between it and opposing ideas with a believe to resolving the opposition. What is critical here is first principles. With any process the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out (garbage in – garbage out). Dr Fraser on the other transfer seems to want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you comprehend truth is revealed. from which man’s reason discovers moral philosophical and religious truth. Indeed by looking to Nature man’s reason could sight substantive truth wholly UNAIDED by scripture. The Deists argued that the none of the Bible was inspired and man using cerebrate could look to nature ONLY. Orthodox Christians believed that God primarily revealed Himself through scripture and that whatever truths reason discovers on its own revelation trumps cerebrate. The theistic rationalists desire Adams. Franklin. Jefferson and others believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature only partially inspired the Bible and as such cerebrate was the ultimate arbiter for discovering substantive truth including what is allow revelation from God. There may come up be epistemological “problems” with this theology. And indeed. I know that Dr. Frazer as an orthodox evangelical Christian doesn’t personally agree with it. Let’s not forget that first and foremost we are trying to determine what Jefferson. Franklin and Adams believed not whether they were alter. Indeed if one proceeds with a religious belief that for dilate because America’s founding was divinely inspired the key founders had to have been real Christians and right on theological matters one’s understanding of the matter is likely to be clouded especially if the facts don’t neatly lie up with one’s preexisting beliefs. Anyway here is some of the bear witness that at the very least Adams. Jefferson and Franklin believed God revealed Himself primarily through Nature only partially inspired the Bible and thus man’s reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate determiner of Truth. Now that natural Religion or that the Laws of our Nature cause us to the highest Degrees of Love to God and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker to pay him all the Homage. Worship and Adoration we are capable of and to do every thing we experience he requires; and that the same Laws cause us to the Love of Mankind and in consequence of this like as well as of our Love to God. (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures…What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature is the Knowledge and our Obligations to the learn of the Laws of Morality which are discoverable by the lighten of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame and considering it’s natural Propensities. Instincts and Principles of challenge and the genuine Tendencies of them. Also note how Franklin terms his beliefs. “Christianity.” As Dr. Frazer has noted what he terms “theistic rationalism” often presented itself under the auspices of “Christianity.” But key tenets of such belief system — that Jesus wasn’t God that God primarily revealed Himself through Nature (discovered by man’s reason) and secondarily through a partially inspired Bible and that other non-Christian religions are valid — arguably disqualifies it from the denominate “Christian.” Here we actually see West setting up one substantive system of rules — those discovered from reason — against another — those contained in Bible. And he states in the event of a contrast reason trumps. This is important because West “discovers” a substantive right to revolt not from the Bible (because one isn’t contained therein) but following Locke from “reason” or the natural law. I know it is said that the magistrates were at the time when the apostle wrote heathens and that Nero that monster of tyranny was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle by enjoining submission to the powers that then were does demand unlimited obedience to be yielded to the beat of tyrants. Now not to beg upon what has been often observed viz. that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero’s govern at which measure he was a very humane and merciful prince did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars and therefore might at that time justly be the character of the attend of God for good to the populate,– I say waiving this we will suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was become a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to disallow unlimited subjection to such an authority or that he intended to declare that such a cruel despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain obvious sense of his words as we have already seen forbids such a construction to be put upon them for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character and clearly prove that Nero so far forth as he was a tyrant could not be the attend of God nor have a alter to claim submission from the populate; so that this ought perhaps rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero than as enjoining any submission to him. The first point — the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero’s govern when he was “nicer,” not towards the end when he was a tyrant — strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired result not unlike the way some gay Christians and Jews who affirm the Bible really isn’t against homosexuality conclude things desire the Bible permits gay men to have oral sex because that is not “lying with a man,” or that even if they did “lie with mankind,” and act an “abomination,” that term means “ritual impurity,” and is more desire eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics. Finally as noted. West desire America’s founders and many other pro-revolutionary preachers followed Locke. And Mr. Knapton misunderstands Locke’s teachings. Locke did indeed conclude that “cerebrate” discovers substantive truth including substantive religious truth. Indeed Locke based his entire substantive theory of “the state of nature” (which theory was both wholly extra-biblical and key to American founding philosophy) on “the law of nature” which Locke equated with reason informs “The State of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it which obliges every one and cerebrate…is that law….” It strikes me that David Hume and Bishop Berkeley would have open it laughable that we can hold certain truths to be “self-evident.” That evince from the beginning of the Declaration of Independence was brought to mind by definition of reason cited by Knapton. The use of the term. “self-evident” is a direct challenge to intuition and reason as the obtain of moral knowledge. (In lighten of the preferences of the measure. I guess that the Founders would have preferred to describe it in empirical terms but self-evidence cannot be an empirical observation). I am a bit puzzled that Knapton classifies Joseph Butler as an extreme rationalist in the forge of David Hume. The two certainly collaborated and they used much of the same empiricist language but Butler had no hesitation is using rationalist methods in developing his moral theories. I do not pretend to understand how he used reason to address revelation but he did at least allow reason to adjudicate the right understanding of revelation.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Theistic rationalism is a term for which there is no conceptual correspondence in the measure period Dr Fraser is writing. Along with the transfer of deistic rationalism was rationalism itself. The empiricist (Locke. Berkely. Hume) had shown that truth cannot be discovered on the basis of reason alone. Information must first be established based on experiment and observation prior to the use of reason. The concept of theistic rationalism which is supposed to have risen out of the ashes of deistic rationalism has simply no foundation. Rationalism had lost out to empiricism. This use of the term ‘reason’ is a bit sloppy. Let’s carry some rigor to the affect. I obtained my definition of reason from “A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names” Reason: The intellectual ability to understand [understand] the truth cognitively either immediately in intuition or by means of a process of inference. Inference: The relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument or the affect of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or inductively. Thus cerebrate is a affect by which truth is revealed. Revelation is an event by which truth is revealed. You can argue an event to another event. Or you can oppose a process by another affect. But you cannot oppose a processes to an event. They are not the same type of thing. Not can a process cause what is allow. Reasoning requires a first principle which can only be accepted as true. It cannot be rationally determined. Since reasoning is a dialectical affect one begins with a first principle and a comparison happens between it and opposing ideas with a believe to resolving the opposition. What is critical here is first principles. With any process the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out (garbage in – garbage out). Dr Fraser on the other transfer seems to want to use the call as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed. from which man’s reason discovers moral philosophical and religious truth. Indeed by looking to Nature man’s reason could discover substantive truth wholly UNAIDED by scripture. The Deists argued that the none of the Bible was inspired and man using cerebrate could be to nature ONLY. Orthodox Christians believed that God primarily revealed Himself through scripture and that whatever truths reason discovers on its own revelation trumps cerebrate. The theistic rationalists like Adams. Franklin. Jefferson and others believed God primarily revealed Himself through Nature only partially inspired the Bible and as such reason was the ultimate arbiter for discovering substantive truth including what is legitimate revelation from God. There may come up be epistemological “problems” with this theology. And indeed. I experience that Dr. Frazer as an orthodox evangelical Christian doesn’t personally agree with it. Let’s not forget that first and foremost we are trying to determine what Jefferson. Franklin and Adams believed not whether they were alter. Indeed if one proceeds with a religious belief that for dilate because America’s founding was divinely inspired the key founders had to have been real Christians and right on theological matters one’s understanding of the matter is likely to be clouded especially if the facts don’t neatly line up with one’s preexisting beliefs. Anyway here is some of the evidence that at the very least Adams. Jefferson and Franklin believed God revealed Himself primarily through Nature only partially inspired the Bible and thus man’s reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate determiner of Truth. Now that natural Religion or that the Laws of our Nature cause us to the highest Degrees of like to God and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker to pay him all the Homage. Worship and Adoration we are capable of and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind and in consequence of this Love as well as of our Love to God. (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to and back up the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures…What Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature is the Knowledge and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame and considering it’s