well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the world. Found
some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at LAX ;-)

some hardware issues is stopping me from looking at all the images currently
but here is a few selected ones that I have on hand.

Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
> LAX ;-)
>
What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
reference.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>> LAX ;-)
>>
> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
> United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
> reference.

That's because Glenn is clearly joking and you're an idiot.

Alan Erskine added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>>> LAX ;-)
>>>
>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>> United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>> reference.
>
> That's because Glenn is clearly joking and you're an idiot.
>
You'd do well to Shut The **** Up, asshole.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:50:44 -0400, Alan Erskine wrote
(in article >):

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>>> LAX ;-)
>>>
>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>> United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>> reference.
>
> That's because Glenn is clearly joking and you're an idiot.
>
>

So, Alan, have you contacted Newsguy about my 'forged' headers yet?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:29:15 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:

>Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>> LAX ;-)
>>
>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>reference.

But nobody likes the US.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Archeologists are excited about the discovery of fossils at an excavation in Kenya that indicate man's early ancestors were walking erect over 4 million years ago.
They base this conclusion on small traces of Viagra found at the dig site.

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...


>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>>reference.
>
> But nobody likes the US.

Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
and stop sponging off the United States. Without exception,
Canada and our so-called European "allies" have gutted their
armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly won in order to
fund Socialist programs even their own citizens don't want. And,
our old enemy, the Japs, hide behind some bull**** constitutional
ban against rebuilding their army, navy, and air force,
preferring to let the USA guard them against the Red Menace. You
foreigners make me sick!

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:13:38 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>
>>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>>>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>>>reference.
>>
>> But nobody likes the US.
>
>Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
>mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
>and stop sponging off the United States. Without exception,
>Canada and our so-called European "allies" have gutted their
>armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly won in order to
>fund Socialist programs even their own citizens don't want. And,
>our old enemy, the Japs, hide behind some bull**** constitutional
>ban against rebuilding their army, navy, and air force,
>preferring to let the USA guard them against the Red Menace. You
>foreigners make me sick!

You are deeply in debt. You are not as powerful as you think you are.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Some believe that the world converting to the metric system would greatly simplify our measures. But look what would really happen to our old cliches:

A miss is as good as 1.6 kilometers.
Put your best 0.3 of a meter forward.
Spare the 5.03 meters and spoil the child.
Twenty-eight grams of prevention is worth 453 grams of cure.
Give a man 2.5 centimeters and he'll take 1.6 kilometers.
Peter Piper picked 8.8 liters of pickled peppers.

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
> mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses

If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist defence.

In article >,
"HEMI-Powered" > wrote:

> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>
> >>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
> >>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
> >>reference.
> >
> > But nobody likes the US.
>
> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
> mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
> and stop sponging off the United States. Without exception,
> Canada and our so-called European "allies" have gutted their
> armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly won in order to
> fund Socialist programs even their own citizens don't want. And,
> our old enemy, the Japs, hide behind some bull**** constitutional
> ban against rebuilding their army, navy, and air force,
> preferring to let the USA guard them against the Red Menace. You
> foreigners make me sick!

Oh jeez! What a retard! Do you go around looking for things to be
offended by??

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>>>>Canada? United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially
>>>>like the reference.
>>>
>>> But nobody likes the US.
>>
>>Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>>us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>>defenses and stop sponging off the United States. Without
>>exception, Canada and our so-called European "allies" have
>>gutted their armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly
>>won in order to fund Socialist programs even their own
>>citizens don't want. And, our old enemy, the Japs, hide
>>behind some bull**** constitutional ban against rebuilding
>>their army, navy, and air force, preferring to let the USA
>>guard them against the Red Menace. You foreigners make me
>>sick!
>
> You are deeply in debt. You are not as powerful as you think
> you are.

Not talking about the national debt, I'm talking about our
military and the lack of thereof in all our former allies
countrues.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Alan Erskine added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>> us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>> defenses
>
> If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist
> defence.
>
Suppose al Qaeda had blown up the Toronto Tower or Big Ben or the
Eiffel Tower, what would the respective countries have done about
it? Nothing at all, as they're militarily impotent except for very
close-in defense of their shores and air space.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

John Meyer added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> In article >,
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion
>> du jour ...
>>
>>
>> >>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>> >>Canada? United States? Other? If the USA, I don't
>> >>especially like the reference.
>> >
>> > But nobody likes the US.
>>
>> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>> us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>> defenses and stop sponging off the United States. Without
>> exception, Canada and our so-called European "allies" have
>> gutted their armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly
>> won in order to fund Socialist programs even their own
>> citizens don't want. And, our old enemy, the Japs, hide
>> behind some bull**** constitutional ban against rebuilding
>> their army, navy, and air force, preferring to let the USA
>> guard them against the Red Menace. You foreigners make me
>> sick!
>
> Oh jeez! What a retard! Do you go around looking for things to
> be offended by??
>
Nope, just by twits with B-B size brains bragging up their
believed national exploits when in fact there ain't none. Yes,
I'm American-centric. We were, are now, and will still be in the
future the best damn country on Earth, lowest overall taxes, and
most powerful military. Dispute any of this if you can.

And, read & heed by sig and look at the attached picture.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:29:15 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:
>
>
>> Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>
>>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>>> LAX ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>> United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>> reference.
>>
>
> But nobody likes the US.
>
Get lost Brit! Oh GAWD, I don't want to insult the rest of the Brit's,
Get lost Peter from plus.net.

It means the side of the world that is in night when I am awake on this
side.

