I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

On Aug 4, 1:27*pm, RonB wrote:
I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

On Aug 4, 4:44*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

On Aug 4, 1:27*pm, RonB wrote:



I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

They did: Bill Clinton.

"RonB" wrote:

I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.


After his heart surgery, he has been very public about changes he has
made to his diet as well as the resulting weight loss.

Lew

Ahh, the ol' 2-for-1 deal. Just like when Bill was pres we got Hillary
for free, now Bill comes as part of the package.

Honestly, I had been surprised by Hillary during the campaign and
thought maybe she had some chops. I also thought maybe she would shine
in this current position. Unlike the do-nothing type job one has in
the Senate which doesn't really show off ones weakness, in this
current position she ain't gettin it done and it shows; and now she
has to call in Billy to close the deal. Weak. I have the greatest
respect for Bill (as a politician) but Hillary just lost a few notches
in my ranking.

On Aug 4, 2:58*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 4:44*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:





I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

On Aug 4, 1:27*pm, RonB wrote:

I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

They did: Bill Clinton.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 4, 6:11*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
Ahh, the ol' 2-for-1 deal. Just like when Bill was pres we got Hillary
for free, now Bill comes as part of the package.

Honestly, I had been surprised by Hillary during the campaign and
thought maybe she had some chops. I also thought maybe she would shine
in this current position. Unlike the do-nothing type job one has in
the Senate which doesn't really show off ones weakness, in this
current position she ain't gettin it done and it shows; and now she
has to call in Billy to close the deal. Weak. I have the greatest
respect for Bill (as a politician) but Hillary just lost a few notches
in my ranking.

On Aug 4, 2:58*pm, Robatoy wrote:



On Aug 4, 4:44*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

On Aug 4, 1:27*pm, RonB wrote:

I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

They did: Bill Clinton.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

I don't like Bill and never have, but he is good at certain things. I
wonder what he was authorized to promise that Kim Jong Il.

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.


There's always Jimmy Carter.

And the journalists aren't free yet (and may never be).

Aside:
Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill that would prohibit anyone convicted
in a foreign court of a felony or the crime of domestic violence from owning
a gun in the United States. This prohibition would apply, not only to the
likes of Desmond Tutu, Lech Walensa, and others, but also to these two
ladies.

He has a heart?!!!

On Aug 4, 3:11*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"RonB" wrote:
I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

After his heart surgery, he has been very public about changes he has
made to his diet as well as the resulting weight loss.

Lew

But what about his black lab sex drive ?

On Aug 4, 7:12*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

There's always Jimmy Carter.

And the journalists aren't free yet (and may never be).

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/675806

I know you wanted him to fail, like your buddy Rush wanted all libs to
fail......but better luck next time, eh?

Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist"
issue. "Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up
in jail. I bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin
in exchange."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

There's always Jimmy Carter.

And the journalists aren't free yet (and may never be).

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/675806

I know you wanted him to fail, like your buddy Rush wanted all libs to
fail......but better luck next time, eh?

Rush doesn't want all libs to fail. You should listen to his program and you
wouldn't have such wrong ideas. The way I understand it, Rush wants most
liberal PROGRAMS to fail, not the liberals themselves.

Regarding the hostages, it's a little more complicated.

I wanted the ladies out, but I didn't want our government to grovel before a
tyrant. Now Bill Clinton is not the government, of course, but he IS the
spouse of the Secretary of State. In my mind, therefore, Clinton was an
exceedingly poor choice for the mission. Likewise Jimmy Carter or George
Bush would have also been poor choices. So who would I have encouraged to
go?

1. Soupy Sales
2. Dan Rather
3. Kathy Griffin
4. Willie Nelson or The Dixie Chicks
5. Duane Chapman ("Dog the Bounty Hunter")
6. R. Lee Ermey (Mail Call, Full Metal Jacket) *

If none were available, I could probably come up with some other
suggestions.

There's also an alternative. When faced with a similar situation, a
Republican president proclaimed: "America wants Pedicaris alive, or Raisuli
dead!"

And this same president said, a little later, "Gentlemen, nothing in this
world is certain - absolutely nothing. The fate of the nation will be
decided by the American people in November, and the fate of Morocco will be
decided tomorrow by me."

------------------
* Here's a story about Ermey:

A few years ago, Ermey appeard at the NRA convention in Houston. He was
signing autographs at the Glock booth as I eased up beside him and said:
"Lee, a legislator in Michigan has proposed a bill allowing an open season
on feral cats. I'm putting together a tape of celebrity cat-calls. Would you
be interested in saying 'Here, kitty-kitty' for the project?"

He turned his head, looked at me, and said: "That is the most ****ed-up idea
I EVER heard!"