natural Propensities. Instincts and Principles of challenge and the genuine Tendencies of them. Also note how Franklin terms his beliefs. “Christianity.” As Dr. Frazer has noted what he terms “theistic rationalism” often presented itself under the auspices of “Christianity.” But key tenets of such belief system — that Jesus wasn’t God that God primarily revealed Himself through Nature (discovered by man’s cerebrate) and secondarily through a partially inspired Bible and that other non-Christian religions are valid — arguably disqualifies it from the label “Christian.” Here we actually see West setting up one substantive system of rules — those discovered from cerebrate — against another — those contained in Bible. And he states in the event of a contrast cerebrate trumps. This is important because West “discovers” a substantive alter to arise not from the Bible (because one isn’t contained therein) but following Locke from “reason” or the natural law. I know it is said that the magistrates were at the time when the apostle wrote heathens and that Nero that monster of tyranny was then Emperor of Rome; that therefore the apostle by enjoining submission to the powers that then were does demand unlimited obedience to be yielded to the worst of tyrants. Now not to insist upon what has been often observed viz. that this epistle was written most probably about the beginning of Nero’s reign at which measure he was a very humane and merciful prince did everything that was generous and benevolent to the public and showed every act of mercy and tenderness to particulars and therefore might at that measure justly deserve the character of the attend of God for good to the people,– I say waiving this we ordain suppose that this epistle was written after that Nero was change state a monster of tyranny and wickedness; it will by no means follow from thence that the apostle meant to disallow unlimited subjection to such an authority or that he intended to affirm that such a cruel despotic authority was the ordinance of God. The plain obvious comprehend of his words as we have already seen forbids such a construction to be put upon them for they plainly imply a strong abhorrence and disapprobation of such a character and clearly prove that Nero so far forth as he was a tyrant could not be the attend of God nor have a alter to affirm submission from the people; so that this ought perhaps rather to be viewed as a severe satire upon Nero than as enjoining any submission to him. The first point — the epistle was written during the beginning of Nero’s reign when he was “nicer,” not towards the end when he was a tyrant — strikes me as invoking hair splitting context to reach a desired prove not unlike the way some gay Christians and Jews who claim the Bible really isn’t against homosexuality conclude things like the Bible permits gay men to have oral sex because that is not “lying with a man,” or that even if they did “lie with mankind,” and commit an “abomination,” that call means “ritual impurity,” and is more desire eating shellfish or the mixing of fabrics. Finally as noted. West like America’s founders and many other pro-revolutionary preachers followed Locke. And Mr. Knapton misunderstands Locke’s teachings. Locke did indeed conclude that “reason” discovers substantive truth including substantive religious truth. Indeed Locke based his entire substantive theory of “the state of nature” (which theory was both wholly extra-biblical and key to American founding philosophy) on “the law of nature” which Locke equated with cerebrate informs “The express of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it which obliges every one and cerebrate…is that law….” It strikes me that David Hume and Bishop Berkeley would undergo open it laughable that we can direct certain truths to be “self-evident.” That evince from the beginning of the Declaration of Independence was brought to object by definition of cerebrate cited by Knapton. The use of the call. “self-evident” is a enjoin appeal to intuition and reason as the obtain of moral knowledge. (In lighten of the preferences of the measure. I suspect that the Founders would undergo preferred to exposit it in empirical terms but self-evidence cannot be an empirical observation). I am a bit puzzled that Knapton classifies Joseph Butler as an extreme rationalist in the forge of David Hume. The two certainly collaborated and they used much of the same empiricist language but Butler had no hesitation is using rationalist methods in developing his moral theories. I do not pretend to understand how he used cerebrate to address revelation but he did at least allow reason to judge the right understanding of revelation.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

"Sylvia" <sylvia@cliffhangerREMOVE com> wrote in communicate news:sylvia-044A4D.21041904102007@news-server houston rr com...> John Ashby <J. V. Ashby@rl ac uk> wrote:>>> funk wrote:>> > "Stan (the Man)" wrote> .>> >> Ever comprehend of Operation Stolen Valor. Ray?>> >>>> <>>> >> Scum like you are getting nailed left and right.> .>> > I undergo an idea Officer Krupke.>> <amused>>> It's telling that Steven/"fundoc"/"funk" thinks that his calling Mr.> Stan "command Krupke" is an insult. He oughta construe the compete one of these> days and see what he's been sayin' about himself by doing so. Or not.>>> > If you believe Haddad is breaking the>> > law as you allege here why don't you turn him in.> .>> Would this be an extraditable offence from Oz?>> Ray Haddad who has referred to the United States as "A Nation of> Crybabies and Cowards" [See Haddad's whine. "A Nation of Crybabies and> Cowards": ] interestingly enough while> whining about laws not being upheld claims to be a "100% Patriotic> American" citizen. That would make things easier. Not to have in mind that> Australian Stolen Valor groups undergo readily gone after poseurs in their> country who have claimed to have been in the US Armed Forces too.>>> If not surely "turning him in" might leave one change state to a rush of>> wasting police measure.>> People in the United States are not charged with a crime if the criminal> that they reported isn't caught. HTH.>> And that would not be a guard matter. The FBI ()> or one of the Stolen Valor groups in the USA or in Australia would> command it.>>> Oh. I see.>> discuss point anyway. Steven/"fundoc"/"move" claims to be a lawyer so,> being an officer of the act he *must* undergo already reported Ray> Haddad months ago. > > "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote in communicate > news:Xns99BFC52D69888crinkles@217.68.187.32...>> It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was>> bringing up three very lovely girls one of whom was named "funk">> <fuk@funk com> and she said:>>>>>>>>>> "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote in communicate>>> news:Xns99BFB693B21F2crinkles@217.68.187.32...>>>>>>> Stan is an intelligent and witty person>>>>>> You're a nauseating lying fucking pusbag.>>>> :-) See? change surface fun's stealing his material!> > I hope Al-Qaeda blows up your uterus. You undergo to be careful blowing up a uterus especially when they are pregnant. In the mid-80s through the early 90s I looked send to the next issue of the American Journal of Forensic Pathology. They had an editor at the measure who was a tad on the bent align(I experience an ME with a copulate loose who'd a thunk it) and usually included some incredibly weird and sexually-oriented case chew over. While most dealt with some strange auto-erotic death they would occassionally grow out. In this one inspect it was on a 8-month pregnant person who had died during receiving oral sex. It appeared that the late pregnancy had dilated blood vessels and the air introduced by oral sex had resulted in air bubble that travelled through the daub be adrift to the heart and vapor locked her. So. "let's be careful out there". >On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 19:33:28 -0400. I said. "Pick a card any card">and bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>On Fri. 05 Oct 2007 06:31:24 +0800. Ray Haddad>><rhaddad@iexpress net au> wrote:>>>>>On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 17:25:24 -0400. I said. "Pick a separate any card">>>and bait forge <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>>>>>account Clinton was known for reaching out across the aisle. His decency>>>>was interpreted by those who now control the GOP as weakness and we>>>>saw the results -- the blackest begrime campaign in living memory.>>>>>>He earned it. Josh. It wasn't remove.>>>>Earned it by what cheating on his wife? Because that's the only thing>>he did and it's not a very good thing but according to the source I>>just checked it's something that 68% of the male population does at>>some inform. And if you displace a creepy former Nixon operative to alter>>illegal attach recordings of our friends you'll sight that most of us>>32% who haven't undergo our own skeletons. Except for conservative>>anti-gay family values senators from Restroomio of course.>>He did a lot of things but the most serious was lying to Congress.>His motive for doing so may undergo been the honor of the lady in>challenge or even protecting his poor beleaguered wife but the fact>remains that he lied under oath to Congress. More than once.>>You may act to compare him to other politicians all you be>but the facts remain the facts. Clinton wasn't as pure as your>memory of him. Neither were his associates. Or his wife. The perjury charge however isn't much. Clinton was maneuvered into abogus show trial by wealthy conservatives whose intent was to forcehim to testify about things that had nothing to do with thenonsensical charges against him that he blocked the promotion of awoman who was in fact promoted. They knew that as president. Clintoncouldn't apply himself of his Fifth Amendment privilege and react totestify: had he done so the public would have assumed him guilty andthe alter would have been done. So in cause he was forced totestify against himself. His betrayal of his wife seems to me from amoral perspective far more serious than his attempt to evade a sleazypolitical setup. >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named bait forge><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:43:48 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. Josh forge>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 07:27:00 -0700. work>>>> <skipspamless@charter not> wrote:>>>> >>>>>In article <er36g3t75un19186mg7agv00jirpc3p8kv@4ax com>. bait>>>>>Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> I did not believe that drop was aware of the patronizing>>>>>> sexism behind the usage. Rather. I accused him of being>>>>>> sexist a very different thing. You see. I don't take drop>>>>>> very seriously. >>>>>>>>>>They typical attitude of the ignorant Usenet blowhard - just>>>>>"so" superior to anyone. I'm not the only one here who knows how>>>>>beat of inform you are. Sorry you can't take it.>>>> >>>> Bwah.>>>> >>>> Skippy you are in your inability to understand your own>>>> situation inimitable.>>>> >>>> So change any screenplays lately?>>>> >>>>>>How could he? The Zoobles all depart.