Liberals make excuses for thuggery [RE: Lovely Citizens of Oakland Strike Again]

[Stan de SD]

  Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

Thanks for that prime example of the idiot liberal mindset. You
confirmed exactly my argument that whenever there is some conflict
between individuals, liberals are more concerned with the
victimization status of the groups of which the parties are members,
than the actual facts concerning the parties themselves. That's why
it's not of concern to liberals that people who are NOT involved or
affected by the BART shooting incident, loot and terrorize people who
were in no way, shape, or form responsible for the incident in
question. It's fucked-up, mushy-headed thinking like that which is
responsible for places like Oakland being shit-holes in the first
place. :O(

[Stan de SD]

It's a given that the BART police was absolutely WRONG and he will be
punished.  

It's not a given that the BART police officer will be punished beyond
his announced resignation.
In a country where the culture allows attitudes like that of the Ford
executives who decided that it was more cost effective to let a few
people burn to death than to fix a problem with the Pinto (some years
ago - the memo that came out in the trail stated that the estimated
cost of litigation was lower then the cost of the replacement part),
the only thing that will surely get someone's attention is having to
pay a huge settlement. Then they'll have a number to put into the
financial models they use to plan operations.

And how is that in anyway even relevant to the issue of people rioting?

Read what I replied to, moron: it was relevant to that post.

No it wasn't, and how dare YOU, as the premier poster of monstrously
imbecilic gainsaying spam (average Bill Zaumen thread > >200 posts),
pass judgement on others. Once again, other than the fact that
liberals feel compelled to excuse all acts of violence or thuggery
when instigated by designated "victim groups", WTF does the Ford Pinto
have to do with rioters in Oakland?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

It's a given that the BART police was absolutely WRONG and he will be
punished.  

It's not a given that the BART police officer will be punished beyond
his announced resignation.
In a country where the culture allows attitudes like that of the Ford
executives who decided that it was more cost effective to let a few
people burn to death than to fix a problem with the Pinto (some years
ago - the memo that came out in the trail stated that the estimated
cost of litigation was lower then the cost of the replacement part),
the only thing that will surely get someone's attention is having to
pay a huge settlement. Then they'll have a number to put into the
financial models they use to plan operations.

And how is that in anyway even relevant to the issue of people rioting?

Read what I replied to, moron: it was relevant to that post.

No it wasn't, and how dare YOU, as the premier poster of monstrously
imbecilic gainsaying spam (average Bill Zaumen thread > >200 posts),
pass judgement on others. Once again, other than the fact that
liberals feel compelled to excuse all acts of violence or thuggery
when instigated by designated "victim groups", WTF does the Ford Pinto
have to do with rioters in Oakland?

Stan de SD is a bald-faced liar as his rubbish above indicates. The
comments certainly were relevant. First, as to thread length (which
Stan probably made up), I'm simply not taking any crap from him.
Second, I don't post spam. Third, as to "passing judgement", I didn't
- that's another lie from Stan de SD. I merely pointed out the
reality in this country, something Stan de SD and his ilk would prefer
to hide under the rug, which only results in problems never being
fixed.

Furthermore, as anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension should
know, I didn't comment at all on rioters in Oakland, which is why I
quoted only the first sentence of a post: the statement, "It's a given
that the BART police was absolutely WRONG and he will be punished," is
not true because punishment is not assured. I also pointed out that
finances are what typically drive business decisions - if you can't
assign a cost to something, it tends to be ignored. That's as true
for BART as it is for Ford when they had the "exploding Pinto" problem
- its pervasive in our corporate culture. The most effective thing we
can do to prevent a repeat of this tragedy is to give the victim's
family a very large settlement. Then BART will have a measureable
incentive to improve training, supervision, or whatever the root cause
is, just as Ford had an incentive to fix the Pinto problem once they
had to pay a very large settlement for refusing to do anything.

Why Stan de SD would want me to comment on the rioting is beyond
me. Exactly what should I say about that given that you can easily
find the details in the newspapers?

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

It's a given that the BART police was absolutely WRONG and he will be
punished.  

It's not a given that the BART police officer will be punished beyond
his announced resignation.
In a country where the culture allows attitudes like that of the Ford
executives who decided that it was more cost effective to let a few
people burn to death than to fix a problem with the Pinto (some years
ago - the memo that came out in the trail stated that the estimated
cost of litigation was lower then the cost of the replacement part),
the only thing that will surely get someone's attention is having to
pay a huge settlement. Then they'll have a number to put into the
financial models they use to plan operations.

And how is that in anyway even relevant to the issue of people rioting?

Read what I replied to, moron: it was relevant to that post.

No it wasn't, and how dare YOU, as the premier poster of monstrously
imbecilic gainsaying spam (average Bill Zaumen thread > >200 posts),
pass judgement on others. Once again, other than the fact that
liberals feel compelled to excuse all acts of violence or thuggery
when instigated by designated "victim groups", WTF does the Ford Pinto
have to do with rioters in Oakland?

Stan de SD is a bald-faced liar as his rubbish above indicates. The
comments certainly were relevant.  First, as to thread length (which
Stan probably made up),

You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
now @ 168 posts - the vast majority of them are of you parroting the
same nonsense over and over again.

Post by Bill Z.
I'm simply not taking any crap from him.
Second, I don't post spam.

Same sht over and over, ad nauseum...

Post by Bill Z.
 Third, as to "passing judgement", I didn't
- that's another lie from Stan de SD.  I merely pointed out the
reality in this country, something Stan de SD and his ilk would prefer
to hide under the rug, which only results in problems never being
fixed.

And this "reality" is what???

Post by Bill Z.
Furthermore, as anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension should
know, I didn't comment at all on rioters in Oakland, which is why I
quoted only the first sentence of a post: the statement, "It's a given
that the BART police was absolutely WRONG and he will be punished," is
not true because punishment is not assured.

Yeah, you have to prove people guilty first in a court of law. Bummer,
huh?

Post by Bill Z.
Why Stan de SD would want me to comment on the rioting is beyond
me.

Uh, because I have a right to post my opinion? Why do you post crap
about what you think goes on in the US military, given that I doubt
with all your whining that you could make it through the Camp Fire
Girls without some serious issues?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really? I don't post there. Was something cross posted by someone
else and I just didn't notice? Or do you mean a "discussion" with
some guy who kept snipping what I wrote mid-sentence?

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
I'm simply not taking any crap from him.
Second, I don't post spam.

Same sht over and over, ad nauseum...

Projection.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
 Third, as to "passing judgement", I didn't
- that's another lie from Stan de SD.  I merely pointed out the
reality in this country, something Stan de SD and his ilk would prefer
to hide under the rug, which only results in problems never being
fixed.

And this "reality" is what???

Read the friggin post, you moron.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
Why Stan de SD would want me to comment on the rioting is beyond
me.

Uh, because I have a right to post my opinion?

Hey moron, you can have your "opinion" but that doesn't give you the
right to have me join in on a discussion I have no interest in.

Post by Stan de SD
Why do you post crap about what you think goes on in the US military,
given that I doubt with all your whining that you could make it
through the Camp Fire Girls without some serious issues?

More lies from the troll Stan de SD. He's just making this stuff
up.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really?  I don't post there.  

alt.society.homeless: California's homeless sex offenders on parole up
800% 169 posts - Bill Z. (9 authors)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_frm/thread/0a326e34d104b158#

What else can I help you with today, dipstick? :O(

Post by Stan de SD
Why do you post crap about what you think goes on in the US military,
given that I doubt with all your whining that you could make it
through the Camp Fire Girls without some serious issues?

More lies from the troll Stan de SD.  He's just making this stuff
up.

OK, you DID make it through Camp Fire Girls after all... my bad. :O|

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really?  I don't post there.  

alt.society.homeless: California's homeless sex offenders on parole up
800% 169 posts - Bill Z. (9 authors)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_frm/thread/0a326e34d104b158#

ROTFLMAO!

This thread actually was on ba.politics, but cross posted to several
other groups, and I didn't set up the cross posting. My initial post
contained the following, a reply to you (Stan de SD) where you had,
following your usual dishonest pattern, snipped what someone said
mid-sentence. The rest of the exchange was due to *you* arguing about
it and some moron named Rudy Canoza, who is even a worse right-wing
nut than you. I merely posted perfunctory replies to him calling him
an idiot in response to his continual mindless personal attacks.
Here's the original post to refresh your memory.

What he said was:

You rightards always want to throw people into prison, but you
scream like little girls when someone points out that you'll have
to pay for it.

You cut the text mid-sentence and then pretended he had said something
quite different than he actually did.

