HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
Clinton was really great- terrorists attacking American interests
with no retribution. An immoral cheater as president. Now we're
doomed with osama in charge


No, Clinton was big on retribution! Clinton waged war on more
countries than any president since FDR (Albania, Serbia, Iraq, Sudan,
Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and one other I can't recall).

I remember: Croatia.

On Nov 12, 8:18*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
S'mee wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:21 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SNIP

## With what part of the Patriot Act do you have a problem?

It's uncostitutional and doesn't work... Not to mention it's completly
unworkable, stupid and indefensable from a rational point of view.

I keep asking "what part" and you keep saying "IT." The Patriot Act is a
collection of modifications to some sixty-odd existing laws. "IT" can't be
unconstitutional because there is no "IT."

I've read the law... I've talked to a couple of lawyers I know (yes I
kept my hand on my wallet) their comments mirrored my own. WHAT LOAD
of unconstitutional ****. BUT because it's "for the children and saves
the christian women" it's going to stand for now. That still doesn't
make it right or constitutional. The PA is as ****ed up as the
rantings of a 9/11 conspiracy kook. That's my opinion and weirdly
enough my opinion IS fact. Learn to deal with the fact that yeah, I am
smarter than congress. No I wont run and yes I don't mind spanish
communists. Yes I own guns, it keeps the politicians and xstian
cultists away.



So tell me what is so great about the UNPatriotic act? Nothing that's
what Homeland security is a joke and should be a MINOR part of
FEMA...I said that when they came out with it and I stand by it now.
Anybody that supports it is either an idiot or a member of the
National Socialist Democratic Party or in simple words for a simple
minded moron "NAZI's"

I call "Godwin!"

Godwin is a putz...and I was making a valid point so thppppppt.


OH by the way...my houses are bigger than yours. For that matter there
is NOTHING you have that is better than anything I have and I EARNED
it all by working not just hard but SMART. something a pathetic
dribble of spittle like you could never achieve and before that I
defended this country because I could. You aren't even homosexual
enought to defend our constitution you hateful loser.

And this applies exactly how to the PA?

Those who resort to insulting their debate opponent have lost the debate.

You started it. By claiming the PA was a good thing. It' most patently
is not and it is most assuradly unconstitutional.
--
Keith

i like those new connections too that you just push the copper or pex
into. it kinda snaps in and i havent had one leak yet. i prefer
soldering copper pipes but when water is present, soldering isnt easy..
lucas

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:46:49 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:21:32 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

wrote:
tg wrote:
The night we waved goodbye to America
*snip*

You Republicans had absolute control of our nation for 6 out of the
last 8 years, yet you did nothing, NOTHING, to promote your so-called
"values". If you weren't busy talking out of one side and doing the
complete OPPOSITE of what you claim to stand for, I'd vote for your
party.

## Well, things were pretty good for six years. Pretty good in spite of
9-11, Katrina, and two wars. Then the Democrats took over congress.

Nonsense. An illegal invasion of a soverign nation which was of no
threat to us,

## Nice buzz words; let's take them one at a time. "Illegal invasion" -
what law was broken?

Same as Korea and Vietnam, only Congress has the power to Declare War.
That didn't happen and I suspect you know damn well.

Under Article II of the Constitution - you do
believe in the supremecy of the Constitution, don't you - the president
has unlimited war-making powers.

Nope, grasshopper, the President does _not_ have "unlimited war-making
powers."

He may wage war on whomever he wants.

Bull****.

But there is a remedy for those who disagree. According to one appellate
court, "the people are free to remove the president at the next
election."

I'm happy to do that.

torture,

## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may not
like it, but it's his prerogative.

More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

an economic unwinding that is finally rising above most people's radar
horizon,

## As I said before, things were pretty good for six years.
Specifically, low unemployment, low inflation, 21 straight quarters of
economic growth. It all started to go south when the Democrats took over
congress.

Stop saying it then. Republicans had absolute control for 6 of those 8
years, that is what caused this economic disaster.

the "Patriot Act",

## Most people have no idea what was in the Patriot Act. For example,
they think it was a law - it wasn't a single law. It was a collection of
some huge number (60 as I recall) modifications to existing laws, mainly
to bring them up to date. For example, roaming wiretaps to account for
cell-phone usage and "letter subpoenas" were expanded from a handful of
businesses (car rental agencies, storage facilities, banks) to any
business.