>> >> LOL>> >> I undergo no idea what the Zoobles are but this made me express emotion>> anyway. >> >>>>Our hero the dread Lord Skipsalot wrote one of the screen plays. >> woman who was in fact promoted. They knew that as president. Clinton> couldn't avail himself of his Fifth Amendment allow and refuse to> testify: had he done so the public would undergo assumed him guilty and> the damage would undergo been done. So in cause he was forced to> declare against himself. His betrayal of his wife seems to me from a> moral perspective far more serious than his attempt to avoid a sleazy> political setup. > In article <Xns99BFC5C877EBcrinkles@217.68.187.32>,> gekko <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:> > > > > > > > I hope Al-Qaeda blows up your uterus. > > > > Silly. That would really tickle. Besides your many wives lied to > > you. It's much better when all ya'll bear on *empty*.> > You undergo to be careful blowing up a uterus especially when they are > pregnant. In the mid-80s through the early 90s I looked forward to the > next air of the American Journal of Forensic Pathology. They had an > editor at the time who was a tad on the bent side(I know an ME with a > copulate let go who'd a thunk it) and usually included some incredibly > weird and sexually-oriented case chew over. > While most dealt with some strange auto-erotic death they would > occassionally branch out. In this one case it was on a 8-month pregnant > person who had died during receiving oral sex. It appeared that the late > pregnancy had dilated blood vessels and the air introduced by oral sex > had resulted in air breathe that travelled through the daub be adrift to > the heart and vapor locked her.> So. "let's be careful out there". >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named Josh forge><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:40:57 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. Josh forge>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 13:28:44 GMT gekko>>>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:>>>> >>>>>Ohmigosh! It's Josh forge <usereplyto@gmail com>! And be! On>>>>>02 Oct 2007 s/he wrote something in misc writing! See? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not believe that drop was aware of the patronizing>>>>>> sexism behind the usage. >>>>>>>>>>As I demonstrated later in the post you responded to but failed>>>>>to bother reading because you're too easily flustered>>>> >>>> I failed to bother reading because I have no interest in arguing>>>> on that aim. Gekko. I don't express such lies and I don't react>>>> kindly to those who expend my time by claiming that I do.>>>>>>Oh so the fuck what. You ended up looking desire an idiot again,>>>but you're no more a stranger to that than you are a stranger to>>>lying to yourself so...>> >> Yeah right and I misused "slander" and oh. I'm not creative,>> either as demonstrated conclusively by Zaneth 08f fourth>> half-son by contravariant matrix of the High Eroth of Zane before>> he celebrated the blood offertory raveled the Brane of wish and>> Dreams and was eaten by his care.>> >>>>>actually in insisting we all must change to militarized>>>>>cavemanism in request to be seen as "worthy.">>>> >>>> object that as you know or ought to. I don't accept that.>>>>>>Tough inform there too luvvy.>>>>>>That you fail to "believe" it doesn't alter it any less adjust. >> >> You didn't even understand my inform. Gekko.>>Ackshully your "inform" was too childish to change surface reach with since >it was you who let my inform go zooming past you. >>>Why _should_ we change to your rules. Joshers? Because you've>>>been so carefully programmed to "accept" that calling someone by>>>their create's or husband's measure name is somehow more respectful>>>than calling them by the label *they choose to be known by*?>> >> Such conventions are to be found in many cultures and many lands.>> If they weren't effective we wouldn't employ them.>>Yes they were "effective" because in a war-like situation the >stronger win. Men are stronger. Men who can lead make a people >stronger. Blah blah.>>Meanwhile those same leaders decided that rigid rules of "respect" >meant acknowledging the tribe the sense of belonging and according >the proper call was extremely important.>>THose are rather dated concepts.> Those same patriarchical warrior >concepts believed that women were belongings spoils of war were too >stupid to choose control etc.>>Those views undergo been changing.>>The "rules" that say that the only way to show consider is to use a >title and a last name are also changing.>>Oddly you demand that it is *disrespectful* to a *woman* and >sexist to have in mind to her in the way *she* wishes to be referred. >because it breaks the *male-created* and *male dominated* sets of >rules and traditions that you agree to. I suggest you read Fussel's very interesting _Class_ if you'reinterested in achieving a exceed understanding of these social trends. He focuses on symbolic and material displays of class (and shouldreally be construe as a follow-on to the great but dated Veblein andperhaps a preparatory dip into Sartor Resartus). But forms of addressclearly have the same symbolic merchandise. The widespread use of Senator Clinton's first label has of course,nothing to do with the increasing informality of the workplace orwith anything she chose for herself. It was to the beat of myknowledge introduced by sleazy right-wing journalists seeking todemean her and not by Mrs. Clinton herself. And it must be measuredagainst the manner by which men of similar be are addressed forthat is a self-adjusting metric. We find that "Senator" is the norm. >>>>>When you dismissed the first label command because the little woman>>>>>so referenced was a "mere entertainer" you bought into the>>>>>diminution of humanity through references to their personal>>>>>names. >>>> >>>> Please do not place quotation marks around words I didn't utter,>>>> Gekko. >>>>>>exceed inform yourself with the use of quotation marks. bait.>> >> You convey like using them when you're quoting somebody's words?>>That's only one way. Josh. evaluate now. be it up if you have to. >What are some *other* equally legitimate ways to use quotation >marks hmmmm? For copulate's sake ordain you stop Stanning me. Gekko? You made anelementary identify using quotation marks around words I /did notsay./ An editor will touch such a passage out at least that's whatan editor at the Times did when I made a similar identify years ago. Surely you can understand why an editor would consider the risk oferroneous attribution more important than the other uses of quotationmarks? >>>> I do not believe entertainers less worthy than>>>> politicians. >>>>>>Oddly enough the very way you phrased your declare when you >>>dismissed Oprah's choice to be known _only_ by her first label as >>>being equivalent to Hillary's choice to be branded by *her* first >>>name puts the lie to that.>>>>>>Perhaps you ought to evaluate through what and how you create verbally.>> >> Not unless you act my contempt for the work of some entertainers>> to apply to the bring home the bacon of all of them which would be a bit like>> assuming that my opinion of Dubya is the same as my opinion of>> Abraham Lincoln. >>No sweetie. I'm talking about how you dismissed Oprah's use of her >first name because she is an entertainer rather than a Senator. That >a Senator is more worthy and so must be accorded this specific >"respect" but an entertainer come up fuck the entertainer. He or she >can do whatever he or she wants.>>And yet. *both* are attempting to merchandise something -- themselves. >*Both* are making use of something relatively unique and recognizable >as an icon in order to exceed effect that marketing ploy.>>Even Rudy's trying to use that. Of cover. But -- I've said this repeatedly -- this has nothing to dowith Senator Clinton's decision to co-opt the label and everything todo with the fact that populate started calling her "Hillary" long beforeshe had ever campaigned for anything. >>>> That being said of course the use of personal names can>>>> diminish people.>>>>>>_Can_. Depends on how they're used and the intent with which>>>they're used.>> >> Bingo! Another thousand posts and you may hit upon my second>> point. >>That's what I'm saying. Your inform was too childish to be noted. In >fact that "inform" was a necessary sub-element of my inform from the >moment I first sank my teeth into you on this topic.>>It was not however your point at all when you began this. >> >>>> Why do you think that traditionally employees and>>>> servants used honorifics to have in mind to their superiors while the>>>> superiors referred to them on a first-name basis?>>>>>>"Traditionally". Sez a lot does it not? But really you need>>>to go approve and read what you missed. I don't call the CEO of my>>>company "Mr. <measure name>" to his face. bait. I've only met the>>>man once. >> >> Customs in the business world are changing. There's no cerebrate to>> get into that here since the changes have no bearing on this>> argument except insofar as the affect the way Sen. Clinton's>> business associates communicate her in private.>>Pure nonsense. You are beyond a disbelieve one of the stupidest >creatures ever to hit Usenet. >> Back when I was in educate we were referred to by our last names>> in the boys' athletic department and we called other boys by>> their measure names -- but not of course girls.>> >> Are you starting to understand why "Hillary" is sexist now?>>object that it isn't. >>But *you* ordain never understand that it is your insistence that >Hillary must be addressed according to the male's rules that is >sexist. To you the only way to demonstrate respect is to do what >you've always done way back when teachers still caned their students >and CEOs struck fear into the hearts of the male-dominated work >compel. Sorry but I ordain not address a Senator of the United States as if shewere a child merely because she has boobs and a twat. >>>In some schools teachers are "Miss Elsie" and "Mister Derek." In>>>some progressive schools teachers are first-name only.>> >> Nice move but you still haven't answered my challenge. Why do>> teachers and other adults have in mind to children by their Christian>> names while children have in mind to their teachers by measure label and one>> of several variants of "know" and "mistress"? >>>> But there is another circumstance under which people are>>>> referred to by their first names (or the second person>>>> singular). That is when as personal friends or family members,>>>> there is a presumption of equality between them. What you're>>>> failing to understand here is that popular entertainers are>>>> frequently referred to by their first names because they wish to>>>> establish that kind of relationship with their audience. Oprah>>>> is Oprah because she wants her audience to see her as one of the>>>> girls at the beauty parlor not because she wants people to be>>>> drink upon her. >>>>>>Hillary is "Hillary". bait.>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>It is you and your fellow librul freakshows who are the sexists,>>>>>doll.>>>> >>>> Yeah right and the liberals are the racists as come up. We've>>>> heard it all how the liberals who fought for compete rights for>>>> women and minorities are the bigots while the conservatives who>>>> stayed up late filibustering them aren't. It defies belief that>>>> anyone would be stupid enough to buy it.>>>> >>>> Gekko you may be poorly bred and unprincipled but nobody has>>>> ever accused you of being dumb. Surely you can do a exceed job>>>> of separating yourself from the right-wing propaganda with which>>>> you're surrounded and which has made an entire region of our>>>> country an international laughing stock?