Boy you're touchy :-)


"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>> LAX ;-)
>>
> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
> United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
> reference.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet
>
>

"Peter Hucker" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:29:15 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:
>
>>Glenn added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> well, back from a 8 week trip to see the darker side of the
>>> world. Found some interesting aircraft. Even met a legend at
>>> LAX ;-)
>>>
>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>>reference.
>
> But nobody likes the US.
I do

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>
>>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>>>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>>>reference.
>>
>> But nobody likes the US.
>
> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
> mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
> and stop sponging off the United States. Without exception,
> Canada and our so-called European "allies" have gutted their
> armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly won in order to
> fund Socialist programs even their own citizens don't want. And,
> our old enemy, the Japs, hide behind some bull**** constitutional
> ban against rebuilding their army, navy, and air force,
> preferring to let the USA guard them against the Red Menace. You
> foreigners make me sick!
>
Boy you are touchy. You must be that type of american that gives your
country a bad name. Lucky there are enough nice ones to make it worth
visiting ;-)

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>>>>>Canada? United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially
>>>>>like the reference.
>>>>
>>>> But nobody likes the US.
>>>
>>>Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>>>us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>>>defenses and stop sponging off the United States. Without
>>>exception, Canada and our so-called European "allies" have
>>>gutted their armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly
>>>won in order to fund Socialist programs even their own
>>>citizens don't want. And, our old enemy, the Japs, hide
>>>behind some bull**** constitutional ban against rebuilding
>>>their army, navy, and air force, preferring to let the USA
>>>guard them against the Red Menace. You foreigners make me
>>>sick!
>>
>> You are deeply in debt. You are not as powerful as you think
>> you are.
>
> Not talking about the national debt, I'm talking about our
> military and the lack of thereof in all our former allies
> countrues.
>
Um so why do you need us in Iraq then.
why didn't you help your Ally Georgia in their time of need ??????

Politics, isn't your game is it. Banging out threats on the keyboard seems
to be it :-)
>

"John Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote:
>
>> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>
>> >>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean? Canada?
>> >>United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially like the
>> >>reference.
>> >
>> > But nobody likes the US.
>>
>> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
>> mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
>> and stop sponging off the United States. Without exception,
>> Canada and our so-called European "allies" have gutted their
>> armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly won in order to
>> fund Socialist programs even their own citizens don't want. And,
>> our old enemy, the Japs, hide behind some bull**** constitutional
>> ban against rebuilding their army, navy, and air force,
>> preferring to let the USA guard them against the Red Menace. You
>> foreigners make me sick!
>
> Oh jeez! What a retard! Do you go around looking for things to be
> offended by??

:-) It seems that way.

JRW added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>> But nobody likes the US.
>>
> Get lost Brit! Oh GAWD, I don't want to insult the rest of the
> Brit's, Get lost Peter from plus.net.
>
JRW, it's been 20 years since I last traveled across southern
Ontario from Windsor to whatever town is on the Canadian side of
Buffalo, NY. Never did find anything to like nor did I
particularly like the parochial views of Canadians I worked with.
I was stationed in (West) Germany in the U.S. Army circa 1971 and
found both the country and the people delightful. In those days
it was often difficult to find Germans who could speak English
and wanted to but I never had much trouble. Ditto in Austria. I
spent a week in Paris and while I really loved the city and its
sights, I couldn't stand the people - far too full of themselves,
arrogant, and anti-American. Later when I had to work with
Parisiams from Dassault Systemes I found them equally obnoxious.
And, I spent a week in London going to all the famous spots.
Again, I really loved the city and especially loved the people.
They were warm, outgoing, and friendly. While they had
justifiable national pride, they expressed no anger toward
"Yanks".

So, it's difficult to generalize about these countries but fast-
forwarding to modern times it does seem that all too many
countries and their people seem to want to forget about the great
alliance that got everybody through WWII in victory. But, these
same people seem ready to meddle in our internal political,
economic, and military affairs when their own are hardly paragons
of virtue.

This is an international NG. That is what makes it great. I see
no reason why anyone should openly disparage another country with
a blanket statement like "I went to the dark side." That sort of
bigotry has no place in what should be an enlightened world.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Sj added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>>This is an international NG. That is what makes it great. I
>>see no reason why anyone should openly disparage another
>>country with a blanket statement like "I went to the dark
>>side." That sort of bigotry has no place in what should be an
>>enlightened world.
>
> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
> for the country & it's people ...

You're a loon no matter where you are, Sj. I suppose you still
say that Africa is the Dark Continent. I think it is pretty
obvious that referring to what Star Wars called "going to the
dark side" wrt the United States is both a bigoted and an
ignorant viewpoint.

> As for some of the anti-USA feelings, perhaps we can
> blame ourselves for some of that ...

Unlike the Marxist Mrs. Obama who just recently became proud of
her country - Monday night - I have always been proud of the
United States, even when some things have been questionable. And,
I strongly believe in the saying "America, love it or leave it",
which is what I suggest you do, as well as read and heed my sig.

> The 4 attachments you posted in reply probably
> didn't endear you to some of the regulars here ... &
> now this attachment ... not something I wish to keep
> or take seriously ... not terribly funny ... actually, kind
> of rude ...
>
Again, you're a loon so I don't give any credence at all to your
POV, so here's a repeat.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

HEMI-Powered wrote:

> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?


--
Dave

not-me should be djw001 and there's no need for any wossname

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Sj added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>
> Again, you're a loon so I don't give any credence at all to your
> POV, so here's a repeat.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry


As someone once stated:

"It's better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think you're an idiot,
than it is to speak and confirm their suspicions!"