Also, read <http://www.reason.com/news/show/30272.html>. It seems
people are being required to register as sex offenders for "offenses"
that would no longer raise an eyebrow. One hapless guy got a note
from the state stamped "sex crime" (his wife found the envelope first)
because in 1944, he allegedly touched the knee of another man in a
parked car. Maybe Stanley can explain why some guy who touched another
guy's knee (consensually, I presume) in 1944 is somehow a threat to
children playing in a park or going to school within 2000 feet of his
home. It's a "sex offense" that is not illegal today and shouldn't
have been illegal in 1944: most people wouldn't even consider it to be
sex.

Post by Stan de SD
What else can I help you with today, dipstick? :O(

You can start by not lying and not spinning like crazy to further
your personal vendetta.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
Why do you post crap about what you think goes on in the US military,
given that I doubt with all your whining that you could make it
through the Camp Fire Girls without some serious issues?

More lies from the troll Stan de SD.  He's just making this stuff
up.

OK, you DID make it through Camp Fire Girls after all... my bad. :O|

You made everything up, liar. Next you'll want to ressurect a
discussion of your, err, performance a certain incident in Southern
California. That's what your vendetta is really about - you made
a fool of yourself and have not yet gotten over it.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really?  I don't post there.  

alt.society.homeless: California's homeless sex offenders on parole up
800%      169 posts - Bill Z. (9 authors)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_frm/thread...

ROTFLMAO!
This thread actually was on ba.politics, but cross posted to several
other groups, and I didn't set up the cross posting.  

But is was also on alt.society.homeless, and true to form, you did
post excessively, in order to get the last word in, true to form.

Post by Bill Z.
    Also, read <http://www.reason.com/news/show/30272.html>.  It seems
    people are being required to register as sex offenders for "offenses"
    that would no longer raise an eyebrow.  One hapless guy got a note
    from the state stamped "sex crime" (his wife found the envelope first)
    because in 1944, he allegedly touched the knee of another man in a
    parked car. Maybe Stanley can explain why some guy who touched another
    guy's knee (consensually, I presume) in 1944 is somehow a threat to
    children playing in a park or going to school within 2000 feet of his
    home.  It's a "sex offense" that is not illegal today and shouldn't
    have been illegal in 1944: most people wouldn't even consider it to be
    sex.

Maybe you can offer substantive proof that what you're reading is the
entire story, and something else didn't happen. The fact of the matter
is that Reason referred to an LA Times article, in which Rudy
correctly pointed out has no attributable sources and was not
verifiable. Not that facts matter to you anyway, Silly Billy. As I
previously stated in another thread (where you desperately tried to
change the subject), lefties like Bill Zaumen are less interested in
the actual facts of the case than the victimization status of the
groups involved. Cop vs. gay guy; gay has higher victim status, cop
MUST be wrong. Right, Billy?

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
What else can I help you with today, dipstick? :O(

You can start by not lying and not spinning like crazy to further
your personal vendetta.

Pot, kettle, black...

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
Why do you post crap about what you think goes on in the US military,
given that I doubt with all your whining that you could make it
through the Camp Fire Girls without some serious issues?

More lies from the troll Stan de SD.  He's just making this stuff
up.

OK, you DID make it through Camp Fire Girls after all... my bad. :O|

You made everything up, liar.  Next you'll want to ressurect a
discussion of your, err, performance a certain incident in Southern
California.  

The one where you don't know the date of said incident, and weren't
even fucking there?

Bill, you're the certified liar and obsessive-compulsive idiot who
brings this up when you lose your argument...

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really?  I don't post there.  

alt.society.homeless: California's homeless sex offenders on parole up
800%      169 posts - Bill Z. (9 authors)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_frm/thread...

ROTFLMAO!
This thread actually was on ba.politics, but cross posted to several
other groups, and I didn't set up the cross posting.  

But is was also on alt.society.homeless, and true to form, you did
post excessively, in order to get the last word in, true to form.

What a sleazebag - I merely replied to Stan de SD's post, which he
made on alt.society.homeless in addition to a number of newsgroups,
and furthermore, just today, I saw a thread *started* by Stan de SD
entitled, "Another phony Vietnam vet BUSTED",
<news:245ff7e7-4b9c-4b72-b2e8-***@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
which Stan de SD cross posted to alt.society.homeless, alt.california,
ba.politics, and ca.politics. Maybe it belongs on
alt.society.homeless, but it certain is not relevant to ba.politics
and ca.politics as it has nothing to do with politics - it is merely a
complaint about a panhandler pretending to be a veteran. If anyone is
a spammer, it is obviously Stan de SD who cross posts off-topic and
then tries to blame anyone who replies for not noticing (most people
don't notice).

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
    Also, read <http://www.reason.com/news/show/30272.html>.

Maybe you can offer substantive proof that what you're reading is the
entire story, and something else didn't happen. The fact of the matter
is that Reason referred to an LA Times article, in which Rudy
correctly pointed out has no attributable sources and was not
verifiable.

No, "Rudy" first said that and then claimed to have found an
LA times article about just that incident. But in any case, this
was beaten to death in a previous dicussion. Anyone interested can
go through that, if they are able to wade through that kook Canoza's
nonstop personal attacks and mid-sentence snipping.

Post by Stan de SD
Not that facts matter to you anyway, Silly Billy. As I
previously stated in another thread (where you desperately tried to
change the subject), lefties like Bill Zaumen are less interested in
the actual facts of the case than the victimization status of the
groups involved. Cop vs. gay guy; gay has higher victim status, cop
MUST be wrong. Right, Billy?

Liar - your "desparately trying to change the subject" is something
you just made up (which is why you didn't cite a post).

And idiot. The facts are obvious - some guy was arrested in 1944 for
something that is not illegal today, although it might have been
illegal in 1944. This had nothing to do with the police - the post
was about the unintended side effects of Meagan's law, where
convenient Internet access to data bases results in people being
unjustly harassed today because nobody thought it through carefully
when the law was written. It didn't have anything specific to do with
the guy possibly being gay either - I searched for problems associated
with Meagan's law and this was the first relevant article to show up.
But maybe you can tell us how you know he was gay: the article claimed
he was married and the arrest was apparently about him having his hand
on another guy's knee (or the police thought he had it there) some time
in the distant past. There was no indication of any sexual activity.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
What else can I help you with today, dipstick? :O(

You can start by not lying and not spinning like crazy to further
your personal vendetta.

Pot, kettle, black...

Liar.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
OK, you DID make it through Camp Fire Girls after all... my bad. :O|

You made everything up, liar.  Next you'll want to ressurect a
discussion of your, err, performance a certain incident in Southern
California.  

The one where you don't know the date of said incident, and weren't
even fucking there?

ROTFLMAO! The one were your own posts provided many of the details, but
where you didn't give the date! And it was your own statements that I
commented on. You got yourself into trouble by claiming expertise that
you really didn't have.

Post by Stan de SD
Bill, you're the certified liar and obsessive-compulsive idiot who
brings this up when you lose your argument...

No, you are the certified liar and obsessive-compulsive idiot who can't
get over the fact that you made a fool of yourself regarding that
incident of yours in Southern California where your posts showed an
incredible level of personal callousness, arrogance, and ignorance.
You've had a grudge ever since.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD
You want links, Billy? There's a post in alt.society.homeless right
same nonsense over and over again.

Really?  I don't post there.  

alt.society.homeless: California's homeless sex offenders on parole up
800%      169 posts - Bill Z. (9 authors)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.homeless/browse_frm/thread...

ROTFLMAO!
This thread actually was on ba.politics, but cross posted to several
other groups, and I didn't set up the cross posting.  

But is was also on alt.society.homeless, and true to form, you did
post excessively, in order to get the last word in, true to form.

What a sleazebag - I merely replied to Stan de SD's post, which he
made on alt.society.homeless in addition to a number of newsgroups,
and furthermore, just today, I saw a thread *started* by Stan de SD
entitled, "Another phony Vietnam vet BUSTED",
which Stan de SD cross posted to alt.society.homeless, alt.california,
ba.politics, and ca.politics.  Maybe it belongs on
alt.society.homeless, but it certain is not relevant to ba.politics
and ca.politics as it has nothing to do with politics - it is merely a
complaint about a panhandler pretending to be a veteran.  If anyone is
a spammer, it is obviously Stan de SD who cross posts off-topic and
then tries to blame anyone who replies for not noticing (most people
don't notice).