Oh well, I thought. Maybe Charlton Heston...

On Aug 4, 9:58*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


Rush doesn't want all libs to fail. You should listen to his program and you
wouldn't have such wrong ideas. .

The right has lost its way. They're just bitter, vindictive and in
Rush's case, insane.
I have listened to Rush...I think the Oxycontin has fried him beyond
repair.

In article 14ff15ae-67ed-4647-b672-a4c5fbf29d68
@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...

He has a heart?!!!

Clearly, or it wouldn't have needed surgery.

If they'd gone in and found none, think of the headlines.

Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:58 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


Rush doesn't want all libs to fail. You should listen to his program
and you wouldn't have such wrong ideas. .

The right has lost its way. They're just bitter, vindictive and in
Rush's case, insane.
I have listened to Rush...I think the Oxycontin has fried him beyond
repair.

Bitter? Yes. And clinging to guns or religiion and expressing an antipathy
to those that are not like them.

But that's normal.

Check out "Jane's Law." Jane's Law states: "The party IN power is arrogant;
the party OUT of power is merely insane."

On Aug 5, 8:19*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:58 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Rush doesn't want all libs to fail. You should listen to his program
and you wouldn't have such wrong ideas. .

The right has lost its way. They're just bitter, vindictive and in
Rush's case, insane.
I have listened to Rush...I think the Oxycontin has fried him beyond
repair.

Bitter? Yes. And clinging to guns or religiion and expressing an antipathy
to those that are not like them.

But that's normal.

Check out "Jane's Law." Jane's Law states: "The party IN power is arrogant;
the party OUT of power is merely insane."

Well then, snuggle up to Jane, but please..PLEASE don't have any
children.

Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 8:19 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 9:58 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:12 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Rush doesn't want all libs to fail. You should listen to his
program and you wouldn't have such wrong ideas. .

The right has lost its way. They're just bitter, vindictive and in
Rush's case, insane.
I have listened to Rush...I think the Oxycontin has fried him beyond
repair.

Bitter? Yes. And clinging to guns or religion and expressing an
antipathy to those that are not like them.

But that's normal.

Check out "Jane's Law." Jane's Law states: "The party IN power is
arrogant; the party OUT of power is merely insane."

Well then, snuggle up to Jane, but please..PLEASE don't have any
children.

Oh, we conservatives like kids. It's the progressives that are eating the
seed corn.

Study up on the "Roe Effect."

In 1982, there were 64,553* reported abortions in Florida. It's fair to say
that most of these abortions were not from conservative, pro-lifers. Come
2000, these aborted fetuses would have been voting for the first time. Some,
of course, would have moved away, been incarcerated, or been killed in
gang-related wars. Most would probably not vote, but those that did would
probably follow the inclinations of their parents.

All that said, due to abortions in 1982, there were probably 10,000 votes in
Florida the Democrats did not get.

Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

--------------------------
* http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...ab-usa-FL.html

On Aug 5, 12:29*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:


Bush won Florida by 537 votes.


"Sure he did."
*pats HeyBub on the head*

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
There's also an alternative. When faced with a similar situation, a
Republican president proclaimed: "America wants Pedicaris alive, or Raisuli
dead!"

And this same president said, a little later, "Gentlemen, nothing in this
world is certain - absolutely nothing. The fate of the nation will be
decided by the American people in November, and the fate of Morocco will be
decided tomorrow by me."

------------------

A nice story but it was actually John Hay, the Sec of State, who made
the 1st remark, and the accurate quote is "This government wants Perdicaris
alive or Raisuli dead." And then Roosevelt backed down, quietly got
France and England to pressure the ruler of Morocco to accept Raisuli's
demands, after which Perdicaris was released. Roosevelt and Hay kept that
part secret at the time, the facts not being made public til about 30 years
later.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go but I
don't want anyone to think I could support such language. Frankly I
find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no great love in
general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I realize there are
some Saudis who might say similar or worse things about Americans or
maybe even just westerners in general, but you sir have just proven
yourself to be the same.

On Aug 4, 3:54*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:11*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:





Ahh, the ol' 2-for-1 deal. Just like when Bill was pres we got Hillary
for free, now Bill comes as part of the package.

Honestly, I had been surprised by Hillary during the campaign and
thought maybe she had some chops. I also thought maybe she would shine
in this current position. Unlike the do-nothing type job one has in
the Senate which doesn't really show off ones weakness, in this
current position she ain't gettin it done and it shows; and now she
has to call in Billy to close the deal. Weak. I have the greatest
respect for Bill (as a politician) but Hillary just lost a few notches
in my ranking.

On Aug 4, 2:58*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Aug 4, 4:44*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think he is just on his game so he has shed some pounds so he can
play whilst Hillary is busy galvanting around the globe.

