Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Spike wrote:
> You're still going on about this? Oh, well. Hope the rest of your week
> is better for you. You need to lighten up or you'll end up with ulcers
> and an early grave. I hope we don't travel in the same neighborhood.
> If my difference of opinion gets you this wound up, I'd hate to think
> what you might do if I accidentally cut you off in traffic.


More attempts at face saving. *yawn*

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:04:47 -0700, Spike > wrote:

>Nice of you to sign you name, but doncha think "fagboy" is blatant
>advertising for your lifestyle?
>
you the one that wants me to ride in your car
lmfao
what kid of queer are you?
picking up guys on the net offering car rides
fagboy

hurc ast

Well, you wasted enough of my time and yours with your attitude.Try to
have a nice day. If your mind wasn't so closed, you might have learned
something.



On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:07:00 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Spike wrote:
>> You're still going on about this? Oh, well. Hope the rest of your week
>> is better for you. You need to lighten up or you'll end up with ulcers
>> and an early grave. I hope we don't travel in the same neighborhood.
>> If my difference of opinion gets you this wound up, I'd hate to think
>> what you might do if I accidentally cut you off in traffic.
>
>
>More attempts at face saving. *yawn*
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

In article >, Spike wrote:
> Well, you wasted enough of my time and yours with your attitude.Try to
> have a nice day. If your mind wasn't so closed, you might have learned
> something.

You didn't put forth one bit of true information. Just the usual cop
bluster of 'the law is the law, I'm just following orders, obey me'.

That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
yet.

You know, I had some respect for your opinion, whether I agreed or
not, I now just feel sorry for you. You don't like law enforcement
officers, and that's OK. It's your right in a free society. However,
if you ever get into a bind, I wonder who you will call. I also wonder
at someone who cites liberty and the Constitution and then refuses to
accept that someone else has a different opinion. That sounds as if
you have forgotten what they are all about. Yes you can quote them,
but you obviously do not feel them. They are just lifeless tools to
you. To me they are the life of the nation.


On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:04 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Spike wrote:
>> Well, you wasted enough of my time and yours with your attitude.Try to
>> have a nice day. If your mind wasn't so closed, you might have learned
>> something.
>
>You didn't put forth one bit of true information. Just the usual cop
>bluster of 'the law is the law, I'm just following orders, obey me'.
>
>That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
>yet.
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

In article >, Spike wrote:
> You know, I had some respect for your opinion, whether I agreed or
> not, I now just feel sorry for you.

You haven't been arguing from 'authority', top posting and ignoring my
points that is not respect.

> You don't like law enforcement officers, and that's OK.

Never wrote that. I don't like the way police work is presently practiced.

> It's your right in a free society. However,
> if you ever get into a bind, I wonder who you will call.

Well, I've learned that calling the cops is useless.

> I also wonder
> at someone who cites liberty and the Constitution and then refuses to
> accept that someone else has a different opinion.

I accept you have a different opinion, it's simply wrong and you haven't
supported it.

> That sounds as if
> you have forgotten what they are all about. Yes you can quote them,
> but you obviously do not feel them. They are just lifeless tools to
> you. To me they are the life of the nation.

Not by what you've written here.

In article >, ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:04 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>In article >, Spike wrote:
>>> Well, you wasted enough of my time and yours with your attitude.Try to
>>> have a nice day. If your mind wasn't so closed, you might have learned
>>> something.
>>
>>You didn't put forth one bit of true information. Just the usual cop
>>bluster of 'the law is the law, I'm just following orders, obey me'.
>>
>>That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
>>yet.
>>
> I beg to differ, been strip-searched at the Airport yet? I think it
> is the next step. I'm about ready to start traveling naked just so I
> don't have to take off my belt & shoes. What a freakin hassle, first
> it was no nail files, now it is no lighters. What's next? No
> carry-on items at all?

That's why I stated 'officially'
Unofficially, we are already living in a police state. From the airports
to the checkpoints on the roads, to the monitoring of internet traffic,
and so on. It's just not bad enough yet for the sheeple to notice.

And yes, I don't feel like going to my cousin's wedding. Why? Not the
cost of the flight, the hassle. (can't drive, there's some ocean in the
way)

Around 4/21/2005 6:07 AM, ZombyWoof wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:04 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
>>yet.
>>
>
> I beg to differ, been strip-searched at the Airport yet? I think it
> is the next step. I'm about ready to start traveling naked just so I
> don't have to take off my belt & shoes.

I heard someone suggest exactly that last week, that everyone should be
required to fly naked. Not only would it reduce the number of places
someone could hide a weapon, it would have the added benefit of
deterring any religious extremists.



--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /

And you can't beat it for inflight entertainment.... the laughter
should even drown out the engine noise....

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:14:38 -0700, Garth Almgren >
wrote:

>Around 4/21/2005 6:07 AM, ZombyWoof wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:04 -0500,
>> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>
>>>That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
>>>yet.
>>>
>>
>> I beg to differ, been strip-searched at the Airport yet? I think it
>> is the next step. I'm about ready to start traveling naked just so I
>> don't have to take off my belt & shoes.
>
>I heard someone suggest exactly that last week, that everyone should be
>required to fly naked. Not only would it reduce the number of places
>someone could hide a weapon, it would have the added benefit of
>deterring any religious extremists.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"ZombyWoof" > wrote
> (Brent P) wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>That's great for a police state, but the USA isn't one officially....
>>yet.
>>
> I beg to differ, been strip-searched at the Airport yet?

No, and you haven't either, so why take that ridiculous tack.

>I think it
> is the next step.

No it wouldn't. Are they strip searching everyone in Israel?

>I'm about ready to start traveling naked just so I
> don't have to take off my belt & shoes.

You don't have to remove either of those, and the TSA CANNOT require you to
remove them unless they alarm. The only problem is if your shoe fits a
specific profile, or you alarm while going through the walkthrough metal
detector. You still don't have to remove the shoe unless it alarms on
further inspection.

>What a freakin hassle, first
> it was no nail files,

Actually nail files are permissible.

> now it is no lighters.

In the right hands it's an incendiary device. Get a few together and you
have a small bomb. Just use matches, sheesh!! Quit bitchin'!

>What's next? No
> carry-on items at all?

Why not? If it makes the skies safe and it doesn't deny me my civil rights,
then why not?? There's no civil right to have carry on luggage! Though the
ACLU would probably try to get you to believe differently.

Did you know that there is technology out there that would make it so you
didn't have to remove ANY clothing (jackets, shoes, etc) but the ACLU
successfully blocked it since it was too "invasive". Well, howdy doody, the
courts have been using that stuff for a few years. It's just a special
walkthrough that you stand in for a second and it scans you. Your body shows
up on a little screen with little markers showing where there is a
concentration of either metal (gun, knife, large watch) or possible
explosives. The screen looks kinda like an IR picture of the body. There is
also a puff of air that comes out and takes a sample to test for any
explosive traces. But OH NO, That's too invasive!! Fine, fly on your plane
knowing that if it blows up, it won't be because somebody didn't do their
job, but because access to the technology that would have done it better was
denied because OMG somebody might actually find out Grandma's wearin' an
underwire. This technology would also make it so nobody would have to be
patted down or touched and no more hand wanding. But OH NO!!!

Airport security could be safer, less time consuming, and less invasive if
it weren't for the ACLU. Don't blame the TSA, blame the ACLU.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/