Let's see, a post about a homeless guy in northern California isn't
appropriate in homeless, bay area, or California newsgroups, but 100+
posts of Bill Zaumen making the same silly, flawed, argument are OK.
Sorry, I guess I was asleep when somebody appointed you as PC Netcop.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
    Also, read <http://www.reason.com/news/show/30272.html>.

Maybe you can offer substantive proof that what you're reading is the
entire story, and something else didn't happen. The fact of the matter
is that Reason referred to an LA Times article, in which Rudy
correctly pointed out has no attributable sources and was not
verifiable.

No, "Rudy" first said that and then claimed to have found an
LA times article about just that incident.  But in any case, this
was beaten to death in a previous dicussion. Anyone interested can
go through that, if they are able to wade through that kook Canoza's
nonstop personal attacks and mid-sentence snipping.

Post by Stan de SD
Not that facts matter to you anyway, Silly Billy. As I
previously stated in another thread (where you desperately tried to
change the subject), lefties like Bill Zaumen are less interested in
the actual facts of the case than the victimization status of the
groups involved. Cop vs. gay guy; gay has higher victim status, cop
MUST be wrong. Right, Billy?

Liar - your "desparately trying to change the subject" is something
you just made up (which is why you didn't cite a post).
And idiot.  The facts are obvious - some guy was arrested in 1944 for
something that is not illegal today, although it might have been
illegal in 1944.  This had nothing to do with the police - the post
was about the unintended side effects of Meagan's law, where
convenient Internet access to data bases results in people being
unjustly harassed today because nobody thought it through carefully
when the law was written.  It didn't have anything specific to do with
the guy possibly being gay either - I searched for problems associated
with Meagan's law and this was the first relevant article to show up.
But maybe you can tell us how you know he was gay: the article claimed
he was married and the arrest was apparently about him having his hand
on another guy's knee (or the police thought he had it there) some time
in the distant past. There was no indication of any sexual activity.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
What else can I help you with today, dipstick? :O(

You can start by not lying and not spinning like crazy to further
your personal vendetta.

Pot, kettle, black...

Liar.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
OK, you DID make it through Camp Fire Girls after all... my bad. :O|

You made everything up, liar.  Next you'll want to ressurect a
discussion of your, err, performance a certain incident in Southern
California.  

The one where you don't know the date of said incident, and weren't
even fucking there?

ROTFLMAO!  The one were your own posts provided many of the details, but
where you didn't give the date!  And it was your own statements that I
commented on.   You got yourself into trouble by claiming expertise that
you really didn't have.

Post by Stan de SD
Bill, you're the certified liar and obsessive-compulsive idiot who
brings this up when you lose your argument...

No, you are the certified liar and obsessive-compulsive idiot who can't
get over the fact that you made a fool of yourself regarding that
incident of yours in Southern California where your posts showed an
incredible level of personal callousness, arrogance, and ignorance.
You've had a grudge ever since.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
But is was also on alt.society.homeless, and true to form, you did
post excessively, in order to get the last word in, true to form.

What a sleazebag - I merely replied to Stan de SD's post, which he
made on alt.society.homeless in addition to a number of newsgroups,
and furthermore, just today, I saw a thread *started* by Stan de SD
entitled, "Another phony Vietnam vet BUSTED",
which Stan de SD cross posted to alt.society.homeless, alt.california,
ba.politics, and ca.politics.  Maybe it belongs on
alt.society.homeless, but it certain is not relevant to ba.politics
and ca.politics as it has nothing to do with politics - it is merely a
complaint about a panhandler pretending to be a veteran.  If anyone is
a spammer, it is obviously Stan de SD who cross posts off-topic and
then tries to blame anyone who replies for not noticing (most people
don't notice).

Let's see, a post about a homeless guy in northern California isn't
appropriate in homeless, bay area, or California newsgroups, but 100+
posts of Bill Zaumen making the same silly, flawed, argument are OK.
Sorry, I guess I was asleep when somebody appointed you as PC Netcop.

How lame - I'm merely pointing out your sleazy tactics. Now, try
to explain why your anecdote about some homeless dude hitting you up
for money by pretending to be a veteran is relevant to ba.politics?
How does it feel to be such a sleazebag, Stan? I wonder how you can
stand living with yourself.

And the argument in question was not silly, was not flawed, and was
repeated only because some idiot kept on snipping the URL and text
when he replied by posting a right-wing hit piece that he cut and
pasted.

<quotes of text not replied to snipped - Stan de SD obviously had
no reply and simply wanted to waste bandwidth>

[h***@mac.com]

Post by Bill Z.
How does it feel to be such a sleazebag, Stan? I wonder how you can
stand living with yourself.

One wonders indeed...

"There is nothing more disgusting and pathetic [to be] a slavish
suckup to
a tyrant and a thug." -- Stain de STD

Disgusting. Pathetic. Stain de STD.

from http://www.counterpunch.org/maher01092009.html

After responding to reports of “a fight” on a Bay Area Rapid Transit
train, BART police detained the train at the Fruitvale station,
forcibly removing several young men from the train as dozens of
bystanders watched.

Several of the men, all young and mostly black, were lined up, seated,
along the platform. Some were cuffed, Oscar Grant was not. As he was
attempting to defuse the situation, BART police decided to detain him,
placing him face-down on the platform, with one officer kneeling near
his neck, and another straddling his legs. For some still unexplained
reason, one officer, now identified as Johannes Mehserle stood up,
pulled his gun, and fired a shot directly into Oscar Grant’s back.

The bullet went through Grant’s back, ricocheting off the platform and
puncturing his lung. There are gasps from the bystanders and shock on
the face of the other officers, who clearly didn’t expect the shot to
be fired. Grant, who was begging not to be Tasered at the time of the
shot, clearly didn’t expect it either. But this surprise
notwithstanding, the decision was then made to cuff the young man as
he lay dying. As an added precaution, BART police then sought
immediately to confiscate all videophones held by the train
passengers, in an effort to cover up the murder.

Luckily for everyone but the BART P.D. and Mehserle, several videos
managed to make it into the public domain, where they went viral and
were viewed on Youtube hundreds of thousands of times in the following
days. In a rare show of journalistic integrity, local Fox affiliate
KTVU aired one of the videos in its entirety.

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18409133/index.html

The standard protocol---deny, distort, cover-up---had clearly been
disrupted, and BART spokesman Linton Johnson even went so far as to
criticize the leaking of the video, arguing that rather than
clarifying events, public access to the video would “taint” the
investigation. BART was on a back foot, and popular anger was on the
offensive.

.

Porcine squealing hyena Stain de STD throws his all into subverting
the issue, marginalizing the protesters and virtually celebrating the
thuggery of OPD. But what else did you expect? He's Stain de STD.


.
.
.

[Stan de SD]

Post by h***@mac.com
Porcine squealing hyena Stain de STD throws his all into subverting
the issue, marginalizing the protesters and virtually celebrating the
thuggery of OPD.  But what else did you expect?  He's Stain de STD.

Your methamphetamine psychosis is showing as usual, you demented hag
(or is it your AIDS dementia kicking in?). Where have I defended
anything regarding the BART shooting? In turn, how does that incident
justify rioters vandalizing businesses and attacking people who had
NOTHING, nada, zip-point-shit to do with the incident? You're a
classic example of a lefty wacknut, incoherent, foaming, full of bile,
incapable of comprehending the facts.

Funny, but I notice that you seem to make appearance only on days like
Halloween, or when the moon is ful. Well, it's daylight now, and the
sun is up. Time for you to brush the cobwebs off of your sarcophagus
and crawl back in for a while... :O|

[LauraM]

Post by Stan de SD

  Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

Thanks for that prime example of the idiot liberal mindset. You
confirmed exactly my argument that whenever there is some conflict
between individuals, liberals are more concerned with the
victimization status of the groups of which the parties are members,
than the actual facts concerning the parties themselves. That's why
it's not of concern to liberals that people who are NOT involved or
affected by the BART shooting incident, loot and terrorize people who
were in no way, shape, or form responsible for the incident in
question. It's fucked-up, mushy-headed thinking like that which is
responsible for places like Oakland being shit-holes in the first
place. :O(

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

[People's Republic of China Blue]

Post by LauraM
I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

You have a rather low opinion of the competence and dedication of the police.

[Stan de SD]

On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

Post by People's Republic of China Blue

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said.  Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots."  My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins."  And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration.  Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

[LauraM]

Post by Stan de SD
On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

Post by People's Republic of China Blue

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said.  Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots."  My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins."  And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration.  Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding! Was that guy even reading what I wrote?

