--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rsing1111" <rsinger1111@c...>
wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...>
wrote:
> > That's what I call pure brilliance. It wins today, it's a good
> > machine. It loses tomorrow it's a bad machine. vp machines are
only as good or bad as they do for you TODAY. No theories. No
baloney. Just the facts.
> ROTFLMAO. It's a bad machine. No, it's a good machine. No, it's a
>bad machine. No, it's a good machine. Maybe it has nothing to do
with the machine ... Robbie, you'll feel
> better tomorrow after the doctors refill your prescription.
How 'bout it has everything to do with the machine, like whether it
wins or loses for the player? Ever hear of that, or is all your
play
in fantasyland?
Who presses the deal button? The machine? Nope, it's you, moron, so
it's you who controls the outcome, not the machine. Any other opinion
could only come from "fantasyland".
> > I've cleared the mess you wrote to
> > give it to he-who-cannot-comprehend again. 1000 Muslim scum
>
> Racist.
Better to be a live racist in a city where 2million people are
saved
than a t-o-l-e-r-a-n-t fool who's driven by the guilt of d-i-v-e-r-
s-
i-t-y.
Your lack of logic is inescapable. The same logic you apply to VP.
> Stupid scenario at best. Why would they care if we sweat? Why
give
>us time to react? You really are a moron. In addition, previously,
>you left it ambiguous whether all were terrorists or just one.
Make
>up your mind. PS. The chances of him being alone in this are NIL.
This is your blatant inexperience outside the world of Dick being
exhibited once again. Muslim terrorists love to make their enemies
sweat because they irrationally think we do what we do to them to
make them sweat.
Could you possibly say anything more foolish? Name ONE event where
terrorists have stuck the US and given any kind of a warning. One,
moron, just one. I think you watch way too much TV.
I said ONE was a terrorist. Again, ONE.
Nope, you didn't. You said "one of them has sent out a message"
(message 2312). Wow, you have no clue do you?
And your
comment about the chances of his being alone further demonstrate
your
lack of knowledge of what we have to deal with in the real world,
and
confirm your failed ability to waffle on the subject again.
Translation. I really got you on this one, didn't I? There's no way
he'd EVER be alone. So, you have nothing specific to add so you throw
out some nebulous rhetoric. You are such a fool.
> Since that is what I said (not you) would be the case, it's
pretty
> clear I know. The real quetion is whether you'd have figured it
out
> without me.
Read the original scenario again and figure it out.
I did. The question is whether you even know how to go back and look
at old messages (2312). If you need help, just ask and I'll give you
some real simple instructions.
> Anyone ever hear of ONE person on a mission like this? Acquiring
a
> nuclear device, getting it into the country, etc., etc. Only a
>moron would come to the conclusion it was one man.
And that's the type of exact ignorance these people count on us
having to get and keep their advantage.
Nice try. But, it just wouldn't work in the real world. And, it has
nothing to do with what anyone would "count on". You've dug yourself
into a hole that's completely obvious to everyone but you. LMAO.
> Of course there's time. 10 days. It's YOUR idiotic scenario.
Yo! It was UP TO 10 days. Big difference. Another case of reading
without comprehension.
Like I said before, it was your stupid scenario. However, if it
hasn't gone off yet, then a logical conclusion is you still have up
to 2 days to find it (I realize all logic pretty much escapes you). A
chance at 2 days is better than NO CHANCE AT ALL with your bombem
approach.
> > Well-known among those familiar with suitcase nuclear weapons,
> > it requires hands-on detonation.
> What a joke. Who ever said it would be in a suitcase? By the way,
>ANY device that can be detonated manually can be detonated
remotely.
>Oh, hold on, it was your idiotic secanrio in the first place. I'm
>not surprised to see you toss in another idiotic statement.
Another case of inexperienced blabber. There is only one type of
mobile nuclear device not being delivered by a missile system--
SUITCASE is the terminology for it. Generally, it IS in a suitcase.
And it cannot be detonated remotely. Ever.
How can you stick with such an obvious lie. You are such a fool.
> Kill the only possible lead you have and you will lose??? Can it
> really be this easy to make you like an imbicile???
What 'lead'? He'll be blown to bits too, unless if a peacenik like
you lets him get out. So now you say let him blow up the city, get
away so we can follow him to his leaders, and all will be fine. You
are so naiive.
Nope, I'd never do any of those things. This, once again, is your
typical approach of trying to generalize everyone. It has always made
you look like a fool. You're methods are so obvious to anyone with
any concept of logic. You've got to be about the poorest debater I've
ever come across.
Thank God we have a strong leader and people like me
who understand the right way and the wrong way to handle things.
Like your VP strategies? LMAO once again.