Kerry in trouble!
 

Source: Newsmax
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/101857.shtml
Published: Jun 7, 2004
Author: Carl Limbacher & Newsmax


Sen. John Kerry's former presidential campaign manager said Monday that he'd
been "dreading" the prospect of Ronald Reagan's death because it was likely
to give President Bush a major political boost.

"I've been dreading this every election year for three cycles," said Jim
Jordan, who resigned from the Kerry campaign last year, in comments to the
New York Times. "Bush has totally attached himself to Ronald Reagan. He's
going to turn Reagan into his own verifier."

Kerry campaign aides said they hoped the political impact of Reagan's death
would fade by the summer, but top Republicans believe that many Americans
will view Bush as the Republican icon's rightful political heir.

"The parallels are there. I don't know how you miss them," Republican
National Committee chief Ed Gillespie told the Times, an apparent reference
to the fact that the hallmarks of both the Bush and Reagan presidencies have
been strengthening national defense and cutting taxes.

Another problem for the Kerry campaign: Kerry himself was a staunch Reagan
critic who worked hard at undermining the 40th president's anti-communist
initiatives.

As an early backer of the nuclear freeze movement, Kerry made common cause
with European leftists who denounced Reagan as a reckless cowboy for
countering Soviet SS-20 missile emplacements in Eastern Europe with U.S.
Pershing IIs.

More dramatically, Kerry made a highly publicized trip to Nicaragua in 1985
to offer support for Soviet-backed Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. A photo
documenting the episode shows Kerry shaking the hand of Ortega, who flew off
to Moscow the next week to cement military ties with the Politboro.

Kerry even criticized Reagan for being too aggressive in the war on
terrorism, blasting him for bombing Libyan dictator Col. Gadhafi's
presidential compound in 1986 after Gadhafi had been linked to an attack on
a Berlin disco frequented by U.S. troops.

In a 1986 letter unearthed by radio host Sean Hannity for his recent book,
"Deliver Us from Evil," Kerry wrote:

"It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing
and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined
terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians."

Kerry added that it was a "mistake" for Reagan to have targeted the "head of
state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader."

"We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of
retaliation," he concluded.

Kerry in trouble!
 

OzOne wrote in message

Can you see that the "Might is right" philosophy of the US has lead to
the only retaliation available to those lacking in might.
The terrorist has been spawned under this philosophy and grew stronger
every time the US exerted its might.

You may be right, but unfortunately there is no turning back now. One of
two outcomes will prevail: 1) might will triumph over terrorism, or 2)
terrorism will triumph over might and destroy the USA.

Kerry was correct.

Kerry probably never had an original thought in his career. He's little
more than just another corrupt politician.

Max.

Kerry in trouble!
 

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:38:17 +1000, OzOne wrote this crap:


Can you see that the "Might is right" philosophy of the US has lead to
the only retaliation available to those lacking in might.

Uh... What happened to negotiations?


The terrorist has been spawned under this philosophy and grew stronger
every time the US exerted its might.

Kerry was correct.

Were you born this stupid? Or do you study?




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Kerry in trouble!
 

You're a freak. However, if Carter should die, we could re-elect
Hillary no problem.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
Source: Newsmax
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/101857.shtml
Published: Jun 7, 2004
Author: Carl Limbacher & Newsmax


Sen. John Kerry's former presidential campaign manager said Monday that
he'd
been "dreading" the prospect of Ronald Reagan's death because it was
likely
to give President Bush a major political boost.

"I've been dreading this every election year for three cycles," said Jim
Jordan, who resigned from the Kerry campaign last year, in comments to the
New York Times. "Bush has totally attached himself to Ronald Reagan. He's
going to turn Reagan into his own verifier."

Kerry campaign aides said they hoped the political impact of Reagan's
death
would fade by the summer, but top Republicans believe that many Americans
will view Bush as the Republican icon's rightful political heir.

"The parallels are there. I don't know how you miss them," Republican
National Committee chief Ed Gillespie told the Times, an apparent
reference
to the fact that the hallmarks of both the Bush and Reagan presidencies
have
been strengthening national defense and cutting taxes.