This is a lot of ****ing and moaning about a single statement made by
someone who posts regularly on this NG.

Dave Whiley added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>
You can't be serious! I hardly think that the reference was to
cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long enough to snap
some pictures before going back to a place of enlightment on the
other side of the pond, and frankly, the more rebuttals I read the
more I feel this great country is being maligned by the very people
who benefit from their relationship with us economically,
politically, and militarily (for protection against a strategic
threat).

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Mike Henley added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> This is a lot of ****ing and moaning about a single statement
> made by someone who posts regularly on this NG.
>
There didn't have to be, if the OP had simply apologized for making
a bigoted remark. I will not stand for disparagement of my country
and/or it's elected leaders, especially from twits who don't even
live here.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

HEMI-Powered wrote:

>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
> You can't be serious!
> I hardly think that the reference was to
> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
> being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long enough to snap
> some pictures before going back to a place of enlightenment on the
> other side of the pond, and frankly, the more rebuttals I read the
> more I feel this great country is being maligned by the very people
> who benefit from their relationship with us economically,
> politically, and militarily (for protection against a strategic
> threat).

Having spent the last three months living with the same lighting
conditions as can be seen in most of Glenn's photographs from
Waddington, Duxford, Farnborough and Coventry, it just seemed more
likely that the comment referred to the part of the world where the
photographs were taken than to a different part of the world entirely.

I do agree that the comment owed more to baiting the Poms than strict
accuracy, as there's blue sky in two of the pictures.

--
Dave

not-me should be djw001 and there's no need for any wossname

Dave Whiley added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>> You can't be serious!
> > I hardly think that the reference was to
>> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our
>> country being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long
>> enough to snap some pictures before going back to a place of
>> enlightenment on the other side of the pond, and frankly, the
>> more rebuttals I read the more I feel this great country is
>> being maligned by the very people who benefit from their
>> relationship with us economically, politically, and
>> militarily (for protection against a strategic threat).
>
> Having spent the last three months living with the same
> lighting conditions as can be seen in most of Glenn's
> photographs from Waddington, Duxford, Farnborough and
> Coventry, it just seemed more likely that the comment referred
> to the part of the world where the photographs were taken than
> to a different part of the world entirely.

Then it should have been so stated and not looking like he was
stooping low to condescend to come to the United States and get
the hell back as soon as possible. Lots of people have come to
his defense on this, but if your version is truer than mine, why
hasn't he responded? I think we all know.

> I do agree that the comment owed more to baiting the Poms than
> strict accuracy, as there's blue sky in two of the pictures.
>



--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

> Then it should have been so stated and not looking like he was
> stooping low to condescend to come to the United States and get
> the hell back as soon as possible. Lots of people have come to
> his defense on this, but if your version is truer than mine, why
> hasn't he responded? I think we all know.
>
> HP, aka Jerry


Hemi, you're an idiot. You're probably the only American that thinks Glenn
was bad-mouthing the USA.

You're so busy stepping on ****-ants that you can't see the elephants.

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Henley added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> This is a lot of ****ing and moaning about a single statement
>> made by someone who posts regularly on this NG.
>>
> There didn't have to be, if the OP had simply apologized for making
> a bigoted remark. I will not stand for disparagement of my country
> and/or it's elected leaders, especially from twits who don't even
> live here.
>
On behalf of your country, I apologise for you.

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dave Whiley added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>>
> You can't be serious! I hardly think that the reference was to
> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
> being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long enough to snap
> some pictures before going back to a place of enlightment on the
> other side of the pond, and frankly, the more rebuttals I read the
> more I feel this great country is being maligned by the very people
> who benefit from their relationship with us economically,
> politically, and militarily (for protection against a strategic
> threat).
>
Seriously, are you still harping a on about this.
I already stated why I said it.
has nothing to do with your country being evil.
I think your comments are more portraying your country in a bad light than
anything I say.

You need to grow up.

"Dave Whiley" > wrote in message
...
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>> You can't be serious! I hardly think that the reference was to
>> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
>> being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long enough to snap some
>> pictures before going back to a place of enlightenment on the other side
>> of the pond, and frankly, the more rebuttals I read the more I feel this
>> great country is being maligned by the very people who benefit from their
>> relationship with us economically, politically, and militarily (for
>> protection against a strategic threat).
>
> Having spent the last three months living with the same lighting
> conditions as can be seen in most of Glenn's photographs from Waddington,
> Duxford, Farnborough and Coventry, it just seemed more likely that the
> comment referred to the part of the world where the photographs were taken
> than to a different part of the world entirely.
>
> I do agree that the comment owed more to baiting the Poms than strict
> accuracy, as there's blue sky in two of the pictures.
>
> --
No no no.

Your side of the world is in night when we are in day.

But you're right, you're grey clouds didn't help. In fact I had a few
cjhoice words about it :-)

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dave Whiley added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>>>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>>> You can't be serious!
>> > I hardly think that the reference was to
>>> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our
>>> country being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long
>>> enough to snap some pictures before going back to a place of
>>> enlightenment on the other side of the pond, and frankly, the
>>> more rebuttals I read the more I feel this great country is
>>> being maligned by the very people who benefit from their
>>> relationship with us economically, politically, and
>>> militarily (for protection against a strategic threat).
>>
>> Having spent the last three months living with the same
>> lighting conditions as can be seen in most of Glenn's
>> photographs from Waddington, Duxford, Farnborough and
>> Coventry, it just seemed more likely that the comment referred
>> to the part of the world where the photographs were taken than
>> to a different part of the world entirely.
>
> Then it should have been so stated and not looking like he was
> stooping low to condescend to come to the United States and get
> the hell back as soon as possible. Lots of people have come to
> his defense on this, but if your version is truer than mine, why
> hasn't he responded? I think we all know.
>
I had responded, just you chose to ignore or it it has not appeared on your
server yet.