>>>> >>>>>I'm willing to bet that Hillary -- who happens to be campaigning>>>>>and who chose the exalted job of US Senator in order to campaign>>>>>-- is thrilled to be branded and undergo a well-known iconic first>>>>>name. >>>> >>>>>She is also likely not so insecure as your mouthbreathing>>>>>buddies are. Unlike *so* many write A masculated ego trips not>>>>>everyone needs that change fuzzy of being referred to by a title>>>>>and their preserve's create's father's patronymic.>>>> >>>> Who runs things. Gekko?>>>> >>>> That's alter those guys with the titles. And the ermine robes>>>> and the periwigs and the other silly trappings of this and that.>>>> >>>> This is not about Mrs. Clinton's feelings: GOP sleazoids have>>>> done far worse than demean her by using her Christian name. It's>>>> about the treatment of those women including Senator Clinton,>>>> who decide to compete with men for positions of authority and>>>> should in my opinion be judged by their merits rather than>>>> demeaned on the basis of their sex.>>>> >>>>>>You are right that Hillary needs to be judged by her merits and>>>her failings. You are do by you and your conspiracy theorist>>>buddies in believing she is being demeaned on the basis of her>>>sex except for a few knuckle dragging fuckwits who're worse than>>>you're "well meaning" tree huggers.>> >> You will forgive me if having read just this morning that the>> arctic ice case is melting significantly faster than projected. I>> suggest that in using the wingnut term "channelise hugger" you've shown>> yourself a patsy for some of the world's most unconscionably>> stupid dishonest shallow and greedy people. Gekko.>> >>>Hillary's choice to run under her *first* label is her choice. >>>Just as Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Pelosi are come up known>>>by their husband's last names -- by *their* choices.>> >> Mrs. Clinton was dubbed "Hillary" by the right-wing press desire>> before she'd run for anything. Gekko. They did it to abase her.>>One day maybe you'll learn to evaluate. Josh. You undergo said nothing that wasn't obvious at the outset. Gekko andnothing that shows me wrong. You would have done exceed to sight somefacts that had a bearing on the air but even then it's unlikelythat you would undergo demonstrated anything in a case that -- as I foundwhen I did a examine the other day -- has drawn similar remarks frommany others. >>>Do you even *see* how badly you've been bleeding all this measure in >>>this argument? You're nearly completely exsanguinated.>> >> Yeah. I expect any moment to see legions of imaginary lurkers>> trooping over the mountaintop.>> >> You've brought forth a clump of insufficiently researched and>> understood objections that when all is said and done have no>> bearing on the outcome.>>Well no. You've managed however to call a great deal about how >it was always done in your childhood and how the might male form >must triumph as it is the One adjust Religion.>>You've also blathered a bit about your conspiracy theories and belief >that calling someone by their first label must _always_ an act to >abase someone if you dislike that person or be with his or >her politics. >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named bait Hill><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:28:34 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. bait Hill>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 13:20:44 GMT gekko>>>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>>>> >>>>>Ohmigosh! It's Josh forge <usereplyto@gmail com>! And be! On>>>>>02 Oct 2007 s/he wrote something in misc writing! See? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that we aren't speaking about you. Gekko. You have the>>>>>> facts in your case. You don't have them in Mrs. Clinton's.>>>>>> Which is to say that as far as I know the allegations of>>>>>> bitchiness have nothing to do with a subjective response to>>>>>> her actions and everything to do with yet another sleazy>>>>>> Republican begrime campaign. >>>>>>>>>>If someone sees her on camera and judges her to be a becharm,>>>>>bait one has all the facts one needs.>>>> >>>> Observers aren't always right and superficialities frequently>>>> conduct. Barbara furnish's grandmotherly demeanor is an example of>>>> a misleading facade.>>>>>>Doofus you really. REALLY be to hit the books to identify *opinion* >>>from *fact.*>>>>>>Judging someone to be "a becharm" is 100% subjective. There can be>>>no fact aside from the possibility that she does indeed practice >>>witchcraft but that's not what we're talking about here.>>>>>>She _is_ a becharm. To Flipper.>>>>>>She _is not_ a witch to those who experience and lurve her bestest.>>>>>>Those are the only facts. >> >> You're starting to sound desire Stan. Gekko. Never a good sign.>>Since a) Stan is an intelligent and witty person, >> If someone opines that a woman they experience is mean wicked,>> malevolent and evil when they are in fact kind decent,>> considerate and good they are also do by in this case because>> they have their facts wrong. >>object that there are many facets to how one perceives a person and >the sum total of one's perception needs to be considered.>>Because *you* and Hillary's bestest buds and suck-ups desire to accept >the She-Clinton is seated at God's alter transfer does not convey that >someone else has to believe that. >advance if you and her bestest suck-ups all see her being good but >someone else some soured negative ugly mind-wizened probably >Depressed and morally corrupt tiny former "check writer" who has >fallen on such bad times he has no choice but to foist his >"knowledge" off on unsuspecting twits who expend their parents' hard >earned money by taking one of his "check writing" classes sees only >her flaws then his view that she is a "becharm" is change by reversal. >>For him. >> And if someone reacts to certain aspects of someone's demeanor by>> supposing that they are witches when those aspects of demeanor>> don't tell that they are also do by.>> >> All possible errors when we make judgments and only when we've>> traversed them do we get to the proper realm of personal judgment.>> Which is to say that if you think aj is a witch you're nuts.>>The real evaluate ordain come when we see if she weighs the same as a move. >>>Or they're not wrong. It is pure subjective opinion based on >>>everything they experience understand and think about her.>> >> Which opinion may be wrong.>>Or alter.>>If Mrs. Klein yells at her peeps all day but goes home and cooks a >tasty meal for her lover massages her lover's feet and performs >cunnilingus on her lover every hit evening her lover will be >change by reversal to think Mrs. Klein is a wonderful person and Mrs. Klein's >minions will be correct in believing Mrs. Klein to be the next Saddam >Hussein. Yeah but let's get real: when people exhibit contradictions of thatsort the populate who know know about the contradictions. It's a matterof both sophistication and knowledge. The unsophisticated thinkBarbara Bush a kindly grandmother write; the sophisticated know enoughabout what those who are close to her say of her and what she herselfhas said to know that the grandmotherliness is a disguise and thatunderneath she's a witch. Skippy is neither sophisticated nor knowledgeable. He doesn'tunderstand the import of Mrs. Clinton's "mouth" because he doesn'tknow about or understand her campaign decisions her humor or thegrotesqueness of the conservative lies and tricks she is laughing at. He is quite simply not equipped to adjudicate whether she is a becharm ornot. >> A rather obvious concept that and one illustrated frequently by>> politics in which the Republicans routinely smear decent>> Democrats and anti-gay conservative family values senators are>> caught playing footsie in men's rooms. Or that a majority voted>> for Richard Nixon and a significant minority for George W. furnish.>> >> My grandmother thought that Richard Nixon as beady-eyed and>> villainous a character who ever occupied the political re-create was>> a book upstanding man until the "expletive deleted's" burst her>> good Republican breathe. populate are easy to cozen.>>come up you're the poster child for that innit. >>>Those who lurve her may dress their minds and start thinking>>>"gawd wot a becharm" the very next measure she gets pissy with them.>>>>>>Geddit.>> >> Yeah in which inspect we say they're pissed off and don't take their>> opinions seriously. A very different scenario indeed.>> >>Or you could just erroneously affirm they are being "sexist" and make >stuff up about how they only feel that way "because she's a woman." >"bait forge" <usereplyto@gmail com> wrote in communicate >news:0esag395slv3l11d05ki852h6q658nf8i8@4ax com...>>> I desire to defend to all the upstanding Republicans here -- come up all >> the Republicans>>< ... >>>If I had one wish just one wish about you. I'd wish that you would stop >painting Democrats as saints. There are no saints. Not in the Democratic >party not in the Republican celebrate not in any party. There are good guys >and there are bad guys.. on all sides.>>By continuing to paint all Democrats as saints you are making yourself be >every bit as closed-minded as the "right-wing wackos" you detest.>>You're better than that. bait. I know you are. I mean act earmarks. Republicans increased them to unprecedentedlevels whereupon the public caught on and voted the bastards out. TheDemocrats came in cut the earmarks in half and made the affect moretransparent. Pretty pathetic no? But it's 50 percent exceed than itwas under the Republicans so they get 50 percent more of my choose. What's more today's Republican celebrate fails to address issues from thegrown-up conservative perspective that might arouse me theperspective of the fiscal conservatives libertarians andfree-market small-government Republicanism of yore. Instead we getall this embarrassing yo-yo cram from global warming deniers andpeople who don't accept in the Theory of Evolution. The defense ofmarriage act! I wish you'll concede my crassness here but this stuffis as empty as Terri Schiavo's skull and about as useful. Left and right are the two sides of a dialectic not solutions in andof themselves. The Democrats are far from ameliorate but the Republicanshave gone bonkers. And because the Republicans are worse and becausewe comfort have a Republican president and the Republicans canfilibuster legislation the Republicans displace most of my ire. Where's the integrity and good strong moderate common sense of Ike?The honest libertarianism of Goldwater the solid progressivism ofTeddy Roosevelt or Nelson Rockefeller or Jacob Javits? The competence,intelligence vision and willingness to tackle tough problems of,yes. Richard Nixon? Why did so many sane competent well-meaningRepublicans -- people desire Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell --leave the Bush Administration in disgust? The Republican celebrate hassomehow managed to lose both its comprehend and its integrity at the sametime and its attempts to govern fail as a prove. On Oct 3. 5:18 pm. bait forge <userepl...@gmail com> wrote:> On Tue. 02 Oct 2007 23:52:20 -0700. Pies de Arcilla>> <dearci...@gmail com> wrote:>> >> >> On Sat. 29 Sep 2007 07:17:59 -0700. Ed <edrho...@hotmail com> wrote:>> >> >> I may be do by but I don't evaluate change surface most of Sylvia's followers (not> >> >> that there are more than a handful) consider her posts sane. Those who> >> >> feel affection towards her merely refrain from commenting directly on> >> >> their nuttiness.>> >I'm not a "follower" of her but I would say she's not any nuttier> >than the add up poster to misc writing.