[Stan de SD]

Post by Stan de SD
On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

Post by People's Republic of China Blue

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said.  Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots."  My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins."  And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration.  Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding!  Was that guy even reading what I wrote?

No, just the typical pharmaceutically-enhanced visions... :O|

[11 Days - <SNICKER>]

On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding! Was that guy even reading what I wrote?
=============

Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops shooting a handcuffed BART
rider?

[LauraM]

On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding!  Was that guy even reading what I wrote?
=============
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops shooting a handcuffed BART
rider?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Nada

[Fine Porcelain China Blue]

On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding!  Was that guy even reading what I wrote?
=============
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops shooting a handcuffed BART
rider?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

[LauraM]

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said. Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election". I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots." My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins." And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration. Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets
elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding!  Was that guy even reading what I wrote?
=============
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops shooting a handcuffed BART
rider?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?
--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life.           I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love?                               Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love?      At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life.                        mmmm lemon yogurt- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Touchy are we? I only mentioned it because Oakland riots no matter if
there's something to celebrate or something to protest. I just used
that example to show that my husband said Oakland would riot even if
Obama won because they don't know how to conduct themselves in a
civilized fashion. I voted for Obama, so I have nothing negative to
say about him. Yet. ;)

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

Post by 11 Days - <SNICKER>
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops
shooting a handcuffed BART rider?

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

=x= She just wanted the world to know that her dear husband's
wit and intelligence have nothing to do with thinking and
reasoning, and everything to do with coded racist spewage.
Clearly, she's very proud of this.
<_Jym_>

[Stan de SD]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

Post by 11 Days - <SNICKER>
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops
shooting a handcuffed BART rider?

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

=x= She just wanted the world to know that her dear husband's
wit and intelligence have nothing to do with thinking and
reasoning, and everything to do with coded racist spewage.

And what "coded racist spewage" was that? Not toeing the PC liberal
party line, and pointing out that there's a certain element of
thuggery well-known in Oakland?

[Stan de SD]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

Post by 11 Days - <SNICKER>
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops
shooting a handcuffed BART rider?

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

=x= She just wanted the world to know that her dear husband's
wit and intelligence have nothing to do with thinking and
reasoning, and everything to do with coded racist spewage.

And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

[LauraM]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

Post by 11 Days - <SNICKER>
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops
shooting a handcuffed BART rider?

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

=x= She just wanted the world to know that her dear husband's
wit and intelligence have nothing to do with thinking and
reasoning, and everything to do with coded racist spewage.

And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

Isn't it amazing? I'm glad the whole thing was on the TV news so the
whole world could see how the lovely citizens of Oakland handle
themselves when they want their voices heard.

[Bill Z.]

First, the subject line is a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Post by LauraM

Post by Stan de SD
And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

Isn't it amazing? I'm glad the whole thing was on the TV news so the
whole world could see how the lovely citizens of Oakland handle
themselves when they want their voices heard.

While not the most recent numbers, in 2000, the population of Oakland
was about 400,000 people. It seems in the demonstration under
discussion, around 200 individuals split off to do there own thing,
with a significant number of those rioting, and about 100 were
arrested. Last I heard, there was not a requirement to be a citizen
of Oakland to participate in a riot there, and the riot at most
consisted of 0.05% of the city. I'm curious how the behavior of 0.05%
of the city or less (the number of people from out of town is not
clear at this point) reflects on "the lovely citizens of Oakland" in
general.

BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN1.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)

[LauraM]

First, the subject line is  a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Post by Stan de SD
And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

Isn't it amazing?  I'm glad the whole thing was on the TV news so the
whole world could see how the lovely citizens of Oakland handle
themselves when they want their voices heard.

While not the most recent numbers, in 2000, the population of Oakland
was about 400,000 people.  It seems in the demonstration under
discussion, around 200 individuals split off to do there own thing,
with a significant number of those rioting, and about 100 were
arrested.  Last I heard, there was not a requirement to be a citizen
of Oakland to participate in a riot there, and the riot at most
consisted of 0.05% of the city.  I'm curious how the behavior of 0.05%
of the city or less (the number of people from out of town is not
clear at this point) reflects on "the lovely citizens of Oakland" in
general.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear).  It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley.  One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco.  It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Well of course it's not the whole city, but have you been there? Have
you ever lived there? As I stated before, I grew up there. And
BELIEVE ME, I've had enough encounters with the illustrious citizens
of Oakland to make a statement and stick by it.

They are angry individuals and the anger is handed down by generations.

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM

First, the subject line is  a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Well of course it's not the whole city, but have you been there? Have
you ever lived there? As I stated before, I grew up there. And
BELIEVE ME, I've had enough encounters with the illustrious citizens
of Oakland to make a statement and stick by it.
They are angry individuals and the anger is handed down by generations.

The number of rioters (an unknown but nonzero number from out of town)
was about 0.05% of the city's total population, and *you* cited it as
an example of "the illustrious citizens of Oakland". You may have
lived there, but the numbers indicate you don't know what you are
talking about. Nor do you understand the obvious: this is not an
Oakland issue - it is a regional one.

BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland. The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

[LauraM]

Post by Bill Z.

First, the subject line is  a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Well of course it's not the whole city, but have you been there?  Have
you ever lived there?  As I stated before, I grew up there.  And
BELIEVE ME, I've had enough encounters with the illustrious citizens
of Oakland to make a statement and stick by it.
They are angry individuals and the anger is handed down by generations.

The number of rioters (an unknown but nonzero number from out of town)
was about 0.05% of the city's total population, and *you* cited it as
an example of "the illustrious citizens of Oakland".  You may have
lived there, but the numbers indicate you don't know what you are
talking about.  Nor do you understand the obvious: this is not an
Oakland issue - it is a regional one.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence. The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM

Post by Bill Z.

First, the subject line is  a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence. The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

Thus proving you are a true idiot - some other people were involved in
deciding what to see and they wanted to meet others who already had
tickets. And so what if the SF Ballet is better? That usually gets
reflected in the ticket price and there can be more to an evening than
just the performance. Or didn't you know that?

[LauraM]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

First, the subject line is  a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence.  The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

Thus proving you are a true idiot - some other people were involved in
deciding what to see and they wanted to meet others who already had
tickets.  And so what if the SF Ballet is better?  That usually gets
reflected in the ticket price and there can be more to an evening than
just the performance.  Or didn't you know that?
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Take a deep breath. Don't you know a bit of humor when you see it?

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence.  The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

Thus proving you are a true idiot - some other people were involved in
deciding what to see and they wanted to meet others who already had
tickets.  And so what if the SF Ballet is better?  That usually gets
reflected in the ticket price and there can be more to an evening than
just the performance.  Or didn't you know that?

Take a deep breath. Don't you know a bit of humor when you see it?

That's one way to try to whitewash a stupid comment.

[LauraM]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence.  The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

Thus proving you are a true idiot - some other people were involved in
deciding what to see and they wanted to meet others who already had
tickets.  And so what if the SF Ballet is better?  That usually gets
reflected in the ticket price and there can be more to an evening than
just the performance.  Or didn't you know that?

Take a deep breath.  Don't you know a bit of humor when you see it?

That's one way to try to whitewash a stupid comment.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Whatever.

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  The last
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Ah, well now you're showing your lack of intelligence.  The SF Ballet
is infinitely better.

Thus proving you are a true idiot - some other people were involved in
deciding what to see and they wanted to meet others who already had
tickets.  And so what if the SF Ballet is better?  That usually gets
reflected in the ticket price and there can be more to an evening than
just the performance.  Or didn't you know that?

Take a deep breath.  Don't you know a bit of humor when you see it?

That's one way to try to whitewash a stupid comment.

Whatever.

Lame.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  

That's sort of like saying "Some of my best friends are negroes...",
right, Bill?


The last

Post by Bill Z.
time, not just passing through, was to see a performance of the
Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

Typical Billy Zaumen mix of arrogance and igorance. The fact that he
has at some point in his vacuous life crossed into the city limits
makes him more of an expert on local politics and culture than people
who have actually lived there. :O|

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  

That's sort of like saying "Some of my best friends are negroes...",
right, Bill?

No, liar, it is saying that I've been there is response to a poster
who asked. Of course you know that and snipped it as you replied to
<news:***@nospam.pacbell.net>, where I had replied to
LauraM's question, " Have you ever lived there? As I stated before, I
grew up there."

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
The last time, not just passing through, was to see a performance
of the Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

What an ignorant moron! He has no clue of what the audience is like.
Furthermore, the incident in question had nothing to do with Oakland
per se - it started with BART police arresting people on a train
because of some sort of incident there. That the train stopped at one
of the stations inside the Oakland city limit is not particularly
relevant.