You still need to grow up.
>

HEMI-Powered wrote:

> Then it should have been so stated and not looking like he was
> stooping low to condescend to come to the United States and get
> the hell back as soon as possible. Lots of people have come to
> his defense
(sic)
> on this, but if your version is truer than mine, why
> hasn't he responded? I think we all know.

Do we?

Have you contemplated that the reference could be based upon the ROW being
"dark" when we are in sunshine? Probably not.

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> You can't be serious! I hardly think that the reference was to
> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
> being portrayed as evil,

No; *you* can't be serious. Glenn has a sense of humour; clearly missing in
you.

"Sj" > wrote in message
...

> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
> for the country & it's people ...

You can't be serious! Australia isn't 'below' anything! (couldn't resist).

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
...
> "Sj" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
>> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
>> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
>> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
>> for the country & it's people ...
>
> You can't be serious! Australia isn't 'below' anything! (couldn't
> resist).
That's right, always on top of everything :-)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:06:40 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>>What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
>>>>>Canada? United States? Other? If the USA, I don't especially
>>>>>like the reference.
>>>>
>>>> But nobody likes the US.
>>>
>>>Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>>>us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>>>defenses and stop sponging off the United States. Without
>>>exception, Canada and our so-called European "allies" have
>>>gutted their armed forces after the Cold War was supposedly
>>>won in order to fund Socialist programs even their own
>>>citizens don't want. And, our old enemy, the Japs, hide
>>>behind some bull**** constitutional ban against rebuilding
>>>their army, navy, and air force, preferring to let the USA
>>>guard them against the Red Menace. You foreigners make me
>>>sick!
>>
>> You are deeply in debt. You are not as powerful as you think
>> you are.
>
>Not talking about the national debt, I'm talking about our
>military and the lack of thereof in all our former allies
>countrues.

Military needs funds.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

This space was empty.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:07:48 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Alan Erskine added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like
>>> us mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist
>>> defenses
>>
>> If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist
>> defence.
>>
>Suppose al Qaeda had blown up the Toronto Tower or Big Ben or the
>Eiffel Tower, what would the respective countries have done about
>it? Nothing at all, as they're militarily impotent except for very
>close-in defense of their shores and air space.

I haven't seen you guys do much either.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

An English woman who has been blind for 26 years got her sight back after suffering a heart attack.
Unfortunately, after she was able to see her doctors bill she had several more heart attacks.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:46:00 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Mike Henley added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> This is a lot of ****ing and moaning about a single statement
>> made by someone who posts regularly on this NG.
>>
>There didn't have to be, if the OP had simply apologized for making
>a bigoted remark. I will not stand for disparagement of my country
>and/or it's elected leaders, especially from twits who don't even
>live here.

Patriotism is so childish.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

%%%%%%
%%%% = =
%%C >
_)' _( .' ,
__/ |_/\ " *. o
/` \_\ \/ %`= '_ .
/ ) \/| .^',*. ,
/' /- o/ - " % '_
/\_/ < = , ^ ~ .
)_o|----'| .` '
___// (_ - (\
///-( \' \\

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:30:53 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> wrote:

>"Sj" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
>> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
>> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
>> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
>> for the country & it's people ...
>
>You can't be serious! Australia isn't 'below' anything! (couldn't resist).

It's below the sky. And don't confuse the Americans.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If you are going to try cross-country skiing, start with a small country.

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> Patriotism is so childish.

Well-founded patriotism is not childish nor is it old-fashioned.
What is childish is the brand of national pride many countries
practice far in excess of their accomplishments. Were it not for
the United States and Great Britain, there would be no free Europe
today. Were it not for the United States standing almost alone,
western Europe would have been overrun by the Warsaw Pact. And
today, were it not for the United States there would be no
effective military to counter modern style agression.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

In article >,
"HEMI-Powered" > wrote:

> Dave Whiley added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
> > HEMI-Powered wrote:
> >
> >> What exactly does "the darker side of the world" mean?
> >
> You can't be serious! I hardly think that the reference was to
> cloudy skies, it was clearly a transparent reference to our country
> being portrayed as evil, but tolerable just long enough to snap
> some pictures before going back to a place of enlightment on the
> other side of the pond, and frankly, the more rebuttals I read the
> more I feel this great country is being maligned by the very people
> who benefit from their relationship with us economically,
> politically, and militarily (for protection against a strategic
> threat).

Good grief you are a moron, and a paranoid moron at that!

Peter Hucker > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:30:53 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Sj" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
>>> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
>>> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
>>> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
>>> for the country & it's people ...
>>
>>You can't be serious! Australia isn't 'below' anything! (couldn't
>>resist).
>
> It's below the sky. And don't confuse the Americans.

From Seattle, Oz is above its sky, or at least sorta up and to the right...

- Confused American ^,,^

Alan Erskine wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Then, I would strong suggest all these folks that don't like us
>> mount their own strategic, tactical and anti-terrorist defenses
>
> If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist defence.
>
>
LOL!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

"®i©ardo" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>> If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist defence.
> LOL!

Oh, but it's true; if the United States and the (then) Soviet Union hadn't
spent the litterally *hundreds of billions of dollars* that took the form of
military equipment, and instead built schools, hospitals, universities,
water purification systems and.... good will.... we wouldn't have the
organisations that think we are all the same - the U.S. and Australia.