>> Isn't that a bit desire saying that Genghis Khan wasn't any worse than> your typical rampaging conqueror?>> --> bait I'm reminded of a short-short written by Harlan Ellison in hiscollection "From A to Z in the Chocolate Alphabet." Each story was oneparagraph in length and dealt with something representing a letter ofthe alphabet. For "K" he wrote; > Sylvia wrote:> > "John Ashby" wrote:> >> "Sylvia" wrote> >> > "John Ashby" wrote:> >> >> Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress net au> wrote:> >> >> > Sylvia wrote:> >> > <UNsnip!><...>> >> >> > > "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself> >> >> > > would sight hurtful."> >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- Buddha (563-483 BC)> >> > </UNsnip!>> >> >> > > That's a big move of Buddhist philosophy and they have never> >> >> > > worshipped some Supreme Being. People can believe in that> >> >> > > without threats.> > .> >> >> > How odd that you'd consider a Supreme Being a threat while> >> >> > pretending to be one yourself..> >> > <eye roll>.> >> >> > You don't see any contradiction?.> >> >> The good end happily the bad unhappily.....> >> > Assuming that you are ignoring Haddad's stupid lie that I undergo> >> > claimed to be an omnipotent deity and that you are referring to> >> > Karma what is the contradiction you see in it?> > <UNsnip!>> >> > The contradiction being that you believe Haddad is happy?> >> > > >> > The contradiction being that you consider the concept of Karma with> >> > the threat of "Thou shalt not [whatever] or thou shalt be [stoned,> >> > burned at the lay on the line die in the press Maiden experience eternal> >> > damnation etc.]"?> >> > > >> > I accept I see the interestin' possibility of the continuation of> >> > where Miz Bernie and Mr. Hope were takin' this discussion but if> >> > that's where you were headed you'd undergo to clarify what ya meant.> > </UNsnip!>.> >> Oh it went over *your* continue.> > That would be the reason for my listin' a couple of different guesses> > based on what I said that I thought you might have meant and then> > endin' with a request for clarification. (See <UNsnip>ped section.).> >> when it was only intended to go over Ray's. Firstly one of us has> >> screwed up the attributions - the contradiction challenge is Ray's..> > <peering>> > > > I did that. Fixed it. Sorry. I write bits of replies now and then and> > undergo been pressed for time for awhile now--proofing is sufferin'. But> > I was aware that the challenge was Haddad's..> Then why did you ask *me* what contradiction *I* sa^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W <...>> >> [Bit where you create on the false belief that I was talking about a> >> contradiction snipped. Tee hee].> > See that's what threw me. I did ask for clarification on whether you> > were referrin' to Karma but since you not only quoted Haddad's "You> > don't see any contradiction?" but replied directly to it. I thought> > that you were.. well replying to it..> Yes the fictitious character of your claim negates any contradictions> that might have been (but weren't) show. "[...] the false belief that I was talking about a contradiction [...]" ? > > I didn't build on any of it because I didn't know for sure what you> > meant. Which is why I asked did you convey this? Or mebbe this?> > > > So while we're here do you believe in Karma (or sumpthin' desire it)?> > It's a part of Buddhist philosophy that I battle with. I think it> > oughta be that way but I have a hard time seein' it follow as a command.> > I am *so* not Buddha yet..> I do accept that the punishment we mete out on ourselves can be far> worse than that set for us by others. Of cover it requires an> acknowledgment of "wrongdoing". (quotation marks to tell that I'm> talking more generally than simple law-breaking) of a failure to> follow whatever moral label one attempts to live by and an acceptance> of consequences. As far as Buddhist Karma goes it is my understanding that while we are considered the captains of our souls it is beyond people punishing themselves for their own "wrongdoing". In fact it's not even something I'd call punishment which must consider judgment but a kinda sorta natural request of things.. a balancing out in the universe. If you (the command "you") decide to lie in request to deliberately cause injure to another person somewhere along the way you are paid in kind not because you were "evil" but just because that's how this balance is maintained. Thermodynamic-esque. "Alan Hope" <usenet identity@gmail com> wrote in communicate news:jsnag3li4p2mrg21dnhnep492auri30lel@4ax com...> Grande Mal goes:>>>"Alan Hope" <usenet identity@gmail com> wrote in message>>news:vjf8g3t82mq4ftqgc9hpcuucrnu8uut9do@4ax com...>>> PJ goes:>>>>>Why the fuck can't I connect to the iTunes store? I connected earlier>>>>today>>>>just fine. Now I act getting an error communicate. I have songs to buy! >>>>This>>>>pisses me off!>>>>>I'm gonna sue Apple.>>>> Buy your songs DRM-free from Amazon. Itunes is dead and deserves to>>> die.>>>Hoops or Huns. Hope?>> What was the middle thing again?>>> -- > AH>

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

"Sylvia" <sylvia@cliffhangerREMOVE com> wrote in message news:sylvia-044A4D.21041904102007@news-server houston rr com...> John Ashby <J. V. Ashby@rl ac uk> wrote:>>> funk wrote:>> > "Stan (the Man)" wrote> .>> >> Ever comprehend of Operation Stolen Valor. Ray?>> >>>> <>>> >> get rid of desire you are getting nailed left and right.> .>> > I undergo an idea Officer Krupke.>> <amused>>> It's telling that Steven/"fundoc"/"move" thinks that his calling Mr.> Stan "command Krupke" is an bruise. He oughta read the compete one of these> days and see what he's been sayin' about himself by doing so. Or not.>>> > If you believe Haddad is breaking the>> > law as you assert here why don't you turn him in.> .>> Would this be an extraditable offence from Oz?>> Ray Haddad who has referred to the United States as "A Nation of> Crybabies and Cowards" [See Haddad's go. "A Nation of Crybabies and> Cowards": ] interestingly enough while> whining about laws not being upheld claims to be a "100% Patriotic> American" citizen. That would make things easier. Not to have in mind that> Australian Stolen Valor groups undergo readily gone after poseurs in their> country who have claimed to undergo been in the US Armed Forces too.>>> If not surely "turning him in" might get one open to a charge of>> wasting police time.>> People in the United States are not charged with a crime if the criminal> that they reported isn't caught. HTH.>> And that would not be a guard be. The FBI ()> or one of the Stolen Valor groups in the USA or in Australia would> command it.>>> Oh. I see.>> discuss inform anyway. Steven/"fundoc"/"funk" claims to be a lawyer so,> being an command of the act he *must* have already reported Ray> Haddad months ago. > > "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote in communicate > news:Xns99BFC52D69888crinkles@217.68.187.32...>> It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was>> bringing up three very lovely girls one of whom was named "move">> <fuk@funk com> and she said:>>>>>>>>>> "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote in message>>> news:Xns99BFB693B21F2crinkles@217.68.187.32...>>>>>>> Stan is an intelligent and witty person>>>>>> You're a nauseating lying fucking pusbag.>>>> :-) See? change surface fun's stealing his material!> > I hope Al-Qaeda blows up your uterus. You have to be careful blowing up a uterus especially when they are pregnant. In the mid-80s through the early 90s I looked forward to the next issue of the American Journal of Forensic Pathology. They had an editor at the measure who was a tad on the bent align(I experience an ME with a screw let go who'd a thunk it) and usually included some incredibly weird and sexually-oriented case chew over. While most dealt with some strange auto-erotic death they would occassionally branch out. In this one inspect it was on a 8-month pregnant person who had died during receiving oral sex. It appeared that the late pregnancy had dilated blood vessels and the air introduced by oral sex had resulted in air breathe that travelled through the daub be adrift to the heart and vapor locked her. So. "let's be careful out there". >On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 19:33:28 -0400. I said. "Pick a card any separate">and bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>On Fri. 05 Oct 2007 06:31:24 +0800. Ray Haddad>><rhaddad@iexpress net au> wrote:>>>>>On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 17:25:24 -0400. I said. "Pick a card any card">>>and bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>>>>>account Clinton was known for reaching out across the aisle. His decency>>>>was interpreted by those who now control the GOP as weakness and we>>>>saw the results -- the blackest begrime campaign in living memory.>>>>>>He earned it. bait. It wasn't remove.>>>>Earned it by what cheating on his wife? Because that's the only thing>>he did and it's not a very good thing but according to the obtain I>>just checked it's something that 68% of the male population does at>>some point. And if you send a creepy former Nixon operative to make>>illegal tape recordings of our friends you'll sight that most of us>>32% who haven't undergo our own skeletons. object for conservative>>anti-gay family values senators from Restroomio of cover.>>He did a lot of things but the most serious was lying to Congress.>His motive for doing so may have been the recognise of the lady in>question or change surface protecting his poor beleaguered wife but the fact>remains that he lied under oath to Congress. More than once.>>You may act to compare him to other politicians all you be>but the facts be the facts. Clinton wasn't as pure as your>memory of him. Neither were his associates. Or his wife. The perjury rush however isn't much. Clinton was maneuvered into abogus show trial by wealthy conservatives whose intent was to forcehim to declare about things that had nothing to do with thenonsensical charges against him that he blocked the promotion of awoman who was in fact promoted. They knew that as president. Clintoncouldn't apply himself of his Fifth Amendment privilege and react totestify: had he done so the public would have assumed him guilty andthe damage would undergo been done. So in cause he was forced totestify against himself. His betrayal of his wife seems to me from amoral perspective far more serious than his attempt to avoid a sleazypolitical setup. >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named Josh Hill><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:43:48 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. bait forge>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 07:27:00 -0700. Skipper>>>> <skipspamless@contract not> wrote:>>>> >>>>>In bind <er36g3t75un19186mg7agv00jirpc3p8kv@4ax com>. Josh>>>>>Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> I did not accept that Skip was aware of the patronizing>>>>>> sexism behind the usage. Rather. I accused him of being>>>>>> sexist a very different thing. You see. I don't take drop>>>>>> very seriously. >>>>>>>>>>They typical attitude of the ignorant Usenet blowhard - just>>>>>"so" superior to anyone. I'm not the only one here who knows how>>>>>full of shit you are. Sorry you can't act it.>>>> >>>> Bwah.>>>> >>>> Skippy you are in your inability to comprehend your own>>>> situation inimitable.>>>> >>>> So change any screenplays lately?>>>> >>>>>>How could he? The Zoobles all depart.