Another problem for the Kerry campaign: Kerry himself was a staunch Reagan
critic who worked hard at undermining the 40th president's anti-communist
initiatives.

As an early backer of the nuclear freeze movement, Kerry made common cause
with European leftists who denounced Reagan as a reckless cowboy for
countering Soviet SS-20 missile emplacements in Eastern Europe with U.S.
Pershing IIs.

More dramatically, Kerry made a highly publicized trip to Nicaragua in
1985
to offer support for Soviet-backed Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. A
photo
documenting the episode shows Kerry shaking the hand of Ortega, who flew
off
to Moscow the next week to cement military ties with the Politboro.

Kerry even criticized Reagan for being too aggressive in the war on
terrorism, blasting him for bombing Libyan dictator Col. Gadhafi's
presidential compound in 1986 after Gadhafi had been linked to an attack
on
a Berlin disco frequented by U.S. troops.

In a 1986 letter unearthed by radio host Sean Hannity for his recent book,
"Deliver Us from Evil," Kerry wrote:

"It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing
and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly
defined
terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians."

Kerry added that it was a "mistake" for Reagan to have targeted the "head
of
state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader."

"We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of
retaliation," he concluded.

Kerry in trouble!
 

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

OzOne wrote in message

Can you see that the "Might is right" philosophy of the US has lead to
the only retaliation available to those lacking in might.
The terrorist has been spawned under this philosophy and grew stronger
every time the US exerted its might.

You may be right, but unfortunately there is no turning back now. One of
two outcomes will prevail: 1) might will triumph over terrorism, or 2)
terrorism will triumph over might and destroy the USA.

Kerry was correct.

Kerry probably never had an original thought in his career. He's little
more than just another corrupt politician.

Max.

Kerry in trouble!
 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:20:36 GMT, "Bob Crantz"
wrote:

Source: Newsmax
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/101857.shtml
Published: Jun 7, 2004
Author: Carl Limbacher & Newsmax


Sen. John Kerry's former presidential campaign manager said Monday that he'd
been "dreading" the prospect of Ronald Reagan's death because it was likely
to give President Bush a major political boost.

snip

Hard for me to imagine that happening. Watching Bush fumbling around
Europe, getting his ass kicked everywhere he goes, including the
Vatican, is probably what killed Reagan. Someone accidentally left
CNN on and he was heard to mutter, "what an idiot" and keeled over.

Although actually from Connecticut, Bush needs to think back to his
days in Texas and get a rodeo clown or two to distract the angry bulls
while he tries to escape. Reagan dying sure won't do it.

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington, DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet bin
Laden might.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

OzOne wrote in message

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:02:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


You may be right, but unfortunately there is no turning back now. One of
two outcomes will prevail: 1) might will triumph over terrorism, or 2)
terrorism will triumph over might and destroy the USA.

Actually I see the third option,
that it will all die down after a regrettably long time with an
horrendous loss of life.

You could be right, but I'd tend to doubt that outcome considering the
degree of fanatacism of the current crop of Islamic radicals or our current
president.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

But be rest assured that
terrorism can destroy.


FLASH!!!! This just in!!! Terrorism can destroy!
Also: Reagan still dead and water remains wet!
Standby for more exciting Maxipad updates!

RB

Kerry in trouble!
 

I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run. Usama might agree that it would be a win, but ultimately
it wouldn't be.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Maxprop" wrote

...... A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington, DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression ....

As hard as it may be for those who live in or love NY and DC, the loss of
both might well benefit the country! There'd be a lot of hand wringing but
what does either city produce that America wouldn't be better off without?
Tons of garbage and hundreds of mindles laws and edicts every day? A new
president would take over and form a temporary gummymint IAW a cold-war law
designed to deal with exactly such an event and the nation would go on much
like nothing had happened. States would appoint new Congressmen and Senators
til permanent ones, and a president, could be elected and a year later it'd
be Life as Usual. It'd be a shame if all our historic papers were lost, not
to mention the lives, but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run. Usama might agree that it would be a win, but ultimately
it wouldn't be.