Instead, the U.S. has a memory problem - did you know that the Taliban were
supported by the U.S.? And before that, the U.S. supported the Mujahadin?

Also, it is to be remembered that in recent years, terrorism has struck
Russia - Chechnya is only part of that and Chechnya is often the
'whipping-boy' of Russia, along with Georgia (as has been seen in recent
weeks). There have been Soviet aircraft highjackings as well.

Did you know that the U.K (United Kingdom) created Israel out of territory
it had occupied for many years?

Is it any wonder that 'we' are thrown in the same barrel as America?

I'm not saying any of the decisions listed above were wrong, but if the U.S.
in particular had not used the Middle East as a testing ground for its
military equipment (remember the C-5 flights to 'support' Israel in the
early '70's?), the rest of us would not be suffering as we are.

'We' suffer because we are friendly with America. Note that I say
"friendly" - just like all most people are with their domestic neighbours -
friendly, not necessarily friends.

Now; Glenn was not being insulting to America as that idiot ("HEMI-Powered")
suggested. That idiot has been in other groups doing the same thing -
stirring up trouble for no other reason. Glenn was simply making a comment
that he was not at home. Glenn wasn't referring to America, but all the
countries he visited.

It wasn't an insult, it was a joke.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:21:34 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Patriotism is so childish.
>
>Well-founded patriotism is not childish nor is it old-fashioned.
>What is childish is the brand of national pride many countries
>practice far in excess of their accomplishments. Were it not for
>the United States and Great Britain, there would be no free Europe
>today. Were it not for the United States standing almost alone,
>western Europe would have been overrun by the Warsaw Pact. And
>today, were it not for the United States there would be no
>effective military to counter modern style agression.

What I haven't seen is the US using it's military very effectively in
recent times. They've gone all soft. I can't believe you actually
gave Hussein a trial!
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What's the most sensitive part of your anatomy when you are masturbating?
Your ears.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:20:02 GMT, Bob Harrington
> wrote:

>Peter Hucker > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:30:53 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Sj" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> I sort of took it to mean that he traveled to the other
>>>> side of the equator ... I have friends in Australia &
>>>> often refer to it as the Land of Oz or the Land Down
>>>> Under ... I say those words out of a liking & fondness
>>>> for the country & it's people ...
>>>
>>>You can't be serious! Australia isn't 'below' anything! (couldn't
>>>resist).
>>
>> It's below the sky. And don't confuse the Americans.
>
>From Seattle, Oz is above its sky, or at least sorta up and to the right...
>
> - Confused American ^,,^

"Up" means away from gravitational pull.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German aeroplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war."

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Well-founded patriotism is not childish nor is it
>>old-fashioned. What is childish is the brand of national pride
>>many countries practice far in excess of their
>>accomplishments. Were it not for the United States and Great
>>Britain, there would be no free Europe today. Were it not for
>>the United States standing almost alone, western Europe would
>>have been overrun by the Warsaw Pact. And today, were it not
>>for the United States there would be no effective military
>>to counter modern style agression.
>
> What I haven't seen is the US using it's military very
> effectively in recent times. They've gone all soft. I can't
> believe you actually gave Hussein a trial!

If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3 weeks.
And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no stake in this
disparaging the brave men and women who wear our uniforms in the
defense of freedom everywhere so I don't appreciate people who
say we've gone soft.

I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner. Fine.
Now, how about discussing your country's recent successes and
failures in the War on Terror. At best, no country in the
coalition has deployed more than 5-10% of the US presence. As to
Saddam, it is necessary for our allies and those who are neutral
in the region to know that we stand for democracy and we stand
for fairness. To have sumarily executed Saddam, which many of us
would have preffered, would only serve to lower the United
States to the level of its enemies. You may recall that a great
deal of effort was taken by the Allies in WWII at both Nuremburg
and in trials for the Japs. That is necessary for countries that
want to claim that they are fair even to their enemies.

As to the rest of the world's military, outside Russia and China,
and maybe North Korea, the Western democracies have all gutted
their armies, navies, and air forces in order to save money and
divert it into social programs they deem more important. What I
wonder about is what would happen if the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben
were destroyed as was the World Trade Center. France and Great
Britain no longer have long-range strategic armed forces to
counter such a threat which leads most observers to think that
they can rely on the United States.

If Sen. McCain is elected president in November, there's a chance
our allies could count on us to help them if they're attacked but
if Sen. Obama becomes president, I think we can rely on him
gutting the military by tens of billions of dollars, recalling
troops from all over the world, and attempting to talk our
enemies down. Again, like Europe's Socialist states, Obama would
do this - and he has promised to do so for over a year - and he
would attempt to pay for his Big Government cradle to grave
programs with the presumed savings from gutting our military.

If history has shown us anything at all, it is that maintaining a
strong military is of paramont importance to deterring attacks or
major agression either on the United States per se or in any of
the world's hot spots.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

"Peter Hucker" > wrote

I can't believe you actually
> gave Hussein a trial!
I believe that it was Iraq that gave him a trial, not the US.