Post by Stan de SD
Typical Billy Zaumen mix of arrogance and igorance. The fact that he
has at some point in his vacuous life crossed into the city limits
makes him more of an expert on local politics and culture than people
who have actually lived there.

Proof that Stan de SD was lying at the top of the post, followed by more
of this loser's lies.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  

That's sort of like saying "Some of my best friends are negroes...",
right, Bill?

No, liar, it is saying that I've been there is response to a poster
who asked. Of course you know that and snipped it as you replied to
LauraM's question, " Have you ever lived there?  As I stated before, I
grew up there."

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
The last time, not just passing through, was to see a performance
of the Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

What an ignorant moron! He has no clue of what the audience is like.

And you have no clue what much of anything ELSE in life is like. You
constantly accuse other people of lying and mistrepresenting things,
when you're one ohe of the worst offenders in this NG? Care for
examples? The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed. The Bush/Dan Rather/National Guard flap, where you
babbled on and on and tried to lecture me how the USAF and it's
various guard/reserve components work, when you have never even spent
a day in ANY component of the military, let alone set foot on an Air
Force flightline in any official capacity (except possibly as an
invitee to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Recruit Day"). Not being able to
convince anyone that you really knew WTF you were talking about, you
THEN proceeded to tell me that you knew what constituted an
aircrewmember in the military. Bill, you LIE ALL THE TIME in order to
advance your silly-assed Uber-PC lefty liberal agenda...

[n***@millions.com]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:13:19 -0800 (PST), Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
BTW, since I live in the Bay Area, I have been in Oakland.  

That's sort of like saying "Some of my best friends are negroes...",
right, Bill?

No, liar, it is saying that I've been there is response to a poster
who asked. Of course you know that and snipped it as you replied to
LauraM's question, " Have you ever lived there?  As I stated before, I
grew up there."

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
The last time, not just passing through, was to see a performance
of the Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

What an ignorant moron! He has no clue of what the audience is like.

And you have no clue what much of anything ELSE in life is like. You
constantly accuse other people of lying and mistrepresenting things,
when you're one ohe of the worst offenders in this NG? Care for
examples? The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed. The Bush/Dan Rather/National Guard flap, where you
babbled on and on and tried to lecture me how the USAF and it's
various guard/reserve components work, when you have never even spent
a day in ANY component of the military, let alone set foot on an Air
Force flightline in any official capacity (except possibly as an
invitee to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Recruit Day"). Not being able to
convince anyone that you really knew WTF you were talking about, you
THEN proceeded to tell me that you knew what constituted an
aircrewmember in the military. Bill, you LIE ALL THE TIME in order to
advance your silly-assed Uber-PC lefty liberal agenda...

It's Bill Zaumen's usenet style. It's as if he has jerked his fly up
too fast and caught his foreskin in it.

DCI

[Bill Z.]

Post by n***@millions.com
It's Bill Zaumen's usenet style. It's as if he has jerked his fly up
too fast and caught his foreskin in it.
DCI

Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by n***@millions.com
It's Bill Zaumen's usenet style. It's as if he has jerked his fly up
too fast and caught his foreskin in it.
DCI

Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

DCI's right. The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by n***@millions.com
It's Bill Zaumen's usenet style. It's as if he has jerked his fly up
too fast and caught his foreskin in it.
DCI

Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

DCI's right. The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

Thus showing you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun. You can't seem to get anything right!

[h***@mac.com]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.

Anyplace Stain de STD and Stain de DCI come together, "jerk" becomes
an out-of-body experience and "lefty" takes on a whole new meaning.


.
.
.

[Stan de SD]

Post by h***@mac.com

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.

Anyplace Stain de STD and Stain de DCI come together, "jerk" becomes
an out-of-body experience and "lefty" takes on a whole new meaning.

Uh, today is MLK Day, not Rob Karenga Day. Back under your bridge,
troll... :O|

[n***@millions.com]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:23:41 -0800 (PST), Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by h***@mac.com

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.

Anyplace Stain de STD and Stain de DCI come together, "jerk" becomes
an out-of-body experience and "lefty" takes on a whole new meaning.

Uh, today is MLK Day, not Rob Karenga Day. Back under your bridge,
troll... :O|

Ron Karenga.

DCI

[Stan de SD]

Post by n***@millions.com
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:23:41 -0800 (PST), Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by h***@mac.com

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.

Anyplace Stain de STD and Stain de DCI come together, "jerk" becomes
an out-of-body experience and "lefty" takes on a whole new meaning.

Uh, today is MLK Day, not Rob Karenga Day. Back under your bridge,
troll...  :O|

Ron Karenga.
DCI- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yeah, him too... ;O)

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by n***@millions.com
It's Bill Zaumen's usenet style. It's as if he has jerked his fly up
too fast and caught his foreskin in it.
DCI

Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

DCI's right. The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

Thus showing you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.  You can't seem to get anything right!

Thus showing you are too dumb to understand what I meant when I said
"in more than one way", dipstick... :O(

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

DCI's right. The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

Thus showing you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.  You can't seem to get anything right!

Thus showing you are too dumb to understand what I meant when I said
"in more than one way", dipstick... :O(

Rather, now showing that you don't even understand English grammar and
word usage, as the verb "jerk" is not used to describe someone.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
Idiot and bald-faced liar, not to mention a potty-mouthed little twirp.

DCI's right. The word "jerk" is most appropriate for describing you,
in more than one way...

Thus showing you are too dumb to even understand that DCI used the verb
"jerk" rather than the noun.  You can't seem to get anything right!

Thus showing you are too dumb to understand what I meant when I said
"in more than one way", dipstick... :O(

Rather, now showing that you don't even understand English grammar and
word usage, as the verb "jerk" is not used to describe someone.

As I said, you clueless retard: "The word "jerk" is most appropriate
for describing you, in more than one way." - The noun describes you as
a human being, and the verb describes what we do to your chain on a
regular basis. Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up... :O|

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
Thus showing you are too dumb to understand what I meant when I said
"in more than one way", dipstick... :O(

Rather, now showing that you don't even understand English grammar and
word usage, as the verb "jerk" is not used to describe someone.

As I said, you clueless retard: "The word "jerk" is most appropriate
for describing you, in more than one way." - The noun describes you as
a human being, and the verb describes what we do to your chain on a
regular basis. Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up... :O|

Stan de SD is now claiming to be a mindless troll, and potty-mouthed one at
that.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
The last time, not just passing through, was to see a performance
of the Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

What an ignorant moron! He has no clue of what the audience is like.

And you have no clue what much of anything ELSE in life is like. You
constantly accuse other people of lying and mistrepresenting things,
when you're one ohe of the worst offenders in this NG? Care for
examples?

No, you are the bald-faced liar and I haven't lied at all: the
definition of a lie is not disagreeing with a low-life like you.

Post by Stan de SD
The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed.

ROTFLMAO - *you* provided a description of this accident and described
what you did. I pointed out what your statements implied, based on
many years of experience rock climbing. It is hardly my fault that
you sat on a ledge eating lunch and snapping pictures as someone expired,
and it was *you* who mentioned it. All you had to do was to admit that
the people you were with probably told you to stay there because they
knew you lacked the experience to help in any meaningful way. But you
wouldn't admit that after making a fool of yourself trying to lecture
me about safety when you didn't even know standard and very basic
terminology - an admission would have shown your previous staetments
to be based on "resume enhancing". So you were stuck in a web of your
own lies.

Post by Stan de SD
The Bush/Dan Rather/National Guard flap, where you
babbled on and on and tried to lecture me how the USAF and it's
various guard/reserve components work,

Liar - I told you how the very specific National Guard unit Bush was
in worked in the 1960s - it was a "champaign unit". At that point,
various national guard units were set up as safe havens for the
offspring of well connected people or well connected individuals themselves.
Denying that won't change the facts: it's been documented, and I
gave you citations to various articles about it. Here's one to
refresh you faked lack of memory -
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html>:

Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 4, 2004; Page A02

A former senior politician from Texas has told close friends
that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's slot in the
Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War because he was
eager to "collect chits" from an influential political family.

The reported comments by former Texas lieutenant governor Ben
Barnes add fuel to a long-running controversy over how Bush
got a slot in an outfit known as the "Champagne Unit" because
it included so many sons of prominent Texans. Friends said
that Barnes had recorded an interview for the CBS program "60
Minutes" that will address the question of whether Bush pulled
strings to evade being sent to Vietnam.