Most of the "Patriot Act" is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment
therefore illegal.

massive
plundering of the economy (wealth transfer) to their cronies,

## Huh?

MASSIVE PLUNDERING OF THE ECONOMY (WEALTH TRANSFER) TO THEIR CRONIES.

implementation of a theocracy,

## What theocracy? Are you compelled to attend the National Church? Are
you prevented from attending your own? Is some official set of
sacraments taught at your local school?

More bull****. Bush has stated numerous times that god told him to invade
Iraq. Direct transfers of tax dollars are now going to churches and even
before religionists escaped equal taxation. There is no exemption in the
Constitution for tax exemption to religion.

uncountable dead due to his EO against stem cell research,

## There was no executive order prohibiting stem cell research. The only
restriction the government put on stem cell research was that the
government wouldn't pay for research using new stem cell lines.

As I said, Bush's EO against stem cell research. Who do you think funds
medical research?

As for
uncountable dead, that's not true. The number of dead is zero. There has
been NO stem-cell-based cure for anything. There may never be one.

You are wrong again. Diabetes and Parkinsons have been successfully
treated already, even with the depressed, and suppressed, stem cell
research programs hobbled by underfunding.

violation of the church/state clause,

## And what would that violation be?

Asked and answered above.

direct
funding of churches,

## Didn't happen. You're hallucinating.

You're lying, began in 2003:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/faith...nds_Faith2.htm

wiped their collective asses with the Constitution, failure to complete
his major assignmnet, capture or kill bin Laden,

## I hate to be the one to tell you, but killing or capturing bin Laden
was never a goal of the United States

You're lying again:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush,
9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

- I refer you to Douglas Feith's
[Undersecretary of Defense for Policy] book, "War and Decision." The
single strategy pursued with absolute dedication was/is to prevent
another attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To achieve
this goal, tactics were put in place to disrupt or destroy terrorist
communications, funding, training, movement, and recruiting. If bin
Laden were captured during any of these endeavors, that would be a plus,
but killing or capturing bin Laden was never any kind of goal.

In the decade preceding 9-11, there were about one or two attacks on the
U.S. per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy bombings, diplomat
kidnappings, etc. Since the above policy was implemented, there has not
been a single terrorist incident involving U.S. civilian interests,
either at home or abroad.

Most people know that correlation is not proof.

destruction of the American reputation worldwide, etc.

## So what? Responsible people don't give a fig about reputation.

Apparently you don't know any.

We do what we do that's in our own best interests. We do not curry favor
with the world. Our sense of self-worth is not dependent on the majority
vote or approbation of the "world."

Spoken like a real Texan. Foolish too.


Either you've been living in a cave without tv or internet or are
lying.

Maybe both. But at least I don't live in a theocracy - and neither do
you.

Ok, you're lying.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

S'mee wrote:
On Nov 12, 8:18 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
S'mee wrote:
On Nov 11, 6:21 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
SNIP

## With what part of the Patriot Act do you have a problem?

It's uncostitutional and doesn't work... Not to mention it's
completly unworkable, stupid and indefensable from a rational point
of view.

I keep asking "what part" and you keep saying "IT." The Patriot Act
is a collection of modifications to some sixty-odd existing laws.
"IT" can't be unconstitutional because there is no "IT."

I've read the law... I've talked to a couple of lawyers I know (yes I
kept my hand on my wallet) their comments mirrored my own. WHAT LOAD
of unconstitutional ****. BUT because it's "for the children and saves
the christian women" it's going to stand for now. That still doesn't
make it right or constitutional. The PA is as ****ed up as the
rantings of a 9/11 conspiracy kook. That's my opinion and weirdly
enough my opinion IS fact. Learn to deal with the fact that yeah, I am
smarter than congress. No I wont run and yes I don't mind spanish
communists. Yes I own guns, it keeps the politicians and xstian
cultists away.

I've asked and asked what part of the PA you find objectionable and I have
yet to get an answer. You say you've read the act. All indications are that
you didn't.

An "opinion" cannot be a "fact."

You're correct in that the result of the Patriot Act does not determine
whether it's constitutional, even if it is for the children. In fact, three
parts of the PA HAVE been declared unconstitutional. The remaining
provisions of the PA are, as a matter of fact and law, constitutional. As an
aside, you don't get to decide what is or is not constitutional; that
decision is a matter of law and for the courts.





So tell me what is so great about the UNPatriotic act? Nothing
that's what Homeland security is a joke and should be a MINOR part
of FEMA...I said that when they came out with it and I stand by it
now. Anybody that supports it is either an idiot or a member of the
National Socialist Democratic Party or in simple words for a simple
minded moron "NAZI's"

I call "Godwin!"