They would really like Iraq to stand on its own two feet. Of course, they
would like them to be democratic, secular feet, with a few military bases in
the country, too. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Peter Hucker" > wrote
>
> I can't believe you actually
>> gave Hussein a trial!
> I believe that it was Iraq that gave him a trial, not the US.
>
> They would really like Iraq to stand on its own two feet. Of course, they
> would like them to be democratic, secular feet, with a few military bases in
> the country, too. ;-)

Shh, don't mention the oil and gas reserves!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Morgans added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....
> I can't believe you actually
>> gave Hussein a trial!
> I believe that it was Iraq that gave him a trial, not the US.
>
> They would really like Iraq to stand on its own two feet. Of
> course, they would like them to be democratic, secular feet,
> with a few military bases in the country, too. ;-)

Had not the U.S. forced the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial before
the entire world, they would have meted out the traditional
punishment for despots like him - stoning to death. As to the last
paragraph, President Bush probably has been over zealous in
promoting these ideals, but then, we all know this is about oil,
right?

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

®i©ardo added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....
>> I can't believe you actually
>>> gave Hussein a trial!

>> I believe that it was Iraq that gave him a trial, not the
>> US.
>>
>> They would really like Iraq to stand on its own two feet. Of
>> course, they would like them to be democratic, secular feet,
>> with a few military bases in the country, too. ;-)
>
> Shh, don't mention the oil and gas reserves!
>
We have spent over a trillion dollars on this nonsense so far but
are too stupid to demand that the Iraqis, whom we saved, pay any of
it back. Were I president, I'd demand that the United States get
every dime of the estimated $80B/year in oil profits until the
trillion is paid back. In this world there is no free lunch. And,
did I mention that over 4,100 have died for a country that still
basically hates us and another 30,000 maimed for life. Plus, wounds
on this battlefield aren't simple bullets but blown off limbs from
IEDs. But, you are right about the oil - that's what this is really
about. Of course, we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil
to the tune of $700B+ per year by the simple act of inflating our
tires and getting tune-ups on our cars, or so the Marxist/pacifist
running for president said many times.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:33:02 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Well-founded patriotism is not childish nor is it
>>>old-fashioned. What is childish is the brand of national pride
>>>many countries practice far in excess of their
>>>accomplishments. Were it not for the United States and Great
>>>Britain, there would be no free Europe today. Were it not for
>>>the United States standing almost alone, western Europe would
>>>have been overrun by the Warsaw Pact. And today, were it not
>>>for the United States there would be no effective military
>>>to counter modern style agression.
>>
>> What I haven't seen is the US using it's military very
>> effectively in recent times. They've gone all soft. I can't
>> believe you actually gave Hussein a trial!
>
>If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
>effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3 weeks.
>And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no stake in this
>disparaging the brave men and women who wear our uniforms in the
>defense of freedom everywhere so I don't appreciate people who
>say we've gone soft.

The whole world has gone soft. They've forgotten the meaning of the
word "enemy". Giving an evil dictator a fair trial was just crass
stupidity.

>I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner. Fine.
>Now, how about discussing your country's recent successes and
>failures in the War on Terror.

We're just as soft as you lot. I'd blow up the whole of Iraq.

>At best, no country in the
>coalition has deployed more than 5-10% of the US presence. As to
>Saddam, it is necessary for our allies and those who are neutral
>in the region to know that we stand for democracy and we stand
>for fairness. To have sumarily executed Saddam, which many of us
>would have preffered, would only serve to lower the United
>States to the level of its enemies. You may recall that a great
>deal of effort was taken by the Allies in WWII at both Nuremburg
>and in trials for the Japs. That is necessary for countries that
>want to claim that they are fair even to their enemies.
>
>As to the rest of the world's military, outside Russia and China,
>and maybe North Korea, the Western democracies have all gutted
>their armies, navies, and air forces in order to save money and
>divert it into social programs they deem more important. What I
>wonder about is what would happen if the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben
>were destroyed as was the World Trade Center. France and Great
>Britain no longer have long-range strategic armed forces to
>counter such a threat which leads most observers to think that
>they can rely on the United States.
>
>If Sen. McCain is elected president in November, there's a chance
>our allies could count on us to help them if they're attacked but
>if Sen. Obama becomes president, I think we can rely on him
>gutting the military by tens of billions of dollars, recalling
>troops from all over the world, and attempting to talk our
>enemies down. Again, like Europe's Socialist states, Obama would
>do this - and he has promised to do so for over a year - and he
>would attempt to pay for his Big Government cradle to grave
>programs with the presumed savings from gutting our military.
>
>If history has shown us anything at all, it is that maintaining a
>strong military is of paramont importance to deterring attacks or
>major agression either on the United States per se or in any of
>the world's hot spots.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

An airliner was having engine trouble, and the pilot instructed the cabin crew to have the passengers take their seats and get prepared for an emergency landing.
A few minutes later, the pilot asked the flight attendants if everyone was buckled in and ready.
"All set back here, Captain," came the reply, "except one lawyer who is still going around passing out business cards."

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:41:21 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Morgans added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>> I can't believe you actually
>>> gave Hussein a trial!
>> I believe that it was Iraq that gave him a trial, not the US.
>>
>> They would really like Iraq to stand on its own two feet. Of
>> course, they would like them to be democratic, secular feet,
>> with a few military bases in the country, too. ;-)
>
>Had not the U.S. forced the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial before
>the entire world, they would have meted out the traditional
>punishment for despots like him - stoning to death. As to the last
>paragraph, President Bush probably has been over zealous in
>promoting these ideals, but then, we all know this is about oil,
>right?

A stoning would have been preferable.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Girl with skirt up run faster than boy with trousers down!!

"Peter Hucker" > wrote

> A stoning would have been preferable.