I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?. If those slack dick terrorist try to pull off here what
they did in spain its going to backfire on them bigtime. Americans
like the way president bush has delt with terrorist, he going to keep
on them until they are all dead or rotting at Gitmo.

Joe



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

Joe wrote:
I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?

Good rhetorical question.

Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more? I don't really know, but I can offer a couple of
possibilities, none of which look good for Bush/Cheney.

.. If those slack dick terrorist try to pull off here what
they did in spain its going to backfire on them bigtime. Americans
like the way president bush has delt with terrorist, he going to keep
on them until they are all dead or rotting at Gitmo.

You mean like the ones that have been let go, after over a year in jail,
because there is no reason to assume they were ever terrorists?

If President Bush and his administration were in fact going after
terrorists, I'd applaud their efforts. But they are not, they are
pursuing incredibly huge profits (and even that is not enough, as
evidenced by Halliburton's ~$90 million overcharges) while ignoring the
defense of the country.

DSK

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?


Scott Vernon wrote:
not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Agreed. But just get rid of them? We should see if we could trade 'em
for, say, Singapore, Rio, and ummm... trying to think of another big
city I've liked...

DSK

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?


Scott Vernon wrote:
not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Agreed. But just get rid of them? We should see if we could trade 'em
for, say, Singapore, Rio, and ummm... trying to think of another big
city I've liked...


Boston, Baltimore? oops, same city.

;)

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message

But be rest assured that
terrorism can destroy.


FLASH!!!! This just in!!! Terrorism can destroy!
Also: Reagan still dead and water remains wet!
Standby for more exciting Maxipad updates!

Nothing of substance to say. Nothing to refute statements you know are
right. You're boring, Bubbles.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run.

In whose lifetime? Do you invest in the market, Ganz? Do you honestly
believe there would be anything left for your retirement following such an
attack? If so, invest away, and good luck.

If you really believe your statement (above) why not supply al Qaeda with a
nuke or three to *strengthen* the US in the long run?

Max

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it
conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

"DSK" wrote in message

Joe wrote:
I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?

Good rhetorical question.

Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?

Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII. We are
jousting with shadows, and not inflicting much damage in the so-called "war
on terrorism." Might as well be ****ing platinum down the toilet. Tangible
results and benefits have positive effects on an economy. Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

OzOne wrote in message
On 8 Jun 2004 11:14:35 -0700, (Joe) scribbled
thusly:

I dont buy it either. Did the attack on pearl harbor cause a
depression?. If those slack dick terrorist try to pull off here what
they did in spain its going to backfire on them bigtime. Americans
like the way president bush has delt with terrorist, he going to keep
on them until they are all dead or rotting at Gitmo.

Joe

Yep, that's the attitude that will keep it fired up an ultimately lead
to serious financial problems for the US ...at least.

Yes, at least. But as I've stated before, we are committed to continue this
process. To flinch now would only encourage terrorism. To escalate the
"war on terrorism" probably accomplishes roughly the same thing. No-win
situation, and we Americans are paying the bill.

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Vito" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote

...... A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington, DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression ....

As hard as it may be for those who live in or love NY and DC, the loss of
both might well benefit the country! There'd be a lot of hand wringing
but
what does either city produce that America wouldn't be better off without?
Tons of garbage and hundreds of mindles laws and edicts every day? A new
president would take over and form a temporary gummymint IAW a cold-war
law
designed to deal with exactly such an event and the nation would go on
much
like nothing had happened. States would appoint new Congressmen and
Senators
til permanent ones, and a president, could be elected and a year later
it'd
be Life as Usual. It'd be a shame if all our historic papers were lost,
not
to mention the lives, but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

I really hope this is tongue-in-cheek.

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Um, would you mind if I had one last dinner at Angelo's first?

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"DSK" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?