Godwin is a putz...and I was making a valid point so thppppppt.

The PA was passed by an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and
Republicans in the Congress. Are you, therefore, suggesting we call the
Congress the Reichstag?



OH by the way...my houses are bigger than yours. For that matter
there is NOTHING you have that is better than anything I have and I
EARNED it all by working not just hard but SMART. something a
pathetic dribble of spittle like you could never achieve and before
that I defended this country because I could. You aren't even
homosexual enought to defend our constitution you hateful loser.

And this applies exactly how to the PA?

Those who resort to insulting their debate opponent have lost the
debate.

You started it. By claiming the PA was a good thing. It' most patently
is not and it is most assuradly unconstitutional.

No, I didn't 'start it.' I said the PA was a Good Thing (tm). Period. I
didn't say you were an idiot for not recognizing the Patriot Act was a Good
Thing (tm). There's a big difference. For the record, I don't think you are
an idiot. Misinformed, perhaps. Ignorant, certainly. But I believe you have
potential, as do all God's children. I will pray to baby Jesus for your
enlightenment.

On Nov 11, 10:53*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
Clinton was really great- terrorists attacking American interests with
no retribution. *An immoral cheater as president. *Now we're doomed
with osama in charge

No, Clinton was big on retribution! Clinton waged war on more countries than
any president since FDR (Albania, Serbia, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti,
Afghanistan, and one other I can't recall).

There was a NEO in French Africa, then Rwanda et all. Bush 1 got us
into Somalia, but Clinton "mission creeped" us without authorizing
adequate assets. And Clark wanted to wage war with Russia because
they stole an airfield out from under his nose in the Former
Yugoslavia. Cooler heads prevailed. Clinton picked so many wrong
wars. Nation building in Haiti, and nation deconstructing in
Yugoslavia. Both soverign nations, neither did anything to us. Two
blown up USA Embassies in Africa and one blown up USA Warship by
Osama, one blown up aspirin factory by Clinton. Fair trade?

On Nov 12, 10:19*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
Clinton was really great- terrorists attacking American interests
with no retribution. *An immoral cheater as president. *Now we're
doomed with osama in charge

No, Clinton was big on retribution! Clinton waged war on more
countries than any president since FDR (Albania, Serbia, Iraq, Sudan,
Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, and one other I can't recall).

I remember: Croatia.

It was Yugoslavia. Now known as Bosnia, Croatia-Herzgovenia,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.

On Nov 12, 5:38*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

SNIP

So nothing intelligent to say I take it? Not surprised at all I am
not. I am certain the PA is worth only wiping the asses of hippos. I
read it many times, read the constitution even more times and I say it
is NOT constitutional. That I disagee with a judge is not a surprise.
That I am right is NOT a surprise...I've no political agenda unlike a
judge or politician.

I'm also far more informed about many things than you'll ever be. I am
still ignorant about why people join cults...it just doesn't make
sense why you people join them.
--
Keith

On Nov 11, 3:32*pm, wrote:
tg wrote:
The night we waved goodbye to America

*snip*

You Republicans had absolute control of our nation for 6 out of the
last 8 years, yet you did nothing, NOTHING, to promote your so-called
"values". If you weren't busy talking out of one side and doing the
complete OPPOSITE of what you claim to stand for, I'd vote for your
party.

You had your chance. You blew it. Now it's time to see what the other
side can do.

As I recall, things were good for me under Clinton. I had a good job.
Everyone I knew had good jobs. Our Federal treasury had a SURPLUS. We
were free to say what we wanted, do what we wanted (isn't that what
you righties are supposed to be all about???). Now we have the Patriot
Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, a war being waged based on lies,
and another one that was just, but botched from the get-go. We've had
gas go from less than $2 a gallon to almost $5. I lost my good job and
got stuck in a miserable job working for miserable people. We're
making national debt that would make Ronnie Ray-gun roll over in his
grave.

Barack Obama has charisma. He is a leader, but then again, he is just
one man. The amount of change he can affect is limited. So you can
take your lies and go back to your hypocritical lives...

Drill drill drill! Wait, you want to drill in my back yard???? Hell
no! Do you know what that'll do to my property value?

No handouts for the down-and-out! Wait, I just lost my job. Where are
my unemployment benefits???

Family values! Wait, I can't get along with my wife. Hold up a minute
while I sign these divorce papers...



The election day is over,

The talking is done.

My party lost,

your party won.

So let us be friends,

Let arguments pass.

I'll hug my elephant,

You kiss your ass.