No argument from me, but he had much more painful ways to torture people,
ending in death. One of those would have been appropriate.
--
Jim in NC

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
>>effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3
>>weeks. And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no
>>stake in this disparaging the brave men and women who wear our
>>uniforms in the defense of freedom everywhere so I don't
>>appreciate people who say we've gone soft.
>
> The whole world has gone soft. They've forgotten the meaning
> of the word "enemy". Giving an evil dictator a fair trial was
> just crass stupidity.

The only "crass stupidity" here is you. You and the other
pacifist non-contibutor countries should know better than to
actually follow advise this disingenuous and nonsensical.
>
>>I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner.
>>Fine. Now, how about discussing your country's recent
>>successes and failures in the War on Terror.
>
> We're just as soft as you lot. I'd blow up the whole of Iraq.

What Socialist country do you live in? I hardly think the United
States is soft, has gone soft, nor ever been soft, but I can't
say the same for the Canadians, French, Germans, or even the
Brits. And, countries such as Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the
like never have had a credible military.

Now, wrt Iraq, I'd personally have followed a friend's advice -
"turn the desert sand into glass".

I am well past sick and tired of foreigners who do no-thing to
defend freedom and haven't since maybe WWII telling my country
what to do and what not to do, meddling in our internal affairs,
and disparaging the brave men and women who defend her with their
lives. Apparently, you're so ashamed of your country that you
won'd even say which Socialist state it is. Fine, just stay on
your side of the pond.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Had not the U.S. forced the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial
>>before the entire world, they would have meted out the
>>traditional punishment for despots like him - stoning to
>>death. As to the last paragraph, President Bush probably has
>>been over zealous in promoting these ideals, but then, we all
>>know this is about oil, right?
>
> A stoning would have been preferable.

Since we're on the subject of what we think personally vs. what is
prudent for our governments to do, I would have paraded Saddam
through the streets of Baghdad, later turn him over to its
citizens, and let them do what they want, which would have been to
kill him in the most gruesome manner possible. But, I like to think
I live in a civil, compassionate country which values fairness and
which also does not want extreme measures used by our military
people who might get captured. The only way to ensure that the
world believes we practice what we preach is to follow
international law as well as American law and the Constitution.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Morgans added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....


>> A stoning would have been preferable.
>
> No argument from me, but he had much more painful ways to
> torture people,
> ending in death. One of those would have been appropriate.

Torture is one thing, execution is another. But, wrt stoning,
Goggle a little and find out what this is really like. It is a
slow, extremely painful, agonizing way to die not at all like the
human hanging Saddam really received.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
...
> "®i©ardo" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alan Erskine wrote:
>>> If it wasn't for the U.S., we wouldn't need an anti-terrorist defence.
>> LOL!
>
> Oh, but it's true; if the United States and the (then) Soviet Union hadn't
> spent the litterally *hundreds of billions of dollars* that took the form
> of military equipment, and instead built schools, hospitals, universities,
> water purification systems and.... good will.... we wouldn't have the
> organisations that think we are all the same - the U.S. and Australia.
>
> Instead, the U.S. has a memory problem - did you know that the Taliban
> were supported by the U.S.? And before that, the U.S. supported the
> Mujahadin?
>
> Also, it is to be remembered that in recent years, terrorism has struck
> Russia - Chechnya is only part of that and Chechnya is often the
> 'whipping-boy' of Russia, along with Georgia (as has been seen in recent
> weeks). There have been Soviet aircraft highjackings as well.
>
> Did you know that the U.K (United Kingdom) created Israel out of territory
> it had occupied for many years?
>
> Is it any wonder that 'we' are thrown in the same barrel as America?
>
> I'm not saying any of the decisions listed above were wrong, but if the
> U.S. in particular had not used the Middle East as a testing ground for
> its military equipment (remember the C-5 flights to 'support' Israel in
> the early '70's?), the rest of us would not be suffering as we are.
>
> 'We' suffer because we are friendly with America. Note that I say
> "friendly" - just like all most people are with their domestic
> neighbours - friendly, not necessarily friends.
>
> Now; Glenn was not being insulting to America as that idiot
> ("HEMI-Powered") suggested. That idiot has been in other groups doing the
> same thing - stirring up trouble for no other reason. Glenn was simply
> making a comment that he was not at home. Glenn wasn't referring to
> America, but all the countries he visited.
>
> It wasn't an insult, it was a joke.
We all know that. I see in one of his posts about the election that he has a
very one sided political view. I think he's racist :-)

I like America and Americans;. I don't understand how he drew the fact that
I somehow targeted him when I recall posting images from the USA and the UK
at the same time.

Any body know which episode of Springer this Hemi guy has been on. I'd like
to see what he looks like ;-)

Now Hemi, that was a joke as well but maybe..........It wasn't ;-)

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:37:09 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
>>>effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3
>>>weeks. And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no
>>>stake in this disparaging the brave men and women who wear our
>>>uniforms in the defense of freedom everywhere so I don't
>>>appreciate people who say we've gone soft.
>>
>> The whole world has gone soft. They've forgotten the meaning
>> of the word "enemy". Giving an evil dictator a fair trial was
>> just crass stupidity.
>
>The only "crass stupidity" here is you. You and the other
>pacifist non-contibutor countries should know better than to
>actually follow advise this disingenuous and nonsensical.

You lot are pacifists for not killing him.

>>>I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner.
>>>Fine. Now, how about discussing your country's recent
>>>successes and failures in the War on Terror.
>>
>> We're just as soft as you lot. I'd blow up the whole of Iraq.
>
>What Socialist country do you live in?

What are you talking about?

>I hardly think the United
>States is soft, has gone soft, nor ever been soft,

You didn't kill Hussain.