Scott Vernon wrote:
not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Agreed. But just get rid of them? We should see if we could trade 'em
for, say, Singapore, Rio, and ummm... trying to think of another big
city I've liked...

Sydney. Oz seems to think it's perfect.

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?


Scott Vernon wrote:
not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Agreed. But just get rid of them? We should see if we could trade 'em
for, say, Singapore, Rio, and ummm... trying to think of another big
city I've liked...


Boston, Baltimore? oops, same city.

I'd trade 'em both for Paris, but ya gotta remove the Frenchies first.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

OzOne wrote in message

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:09:59 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:02:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


You may be right, but unfortunately there is no turning back now. One
of
two outcomes will prevail: 1) might will triumph over terrorism, or
2)
terrorism will triumph over might and destroy the USA.

Actually I see the third option,
that it will all die down after a regrettably long time with an
horrendous loss of life.

You could be right, but I'd tend to doubt that outcome considering the
degree of fanatacism of the current crop of Islamic radicals or our
current
president.

Oh he'll be well gone by then.
I'm talking at least another 2 presidents before it's calm again.

What makes you think the next two presidents will behave/perform any
differently than this one? You have far more optimism than I. Must have
something to do with hanging by your feet with all that blood rushing to
your head.

Max

Kerry in trouble!
 

What makes you think the next two presidents will behave/perform any
differently than this one? You have far more brains than I.


Exactly.

RB

Kerry in trouble!
 

Also: Reagan still dead and water remains wet!
Standby for more exciting Maxipad updates!

Nothing of substance to say. Nothing to refute statements


Nope. You're right about Reagan being still dead and water IS wet. Good one,
Maxipad!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

Maxi wrote...

I really hope this is your tongue-in-my-cheek.
Max


What a total homo!

RB

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

Maxi wrote:

Um, would you mind if I had one last Fling with Angelo's first?

Max

Maxipad, seriously, take the gay stuff somewhere else, okay?
Thanks!

RB

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Joe" wrote
.... Americans like the way president bush has delt with terrorist,

Too bad he quit dealing with terrorists to go whip up on Israel's enemy
Saddam.

Kerry in trouble!
 

OzOne wrote
Can't see how continually stirring up a hornets nest does any good.
You might just have to back off, get stung a few times and let it rest
till all parties are in a more talkative mood.

We are beset by terrorists because of our ongoing support for the invasion
of Palistine and the slow eradication of its indigineous Muslim population
by Jewish outsiders. These terrorist attacks can only worsen as the last
Palistinians are either killed or driven out. I cannot blame either side
because there is plenty of blame to go around. The original Jewish European
invaders had been driven from their homes by Nazis then kept from returning
by their Christian neighbors, leaving them no place to go. The Palistinians
have no effective weapons with which to fight Israeli helo's and artillery
so they become suicide bombers - terrorists if you will. Now their allies
such as Al Quida are attacking Israel's allies. We can say "If. If, If" but
it will never end until Israel has eradicated all of the Palistinians or
vice versa. Slick Willy Clinton had a compromise deal almost tied up - until
the current PM of Israel defiled a mosque. And that'll go on and on .... so
long as people are stupid enough to believe that Abraham met the all-seeing
creator of the universe hoofing across a desert to check on rumors, fed him
a veal sandwich, and was given half the middle east in return for
circumcising himself and all the men in his household - because that belief
is the cornerstone of Judism, Chritianity and Islam. The belief itself isn't
the problem, the problem is people are stupid enough to believe it.

My solution? I dunno - maybe hire some ex-KGB agents to come up with
something. After all the Balkans became much like the middle east after they
went home. Maybe a dose of stalinism would help straighten out the region.
But not to worry - the Yellowstone Caldera will take care of it.

Kerry in trouble!
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message k.net...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I don't buy it. We would survive and perhaps be stronger in the very
long run.

In whose lifetime? Do you invest in the market, Ganz? Do you honestly
believe there would be anything left for your retirement following such an
attack? If so, invest away, and good luck.

What if your investments were in Clean up type companies, radation
detection companys, body bag mfgrs, coffin mfgrs, construction,
lumber, bricks, glass ect.