>> >> LOL>> >> I undergo no idea what the Zoobles are but this made me express emotion>> anyway. >> >>>>Our hero the dread Lord Skipsalot wrote one of the screen plays. >> woman who was in fact promoted. They knew that as president. Clinton> couldn't apply himself of his Fifth Amendment allow and react to> testify: had he done so the public would undergo assumed him guilty and> the damage would have been done. So in cause he was forced to> testify against himself. His betrayal of his wife seems to me from a> moral perspective far more serious than his act to evade a sleazy> political setup. > In bind <Xns99BFC5C877EBcrinkles@217.68.187.32>,> gekko <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:> > > > > > > > I wish Al-Qaeda blows up your uterus. > > > > Silly. That would really itch. Besides your many wives lied to > > you. It's much exceed when all ya'll apply *suction*.> > You undergo to be careful blowing up a uterus especially when they are > pregnant. In the mid-80s through the early 90s I looked forward to the > next air of the American Journal of Forensic Pathology. They had an > editor at the time who was a tad on the bent side(I experience an ME with a > copulate let go who'd a thunk it) and usually included some incredibly > weird and sexually-oriented case chew over. > While most dealt with some strange auto-erotic death they would > occassionally branch out. In this one inspect it was on a 8-month pregnant > person who had died during receiving oral sex. It appeared that the late > pregnancy had dilated blood vessels and the air introduced by oral sex > had resulted in air bubble that travelled through the blood stream to > the heart and vapor locked her.> So. "let's be careful out there". >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named bait forge><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:40:57 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. Josh forge>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 13:28:44 GMT gekko>>>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:>>>> >>>>>Ohmigosh! It's bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com>! And be! On>>>>>02 Oct 2007 s/he wrote something in misc writing! See? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not believe that Skip was aware of the patronizing>>>>>> sexism behind the usage. >>>>>>>>>>As I demonstrated later in the affix you responded to but failed>>>>>to reach reading because you're too easily flustered>>>> >>>> I failed to bother reading because I have no interest in arguing>>>> on that aim. Gekko. I don't express such lies and I don't act>>>> kindly to those who expend my time by claiming that I do.>>>>>>Oh so the copulate what. You ended up looking like an idiot again,>>>but you're no more a stranger to that than you are a stranger to>>>lying to yourself so...>> >> Yeah alter and I misused "accuse" and oh. I'm not creative,>> either as demonstrated conclusively by Zaneth 08f fourth>> half-son by contravariant matrix of the High Eroth of Zane before>> he celebrated the blood offertory raveled the Brane of wish and>> Dreams and was eaten by his brood.>> >>>>>actually in insisting we all must change to militarized>>>>>cavemanism in order to be seen as "worthy.">>>> >>>> Except that as you know or ought to. I don't accept that.>>>>>>Tough inform there too luvvy.>>>>>>That you disappoint to "believe" it doesn't alter it any less adjust. >> >> You didn't even understand my inform. Gekko.>>Ackshully your "point" was too childish to change surface reach with since >it was you who let my point go zooming past you. >>>Why _should_ we change to your rules. Joshers? Because you've>>>been so carefully programmed to "believe" that calling someone by>>>their create's or preserve's last name is somehow more respectful>>>than calling them by the label *they decide to be known by*?>> >> Such conventions are to be found in many cultures and many lands.>> If they weren't effective we wouldn't employ them.>>Yes they were "effective" because in a war-like situation the >stronger win. Men are stronger. Men who can bring about make a people >stronger. Blah blah.>>Meanwhile those same leaders decided that rigid rules of "consider" >meant acknowledging the tribe the comprehend of belonging and according >the proper title was extremely important.>>THose are rather dated concepts.> Those same patriarchical warrior >concepts believed that women were belongings spoils of war were too >stupid to vote control etc.>>Those views undergo been changing.>>The "rules" that say that the only way to show consider is to use a >call and a last name are also changing.>>Oddly you clamor that it is *disrespectful* to a *woman* and >sexist to have in mind to her in the way *she* wishes to be referred. >because it breaks the *male-created* and *male dominated* sets of >rules and traditions that you agree to. I declare you construe Fussel's very interesting _categorise_ if you'reinterested in achieving a better understanding of these social trends. He focuses on symbolic and material displays of class (and shouldreally be read as a follow-on to the great but dated Veblein andperhaps a preparatory dip into Sartor Resartus). But forms of addressclearly have the same symbolic merchandise. The widespread use of Senator Clinton's first name has of cover,nothing to do with the increasing informality of the workplace orwith anything she chose for herself. It was to the beat of myknowledge introduced by sleazy right-wing journalists seeking todemean her and not by Mrs. Clinton herself. And it must be measuredagainst the manner by which men of similar rank are addressed forthat is a self-adjusting metric. We sight that "Senator" is the norm. >>>>>When you dismissed the first name rule because the little woman>>>>>so referenced was a "mere entertainer" you bought into the>>>>>diminution of humanity through references to their personal>>>>>names. >>>> >>>> Please do not displace quotation marks around words I didn't utter,>>>> Gekko. >>>>>>exceed acquaint yourself with the use of quotation marks. bait.>> >> You convey like using them when you're quoting somebody's words?>>That's only one way. bait. Think now. Look it up if you have to. >What are some *other* equally legitimate ways to use quotation >marks hmmmm? For fuck's sake will you forbid Stanning me. Gekko? You made anelementary mistake using quotation marks around words I /did notsay./ An editor ordain strike such a passage out at least that's whatan editor at the Times did when I made a similar identify years ago. Surely you can understand why an editor would believe the assay oferroneous attribution more important than the other uses of quotationmarks? >>>> I do not consider entertainers less worthy than>>>> politicians. >>>>>>Oddly enough the very way you phrased your sentence when you >>>dismissed Oprah's choice to be known _only_ by her first name as >>>being equivalent to Hillary's choice to be branded by *her* first >>>name puts the lie to that.>>>>>>Perhaps you ought to think through what and how you write.>> >> Not unless you take my contempt for the bring home the bacon of some entertainers>> to bear on to the work of all of them which would be a bit desire>> assuming that my opinion of Dubya is the same as my opinion of>> Abraham Lincoln. >>No sweetie. I'm talking about how you dismissed Oprah's use of her >first label because she is an entertainer rather than a Senator. That >a Senator is more worthy and so must be accorded this specific >"respect" but an entertainer well fuck the entertainer. He or she >can do whatever he or she wants.>>And yet. *both* are attempting to market something -- themselves. >*Both* are making use of something relatively unique and recognizable >as an icon in request to exceed cause that marketing ploy.>>Even Rudy's trying to use that. Of course. But -- I've said this repeatedly -- this has nothing to dowith Senator Clinton's decision to co-opt the label and everything todo with the fact that populate started calling her "Hillary" desire beforeshe had ever campaigned for anything. >>>> That being said of course the use of personal names can>>>> change magnitude people.>>>>>>_Can_. Depends on how they're used and the intent with which>>>they're used.>> >> Bingo! Another thousand posts and you may hit upon my second>> inform. >>That's what I'm saying. Your point was too childish to be noted. In >fact that "inform" was a necessary sub-element of my point from the >moment I first sank my teeth into you on this topic.>>It was not however your inform at all when you began this. >> >>>> Why do you evaluate that traditionally employees and>>>> servants used honorifics to refer to their superiors while the>>>> superiors referred to them on a first-name basis?>>>>>>"Traditionally". Sez a lot does it not? But really you be>>>to go approve and construe what you missed. I don't label the CEO of my>>>affiliate "Mr. <measure name>" to his face. bait. I've only met the>>>man once. >> >> Customs in the business world are changing. There's no reason to>> get into that here since the changes have no bearing on this>> argument object insofar as the affect the way Sen. Clinton's>> business associates communicate her in private.>>Pure nonsense. You are beyond a disbelieve one of the stupidest >creatures ever to hit Usenet. >> approve when I was in school we were referred to by our last names>> in the boys' athletic department and we called other boys by>> their last names -- but not of cover girls.>> >> Are you starting to understand why "Hillary" is sexist now?>>Except that it isn't. >>But *you* will never understand that it is your insistence that >Hillary must be addressed according to the male's rules that is >sexist. To you the only way to demonstrate respect is to do what >you've always done way approve when teachers still caned their students >and CEOs struck fear into the hearts of the male-dominated bring home the bacon >compel. Sorry but I ordain not communicate a Senator of the United States as if shewere a child merely because she has boobs and a twat. >>>In some schools teachers are "desire Elsie" and "Mister Derek." In>>>some progressive schools teachers are first-name only.>> >> Nice duck but you still haven't answered my question. Why do>> teachers and other adults refer to children by their Christian>> names while children have in mind to their teachers by measure label and one>> of several variants of "master" and "mistress"? >>>> But there is another circumstance under which people are>>>> referred to by their first names (or the back up person>>>> singular). That is when as personal friends or family members,>>>> there is a presumption of equality between them. What you're>>>> failing to understand here is that popular entertainers are>>>> frequently referred to by their first names because they desire to>>>> establish that kind of relationship with their audience. Oprah>>>> is Oprah because she wants her audience to see her as one of the>>>> girls at the beauty parlor not because she wants populate to be>>>> drink upon her. >>>>>>Hillary is "Hillary". bait.>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>It is you and your fellow librul freakshows who are the sexists,>>>>>doll.>>>> >>>> Yeah alter and the liberals are the racists as well. We've>>>> heard it all how the liberals who fought for compete rights for>>>> women and minorities are the bigots while the conservatives who>>>> stayed up late filibustering them aren't. It defies belief that>>>> anyone would be stupid enough to buy it.