Also, I can just here his internal dialog on this "journalist" issue.
"Hey, why leave two hot looking asian chicks all locked up in jail. I
bet I can go get them out and maybe get a little sumtin in exchange.."

Polictical comment: I guess the Obama administration didn't have
anybody up to the job.

On Aug 4, 1:27*pm, RonB wrote:

I just saw a couple of news article regarding Bill Clinton's role in
getting the US journalists released from N. Korea (apparently he was
successful).

Is it just me or has he aged considerably during the past several
months? *I thought he looked rather thin and gaunt.

RonB

They did: Bill Clinton.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

I don't like Bill and never have, but he is good at certain things. I
wonder what he was authorized to promise that Kim Jong Il.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go but I
don't want anyone to think I could support such language. Frankly I
find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no great love in
general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I realize there are
some Saudis who might say similar or worse things about Americans or
maybe even just westerners in general, but you sir have just proven
yourself to be the same.


It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that the
Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men. Right or
wrong, that is a fact. Likewise for many of the Saudi's co-religionists.

It is a huge mistake on the part of our country to have a female
representing us in that part of the world.

And I felt the same way about Condi Rice (and to a lesser extent about Colin
Powell).

As an aside, have you ever had a Middle-eastern fig? They're as big as an
apple - and quite tasty.

Larry W wrote:
In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
There's also an alternative. When faced with a similar situation, a
Republican president proclaimed: "America wants Pedicaris alive, or
Raisuli dead!"

And this same president said, a little later, "Gentlemen, nothing in
this world is certain - absolutely nothing. The fate of the nation
will be decided by the American people in November, and the fate of
Morocco will be decided tomorrow by me."

------------------

A nice story but it was actually John Hay, the Sec of State, who made
the 1st remark, and the accurate quote is "This government wants
Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead." And then Roosevelt backed down,
quietly got
France and England to pressure the ruler of Morocco to accept
Raisuli's demands, after which Perdicaris was released. Roosevelt and
Hay kept that part secret at the time, the facts not being made
public til about 30 years later.

So YOU say. I get my information from the authoritative movie quotes
database:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073906/quotes

I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.
I don't dispute that their backwards thinking in terms of basic human
rights, specifically as it relates to women is diplorable, but that
doesn't give anyone a freedom to degrade them.

Also, I think you are very backwards to think we shouldn't put a women
in any position simply because she is a woman. We know that their
feelings on this are wrong. Even better to put it in their face and
show the proper respect to any intelligent human by picking whoever is
best for a job regardless of gender.

You need to join the 21st century and stop thinking like those 12
century idealogs.

Now what is it that male chauvinists suck on, hmmmm...

On Aug 5, 12:50*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go but I
don't want anyone to think I could support such language. Frankly I
find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no great love in
general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I realize there are
some Saudis who might say similar or worse things about Americans or
maybe even just westerners in general, but you sir have just proven
yourself to be the same.

It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that the
Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men. Right or
wrong, that is a fact. Likewise for many of the Saudi's co-religionists.

It is a huge mistake on the part of our country to have a female
representing us in that part of the world.

And I felt the same way about Condi Rice (and to a lesser extent about Colin
Powell).

As an aside, have you ever had a Middle-eastern fig? They're as big as an
apple - and quite tasty.

"SonomaProducts.com" wrote in message
...
Also, I think you are very backwards to think we shouldn't put a women
in any position simply because she is a woman. We know that their
feelings on this are wrong. Even better to put it in their face and
show the proper respect to any intelligent human by picking whoever is
best for a job regardless of gender.

========
Not to belabor this, but that is the underlying question. Is she really the
best qualified person to forward our President's foreign policy? Or do you
find room for just the slightest doubt that she was indeed selected on some
other basis, such as internal politics and perhaps even her gender?

On Aug 5, 4:09*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.

Hardly.

I don't dispute that their backwards thinking in terms of basic human
rights, specifically as it relates to women is diplorable, but that
doesn't give anyone a freedom to degrade them.

Well well,well. Didn't we just swallow a whole box full of Political
Correctness Cereal.
Look, if you want to talk shop with a coal miner, you send in a coal
miner, not a seamstress.
I have some knowledge how some of these off-the-wall zealots think.
They get the same respect from me as I get from them...or what my wife
would get from them. I am getting sick and tired of our side reaching
out our hand just to have it slapped over and over again.
The City Of Toronto is full of people who insist we change to be
tolerant of them but won't learn the language of the country they
chose over theirs. Same with your immigrants from Mexico. It is
courtesy to communicate at the level of your host. Sending in Hillary
to Saudi Arabia precludes her from having any sort of standing
regardless HOW much *I* believe women are equal to any of us. They
don't. Period.
Stop assuming that your sense of women's rights bears any weight in
Saudi Arabia. It doesn't. To call them white-robed fig-suckers is no
different than my being called a Woodboot or Windmill mechanic.
There's richness in ethnicity.
Unfortunately, there have been too many tofu-sucking-Birkenstock-Volvo
driving-macramay assholes who have tried to cloud the diversity by
being weak-assed, spineless legislating morons trying to force Utopia
down our throats.