Barnes, a longtime Democrat who works as a lobbyist and
political consultant in Austin, has said that he is now "very
ashamed" of helping "a lot of people who had family names of
importance get in the National Guard." He made the statement
during a meeting with John F. Kerry supporters in Austin on
May 27, a video of which is now circulating on the Internet.

...

Barnes has told friends that he intervened with Rose to help a
number of other prominent, young Texans into the National
Guard. In addition to Bush, who was accepted for pilot
training in May 1968, other recruits to the Texas National
Guard during the late 1960s included the son of former Texas
senator Lloyd M. Bentsen (D) and members of the Dallas Cowboys
football team.

<snip - liar Stan de SD is just babbling and dissembling>

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
The last time, not just passing through, was to see a performance
of the Oakland Ballet.

Hanging out with the pinkies-up crowd really gives you a feel of
what's going on down in da 'hood, doesn't it?

What an ignorant moron! He has no clue of what the audience is like.

And you have no clue what much of anything ELSE in life is like. You
constantly accuse other people of lying and mistrepresenting things,
when you're one ohe of the worst offenders in this NG? Care for
examples?

No, you are the bald-faced liar and I haven't lied at all: the
definition of a lie is not disagreeing with a low-life like you.

Post by Stan de SD
The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed.

ROTFLMAO - *you* provided a description of this accident and described
what you did.  I pointed out what your statements implied, based on
many years of experience rock climbing.  

I pointed that that you weren't there, don't even know the date, or
the details of what happened. As far as your claim of "many years of
rock climbing", it means nothing regarding the incident. You weren't
there...

Post by Bill Z.
        Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

And the fact that Bush's father was Navy pilot in WWII, with 58 combat
missions, a DFC and associated gedunk would not have had any influence
in the matter? And yet, Bush's stay in the Texas ANG was still more of
a commitment than YOU ever made to this country...

Bill, you're clueless and your agenda is readily transparent. You take
miscellaneous snippets of dubious infomation and try to weave a
narrative around them. It's one of the reasons that many of the
regulars here treat you with disdain and contempt.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed.

ROTFLMAO - *you* provided a description of this accident and described
what you did.  I pointed out what your statements implied, based on
many years of experience rock climbing.  

I pointed that that you weren't there, don't even know the date, or
the details of what happened. As far as your claim of "many years of
rock climbing", it means nothing regarding the incident. You weren't
there...

You yourself *posted* the details of what happened and your own words
condemned you. You have no one to blame but yourself. To recap, what
started that discussion is that you made one of your silly "cowardice"
charges with some vague threat. I just laughed at you, mentioning in
passing all the free climbing I've done. You thought that meant
climbing without a rope and then ranted about it, not realizing that
"free climbing" simply means not using a rope for physical support, only
for safety. By failing terminology 101, you showed you had next to
zero experience. To try to puff up your obviously non-existent
resume, you went on about that accident, and filled in all ther relevant
details - enough that anyone with years of climbing experience would
know exactly what the situation was regarding you.

I don't *have* to be there to know that you sat on a ledge eating lunch
and snapping pictures as some guy died because *you* provided that
information. Now, all you had to do was to admit that you were a rank
beginner and the people taking you along figured you weren't capable
of helping in any way and might actually slow everything down as they
had to look after you. But you couldn't do that - you had gone on
record lecturing someone with considerable experience and couldn't
bare to back down and lose face.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
        Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

And the fact that Bush's father was Navy pilot in WWII, with 58 combat
missions, a DFC and associated gedunk would not have had any influence
in the matter? And yet, Bush's stay in the Texas ANG was still more of
a commitment than YOU ever made to this country...

ROTFLMAO. You have no valid argument whatsoever. Bush was in a
champagne unit with all sorts of other well connected individuals.
It's been documented. I gave you a link and you ignored it. The
existence of such national guard units in the past is a historical
fact. With a volunteer military, such safe havens aren't needed
today, but they did exist back then. Here's the article I cited and
quoted again. It pretty much speaks for itself.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html>:

Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 4, 2004; Page A02

A former senior politician from Texas has told close friends
that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's slot in the
Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War because he was
eager to "collect chits" from an influential political family.

The reported comments by former Texas lieutenant governor Ben
Barnes add fuel to a long-running controversy over how Bush
got a slot in an outfit known as the "Champagne Unit" because
it included so many sons of prominent Texans. Friends said
that Barnes had recorded an interview for the CBS program "60
Minutes" that will address the question of whether Bush pulled
strings to evade being sent to Vietnam.

Barnes, a longtime Democrat who works as a lobbyist and
political consultant in Austin, has said that he is now "very
ashamed" of helping "a lot of people who had family names of
importance get in the National Guard." He made the statement
during a meeting with John F. Kerry supporters in Austin on
May 27, a video of which is now circulating on the Internet.

...

Barnes has told friends that he intervened with Rose to help a
number of other prominent, young Texans into the National
Guard. In addition to Bush, who was accepted for pilot
training in May 1968, other recruits to the Texas National
Guard during the late 1960s included the son of former Texas
senator Lloyd M. Bentsen (D) and members of the Dallas Cowboys
football team.

Now, Stan, what do you think the probability was of that single unit's
members including George W. Bush, the son of Senator Lloyd Bentsen,
and members of the Dallas Cowboys? Do you really want to claim it
was due to random chance?

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
The whole Tahquitz flap, where you accused me of doing
something w/r/t an incident where you weren't there (I was), and to
this day still don't know the day it happened and the name of the
person killed.

ROTFLMAO - *you* provided a description of this accident and described
what you did.  I pointed out what your statements implied, based on
many years of experience rock climbing.  

I pointed that that you weren't there, don't even know the date, or
the details of what happened. As far as your claim of "many years of
rock climbing", it means nothing regarding the incident. You weren't
there...

You yourself *posted* the details of what happened and

And you twisted everything around, the way you seem to do in every
disccusion you stick your nose into. You're not interested in facts,
just being a preachy asshole.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
        Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

And the fact that Bush's father was Navy pilot in WWII, with 58 combat
missions, a DFC and associated gedunk would not have had any influence
in the matter? And yet, Bush's stay in the Texas ANG was still more of
a commitment than YOU ever made to this country...

ROTFLMAO. You have no valid argument whatsoever.

You believe the above was incorrect? You don't think that "legacies"
carry weight w/r/t preferential admissions in certain institutions?

Post by Bill Z.
 Bush was in a champagne unit

define WTF that's supposed to mean, then show us how the unit was
designated as such. All you can come up is with some hack writer, most
likely some agenda-peddling ignoramus just like you.

Post by Bill Z.
It's been documented. I gave you a link and you ignored it.

Links to liberal op-ed pieces aren't proof of anything.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
You yourself *posted* the details of what happened and

And you twisted everything around, the way you seem to do in every
disccusion you stick your nose into. You're not interested in facts,
just being a preachy asshole.

Nope, I just pointed out what you had said and what that implied.
If you had said that they asked you to stay there and keep out of the
way because you didn't have enough experience, that would have been
a perfectly acceptable reason. Your problem was that you couldn't
admit that after trying to lecture me about safety based on your
misunderstanding of basic terminology.

Face it, you dug yourself into a hole and then preceded to make the
hole deeper as you tried to cover up your exaggerations about your
expertise. It was absolutely comical.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
        Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

And the fact that Bush's father was Navy pilot in WWII, with 58 combat
missions, a DFC and associated gedunk would not have had any influence
in the matter? And yet, Bush's stay in the Texas ANG was still more of
a commitment than YOU ever made to this country...

ROTFLMAO. You have no valid argument whatsoever.

You believe the above was incorrect? You don't think that "legacies"
carry weight w/r/t preferential admissions in certain institutions?

"Legacies" have some weight w/r/t signing up for the national guard?
I.e., are you admitting it was a champagne unit? I suspect there is
a reason you are snipping the URL to the original article:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html>.
You don't want people to see the original source.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
 Bush was in a champagne unit

define WTF that's supposed to mean, then show us how the unit was
designated as such. All you can come up is with some hack writer, most
likely some agenda-peddling ignoramus just like you.

ROTFLMAO!
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html>.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
It's been documented. I gave you a link and you ignored it.

Links to liberal op-ed pieces aren't proof of anything.

Liar.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html>:

Democrat Says He Helped Bush Into Guard to Score Points

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Saturday, September 4, 2004; Page A02

I've underlined it for you - this was not an op-ed piece of any kind.
It was written by one of the Washington Post's reporters. It's filed
under "Washingtonpost.com > Politics > Bush Administration". It's a
news article. No wonder you continally snip the URL - what is there
shows that you are a liar.