>but I can't
>say the same for the Canadians, French, Germans, or even the
>Brits. And, countries such as Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the
>like never have had a credible military.
>
>Now, wrt Iraq, I'd personally have followed a friend's advice -
>"turn the desert sand into glass".

Which is what I said above.

>I am well past sick and tired of foreigners who do no-thing to
>defend freedom and haven't since maybe WWII telling my country
>what to do and what not to do, meddling in our internal affairs,
>and disparaging the brave men and women who defend her with their
>lives. Apparently, you're so ashamed of your country that you
>won'd even say which Socialist state it is. Fine, just stay on
>your side of the pond.

I thought you knew I was in the UK. The one with the leader that
sucks your president's cock.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

HIS Directions:
80 West, Exit 14, Exit 121 (Left at Light), Exit 116 (Veer right), RT Lincoln Road, RT Old bluewood, RT Myrtle, RT Lancster, RT Lassen St

HER Directions:
80 . . . just after the weight station near Cordelia (I think) will be an exit for 14, I think it's Sonama and Napa, you should take that, then follow it all the way through, till you end up in Fairfield. There's a signal next to . . . a beer joint or some thing like that, I don't know, but you merge to the right which turns into a little two lane freeway dealy . . . go thru that signal and then go over that little bridge thing . . . then you'll get to the next signal, right over there by the hair salon, make a teeny left to go to Death Valley, by then you're be on the Carneros Highway. Just stay on that until you come to sort of a dead end thing. It's got some kind of blinking light, I don't know if it's red or yellow. Do you think color blind people ever have to worry about that kind of stuff? I don't know. So, VERY IMPORTANT, VEER to the right, the road will kinda go straight, but it'll some how go off to the right, so VEER right, else you'll have to turn around in that
junkyard and there's this really nasty dog that's in there. Stay on this road until you see a buncha power thingys and stuff, you know, those big metal thing-amajigs, there'll either be a stop sign or a stop light, I don't remember. Here you can turn or go straight, it just depends if I'm late in picking up the kids from school or if I'm coming back from my exercise class . . . follow it down to the bank, but if you went straight then you want to go down by the McDonald's, have you tried one of their new Fruit and Yogurt things? I just love 'em, so anyway . . .

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:41:39 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Morgans added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>
>>> A stoning would have been preferable.
>>
>> No argument from me, but he had much more painful ways to
>> torture people,
>> ending in death. One of those would have been appropriate.
>
>Torture is one thing, execution is another. But, wrt stoning,
>Goggle a little and find out what this is really like. It is a
>slow, extremely painful, agonizing way to die not at all like the
>human hanging Saddam really received.

Then the stoning is what he deserved.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What do you call a dwarf who throws the discus?
A compact disc player.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:40:21 -0500, "HEMI-Powered" >
wrote:

>Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Had not the U.S. forced the Iraqis to put Saddam on trial
>>>before the entire world, they would have meted out the
>>>traditional punishment for despots like him - stoning to
>>>death. As to the last paragraph, President Bush probably has
>>>been over zealous in promoting these ideals, but then, we all
>>>know this is about oil, right?
>>
>> A stoning would have been preferable.
>
>Since we're on the subject of what we think personally vs. what is
>prudent for our governments to do, I would have paraded Saddam
>through the streets of Baghdad, later turn him over to its
>citizens, and let them do what they want, which would have been to
>kill him in the most gruesome manner possible. But, I like to think
>I live in a civil, compassionate country which values fairness and
>which also does not want extreme measures used by our military
>people who might get captured. The only way to ensure that the
>world believes we practice what we preach is to follow
>international law as well as American law and the Constitution.

Fairness to evil dictators. For christ's sake.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

It turns out that a several protected, rare birds in Germany have been feeding on a species of protected, rare fish. In response to this dilemma, exasperated German officials have decided to do the only thing that makes sense in this kind of a situation - kill all the environmentalists.

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
.. .
> Peter Hucker added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>If you mean Iraq, I'd agree that our military hasn't been used
>>>effective. But, the initial war in 2003 was over in only 3
>>>weeks. And, I take great umbrage to foreigners who have no
>>>stake in this disparaging the brave men and women who wear our
>>>uniforms in the defense of freedom everywhere so I don't
>>>appreciate people who say we've gone soft.
>>
>> The whole world has gone soft. They've forgotten the meaning
>> of the word "enemy". Giving an evil dictator a fair trial was
>> just crass stupidity.
>
> The only "crass stupidity" here is you. You and the other
> pacifist non-contibutor countries should know better than to
> actually follow advise this disingenuous and nonsensical.
>>
>>>I judge by the tone of your reply that you're a foreigner.
>>>Fine. Now, how about discussing your country's recent
>>>successes and failures in the War on Terror.
>>
>> We're just as soft as you lot. I'd blow up the whole of Iraq.
>
> What Socialist country do you live in? I hardly think the United
> States is soft, has gone soft, nor ever been soft, but I can't
> say the same for the Canadians, French, Germans, or even the
> Brits. And, countries such as Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and the
> like never have had a credible military.

Your racist
>
> Now, wrt Iraq, I'd personally have followed a friend's advice -
> "turn the desert sand into glass".

and not very smart
>
> I am well past sick and tired of foreigners who do no-thing to
> defend freedom and haven't since maybe WWII telling my country
> what to do and what not to do, meddling in our internal affairs,
> and disparaging the brave men and women who defend her with their
> lives. Apparently, you're so ashamed of your country that you
> won'd even say which Socialist state it is. Fine, just stay on
> your side of the pond.
>
You're all talk.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet
>
>