| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
|
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Tim wrote:
They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm And Dick Cheney should be in prison. There's just no justice. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 22, 10:01*pm, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm And Dick Cheney should be in prison. There's just no justice. Dick Cheney? Is he an editor to the NYT? Nah, I didn't think so. But seeing you were quick to bypass the original question I'll ask again: "Will some heads at the NYT roll? They should...." |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 22, 10:43*pm, Tim wrote:
They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. It fit the NY Times profile, no need to verify the letter. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
"Boater" wrote in message ... wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. How's that new white sheet with the pointy hat working out for you, Jackoff? Racist. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Tim wrote:
They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm Kinda makes anything you read in the NYT suspect. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. How's that new white sheet with the pointy hat working out for you, Jackoff? Racist. When Harry has been bettered he usually responds with one of his racist remarks. Truly a POS that Krause. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:01:31 -0500, Boater wrote:
Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm And Dick Cheney should be in prison. There's just no justice. No, he shouldn't. We've already been over that. And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:25:01 -0500, Boater wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. How's that new white sheet with the pointy hat working out for you, Jackoff? Harry, you whine to Tim that you're not treated properly, and yet you continue to indulge in the name-calling and insults. Why? What does it serve you? It's adolescent, at best. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:25:01 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. How's that new white sheet with the pointy hat working out for you, Jackoff? Harry, you whine to Tim that you're not treated properly, and yet you continue to indulge in the name-calling and insults. Why? What does it serve you? It's adolescent, at best. -- John It's part of scientific research...I'm part of a project to find newsgroup posters who suffer from Asperger's syndrome. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 22, 11:25*pm, Boater wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. *She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. *The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. *Amazing. How's that new white sheet with the pointy hat working out for you, Jackoff? Thanks for proving my point yet again, harry. ;-) |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
BAR wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. It fit the NY Times profile, no need to verify the letter. Pffffttt. We own the domain name "NewYorkLies.com"... Someday I will start a site there...;) ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 22, 11:21*pm, wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:43*pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. *She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. *The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. *Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Jim wrote:
Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm Kinda makes anything you read in the NYT suspect. As it should be.. They are about as accurate and truthful as the Daily Hoax and Saturday Night Live... ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. Perhaps your perspective colors your opinion a bit too much. Oh...Sarah Palin...an undereducated, intellectually lazy, over-ambitious ditz but since she is anti-abortion, anti-science, and anti-thinking, she has great appeal to the extreme Republican right. She's also short and dowdy. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:54:31 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:
I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. There is a small difference. Sarah Palin was running for office. Michelle Obama is not. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote:
And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Boater wrote:
wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. Perhaps your perspective colors your opinion a bit too much. Oh...Sarah Palin...an undereducated, intellectually lazy, over-ambitious ditz but since she is anti-abortion, anti-science, and anti-thinking, she has great appeal to the extreme Republican right. She's also short and dowdy. Gag me with a spoon! You are pathetic. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- John Jiggle, jiggle...oh...is that a fish on the line...awwww....it's just a little herring. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) -- John snerk |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Boater wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- John Jiggle, jiggle...oh...is that a fish on the line...awwww....it's just a little herring. Lets project a little further. When Mrs O sits down with Krause for the dowry chat and leans forward to give ol' Harry that beady eyed evil stare of hers, He'll wet his pants. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:54:25 -0500, Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- John Jiggle, jiggle...oh...is that a fish on the line...awwww....it's just a little herring. Lets project a little further. When Mrs O sits down with Krause for the dowry chat and leans forward to give ol' Harry that beady eyed evil stare of hers, He'll wet his pants. He'll offer his $850 desk chair and the Lobsta Boat! Maybe he'll throw in the 'bobcat' for good measure. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Well, well, well...it didn't take you long to revert to your normal behaviour around here, Herring. What happened...did the meds wear off...or did you run out of spiked eggnog? |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:54:25 -0500, Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- John Jiggle, jiggle...oh...is that a fish on the line...awwww....it's just a little herring. Lets project a little further. When Mrs O sits down with Krause for the dowry chat and leans forward to give ol' Harry that beady eyed evil stare of hers, He'll wet his pants. He'll offer his $850 desk chair and the Lobsta Boat! Maybe he'll throw in the 'bobcat' for good measure. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:03:15 -0500, Boater wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:54:25 -0500, Jim wrote: Boater wrote: Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote: wrote: On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, wrote: On Dec 22, 10:43 pm, Tim wrote: They should http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7796700.stm But the same media attacked Palin for momentarily believing that someone calling into a radio talk show was the French President. She was on the spot, while the NYT had days to check on it and think about it before publishing. The liberal sheeple fell into lockstep behind the image. Amazing. I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. My wife says that Mrs. Obama wears the same sorts of clothes to work she does, and that they are not that pricey for a professional woman who goes to the office every day. Obama's kids are delightful little girls, and the older one already looks like she is going to be America's #1 heartbreaker in a couple of years. They are smart kids, reasonably well-behaved, and I feel certain neither of them are going to embarrass their parents by being public drunks or unmarried teen-aged mothers. I hope one of them marries one of my grandsons. That will never happen if either of them meets the grandson's grandfather. -- John Jiggle, jiggle...oh...is that a fish on the line...awwww....it's just a little herring. Lets project a little further. When Mrs O sits down with Krause for the dowry chat and leans forward to give ol' Harry that beady eyed evil stare of hers, He'll wet his pants. He'll offer his $850 desk chair and the Lobsta Boat! Maybe he'll throw in the 'bobcat' for good measure. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Well, well, well...it didn't take you long to revert to your normal behaviour around here, Herring. What happened...did the meds wear off...or did you run out of spiked eggnog? jiggle, jiggle, :) -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:21:03 -0500, RLM wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:14:30 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Why would I care what Harry believes? Amswer, I don't. Good. He does make a fitting example however. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Worse than that. Krause wishes death to people he doesn't like. Tell me any legitimate religion that sanctions death wishes. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion provides special training in that area. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:57:20 -0500, Boater wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John Indeed it doesn't. That's why I read some of your posts, so I can learn from your expertise in lying and name-calling. Apparently your religion provides special training in that area. jiggle, jiggle....you're so friggin' easy, Krause! -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote: Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior. -- John That's funny. You don't look Jewish. |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0500, BAR wrote:
Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:04:34 -0500, RLM wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:36:44 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:11 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No. The NYT is a liberal rag. Liberals, from my experience, could care less about the truth. Remember, morals are a religious, not a legal, concept. Therefore integrity is not a trait valued by liberals or secular progressives. Actually, you could figure that out right here in the NG. ;) Some of the most amoral creeps in time have been Popes. It damn sure isn't a religous concept. If you're interested do some homework. A religious concept isn't necessarily followed by 'religious' people. Look at Krause. He claims to be 'religious', but surely his faith doesn't promote lying and name-calling. Maybe it does. No. Judaism doesn't condone such behavior. -- We say, "MERRY CHRISTMAS!" John |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 23, 3:33*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:54:31 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote: I couldn't believe it the other day. A couple of nurses were talking about Michelle Obama who was being interviewed, but still quite under wraps and not really saying anything... They said. "She is so open and real". "She wears real cloths and is such a normal person", "Her kids are so normal" Pfffftttt, they look like caged puppies for ****s sake.... After hearing how folks got on Sarah for being a real person, and actually shopping at real stores I almost puked.. Michelle Obama clammed up totally during the election and was never seen without very expensive gowns and dresses, dressed up like a Barbie doll. Amazing how the lemmings can be so hypocritical. There is a small difference. *Sarah Palin was running for office. * Michelle Obama is not. No, the difference is the blunders Michelle made were left alone and she was allowed to hide from the media who sent a bigger army to Alaska to check out Palins church than they did to Chicago to check out Ayers, that crazy white preacher, Reverend Wright, Rezko, and the rest of the organized criminal and crim organizations the Obama's represented and worked for... They they added to the fun by simply making it up as they went along with Palin... |
Will some heads at the NYT roll?
On Dec 23, 4:18*pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:56*am, Salmonbait wrote: And yes, some heads should roll at the NYT. But, they should have rolled a few years back. -- John Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year! yes, I feel they should, but do you think they will? No, they are an arm of the DNC and thus have no accountability.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com