[George]

First, the subject line is �a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Post by Stan de SD
And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

Isn't it amazing? �I'm glad the whole thing was on the TV news so the
whole world could see how the lovely citizens of Oakland handle
themselves when they want their voices heard.

While not the most recent numbers, in 2000, the population of Oakland
was about 400,000 people. �It seems in the demonstration under
discussion, around 200 individuals split off to do there own thing,
with a significant number of those rioting, and about 100 were
arrested. �Last I heard, there was not a requirement to be a citizen
of Oakland to participate in a riot there, and the riot at most
consisted of 0.05% of the city. �I'm curious how the behavior of 0.05%
of the city or less (the number of people from out of town is not
clear at this point) reflects on "the lovely citizens of Oakland" in
general.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). �It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. �One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. �It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Because, if you spend any time at all in the city, not in the hills
( which really ought to secede from Oakland and remove the property
tax base), you know how out of control the whole place is. All those
lovely condos going up downtown are going to have to be heavily
subsidized to get folks to move there. Just go down to 14th&Broadway
any night and watch the zombies and lowlifes crawl out of the ooze
that is downtown Oakland every hour on the half hour when AC lines up
all its Owl service. Scary.

[Bill Z.]

Post by George

First, the subject line is �a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). �It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. �One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. �It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)

Because, if you spend any time at all in the city, not in the hills
( which really ought to secede from Oakland and remove the property
tax base), you know how out of control the whole place is. <snip>

Rather, if you realize that this is a regional issue, not an Oakland
issue per se, then you'd also realize that Oakland's crime problem is
not relevant - the victim in the shooting wasn't even from Oakland.

[LauraM]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by George

First, the subject line is a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)

Because, if you spend any time at all in the city, not in the hills
( which really ought to secede from Oakland and remove the property
tax base), you know how out of control the whole place is. <snip>

Rather, if you realize that this is a regional issue, not an Oakland
issue per se, then you'd also realize that Oakland's crime problem is
not relevant - the victim in the shooting wasn't even from Oakland.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580. But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests". You don't consider that crime??

Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize it
all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

[Stan de SD]

Post by LauraM

Post by Bill Z.

Post by George

First, the subject line is a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)

Because, if you spend any time at all in the city, not in the hills
( which really ought to secede from Oakland and remove the property
tax base), you know how out of control the whole place is. <snip>

Rather, if you realize that this is a regional issue, not an Oakland
issue per se, then you'd also realize that Oakland's crime problem is
not relevant - the victim in the shooting wasn't even from Oakland.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580.  But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests".  You don't consider that crime??
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize it
all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

But you clearly understand what Bill is - he's a knee-jerk liberal,
who judges individuals not by their own words or deeds, but by the
"victimization" status of the groups they are associated with. Being
poor, black, and unemployed makes you more of a "victim" than a
business owner or an employed passerby, which is why libtards like
Billy and Jym waffle, make excuses, and otherwise refuse to condemn
the perpetrators at these riots. :O|

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by LauraM
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize it
all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

But you clearly understand what Bill is - he's a knee-jerk liberal,
who judges individuals not by their own words or deeds, but by the
"victimization" status of the groups they are associated with.

<snip>

Stan de SD is a bald-faced liar.

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM
In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580. But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests". You don't consider that crime??

Are you an idiot? The protest attracted people from all over the
Bay Area, not just Oakland - the vandalism is simply not something
for which only Oakland or its residents are responible for.

Post by LauraM
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize
it all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

[LauraM]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by LauraM
In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580.  But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests".  You don't consider that crime??

Are you an idiot? The protest attracted people from all over the
Bay Area, not just Oakland - the vandalism is simply not something
for which only Oakland or its residents are responible for.

Post by LauraM
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize
it all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh> You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

[Bill Z.]

Post by LauraM

Post by Bill Z.

Post by LauraM
In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580.  But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests".  You don't consider that crime??

Are you an idiot? The protest attracted people from all over the
Bay Area, not just Oakland - the vandalism is simply not something
for which only Oakland or its residents are responible for.

Post by LauraM
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize
it all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh> You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.

Post by LauraM
In fact, I don't think there are any police assigned to the upper side
of Hwy 580.  But...Oakland's crime problem most certainly relevant.
Just look at all the vandalism that occurred during their "peaceful
protests".  You don't consider that crime??

Are you an idiot? The protest attracted people from all over the
Bay Area, not just Oakland - the vandalism is simply not something
for which only Oakland or its residents are responible for.

Post by LauraM
Unless you've lived there or worked there, you can intellectualize
it all you want, but you can't really understand what a cesspool of
degenerates the city contains.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh>  You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

As if you have the high ground to lecture anyone else...

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh>  You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

As if you have the high ground to lecture anyone else...

I certainly do. See Jym Dyer's recent post for a reason as to why
a sense of reality and perspective is missing from "your" side of
the discussion.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh>  You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

As if you have the high ground to lecture anyone else...

I certainly do.  See Jym Dyer's recent post for a reason

"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh>  You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

As if you have the high ground to lecture anyone else...

I certainly do.  See Jym Dyer's recent post for a reason

"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow. Don't blame
me for the number of posts either - what you are really saying is
that you think you have the right to trash talk without getting
any response.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Bill Z.
Maybe you should get a sense of reality - see the comments above.

<sigh>  You really ought to come down out of the clouds.

Maybe you should get a sense of reality and perspective.

As if you have the high ground to lecture anyone else...

I certainly do.  See Jym Dyer's recent post for a reason

"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow would be expected as Bush goes back to wacking
brush on his ranch and as adults take over the administration.

[h***@mac.com]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow would be expected as Bush goes back to wacking
brush on his ranch and as adults take over the administration.

As tempting as it may be to kick Stain while he's down - lethally, if
possible - if only to teach the flabby closet homo fascist how it
feels to be on the receiving end of the sort of treatment he generally
doles out against those less fortunate than himself, let us not forget
that Stain de STD has been going through a very bad period in his life
at the present moment.

The period known as "all of it".


.
.
.

[Stan de SD]

Post by h***@mac.com

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow would be expected as Bush goes back to wacking
brush on his ranch and as adults take over the administration.

As tempting as it may be to kick Stain while he's down - lethally, if
possible - if only to teach the flabby closet homo fascist how it
feels to be on the receiving end of the sort of treatment he generally
doles out against those less fortunate than himself, let us not forget
that Stain de STD has been going through a very bad period in his life
at the present moment.

Over what? Your silly posts?

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

Don't project your own issues on us. We're not frothing nutcakes like
you lefties.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

You're obviously projecting about something, as usual. I have no idea.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

You're obviously projecting about something, as usual. I have no idea.

How out of touch can one possibly be! Hint - read a newspaper.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

You're obviously projecting about something, as usual. I have no idea.

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

You're obviously projecting about something, as usual. I have no idea.

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

You don't know what is going on today and how that must be driving
right-wing ideologues crazy? LOL!

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

Having a fit about what?

You honestly don't know? ROTFLMAO! :-)

You're obviously projecting about something, as usual. I have no idea.

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

You don't know what is going on today and how that must be driving
right-wing ideologues crazy?  

I know what's going on today. I finished up a project for a customer,
and I responding to an idiot on Usenet while I eat lunch at my desk.

You're going to have to be more explicit and tell me what it is that I
don't know about that is causing me to do something I'm not doing.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

You don't know what is going on today and how that must be driving
right-wing ideologues crazy?  

I know what's going on today. I finished up a project for a customer,
and I responding to an idiot on Usenet while I eat lunch at my desk.
You're going to have to be more explicit and tell me what it is that I
don't know about that is causing me to do something I'm not doing.

Yep - completely out of touch with reality!

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

You don't know what is going on today and how that must be driving
right-wing ideologues crazy?  

I know what's going on today. I finished up a project for a customer,
and I responding to an idiot on Usenet while I eat lunch at my desk.
You're going to have to be more explicit and tell me what it is that I
don't know about that is causing me to do something I'm not doing.

Yep - completely out of touch with reality!

You must be even more out of touch with reality than I am. You're
telling me that I must be acting a certain way that Iam not, over some
event that you can't even refer to - must likely because you don't
even remember what you are talking about in the first place.. And you
wonder why people think you're a bit odd?

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
How out of touch can one possibly be!

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.

Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

[Stan de SD]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be!  

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.
Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

Not too much longer - hang tight...

[kkt]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be! =A0

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.
Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

Not too much longer - hang tight...

Why don't you two just take it to e-mail? I really don't think anyone
else is interested.

