OT London

Screw the oil, the religious nuts that use any pretence of wrong to
justify mass killing of foreign peoples are my target. Stupid people in
large numbers are the danger. Stupid people by choice (it beats
thinking cause it's easier) are my targets. The first time I got back
from viet nam in June 68, I saw Robert Kennedy get killed on latenight
tv by a terrorist from palistine who said it was because of our policies
towards the palisine people and our support of zion so don't think this
is because of Iraq. You cannot use logic against this twisted type of
religious hate being pushed against us because religious faith is not
based on logic, it is based on "faith" not facts. Release the *******s
so they can "get it on" with their 70 ugly virgins.

href="http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4025706&a=30209382&vt=vp">Den's
1977 Puma</a>

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:07:39 -0500, "johnboy" >
scribbled this interesting note:

>"John Willis" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> You miss the implication entirely. What I was getting at is, through
>> technology, reduce the demand for oil such that the prices drop so
>> much as to remove money from the equation entirely.
>
>Let the price of oil rise to it's natural level (explained below) and the
>demand will go down. People will still have their private vehicles, but they
>will be more like the rest of the world: cost effective. Public
>transporation will become reasonable and humane. Trucking will adjust, and
>get government breaks. No worries.
>
>We pay 'protection money' for that mideast oil. We don't see the cost at the
>pumps.We see it in our inflated government taxations. That's another thing
>we need to fix.
>
All true.


--
John Willis

(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:14:46 -0500, (Dennis Wik)
scribbled this interesting note:

>Screw the oil, the religious nuts that use any pretence of wrong to
>justify mass killing of foreign peoples are my target. Stupid people in
>large numbers are the danger. Stupid people by choice (it beats
>thinking cause it's easier) are my targets. The first time I got back
>from viet nam in June 68, I saw Robert Kennedy get killed on latenight
>tv by a terrorist from palistine who said it was because of our policies
>towards the palisine people and our support of zion so don't think this
>is because of Iraq. You cannot use logic against this twisted type of
>religious hate being pushed against us because religious faith is not
>based on logic, it is based on "faith" not facts. Release the *******s
>so they can "get it on" with their 70 ugly virgins.

Don't hold back, tell us how do you really feel???

--
John Willis

(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

First you'll need the thank Clinton for not taking care of business. Bush is
only dealing with what was handed to him.
Andy

"johnboy" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Holzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > With people like him spouting off **** like 'war for oil,' they have
> > effectively prevented that from happening. I'd like to see Iraq pay for
> > the expenses of war in free oil to us, then I'd be happier.
>
> That's not the way it works. WE pay for the war, over and over, now and
> later. Besides, Iraq's piddling dribble of oil won't help our situation
one
> bit, and OPEC sets the price, and OPEC is just plain ****ed off at the
USA.
> We're losers no matter how you look at it. Thank Bush!
>
>

> wrote in message
. ..
> First you'll need the thank Clinton for not taking care of business. Bush
> is
> only dealing with what was handed to him.

There's a special place for you in the corner, facing the wall with a
dunce-cap on.

"johnboy" > wrote in message
...
> "Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
> ...
>>A good friend of mine was in the Marine barracks in Beruit when the
>> suicide bomber blew the building to bits in the early 80's. He did
>> survive. Anyway, we must eliminate these religious killers and the
>> schools of hate that spawn them for self defense reasons and the common
>> good of all thinking humans.
>
> Why don't these 'genius' bombers attack the seats of government? Strange.
>
>

Because they want to terrorize the populace, they don't care about the
government. They view all Western governments as soft, ineffective, and
probably effeminate, too. They think we will respond thusly:

Your mother was a hampster and your father reeked of elderberries. (With
apologies to Monty Python)

BAAAAP. Wrong answer. The Londoners survived the Blitz and the IRA. This
is nothing compared to that.

