Europe Loves The Mustang

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:15:24 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:47:54 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:59:43 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:46:29 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:27:27 GMT, the guvnor
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:12:43 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>By 2015, the bank predicts, "Chinese consumers will likely have
>>>>>>>displaced US consumers as the primary engine of global economic
>>>>>>>growth."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...509375,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doesn't fit any definition of "Hyperpower " I've ever read....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"A hyperpower is a powerful country that is vastly stronger than any
>>>>>>potential rival.
>>>>>
>>>>>See China's domination of world trade.
>>>>
>>>>>>Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has
>>>>>>been the world's only superpower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The unique position of the United States (at least in terms of
>>>>>>military force)
>>>>>
>>>>>See America not even being able to win the Vietnam war.
>>>>
>>>>Let me know when you have any hard facts to support your contention
>>>>that China is a hyperpower.
>>>>---
>>>Well they do have a certain level of power since the are a nuclear
>>>nation and the people are a little hyper in their attempts to eek out
>>>an existence as a subsidence farmer.
>>
>>Go look up " Hyperpower".
>>
>Go look up humor

Go look up the Guvnor.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:22:38 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:47:32 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:41:40 -0500, "Joel Jacobs" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm killfiling the whole mess....
>>
>>That's probably your best move, Chief Petty Officer considering your
>>previous comments were, to be polite, "exaggerated claims".
>>
>>Quoting CPO Jacobs: " After all the bombs are dropped and all the
>>missiles shot someone still has to go in and take possession with
>>boots on the ground. "
>>
>>No one will bother to go in " with boots " Chief Petty Officer because
>>the whole place will be radiated. What would be the point?
>>
>>As I suggested to you before, leave the details of global
>>strategic defense to the experts.
>>
>Are you holding yourself up as an expert?
>
>As in GW I & GW II after all the missiles were fired and all the bombs
>dropped it still took boots on the ground & treads if you like to take
>possession and set up control.
>
>It doesn't have to be a nuclear exchange. In today's battlefield
>first one takes control obtains air superiority, then one wipes out
>the command & control infrastructure from the air. This is followed
>by all major infrastructure rendered useless from the air. Finally
>treads & boots need to move in to mop up and take possession of what
>is left.

Chief Petty Officer Jacobs challenged me with the following:

"Do an online search, nothing fancy, just check out the ICBM status,
nuke warhead status, submarines, surface navy, and airplanes.....
there's other stuff, but that'll do. "

Strategic nuclear forces....and I responded with the figures for
China's conventional as well as nuclear force strength in these
specific areas.

CPO Jacobs responded: " After all the bombs are dropped and all the
missiles shot someone still has to go in and take possession with
boots on the ground. "

My response: No one will bother to go in " with boots " Chief Petty
Officer because the whole place will be radiated. What would be the
point?

CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.

China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
because they wouldn't survive it.

No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.

---

Would you buy rusted car parts from this man ?

http://img147.echo.cx/img147/7369/guvnor4pn.jpg


I see you're still a deadbeat on ebay euromerc. Most of us carry
more than the equivilent of £3.20 in pocket change.

---EBAY FEEDBACK FOR EUROMERC

he won auction... no payment and no communication at all.... avoid?
Seller trident900man ( 63) 07-Apr-05 10:27 4537563471

Reply by euromerc: Never gave me a chance to collect and pay him his
£3.20....a neg over £3.20????

---

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:23:41 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:49:25 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:02:51 -0400, America the Beautiful
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>the guvnor wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:46:36 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:29:45 -0400, G > wrote
>>>>>something wonderfully witty:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If Europe " loves the Mustang " it's because it's cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheap is relative to others in the class. Right now the Europeans
>>>>>don't really have anything to compete against it at its price point
>>>>>even with tariffs & VAT. Plus it is American muscle admired and
>>>>>lusted for since the very first version back in `64.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Admired and lusted over for it's van style suspension?
>>>>
>>>> Ever wondered why that despite being cheap and nasty, American cars
>>>> still don't sell?
>>>
>>>Somebody's buying them.....
>>
>>Guvnor's favorite car cover....
>>http://img82.echo.cx/img82/9456/norespect1rk.jpg
>>
>Isn't an Opel a GM product?

It's covered in bird **** and you can tell what kind of car that is???
HAHAHAHA!!



---

Would you buy rusted car parts from this man ?

http://img147.echo.cx/img147/7369/guvnor4pn.jpg


I see you're still a deadbeat on ebay euromerc. Most of us carry
more than the equivilent of £3.20 in pocket change.

---EBAY FEEDBACK FOR EUROMERC

he won auction... no payment and no communication at all.... avoid?
Seller trident900man ( 63) 07-Apr-05 10:27 4537563471

Reply by euromerc: Never gave me a chance to collect and pay him his
£3.20....a neg over £3.20????

---

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 05:28:12 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:34:19 GMT, rw >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>She's a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for demonstrating that neither of you two angry juveniles have
>> any intelligent remarks to contribute.
>
>I'm 58 (hardly a juvenile) and I'm not angry, but I'm amused by people
>like you. Watching someone so uninformed and so jingoistic and so --
>let's face it -- ignorant and dim, make an absolute fool of themselves
>is entertaining in a car-wreck-on-the-side-of-the-road kind of way.

And yet you fail so miserably to provide any counterpoints...why is
that?