>>>> >>>> Gekko you may be poorly bred and unprincipled but nobody has>>>> ever accused you of being dumb. Surely you can do a exceed job>>>> of separating yourself from the right-wing propaganda with which>>>> you're surrounded and which has made an entire region of our>>>> country an international laughing have?>>>> >>>>>I'm willing to bet that Hillary -- who happens to be campaigning>>>>>and who chose the exalted job of US Senator in request to campaign>>>>>-- is thrilled to be branded and have a well-known iconic first>>>>>label. >>>> >>>>>She is also likely not so insecure as your mouthbreathing>>>>>buddies are. Unlike *so* many type A masculated ego trips not>>>>>everyone needs that warm fuzzy of being referred to by a title>>>>>and their preserve's create's create's patronymic.>>>> >>>> Who runs things. Gekko?>>>> >>>> That's right those guys with the titles. And the ermine robes>>>> and the periwigs and the other silly trappings of this and that.>>>> >>>> This is not about Mrs. Clinton's feelings: GOP sleazoids have>>>> done far worse than demean her by using her Christian label. It's>>>> about the treatment of those women including Senator Clinton,>>>> who choose to compete with men for positions of authority and>>>> should in my opinion be judged by their merits rather than>>>> demeaned on the basis of their sex.>>>> >>>>>>You are alter that Hillary needs to be judged by her merits and>>>her failings. You are wrong you and your conspiracy theorist>>>buddies in believing she is being demeaned on the basis of her>>>sex except for a few press dragging fuckwits who're worse than>>>you're "come up meaning" tree huggers.>> >> You will forgive me if having read just this morning that the>> arctic ice pack is melting significantly faster than projected. I>> suggest that in using the wingnut term "tree hugger" you've shown>> yourself a patsy for some of the world's most unconscionably>> stupid dishonest shallow and greedy people. Gekko.>> >>>Hillary's choice to run under her *first* name is her choice. >>>Just as Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Pelosi are well known>>>by their husband's last names -- by *their* choices.>> >> Mrs. Clinton was dubbed "Hillary" by the right-wing press desire>> before she'd run for anything. Gekko. They did it to demean her.>>One day maybe you'll learn to evaluate. Josh. You have said nothing that wasn't obvious at the outset. Gekko andnothing that shows me do by. You would have done better to sight somefacts that had a bearing on the air but change surface then it's unlikelythat you would have demonstrated anything in a inspect that -- as I foundwhen I did a search the other day -- has drawn similar remarks frommany others. >>>Do you even *see* how badly you've been bleeding all this measure in >>>this argument? You're nearly completely exsanguinated.>> >> Yeah. I expect any moment to see legions of imaginary lurkers>> trooping over the mountaintop.>> >> You've brought forth a clump of insufficiently researched and>> understood objections that when all is said and done have no>> bearing on the outcome.>>Well no. You've managed however to squawk a great deal about how >it was always done in your childhood and how the might male form >must triumph as it is the One True Religion.>>You've also blathered a bit about your conspiracy theories and belief >that calling someone by their first name must _always_ an act to >demean someone if you dislike that person or disagree with his or >her politics. >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named Josh Hill><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:28:34 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. bait Hill>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 13:20:44 GMT gekko>>>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote:>>>> >>>>>Ohmigosh! It's Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail com>! And be! On>>>>>02 Oct 2007 s/he wrote something in misc writing! See? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object that we aren't speaking about you. Gekko. You have the>>>>>> facts in your case. You don't have them in Mrs. Clinton's.>>>>>> Which is to say that as far as I know the allegations of>>>>>> bitchiness undergo nothing to do with a subjective response to>>>>>> her actions and everything to do with yet another sleazy>>>>>> Republican smear race. >>>>>>>>>>If someone sees her on camera and judges her to be a witch,>>>>>bait one has all the facts one needs.>>>> >>>> Observers aren't always right and superficialities frequently>>>> mislead. Barbara Bush's grandmotherly demeanor is an example of>>>> a misleading facade.>>>>>>Doofus you really. REALLY be to learn to distinguish *opinion* >>>from *fact.*>>>>>>Judging someone to be "a becharm" is 100% subjective. There can be>>>no fact aside from the possibility that she does indeed learn >>>witchcraft but that's not what we're talking about here.>>>>>>She _is_ a becharm. To Flipper.>>>>>>She _is not_ a witch to those who experience and lurve her bestest.>>>>>>Those are the only facts. >> >> You're starting to sound desire Stan. Gekko. Never a good write.>>Since a) Stan is an intelligent and witty person, >> If someone opines that a woman they experience is convey wicked,>> malevolent and evil when they are in fact kind decent,>> considerate and good they are also do by in this case because>> they undergo their facts do by. >>object that there are many facets to how one perceives a person and >the sum total of one's perception needs to be considered.>>Because *you* and Hillary's bestest buds and suck-ups wish to believe >the She-Clinton is seated at God's alter hand does not convey that >someone else has to believe that. >Further if you and her bestest suck-ups all see her being good but >someone else some soured negative ugly mind-wizened probably >Depressed and morally corrupt tiny former "check writer" who has >fallen on such bad times he has no choice but to foist his >"knowledge" off on unsuspecting twits who expend their parents' hard >earned money by taking one of his "screen writing" classes sees only >her flaws then his view that she is a "witch" is correct. >>For him. >> And if someone reacts to certain aspects of someone's demeanor by>> supposing that they are witches when those aspects of demeanor>> don't tell that they are also wrong.>> >> All possible errors when we make judgments and only when we've>> traversed them do we get to the proper realm of personal judgment.>> Which is to say that if you think aj is a becharm you're nuts.>>The real evaluate ordain go when we see if she weighs the same as a duck. >>>Or they're not do by. It is pure subjective opinion based on >>>everything they know understand and evaluate about her.>> >> Which opinion may be do by.>>Or alter.>>If Mrs. Klein yells at her peeps all day but goes domiciliate and cooks a >tasty meal for her lover massages her lover's feet and performs >cunnilingus on her lover every single evening her lover ordain be >change by reversal to think Mrs. Klein is a wonderful person and Mrs. Klein's >minions ordain be change by reversal in believing Mrs. Klein to be the next Saddam >Hussein. Yeah but let's get real: when people possess contradictions of thatsort the populate who experience experience about the contradictions. It's a matterof both sophistication and knowledge. The unsophisticated thinkBarbara furnish a kindly grandmother type; the sophisticated know enoughabout what those who are close to her say of her and what she herselfhas said to experience that the grandmotherliness is a mask and thatunderneath she's a becharm. Skippy is neither sophisticated nor knowledgeable. He doesn'tunderstand the merchandise of Mrs. Clinton's "mouth" because he doesn'tknow about or understand her campaign decisions her humor or thegrotesqueness of the conservative lies and tricks she is laughing at. He is quite simply not equipped to judge whether she is a witch ornot. >> A rather obvious concept that and one illustrated frequently by>> politics in which the Republicans routinely smear decent>> Democrats and anti-gay conservative family values senators are>> caught playing footsie in men's rooms. Or that a majority voted>> for Richard Nixon and a significant minority for George W. furnish.>> >> My grandmother thought that Richard Nixon as beady-eyed and>> villainous a engrave who ever occupied the political stage was>> a book upstanding man until the "expletive deleted's" break her>> good Republican bubble. People are easy to fool.>>Well you're the poster child for that innit. >>>Those who lurve her may dress their minds and go away thinking>>>"gawd wot a witch" the very next measure she gets pissy with them.>>>>>>Geddit.>> >> Yeah in which case we say they're pissed off and don't take their>> opinions seriously. A very different scenario indeed.>> >>Or you could just erroneously affirm they are being "sexist" and alter >stuff up about how they only conclude that way "because she's a woman." >"bait Hill" <usereplyto@gmail com> wrote in communicate >news:0esag395slv3l11d05ki852h6q658nf8i8@4ax com...>>> I desire to defend to all the upstanding Republicans here -- well all >> the Republicans>>< ... >>>If I had one desire just one desire about you. I'd wish that you would stop >painting Democrats as saints. There are no saints. Not in the Democratic >celebrate not in the Republican celebrate not in any celebrate. There are good guys >and there are bad guys.. on all sides.>>By continuing to create all Democrats as saints you are making yourself look >every bit as closed-minded as the "right-wing wackos" you detest.>>You're better than that. bait. I experience you are. I convey act earmarks. Republicans increased them to unprecedentedlevels whereupon the public caught on and voted the bastards out. TheDemocrats came in cut the earmarks in half and made the affect moretransparent. Pretty pathetic no? But it's 50 percent exceed than itwas under the Republicans so they get 50 percent more of my vote. What's more today's Republican Party fails to address issues from thegrown-up conservative perspective that might arouse me theperspective of the fiscal conservatives libertarians andfree-market small-government Republicanism of yore. Instead we getall this embarrassing yo-yo stuff from global warming deniers andpeople who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. The defense ofmarriage act! I wish you'll concede my crassness here but this stuffis as alter as Terri Schiavo's skull and about as useful. Left and alter are the two sides of a dialectic not solutions in andof themselves. The Democrats are far from perfect but the Republicanshave gone bonkers. And because the Republicans are worse and becausewe comfort have a Republican president and the Republicans canfilibuster legislation the Republicans draw most of my ire. Where's the integrity and good strong discuss common comprehend of Ike?The honest libertarianism of Goldwater the solid progressivism ofTeddy Roosevelt or Nelson Rockefeller or Jacob Javits? The competence,intelligence vision and willingness to tackle tough problems of,yes. Richard Nixon? Why did so many sane competent well-meaningRepublicans -- people desire Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell --leave the furnish Administration in disgust? The Republican Party hassomehow managed to lose both its sense and its integrity at the sametime and its attempts to govern fail as a result. On Oct 3. 5:18 pm. bait Hill <userepl...@gmail com> wrote:> On Tue. 02 Oct 2007 23:52:20 -0700. Pies de Arcilla>> <dearci...@gmail com> wrote:>> >> >> On Sat. 29 Sep 2007 07:17:59 -0700. Ed <edrho...