Charles of Kankakee

"Shag" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
> wrote:
>
>>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>>their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>
> I'm not sure but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> guess that you probably haven't been following the $/barrel thing here
> in the US, but if you had then you probably wouldn't have been limber
> enough to shove your foot into your mouth as far as you just did. I
> wonder what you would have done if you lived in the US to prevent
> something like "invading a country on some pretext like WMDs." I'll
> bet your picket sign you held out protesting the war would have been
> huge and that you would have made a lot of friends who also didn't
> have a job (while picketing) and who "got by" on their welfare checks
> that they got from the government. Just like you. What island do you
> live on again that has internet access? I'm gonna move there and kick
> you off of it.
>

Way to go Shag!

Charles of Kankakee

> wrote in message
. ..
> First you'll need the thank Clinton for not taking care of business. Bush
> is
> only dealing with what was handed to him.
> Andy
>
> "johnboy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kevin Holzer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > With people like him spouting off **** like 'war for oil,' they have
>> > effectively prevented that from happening. I'd like to see Iraq pay
>> > for
>> > the expenses of war in free oil to us, then I'd be happier.
>>
>> That's not the way it works. WE pay for the war, over and over, now and
>> later. Besides, Iraq's piddling dribble of oil won't help our situation
> one
>> bit, and OPEC sets the price, and OPEC is just plain ****ed off at the
> USA.
>> We're losers no matter how you look at it. Thank Bush!
>>
>>
>
>

I told people that Clinton was the best President that Chinese money could
buy, and they didn't believe me. Why do people think they attacked so early
in Bush's first term? Bush was starting to rebuild after 8 years of the
Clintonistas eating out the fabric of our national defense.

Charles of Kankakee

John Willis wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:24:39 -0400, "ilambert" >
> scribbled this interesting note:
>
>
>
>>>>About the best thing that could be done is to provide some way of
>>>>removing their power. No high oil prices, no power because they'd have
>>>>no money. No money means no way to buy fertilizer for bombs. No bombs
>>>>means no more people dead by idiots.
>
>
>>In other words,lets steal their oil.That'll **** em off.Then we'll invade
>>their country on some pretext like WMDs.
>
>
> You miss the implication entirely. What I was getting at is, through
> technology, reduce the demand for oil such that the prices drop so
> much as to remove money from the equation entirely.
>
> I don't want "their" oil. "They can have it, for all the good it'll do
> "them" when demand drops, causing prices to drop, causing all manner
> of problems for "them."
>
> BTW, I don't know who "they" are. I was referencing how some in the
> middle east funnel large chunks of change to terrorists, financing the
> efforts of mentally challenged individuals who see nothing wrong with
> blowing up a bus load of Londoners intent on just getting to work in
> the morning.
>
>
> --
> John Willis
>
> (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)


Someone is forgetting something here, which nation train AlCaida and the
likes in the first place, UUUuups, wrong question???
(Anti Commie at the time, but backfired did it not??)

J.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:54:54 +0200, "P.J. Berg" >
wrote:

>John Willis wrote:

>>
>> You miss the implication entirely. What I was getting at is, through
>> technology, reduce the demand for oil such that the prices drop so
>> much as to remove money from the equation entirely.
>>
>> I don't want "their" oil. "They can have it, for all the good it'll do
>> "them" when demand drops, causing prices to drop, causing all manner
>> of problems for "them."
>>
>> BTW, I don't know who "they" are. I was referencing how some in the
>> middle east funnel large chunks of change to terrorists, financing the
>> efforts of mentally challenged individuals who see nothing wrong with
>> blowing up a bus load of Londoners intent on just getting to work in
>> the morning.
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Willis
>>
>> (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)
>
>
>Someone is forgetting something here, which nation train AlCaida and the
>likes in the first place, UUUuups, wrong question???
>(Anti Commie at the time, but backfired did it not??)
>
>J.

I'm not much of a history buff, but as far as I know it wasn't John
Willis who trained them. You seem to have a need to point the finger
for blame. Who exactly do you want to apologize? I didn't appreciate
your similar smart-ass comment the other day when you "reminded" me of
the same **** you're dragging up now when I was concerned about my
wife and daughter (admittedly both of them were directly involved in
the training of these assholes so they should probably both die,
but...) Since you're giving your opinion, here's mine. In my opinion
you should shut the **** up. UUUUuuups. Asshole.