So put down that pork sandwich because you are offending somebody
somewhere!

And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker degrading? Huh?
Huh? You blue-jean wearing hamburger muncher, you!

Don't get me started.

Also, I think you are very backwards to think we shouldn't put a women
in any position simply because she is a woman.

That is BULL****! A woman deserves all the rights in this
society....*T*H*I*S* society. You see, it does not matter what I think
about women's rights... it's the other side of the bargaining table
that has a problem with women. Not me. Get it?

We know that their
feelings on this are wrong. Even better to put it in their face and
show the proper respect to any intelligent human by picking whoever is
best for a job regardless of gender.

Good luck with that.

You need to join the 21st century and stop thinking like those 12
century idealogs.

Really??

Robatoy wrote:

A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

Hmm. I don't think your stereotyping is particularly productive (nor
accurate), and if things continue to proceed as they have been, I think
we (the US) will have a credible and capable voice in Riyadh. The guy on
this web page is my xBIL and I have considerable respect for his
abilities (warning - split URL):

http://riyadh.usembassy.gov/policy/p...resident-obama
-announces-intent-to-nominate-brigadier-general-james.-b.-smith-as
-ambassador-to-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia

I don't like Bill and never have, but he is good at certain things. I
wonder what he was authorized to promise that Kim Jong Il.

Probably not very much.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"HeyBub" writes:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go but I
don't want anyone to think I could support such language. Frankly I
find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no great love in
general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I realize there are
some Saudis who might say similar or worse things about Americans or
maybe even just westerners in general, but you sir have just proven
yourself to be the same.


It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that the
Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men. Right or
wrong, that is a fact.

How about this then:

The facts are that the Republicans regard Democrats as something
significantly less than Republicans.

is that also bigotry? If not, why?

s

On Aug 5, 6:08*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

Hmm. I don't think your stereotyping is particularly productive (nor
accurate)

Then somebody explain to me that when my BIL worked in Saudi, my
sister did not get a visa to visit him in case she (and many others)
shed some of her western cooties on the Saudi women. Yet Hillary is
supposed to be able to sit down and talk turkey about US interests
with that same crowd? That would make them what? Hypocrites?
I guess it is okay for those Middle Eastern nations to slurp up
western dollars in exchange for oil even though some of that oil goes
to Jimmy Swaggart powering his car on his way to a hooker or some
factory using oil-based plastics to make dildos.
Makes sense to me. Let's defend the culture of Africa's cannibals
while we are at it. Female circumcision is cool because THEY think it
is cool.

There is a certain type of t-shirt which is referred to as a 'wife-
beater'. That disgusts me.
Very close friends of Ang and I work in the fields of domestic
violence and fight the denigration of women.
So, for me to label somebody a white-robed fig sucker is somehow
offensive but to set a woman on fire for being in a car with somebody
who isn't her husband isn't?

That whole culture that treats their camels or yaks with more respect
than their women disgusts me.
But not enough to justify the senseless killing that goes on with the
Palestinians.
Complicated, eh?

Oh I see, all women are seamstresses. What a sexist dolt.

You ask "And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker
degrading?" Oh, I guess that was a term of endearment. Are you so
blind to your racist point of view that you can't see that? If you are
so sure it is so benign maybe you should go find a group of Saudi's
and say that to their face... as if you had the balls; any balls.

I honestly thought I would be the last person on the earth to defend
Hillary but she ain't no seamstress. I suppose she has as much
toughness as any of the other aholes that have held that post since
Kissenger. Dude, your view of women and anyone not exactly like the
all impressive you is pretty clear. Pretty pathetic. I hope you have
coward your wife into an appropriate position of submission.

On Aug 5, 2:46*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 4:09*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.

Hardly.

I don't dispute that their backwards thinking in terms of basic human
rights, specifically as it relates to women is diplorable, but that
doesn't give anyone a freedom to degrade them.