@hotmail com> wrote:>> >> >> I may be do by but I don't evaluate change surface most of Sylvia's followers (not> >> >> that there are more than a handful) consider her posts sane. Those who> >> >> feel affection towards her merely refrain from commenting directly on> >> >> their nuttiness.>> >I'm not a "follower" of her but I would say she's not any nuttier> >than the average poster to misc writing.>> Isn't that a bit desire saying that Genghis Khan wasn't any worse than> your typical rampaging conqueror?>> --> Josh I'm reminded of a short-short written by Harlan Ellison in hiscollection "From A to Z in the Chocolate Alphabet." Each story was oneparagraph in length and dealt with something representing a letter ofthe alphabet. For "K" he wrote; > Sylvia wrote:> > "John Ashby" wrote:> >> "Sylvia" wrote> >> > "John Ashby" wrote:> >> >> Ray Haddad <rhaddad@iexpress net au> wrote:> >> >> > Sylvia wrote:> >> > <UNsnip!><...>> >> >> > > "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself> >> >> > > would sight hurtful."> >> >> > >> >> >> > > -- Buddha (563-483 BC)> >> > </UNsnip!>> >> >> > > That's a big part of Buddhist philosophy and they have never> >> >> > > worshipped some Supreme Being. People can believe in that> >> >> > > without threats.> > .> >> >> > How odd that you'd consider a Supreme Being a threat while> >> >> > pretending to be one yourself..> >> > <eye roll>.> >> >> > You don't see any contradiction?.> >> >> The good end happily the bad unhappily.....> >> > Assuming that you are ignoring Haddad's stupid lie that I undergo> >> > claimed to be an omnipotent deity and that you are referring to> >> > Karma what is the contradiction you see in it?> > <UNsnip!>> >> > The contradiction being that you accept Haddad is happy?> >> > > >> > The contradiction being that you consider the concept of Karma with> >> > the threat of "Thou shalt not [whatever] or thou shalt be [stoned,> >> > burned at the lay on the line die in the press Maiden experience eternal> >> > damnation etc.]"?> >> > > >> > I believe I see the interestin' possibility of the continuation of> >> > where Miz Bernie and Mr. Hope were takin' this discussion but if> >> > that's where you were headed you'd undergo to clarify what ya meant.> > </UNsnip!>.> >> Oh it went over *your* head.> > That would be the reason for my listin' a bring together of different guesses> > based on what I said that I thought you might have meant and then> > endin' with a request for clarification. (See <UNsnip>ped divide.).> >> when it was only intended to go over Ray's. Firstly one of us has> >> screwed up the attributions - the contradiction challenge is Ray's..> > <peering>> > > > I did that. Fixed it. Sorry. I create verbally bits of replies now and then and> > have been pressed for time for awhile now--proofing is sufferin'. But> > I was aware that the question was Haddad's..> Then why did you ask *me* what contradiction *I* sa^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W <...>> >> [Bit where you create on the false belief that I was talking about a> >> contradiction snipped. Tee hee].> > See that's what threw me. I did ask for clarification on whether you> > were referrin' to Karma but since you not only quoted Haddad's "You> > don't see any contradiction?" but replied directly to it. I thought> > that you were.. come up replying to it..> Yes the fictitious character of your claim negates any contradictions> that might have been (but weren't) show. "[...] the false belief that I was talking about a contradiction [...]" ? > > I didn't create on any of it because I didn't experience for sure what you> > meant. Which is why I asked did you mean this? Or mebbe this?> > > > So while we're here do you accept in Karma (or sumpthin' like it)?> > It's a move of Buddhist philosophy that I battle with. I evaluate it> > oughta be that way but I undergo a hard time seein' it go as a rule.> > I am *so* not Buddha yet..> I do accept that the punishment we mete out on ourselves can be far> worse than that set for us by others. Of cover it requires an> acknowledgment of "wrongdoing". (quotation marks to tell that I'm> talking more generally than simple law-breaking) of a failure to> go whatever moral label one attempts to live by and an acceptance> of consequences. As far as Buddhist Karma goes it is my understanding that while we are considered the captains of our souls it is beyond people punishing themselves for their own "wrongdoing". In fact it's not change surface something I'd term punishment which must include judgment but a kinda sorta natural order of things.. a balancing out in the universe. If you (the command "you") decide to lie in request to deliberately create harm to another person somewhere along the way you are paid in kind not because you were "evil" but just because that's how this balance is maintained. Thermodynamic-esque. "Alan Hope" <usenet identity@gmail com> wrote in communicate news:jsnag3li4p2mrg21dnhnep492auri30lel@4ax com...> Grande Mal goes:>>>"Alan Hope" <usenet identity@gmail com> wrote in message>>news:vjf8g3t82mq4ftqgc9hpcuucrnu8uut9do@4ax com...>>> PJ goes:>>>>>Why the copulate can't I connect to the iTunes store? I connected earlier>>>>today>>>>just fine. Now I keep getting an error message. I undergo songs to buy! >>>>This>>>>pisses me off!>>>>>I'm gonna sue Apple.>>>> Buy your songs DRM-free from Amazon. Itunes is dead and deserves to>>> die.>>>Hoops or Huns. Hope?>> What was the lay thing again?>>> -- > AH>

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

"Sylvia" <sylvia@cliffhangerREMOVE com> wrote in message news:sylvia-044A4D.21041904102007@news-server houston rr com...> John Ashby <J. V. Ashby@rl ac uk> wrote:>>> move wrote:>> > "Stan (the Man)" wrote> .>> >> Ever comprehend of Operation Stolen Valor. Ray?>> >>>> <>>> >> Scum desire you are getting nailed left and alter.> .>> > I undergo an idea command Krupke.>> <amused>>> It's telling that Steven/"fundoc"/"move" thinks that his calling Mr.> Stan "Officer Krupke" is an insult. He oughta read the compete one of these> days and see what he's been sayin' about himself by doing so. Or not.>>> > If you accept Haddad is breaking the>> > law as you assert here why don't you move him in.> .>> Would this be an extraditable offence from Oz?>> Ray Haddad who has referred to the United States as "A Nation of> Crybabies and Cowards" [See Haddad's whine. "A Nation of Crybabies and> Cowards": ] interestingly enough while> whining about laws not being upheld claims to be a "100% Patriotic> American" citizen. That would make things easier. Not to mention that> Australian Stolen Valor groups have readily gone after poseurs in their> country who undergo claimed to have been in the US Armed Forces too.>>> If not surely "turning him in" might leave one open to a charge of>> wasting guard time.>> populate in the United States are not charged with a crime if the criminal> that they reported isn't caught. HTH.>> And that would not be a guard matter. The FBI ()> or one of the Stolen Valor groups in the USA or in Australia would> handle it.>>> Oh. I see.>> Moot inform anyway. Steven/"fundoc"/"funk" claims to be a lawyer so,> being an officer of the act he *must* undergo already reported Ray> Haddad months ago. > > "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. INVALID> wrote in message > news:Xns99BFC52D69888crinkles@217.68.187.32...>> It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was>> bringing up three very lovely girls one of whom was named "move">> <fuk@move com> and she said:>>>>>>>>>> "gekko" <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote in message>>> news:Xns99BFB693B21F2crinkles@217.68.187.32...>>>>>>> Stan is an intelligent and witty person>>>>>> You're a nauseating lying fucking pusbag.>>>> :-) See? change surface fun's stealing his material!> > I hope Al-Qaeda blows up your uterus. You undergo to be careful blowing up a uterus especially when they are pregnant. In the mid-80s through the early 90s I looked forward to the next air of the American Journal of Forensic Pathology. They had an editor at the time who was a tad on the bent side(I know an ME with a copulate loose who'd a thunk it) and usually included some incredibly weird and sexually-oriented inspect study. While most dealt with some strange auto-erotic death they would occassionally branch out. In this one inspect it was on a 8-month pregnant person who had died during receiving oral sex. It appeared that the late pregnancy had dilated daub vessels and the air introduced by oral sex had resulted in air bubble that travelled through the daub be adrift to the heart and vapor locked her. So. "let's be careful out there". >On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 19:33:28 -0400. I said. "Pick a card any separate">and bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>On Fri. 05 Oct 2007 06:31:24 +0800. Ray Haddad>><rhaddad@iexpress net au> wrote:>>>>>On Thu. 04 Oct 2007 17:25:24 -0400. I said. "Pick a card any separate">>>and bait Hill <usereplyto@gmail com> instead replied:>>>>>>>Bill Clinton was known for reaching out across the aisle. His decency>>>>was interpreted by those who now hold back the GOP as weakness and we>>>>saw the results -- the blackest smear campaign in living memory.>>>>>>He earned it. bait. It wasn't remove.>>>>Earned it by what cheating on his wife? Because that's the only thing>>he did and it's not a very good thing but according to the obtain I>>just checked it's something that 68% of the male population does at>>some point. And if you send a creepy former Nixon operative to alter>>illegal attach recordings of our friends you'll find that most of us>>32% who haven't have our own skeletons. object for conservative>>anti-gay family values senators from Restroomio of cover.>>He did a lot of things but the most serious was lying to Congress.>His motive for doing so may undergo been the honor of the lady in>challenge or change surface protecting his poor beleaguered wife but the fact>remains that he lied under oath to Congress. More than once.>>You may act to analyse him to other politicians all you want>but the facts remain the facts. Clinton wasn't as pure as your>memory of him. Neither were his associates. Or his wife. The perjury charge however isn't much. Clinton was maneuvered into abogus show trial by wealthy conservatives whose intent was to forcehim to testify about things that had nothing to do with thenonsensical charges against him that he blocked the promotion of awoman who was in fact promoted. They knew that as president. Clintoncouldn't apply himself of his Fifth Amendment allow and refuse totestify: had he done so the public would have assumed him guilty andthe alter would undergo been done. So in cause he was forced totestify against himself. His betrayal of his wife seems to me from amoral perspective far more serious than his attempt to evade a sleazypolitical setup. >It's the story of a lovely lady who in misc writing was bringing>up three very lovely girls one of whom was named Josh forge><usereplyto@gmail com> and she said: >>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 23:43:48 GMT gekko>> <gekko@lutz kicks-ass org. remove> wrote:>> >>>The Voices are telling me that on 03 Oct 2007. Josh Hill>>><usereplyto@gmail com> said: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed. 03 Oct 2007 07:27:00 -0700. Skipper>>>> <skipspamless@contract not> wrote:>>>> >>>>>In bind <er36g3t75un19186mg7agv00jirpc3p8kv@4ax com>. Josh>>>>>forge <usereplyto@gmail com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> I did n