Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ?

Tim May wrote:

In article , domanova
wrote:

In article , Wes Groleau
wrote:

Real cute. Respond to a racist by outdoing him in stereotyping.

And you're going to tell me I was far off the mark? The guy who frets
that his Mac might have been assembled by a "******" is, lets see,

black?

No, I am not a ******.

And not bright enough to recognize sarcasm...

well educated?

Depends on your definition. If it includes interacting with Nobel Prize
winners and winning the IEEE's highest paper award, the W.R.G. Baker
Prize, for an original paper, then I suppose I am "well educated."

Nothing much worse than an ignorant fool. Or in terms even HE hac
understand:
a clever monkey.

If it assumes Ebonics as an only language,

"only language"? That doesn't even make sense.

****** jive, liberal cant, then I am not educated.

At least he admits it!

a member of the professional middle class?

No, I am way above the "professional middle class." I retired to pursue
my interests and causes when I was 34.

Must be Republican. Only Republicans reduce the world to dollars
and cents. Intelligent people realize money is a tool, not a goal. Heck,
even Neocons sometimes admit that...

fundamentally pleased with his life?

No, because ******s and Jews keep stealing more and more from me. Why
should I be "pleased" with their their ****** depradations?

So, basically, unpleased with the fantasy world you have created for
yourself. Sucks to be mentally ill, I guess.

Just another proof that "wealth" does not equate to anything other than
the ability to make money. God, how I wish Republicans would jsut
open their eyes and see the real world...

Dan

Wes Groleau coughed up:
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

PLONK

Doing so was a good idea.

Saying so is debatable.

Reposting the garbage on all four newsgroups was a bad idea.


I spent some time thinking on this and am still not sure why you say that.

1. It's already been read.
2. If it had been missed by someone on an NNTP server with low retention,
then it was a supplied reason for the plonk.

I guess I don't see what the big deal is.



--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:36 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

But since when are rights a matter of popular opinion? Why should
the government decide, except for valid medical reasons, who should
be allowed to marry whom?

It depends on if they are in fact a right, or simply stamping your
foot and hollering I wanna!

Marriage is in fact a right.

Please point out the mention in the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment. If the Constitution was a job description, this would
be the "others as determined" clause.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.

Not sure what the thread is here, but the Geneva convention on human rights
gives the right to a family,
dm
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
news
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:25:36 GMT
in misc.survivalism :

But since when are rights a matter of popular opinion? Why should
the government decide, except for valid medical reasons, who should
be allowed to marry whom?

It depends on if they are in fact a right, or simply stamping your
foot and hollering I wanna!

Marriage is in fact a right.

Please point out the mention in the Constitution.

Ninth Amendment. If the Constitution was a job description, this would
be the "others as determined" clause.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."



--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.

In article , Duncan J Murray

wrote:

Not sure what the thread is here, but the Geneva convention on human rights
gives the right to a family,

We're talking about America and the U.S. Constitution, not something
called "The Geneva Convention" that Jews and ******s and commies in
Europe got passed.


--Tim May

Tim May wrote in
:

snip

We're talking about America and the U.S. Constitution, not something
called "The Geneva Convention" that Jews and ******s and commies in
Europe got passed.

Just so you know, Tim, we're everywhere.

EVERYWHERE!!!

HaHaHa!!

Alan

Alan P wrote in
news:1095816685.6eCXfBYgYOJv1UzfspBibQ@teranews:

Tim May wrote in
:

snip

We're talking about America and the U.S. Constitution, not something
called "The Geneva Convention" that Jews and ******s and commies in
Europe got passed.

Just so you know, Tim, we're everywhere.

EVERYWHERE!!!

HaHaHa!!

Alan


AND, we all have bigger penises than you!!!

Alan

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article , Duncan J Murray

wrote:

Not sure what the thread is here, but the Geneva convention on human
rights
gives the right to a family,

We're talking about America and the U.S. Constitution, not something
called "The Geneva Convention" that Jews and ******s and commies in
Europe got passed.


--Tim May

Good old tiny tim. Open mouth, insert foot.

Dan

In article , Tim May wrote:
In article , Duncan J Murray

Not sure what the thread is here, but the Geneva convention on human rights
gives the right to a family,

We're talking about America and the U.S. Constitution, not something
called "The Geneva Convention" that Jews and ******s and commies in
Europe got passed.

You could have made a valid point about how Duncan mistook
the Geneva Conventions (effectively the "rules of war"), for
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, you
obviously thought it more important to add to the growing
international impression that the United States of America
is largely populated by a bunch of ignorant ****wits.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted
in 1948 by 48 UN member states, including the United States.
Furthermore, it was largely based on seven founding texts
which include the "Roosevelt Declaration" and the "Atlantic
Charter" (signed 1941 by the United States and Britain).

Article 16, clause 1 of the UDHR states:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to
race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and
to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

As I see it there is no explicit inclusion of same-sex
marriages (that is how the thread developed isn't it?),
but then neither are they explicitly excluded.

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/