Well well,well. Didn't we just swallow a whole box full of Political
Correctness Cereal.
Look, if you want to talk shop with a coal miner, you send in a coal
miner, not a seamstress.
I have some knowledge how some of these off-the-wall zealots think.
They get the same respect from me as I get from them...or what my wife
would get from them. I am getting sick and tired of our side reaching
out our hand just to have it slapped over and over again.
The City Of Toronto is full of people who insist we change to be
tolerant of them but won't learn the language of the country they
chose over theirs. Same with your immigrants from Mexico. It is
courtesy to communicate at the level of your host. Sending in Hillary
to Saudi Arabia precludes her from having any sort of standing
regardless HOW much *I* believe women are equal to any of us. They
don't. Period.
Stop assuming that your sense of women's rights bears any weight in
Saudi Arabia. It doesn't. To call them white-robed fig-suckers is no
different than my being called a Woodboot or Windmill mechanic.
There's richness in ethnicity.
Unfortunately, there have been too many tofu-sucking-Birkenstock-Volvo
driving-macramay assholes who have tried to cloud the diversity by
being weak-assed, spineless legislating morons trying to force Utopia
down our throats.

So put down that pork sandwich because you are offending somebody
somewhere!

And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker degrading? Huh?
Huh? You blue-jean wearing hamburger muncher, you!

Don't get me started.



Also, I think you are very backwards to think we shouldn't put a women
in any position simply because she is a woman.

That is BULL****! A woman deserves all the rights in this
society....*T*H*I*S* society. You see, it does not matter what I think
about women's rights... it's the other side of the bargaining table
that has a problem with women. Not me. Get it?

We know that their
feelings on this are wrong. Even better to put it in their face and
show the proper respect to any intelligent human by picking whoever is
best for a job regardless of gender.

Good luck with that.



You need to join the 21st century and stop thinking like those 12
century idealogs.

Really??

On Aug 5, 6:48*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
Oh I see, all women are seamstresses. What a sexist dolt.

*You ask "And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker
degrading?" Oh, I guess that was a term of endearment. Are you so
blind to your racist point of view that you can't see that? If you are
so sure it is so benign maybe you should go find a group of Saudi's
and say that to their face... as if you had the balls; any balls.

I honestly thought I would be the last person on the earth to defend
Hillary but she ain't no seamstress. I suppose she has as much
toughness as any of the other aholes that have held that post since
Kissenger. Dude, your view of women and anyone not exactly like the
all impressive you is pretty clear. Pretty pathetic. I hope you have
coward your wife into an appropriate position of submission.

On Aug 5, 2:46*pm, Robatoy wrote:



On Aug 5, 4:09*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.

Hardly.

I don't dispute that their backwards thinking in terms of basic human
rights, specifically as it relates to women is diplorable, but that
doesn't give anyone a freedom to degrade them.

Well well,well. Didn't we just swallow a whole box full of Political
Correctness Cereal.
Look, if you want to talk shop with a coal miner, you send in a coal
miner, not a seamstress.
I have some knowledge how some of these off-the-wall zealots think.
They get the same respect from me as I get from them...or what my wife
would get from them. I am getting sick and tired of our side reaching
out our hand just to have it slapped over and over again.
The City Of Toronto is full of people who insist we change to be
tolerant of them but won't learn the language of the country they
chose over theirs. Same with your immigrants from Mexico. It is
courtesy to communicate at the level of your host. Sending in Hillary
to Saudi Arabia precludes her from having any sort of standing
regardless HOW much *I* believe women are equal to any of us. They
don't. Period.
Stop assuming that your sense of women's rights bears any weight in
Saudi Arabia. It doesn't. To call them white-robed fig-suckers is no
different than my being called a Woodboot or Windmill mechanic.
There's richness in ethnicity.
Unfortunately, there have been too many tofu-sucking-Birkenstock-Volvo
driving-macramay assholes who have tried to cloud the diversity by
being weak-assed, spineless legislating morons trying to force Utopia
down our throats.

So put down that pork sandwich because you are offending somebody
somewhere!

And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker degrading? Huh?
Huh? You blue-jean wearing hamburger muncher, you!

Don't get me started.

Also, I think you are very backwards to think we shouldn't put a women
in any position simply because she is a woman.

That is BULL****! A woman deserves all the rights in this
society....*T*H*I*S* society. You see, it does not matter what I think
about women's rights... it's the other side of the bargaining table
that has a problem with women. Not me. Get it?

We know that their
feelings on this are wrong. Even better to put it in their face and
show the proper respect to any intelligent human by picking whoever is
best for a job regardless of gender.

Good luck with that.

You need to join the 21st century and stop thinking like those 12
century idealogs.

Really??

Before I get into this ****ing contest any further...point out to me
where I said that all women are seamstresses... or that all men are
coal miners. It is YOU, sir, who has a problem. (You know, reading
stuff into things that aren't said, much less even hinted at?"