-- Patrick

[Stan de SD]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be! =A0

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.
Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

Not too much longer - hang tight...

Why don't you two just take it to e-mail?  I really don't think anyone
else is interested.

Then don't read the thread.

[kkt]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Stan de SD

How out of touch can one possibly be! =3DA0

Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring=

to?

Post by Stan de SD

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain.=

We

Post by Stan de SD

understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each an=

d

Post by Stan de SD

every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun=

.

Post by Stan de SD

Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull th=

e

Post by Stan de SD

plug on this stupid little game?

Not too much longer - hang tight...

Why don't you two just take it to e-mail? =A0I really don't think anyone
else is interested.

Then don't read the thread.

That would be easier if you didn't change the subject line.

-- Patrick

[h***@mac.com]

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Stan de SD
Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.
Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

OIC... you think Stain de STD is only doing impressions of being an
infantile, smug, fat suppurating hare-lipped pustule and hateful half-
Israeli reactionary closet poofter to *yank* Bill Z's *chain*?

I suggest you give serious consideration to the possibility that Stain
de STD appears to be an infantile, smug, fat suppurating hare-lipped
pustule and hateful half-Israeli reactionary closet poofter because
that's *exactly* what he is. Furthermore, as countless usenet readers
who despise Stain for what he is will attest, you can never stop him
from being one. Ever.

Still, it was nice of you to try.


.
.
.

[David Nebenzahl]

Post by h***@mac.com

Post by David Nebenzahl

Post by Stan de SD
Don't think I'm out of touch about anything. What are you referring to?

OK, look, Stain: we get it how much fun it is to yank Zaumen's chain. We
understand the guy's like an automaton that'll blindly answer each and
every post ad infinitum, leading to endlessly-nested threads. Big fun.
Question is, how far are *you* willing to take it? Knowing that BZ's
just gotta always have the last word, when are *you* going to pull the
plug on this stupid little game?

OIC... you think Stain de STD is only doing impressions of being an
infantile, smug, fat suppurating hare-lipped pustule and hateful half-
Israeli reactionary closet poofter to *yank* Bill Z's *chain*?
I suggest you give serious consideration to the possibility that Stain
de STD appears to be an infantile, smug, fat suppurating hare-lipped
pustule and hateful half-Israeli reactionary closet poofter because
that's *exactly* what he is. Furthermore, as countless usenet readers
who despise Stain for what he is will attest, you can never stop him
from being one. Ever.
Still, it was nice of you to try.

Try to change his (or anyone else's) behavior? Surely you jest. Not me.

Just throwing a suggestion in his general direction is all.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow would be expected as Bush goes back to wacking
brush on his ranch and as adults take over the administration.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

About what?

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

About what?

See my previous post - you are repeating yourself.

[Stan de SD]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD
"Vagina Jym" Dyer, who spells his name with a "y" in solidary with
fruitcake feminists, is about as whacked as you are. However, unlike
you, he has the decency not to try to run up the post count into the
hundreds for every thread he ever participates in , unlike you.

Thus showing that you are simply a rude, right-wing loon, probably
having a fit due to what is going to happen tomorrow.

Why would I be having a fit? About what? Or in typicall Zaumenesqe
fashion, do you feel you're more of an expert on what I am doing or
thinking at a given moment than I am?

You don't seem to think much at all, but given your right-wing leanings
having a fit tomorrow

About what?

See my previous post - you are repeating yourself.

Well, maybe you forgot what you were referring to. Or maybe you just
made it up, like you usually do? :Oo

[Bill Z.]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Bill Z.
having a fit tomorrow

About what?

See my previous post - you are repeating yourself.

Well, maybe you forgot what you were referring to. Or maybe you just
made it up, like you usually do? :Oo

Liar.

[Stan de SD]

Post by George

First, the subject line is a lie - liberals are not making excuses for
those rioters.

Post by Stan de SD
And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

Isn't it amazing? I'm glad the whole thing was on the TV news so the
whole world could see how the lovely citizens of Oakland handle
themselves when they want their voices heard.

While not the most recent numbers, in 2000, the population of Oakland
was about 400,000 people. It seems in the demonstration under
discussion, around 200 individuals split off to do there own thing,
with a significant number of those rioting, and about 100 were
arrested. Last I heard, there was not a requirement to be a citizen
of Oakland to participate in a riot there, and the riot at most
consisted of 0.05% of the city. I'm curious how the behavior of 0.05%
of the city or less (the number of people from out of town is not
clear at this point) reflects on "the lovely citizens of Oakland" in
general.
BTW,
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN...>
has an article on the incident and comments from some the
demonstrators (whether also rioters was not clear). It mentions that
the core group of the mob seemed to be about 40 people with several
associated with "Revolution Books" in Berkeley. One person
interviewed was from San Pablo and another was from San Francisco. It
is interesting that LauraM does not blame those communities as
well. :-)
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Because, if you spend any time at all in the city, not in the hills
( which really ought to secede from Oakland and remove the property
tax base), you know how out of control the whole place is. All those
lovely condos going up downtown are going to have to be heavily
subsidized to get folks to move there. Just go down to 14th&Broadway
any night and watch the zombies and lowlifes crawl out of the ooze
that is downtown Oakland every hour on the half hour when AC lines up
all its Owl service. Scary

Silly Billy Zaumen is far more interested in flaunting his (mistakenly
assumed) moral superiority than dealing with facts. That's how
liberals work, and that's why places like Oakland remain hell-holes
for those members of the citizenry who aren't in Piedmont or the
Hills.

[Fine Porcelain China Blue]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Fine Porcelain China Blue

Post by 11 Days - <SNICKER>
Well, what did Obama have to do with the cops
shooting a handcuffed BART rider?

Nada

Then why mention it in conjuction with Obama?

=x= She just wanted the world to know that her dear husband's
wit and intelligence have nothing to do with thinking and
reasoning, and everything to do with coded racist spewage.

And what would that "coded racist spewage" be? Not toeing the PC
Liberal party line, and acknowledging that there is a certain level of
thuggery in Oakland, both on the streets and in local politics?

In the BART police.

[Jym Dyer]

Before Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that
Oakland has riots after the election". I said, "Obama will
probably win, so there won't be any riots." My husband said,
"They'll be riots no matter who wins."

So police kill unarmed and [supine] suspects because a black
man gets elected President.
You have a rather low opinion of the competence and dedication
of the police.

=v= Actually what's low is her (and her husband's) IQ. None of
that follows any course of logical reasoning. It's just bigoted
spewage that requires no thought whatsoever.

=v= Great way to distract from the reality of a murdering cop
(who looked to be hopped up on steroids).
<_Jym_>

[Stan de SD]

Before Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that
Oakland has riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will
probably win, so there won't be any riots."  My husband said,
"They'll be riots no matter who wins."

So police kill unarmed and [supine] suspects because a black
man gets elected President.
You have a rather low opinion of the competence and dedication of the police.

=v= Actually what's low is her (and her husband's) IQ.  None of
that follows any course of logical reasoning.  It's just bigoted
spewage that requires no thought whatsoever.

As opposed to your well-though-out knee-jerk left-wing posts, huh?

[People's Republic of China Blue]

Post by Stan de SD
On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said.  Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots."  My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins."  And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration.  Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets
elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

I'm not the one linking a BART police killing to the presidential election. If
you think the linkage is absurd, discuss it with Laura Mars.

[People's Republic of China Blue]

Post by LauraM

Post by Stan de SD
On Jan 8, 5:43 pm, People's Republic of China Blue

In article

I'm cracking up here....in agreement regarding what you said.  Before
Obama was elected, my husband said, "I'll bet you that Oakland has
riots after the election".  I said, "Obama will probably win, so there
won't be any riots."  My husband said, "They'll be riots no matter who
wins."  And he was right...there was a riot near Jack London Square.
I guess that's their idea of a celebration.  Definitely low-lifes.

So police kill unarmed and suppine suspects because a black man gets
elected
President.

Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight... the problem with Usenet
these days is that even the quality of idiots have gone downhill. :O|}

No kidding! Was that guy even reading what I wrote?

You're saying Oakland riots due to a police killing are due to Obama's election.
If you think that's absurd, why say it?

[Pfc Bush - 7th Cav]

"Stan de SD" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a8c2fa89-639f-448d-bd6c-***@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 8, 10:46 am, David Nebenzahl <***@but.us.chickens> wrote:


It's okay, you don'y need to make excuses for BushCo.

[Wheels]

More of the usual right wing whining. That's all they do these days
now that they've been crushed in two elections and have become
politically irrelevant.