---

Would you buy rusted car parts from this man ?

http://img147.echo.cx/img147/7369/guvnor4pn.jpg


I see you're still a deadbeat on ebay euromerc. Most of us carry
more than the equivilent of £3.20 in pocket change.

---EBAY FEEDBACK FOR EUROMERC

he won auction... no payment and no communication at all.... avoid?
Seller trident900man ( 63) 07-Apr-05 10:27 4537563471

Reply by euromerc: Never gave me a chance to collect and pay him his
£3.20....a neg over £3.20????

---

Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>
> And yet you fail so miserably to provide any counterpoints...why is
> that?

Because arguing with a monkey is a waste of time. I can, however, laugh
at one and enjoy her antics. Pure amusement on my part.

Now get back to your 101st Fighting Keyboard Crusade. I'm not worth your
time.

BTW, are you really Sarah, or are you her crystal-meth boyfriend using
Sarah's computer? Is the real Sarah rotting in an old refrigerator on
the front porch?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:07:48 GMT, the guvnor
> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:12:44 -0700, Arista Sandoval >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >, the guvnor
> wrote:
>>
>>> Those nasty Israelis will blow up anything that moves
>>
>>Is that some of that quality European anti-Semitism?
>
>How is it anti-semitic?????

Any time you mention "Israel" or "Jew" these loonies start squawking
"anti-semite" like a bunch of stuck pigs. They're trained to do it
from birth, doesn't matter what you say that's their automatic
response. Like the merkins that they rule they have no free will.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:25:06 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>>Quality European cars don't rust.
>>
>And which ones would they be, the ones now owned by American Car
>Companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler?

This would be the Chrysler owned by Mercedes?

the guvnor wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:25:06 -0400, ZombyWoof >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Quality European cars don't rust.
>>>
>>
>>And which ones would they be, the ones now owned by American Car
>>Companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler?
>
>
> This would be the Chrysler owned by Mercedes?

Or Jaguar, Aster Martin, and Land Rover owned by Ford?

--
Chris F.
Long Island.

"A country soars its highest when it soars on the Wings of Freedom."
God Bless America.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:06:19 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:45:45 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:22:38 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:47:32 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 02:41:40 -0500, "Joel Jacobs" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm killfiling the whole mess....
>>>>
>>>>That's probably your best move, Chief Petty Officer considering your
>>>>previous comments were, to be polite, "exaggerated claims".
>>>>
>>>>Quoting CPO Jacobs: " After all the bombs are dropped and all the
>>>>missiles shot someone still has to go in and take possession with
>>>>boots on the ground. "
>>>>
>>>>No one will bother to go in " with boots " Chief Petty Officer because
>>>>the whole place will be radiated. What would be the point?
>>>>
>>>>As I suggested to you before, leave the details of global
>>>>strategic defense to the experts.
>>>>
>>>Are you holding yourself up as an expert?
>>>
>>>As in GW I & GW II after all the missiles were fired and all the bombs
>>>dropped it still took boots on the ground & treads if you like to take
>>>possession and set up control.
>>>
>>>It doesn't have to be a nuclear exchange. In today's battlefield
>>>first one takes control obtains air superiority, then one wipes out
>>>the command & control infrastructure from the air. This is followed
>>>by all major infrastructure rendered useless from the air. Finally
>>>treads & boots need to move in to mop up and take possession of what
>>>is left.
>>
>>Chief Petty Officer Jacobs challenged me with the following:
>>
>>"Do an online search, nothing fancy, just check out the ICBM status,
>>nuke warhead status, submarines, surface navy, and airplanes.....
>>there's other stuff, but that'll do. "
>>
>>Strategic nuclear forces....and I responded with the figures for
>>China's conventional as well as nuclear force strength in these
>>specific areas.
>>
>>CPO Jacobs responded: " After all the bombs are dropped and all the
>>missiles shot someone still has to go in and take possession with
>>boots on the ground. "
>>
>>My response: No one will bother to go in " with boots " Chief Petty
>>Officer because the whole place will be radiated. What would be the
>>point?
>>
>>CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.
>>
>>China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
>>because they wouldn't survive it.
>>
>>No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.
>>
>Being as we are the only country to ever exercise a nuclear option,
>why did we go "boots in" into Japan after WW II and their surrender?
>
>Good tea? Cheap Japanese food? Access to raw materials? Inquiring
>minds and all that.
>
>(Whoops Japan doesn't have any raw materials, that's why there was a
>Pacific War to begin with).

Are you clumsily attempting to compare WW2's Japan with modern day
China? You pointed out China is a nuclear nation. At the height of
it's power the USSR didn't want to take on the United States in a
strategic nuclear war. If the United States got into a war with
another nuclear nation encompassing the scope and the intensity of WW2
no one would be left standing in our enemy's territory.

Even Saddam Hussein understood our meaning when he was informed we
would use " all available force " against him if he used
chemical/biological weapons on us in 1991 in the Gulf War.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:55:20 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>>
>> And yet you fail so miserably to provide any counterpoints...why is
>> that?
>
>Because arguing with a monkey is a waste of time. I can, however, laugh
>at one and enjoy her antics. Pure amusement on my part.
>
>Now get back to your 101st Fighting Keyboard Crusade. I'm not worth your
>time.
>
>BTW, are you really Sarah, or are you her crystal-meth boyfriend using
>Sarah's computer? Is the real Sarah rotting in an old refrigerator on
>the front porch?

IOW's you've got nothing to add but hide behind a nym so you
can pile on behind the rest of the cowardly spanklets.

Nothing surprising there.