Well... it was more than hinted at, it was fairly explicit. You used
the analogy of the coal miner and the seamstress. Bill Clinton and the
Koreans being the the coal miners and Hillary the seamstress. What
difference is there other than Bill is a man and Hillary a woman? So
your analogy says don't send a woman to do a man's job. So no,
admittediy not every woman is a seamstress and you didn't say so but
you clearly indicate there are jobs suited to a woman and jobs suited
to a man. Pretty clear. Pretty sexist. If the logic of my
interpretation is flawed, in your opinion, then please explain.

**** on that.

On Aug 5, 3:55*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 6:48*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:





Oh I see, all women are seamstresses. What a sexist dolt.

*You ask "And HOW is calling somebody a white-robed fig-sucker
degrading?" Oh, I guess that was a term of endearment. Are you so
blind to your racist point of view that you can't see that? If you are
so sure it is so benign maybe you should go find a group of Saudi's
and say that to their face... as if you had the balls; any balls.

I honestly thought I would be the last person on the earth to defend
Hillary but she ain't no seamstress. I suppose she has as much
toughness as any of the other aholes that have held that post since
Kissenger. Dude, your view of women and anyone not exactly like the
all impressive you is pretty clear. Pretty pathetic. I hope you have
coward your wife into an appropriate position of submission.

On Aug 5, 2:46*pm, Robatoy wrote:

On Aug 5, 4:09*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

I think calling someone a "white robed fig sucker" is not in any way
recognizing the bigotry of others. It is just a racist slur, at best.

Complicated? No not so much. You're pretty simplistic really.

No one, at least not I, have at all justified any of the view points
or actions of the musilm fundamentalists. I am simply trying to get
you to see that your hate driven viewpoint of them and your
capitualitation to their viewpoint regarding women by letting their
disregard for women drive your decision on who we shlould put into
positions of authority in our official relationships with them are
exactly the same type of blind "ism" that drives them.

I think we should only put women in such positions just to spite them.
If they want our money, they can deal with our women and I wish them
luck.

On Aug 5, 3:47*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 6:08*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

Hmm. I don't think your stereotyping is particularly productive (nor
accurate)

Then somebody explain to me that when my BIL worked in Saudi, my
sister did not get a visa to visit him in case she (and many others)
shed some of her western cooties on the Saudi women. Yet Hillary is
supposed to be able to sit down and talk turkey about US interests
with that same crowd? That would make them what? Hypocrites?
I guess it is okay for those Middle Eastern nations to slurp up
western dollars in exchange for oil even though some of that oil goes
to Jimmy Swaggart powering his car on his way to a hooker or some
factory using oil-based plastics to make dildos.
Makes sense to me. Let's defend the culture of Africa's cannibals
while we are at it. Female circumcision is cool because THEY think it
is cool.

There is a certain type of t-shirt which is referred to as a 'wife-
beater'. That disgusts me.
Very close friends of Ang and I work in the fields of domestic
violence and fight the denigration of women.
So, for me to label somebody a white-robed fig sucker is somehow
offensive but to set a woman on fire for being in a car with somebody
who isn't her husband isn't?

That whole culture that treats their camels or yaks with more respect
than their women disgusts me.
But not enough to justify the senseless killing that goes on with the
Palestinians.
Complicated, eh?

"Robatoy" wrote:

Same with your immigrants from Mexico. It is
courtesy to communicate at the level of your host.

I have always maintained that the price of admission is to learn the
language.

Expressed this idea to my auto mechanic, a man of Mexican extraction,
indicating that there appears to be a lack of desire of the Mexican
immigrants to learn our language.

Mechanic responded, "Lew you have to understand that for the most
part, these people have had almost no formal education of any kind and
are barely literate in Spanish."

Puts a whole different light on things.

Lew

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go
but I don't want anyone to think I could support such language.
Frankly I find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no
great love in general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I
realize there are some Saudis who might say similar or worse things
about Americans or maybe even just westerners in general, but you
sir have just proven yourself to be the same.


It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that
the Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men.
Right or wrong, that is a fact.

How about this then:

The facts are that the Republicans regard Democrats as something
significantly less than Republicans.

is that also bigotry? If not, why?


Sure. As I said, right or wrong, it is a fact. Now "bigotry" does not mean
denial of facts; it means treating some others with hatred and intolerance.
This is sometimes a Good Thing(TM), as in the dirty Japs of WW2.

Be that as it may, it is still counterproductive to send an emissary to
negotiate when you know the other party will treat your representative with
barely concealed contempt and disdain, take nothing they say seriously, and
view your surrogate as an insult to them, their religion, and their way of
life.

It may even be that the reason the Iranians won't negotiate is that they
simply cannot negotiate with a woman! Doing so would be against their
religion and 1500 years of tradition. That leaves them only one choice:
continue to build a nuclear weapon.