I think you underestimate the American people Max. You need to drive
across country and look at the almost unlimited supply of resources.
If Americans all got involved and cared like they did in WWII this
great nation can overcome anything.

Like that jap said "I fear all we have done is awaken an angry giant"

We are on the terrorist's like chickens on a june bug. They are very
busy trying not to get killed right now. Lets keep up the pressure.

It's easy to get sucker punched, its stupid to get sucker punched
twice.

Joe






If you really believe your statement (above) why not supply al Qaeda with a
nuke or three to *strengthen* the US in the long run?

Max

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Maxy, terrorism can't win by definition.

We all seem to be having a problem defining "win." But be rest assured
that
terrorism can destroy. A one megaton nuke set off in NYC or Washington,
DC,
with substantial damage to the infrastructure (not to mention the
population) could put this country in a depression so deep it
conceivably
could not recover. The stock markets would collapse and commerce would
grind to a near-standstill. You may not call that a "win," but I'll bet
bin
Laden might.

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

Sydney. Oz seems to think it's perfect.


OzOne wrote:
It's pretty bloody close as capital cities go.

??? Did the Oz gov't move out of Canberra?

Anyway, I'll come check it out. If I like it, can we trade?

DSK

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

DSK wrote:

Sydney. Oz seems to think it's perfect.



OzOne wrote:

It's pretty bloody close as capital cities go.


??? Did the Oz gov't move out of Canberra?

Anyway, I'll come check it out. If I like it, can we trade?


It's like Baltimore and Boston, same thing.

Cheers
Marty

Kerry in trouble!
 

"DSK" wrote.
Why is the tremendous amount of spending on the war in Iraq not helping
the economy more?


Maxprop wrote:
Probably because we don't have a tangible enemy, as we did in WWII.

No. Dollars don't care about ideology.

Have you ever heard of the term "velocity" referring to money &
economics? It may or may not be the real reason, but the easiest way to
explain the current situation (huge increase in gov't spending, no or
only very small increase in aggregate demand or the overall economy) is
that the velocity of the money spent is not high enough to generate more
dollars being spent.

I would explain this by saying that the people reaping these huge war
profits are not spending the money as they rake it in. Probably sending
it overseas.


... Note how the
stock market bumped when the statue of Saddam was torn down. Also note how
it has fluctuated every time bad news from the Iraqi front airs.

The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy. For example, in
1929 we had an ongoing recession that was not reflected in the stock
market... instead the stock market ballooned even more... for a while...
The dot-com bust was the same. It made no sense whatever to place a huge
valuation on companies with no profits and no productivity. And guess
what, eventually the stock market followed!

Suggested reading:
http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books...1929crash.html

Regards
Doug King

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

"Maxprop" wrote


Boston, Baltimore? oops, same city.

I'd trade 'em both for Paris,


Paris Hilton?

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

Sure, if Angelo is straight.

SV

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

"Vito" wrote ...
" but who'd miss NYC or DC per se?

not me. could we put San Fran on the list, also?

Um, would you mind if I had one last dinner at Angelo's first?

Max

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

I'd trade 'em both for Paris


If we could have the museums & cathedrals without the rest of the city
and with only a few carefully selected French people, sure. Let's see,
we'd want the sidewalk crepe stands, the wine stores, and a couple dozen
of the restaurants too. Only problem is that Paris is too far away from
any good sailing locations.

Scott Vernon wrote:
Paris Hilton?

Naw, she's too skinny. Besides I am happily married.

DSK

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

ozone wrote
I'd trade 'em both for Paris,


Paris Hilton?

I hear she's had more meat go thru her than a wholesale butcher shop.


and?

Kerry in trouble! NYC & DC gone!
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 9 Jun 2004 22:22:30 GMT, "Scott Vernon"
scribbled thusly:


ozone wrote
I'd trade 'em both for Paris,


Paris Hilton?

I hear she's had more meat go thru her than a wholesale butcher shop.


and?

and....she didn't pay for it....?

do you?