So the Iranians work towards the bomb, Israel attacks, Iran counter-attacks,
maybe millions die, and it's all the fault of Bush and Obama for having
Secretaries of State who squat to pee.

Like the Trojans and the Greeks, another war over (a couple of) women. At
least this war would have a reason better than some.

On Aug 5, 7:51*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:
Well... it was more than hinted at, it was fairly explicit. You used
the analogy of the coal miner and the seamstress. Bill Clinton and the
Koreans being the the coal miners and Hillary the seamstress. What
difference is there other than Bill is a man and Hillary a woman? So
your analogy says don't send a woman to do a man's job. So no,
admittediy not every woman is a seamstress and you didn't say so but
you clearly indicate there are jobs suited to a woman and jobs suited
to a man. Pretty clear. Pretty sexist.

Man, you got some serious issues.
I pointed out via analogy that when the party at the other side of the
negotiating table is hostile to women, don't send one if you want to
make any headway. No parallels between Bill and Coal miners, NO
parallels between seamstresses and Hillary... where on earth do you
dream up **** like that?

Now, just for ****s and giggles, are you suggesting that all jobs that
men can do can be done by women and visa versa?
I would concede on 99% of them, but..... I don't think I could pass as
a surrogate mother.... nor do I think that there are a lot of women
who could carry me down a fireman's ladder.... in fact few men
could....

But you're not really THAT stupid are you?

If the logic of my
interpretation is flawed, in your opinion, then please explain.

**** on that.

Just did.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

How about this then:

The facts are that the Republicans regard Democrats as something
significantly less than Republicans.

is that also bigotry? If not, why?

You simply consider the source and move on.

Lew

I loved the line in an article I read. It showed that Clinton reputation is
alive and kicking.

It said, New York Post declared, "Bubba gets the chicks."

The other line I heard was, Slick Willie wasn't going to pass up the
oppoertunity to save two asian chicks.

My concern is that this looks an awful like responding to state sponsored
terrorism. And we have always had the policy of not negotiating with
terrorists. Wanna bet that there are some terrorists getting some ideas
about this?

Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 6:08 pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
A great deal of her effectiveness is going to waste because she is
female. Those white-robed fig-suckers in Saudi aren't going to pay
attention to anything she says and that holds true in many parts of
the world. " Don't need no lip from no biatch!"

Hmm. I don't think your stereotyping is particularly productive (nor
accurate)

Then somebody explain to me that when my BIL worked in Saudi, my
sister did not get a visa to visit him in case she (and many others)
shed some of her western cooties on the Saudi women. Yet Hillary is
supposed to be able to sit down and talk turkey about US interests
with that same crowd? That would make them what? Hypocrites?
I guess it is okay for those Middle Eastern nations to slurp up
western dollars in exchange for oil even though some of that oil goes
to Jimmy Swaggart powering his car on his way to a hooker or some
factory using oil-based plastics to make dildos.
Makes sense to me. Let's defend the culture of Africa's cannibals
while we are at it. Female circumcision is cool because THEY think it
is cool.

There is a certain type of t-shirt which is referred to as a 'wife-
beater'. That disgusts me.
Very close friends of Ang and I work in the fields of domestic
violence and fight the denigration of women.
So, for me to label somebody a white-robed fig sucker is somehow
offensive but to set a woman on fire for being in a car with somebody
who isn't her husband isn't?

That whole culture that treats their camels or yaks with more respect
than their women disgusts me.
But not enough to justify the senseless killing that goes on with the
Palestinians.
Complicated, eh?

Several comments:

Hypocrisy gets a bad rap - it's not necessarily bad. 90% of gynecologists
are men.

I applaud your dedication to the righting of wrongs, but fear some of your
targets are misplaced. For example, according to the CDC, more MEN are the
victims of severe domestic violence (death or serious bodily injury) than
are women, but we are woefully underserved! In fact, there's only ONE men's
domestic violence shelter in the nation (I think Pittsburgh).

More men are raped each day than women (think prisons).

As to the "wife beater," I suppose, on some level, some women enjoy it. I
stopped a guy once who had taken his girlfriend's face and used it to bust
out the window of his car. After I handcuffed him and put him in the back of
my patrol car, I had a long conversation with her - or as long as I could on
the side of the road. Finally, in desperation, I gave her an ultimatum:
"Lady, are you going to file charges? Because if not, I've got to cut him
loose."

She said no!

I had one more chance: I stopped him on the way back to his car, looked him
right in the eye, and, with my best Clint Eastwood imitation, I said:
"Listen up, asshole, you touch that woman again and you'll have ME to deal
with! You got that straight?"

His exact words: "**** you. When I get her home, I'm gonna beat her so bad
she won't be able to lay down! Get in the car woman!"

And they drove away and lived happily ever after.

I was so frustrated over the whole sorry affair that, when I got off duty, I
went home and beat my wife.

On Aug 5, 8:00*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote:
Same with your immigrants from Mexico. It is

courtesy to communicate at the level of your host.

I have always maintained that the price of admission is to learn the
language.

Expressed this idea to my auto mechanic, a man of Mexican extraction,
indicating that there appears to be a lack of desire of the Mexican
immigrants to learn our language.

Mechanic responded, "Lew you have to understand that for the most
part, these people have had almost no formal education of any kind and
are barely literate in Spanish."

Puts a whole different light on things.

Lew

Fair enough. BUT... don't brow-beat me when *I* don't speak Spanish.
That's all I am saying.

On Aug 5, 8:01*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
SonomaProducts.com wrote:
I really shouldn't reply here on this subject and just let it go
but I don't want anyone to think I could support such language.
Frankly I find the comment about the Saudis, for whom I have no
great love in general, quite distasteful and somewhat bigoted. I
realize there are some Saudis who might say similar or worse things
about Americans or maybe even just westerners in general, but you
sir have just proven yourself to be the same.

It's not bigotry to recognize bigotry in others. The facts are that
the Saudis regard women as something significantly less than men.
Right or wrong, that is a fact.

How about this then:

*The facts are that the Republicans regard Democrats as something
*significantly less than Republicans.

is that also bigotry? *If not, why?

Sure. As I said, right or wrong, it is a fact. Now "bigotry" does not mean
denial of facts; it means treating some others with hatred and intolerance.
This is sometimes a Good Thing(TM), as in the dirty Japs of WW2.

Be that as it may, it is still counterproductive to send an emissary to
negotiate when you know the other party will treat your representative with
barely concealed contempt and disdain, take nothing they say seriously, and
view your surrogate as an insult to them, their religion, and their way of
life.

It may even be that the reason the Iranians won't negotiate is that they
simply cannot negotiate with a woman! Doing so would be against their
religion and 1500 years of tradition. That leaves them only one choice:
continue to build a nuclear weapon.

So the Iranians work towards the bomb, Israel attacks, Iran counter-attacks,
maybe millions die, and it's all the fault of Bush and Obama for having
Secretaries of State who squat to pee.

Like the Trojans and the Greeks, another war over (a couple of) women. At
least this war would have a reason better than some.

Somebody slap me. I am in complete agreement with what you just said.

No parallels? Now you are starting to sound like a communist, refuting
the truth in the face of it hoping no one will notice.

What were we talking about... uhh, Bill being sent to Korea instead of
Hillary. So how on ****ing earth does your coal miner\seamstress
anaology not apply. Pretty transparent.

Then another common tactic of those without a valid case, take some
small insignificant tangential point and blow it up into some
seemingly irrifutable fact of misstatment of you opponent.

The surrogate mother thing is ridiculous. And then in your firemen
statement you say it right there, you don't think there are a "lot" of
women who could carry your fat ass and then also state the same might
be true for men. Exactly! It doesn't matter if you are a woman or a
man, it matters if you can do the job. Hillary can stand up to those
*******s and say you deal with me or you don't deal at all. **** them
if they don't want to hear it from a woman.

By the way, from your clear condesention to women, I doubt there woudl
be many who would want to save you from a fire.

P.S. if you need another tangential issue maybe you can attack my
spelling or punctuation.

On Aug 5, 5:02*pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:51*pm, "SonomaProducts.com" wrote:

Well... it was more than hinted at, it was fairly explicit. You used
the analogy of the coal miner and the seamstress. Bill Clinton and the
Koreans being the the coal miners and Hillary the seamstress. What
difference is there other than Bill is a man and Hillary a woman? So
your analogy says don't send a woman to do a man's job. So no,
admittediy not every woman is a seamstress and you didn't say so but
you clearly indicate there are jobs suited to a woman and jobs suited
to a man. Pretty clear. Pretty sexist.

Man, you got some serious issues.
I pointed out via analogy that when the party at the other side of the
negotiating table is hostile to women, don't send one if you want to
make any headway. No parallels between Bill and Coal miners, NO
parallels between seamstresses and Hillary... where on earth do you
dream up **** like that?

Now, just for ****s and giggles, are you suggesting that all jobs that
men can do can be done by women and visa versa?
I would concede on 99% of them, but..... I don't think I could pass as
a surrogate mother.... nor do I think that there are a lot of women
who could carry me down a fireman's ladder.... in fact few men
could....

But you're not really THAT stupid are you?

If the logic of my
interpretation is flawed, in your opinion, then please explain.

**** on that.

Just did.