"Danny T" wrote in message
...
On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, wrote:
tg wrote:
The night we waved goodbye to America

*snip*

You Republicans had absolute control of our nation for 6 out of the
last 8 years, yet you did nothing, NOTHING, to promote your so-called
"values". If you weren't busy talking out of one side and doing the
complete OPPOSITE of what you claim to stand for, I'd vote for your
party.

You had your chance. You blew it. Now it's time to see what the other
side can do.

As I recall, things were good for me under Clinton. I had a good job.
Everyone I knew had good jobs. Our Federal treasury had a SURPLUS. We
were free to say what we wanted, do what we wanted (isn't that what
you righties are supposed to be all about???). Now we have the Patriot
Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, a war being waged based on lies,
and another one that was just, but botched from the get-go. We've had
gas go from less than $2 a gallon to almost $5. I lost my good job and
got stuck in a miserable job working for miserable people. We're
making national debt that would make Ronnie Ray-gun roll over in his
grave.

Barack Obama has charisma. He is a leader, but then again, he is just
one man. The amount of change he can affect is limited. So you can
take your lies and go back to your hypocritical lives...

Drill drill drill! Wait, you want to drill in my back yard???? Hell
no! Do you know what that'll do to my property value?

No handouts for the down-and-out! Wait, I just lost my job. Where are
my unemployment benefits???

Family values! Wait, I can't get along with my wife. Hold up a minute
while I sign these divorce papers...



The election day is over,

The talking is done.

My party lost,

your party won.

So let us be friends,

Let arguments pass.

I'll hug my elephant,

You kiss your ass.


Dood, I'm stealing this.

--
--MoParMan--
---Scud Coordinates 32.61204 North 96.92989 West---
---Remove "Clothes" to Reply---
VROC-27911
08-Vulcan 1600 Nomad
http://www.vroc.org/view_profile.php?user_id=32113

The election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
You kiss your ass.


I think it needs a slight rearranging...

The election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug your elephant,
You kiss my ass.

On Nov 12, 11:07*pm, "MoParMaN"
wrote:
"Danny T" wrote in message

...
On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, wrote:



tg wrote:
The night we waved goodbye to America

*snip*

You Republicans had absolute control of our nation for 6 out of the
last 8 years, yet you did nothing, NOTHING, to promote your so-called
"values". If you weren't busy talking out of one side and doing the
complete OPPOSITE of what you claim to stand for, I'd vote for your
party.

You had your chance. You blew it. Now it's time to see what the other
side can do.

As I recall, things were good for me under Clinton. I had a good job.
Everyone I knew had good jobs. Our Federal treasury had a SURPLUS. We
were free to say what we wanted, do what we wanted (isn't that what
you righties are supposed to be all about???). Now we have the Patriot
Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, a war being waged based on lies,
and another one that was just, but botched from the get-go. We've had
gas go from less than $2 a gallon to almost $5. I lost my good job and
got stuck in a miserable job working for miserable people. We're
making national debt that would make Ronnie Ray-gun roll over in his
grave.

Barack Obama has charisma. He is a leader, but then again, he is just
one man. The amount of change he can affect is limited. So you can
take your lies and go back to your hypocritical lives...

Drill drill drill! Wait, you want to drill in my back yard???? Hell
no! Do you know what that'll do to my property value?

No handouts for the down-and-out! Wait, I just lost my job. Where are
my unemployment benefits???

Family values! Wait, I can't get along with my wife. Hold up a minute
while I sign these divorce papers...

The election day is over,

The talking is done.

My party lost,

your party won.

So let us be friends,

Let arguments pass.

I'll hug my elephant,

You kiss your ass.

Dood, I'm stealing this.

--
--MoParMan--
---Scud Coordinates 32.61204 North 96.92989 West---
---Remove "Clothes" to Reply---
VROC-27911
08-Vulcan 1600 Nomadhttp://www.vroc.org/view_profile.php?user_id=32113

please do -

On Nov 12, 11:19*pm, "Zoot" wrote:
The election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
You kiss your ass.

I think it needs a slight rearranging...

The election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost,
your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug your elephant,
You kiss my ass.

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's
rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few
lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.



Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

## Nice buzz words; let's take them one at a time. "Illegal
invasion" - what law was broken?

Same as Korea and Vietnam, only Congress has the power to Declare War.
That didn't happen and I suspect you know damn well.

Under Article II of the Constitution - you do
believe in the supremecy of the Constitution, don't you - the
president has unlimited war-making powers.

Nope, grasshopper, the President does _not_ have "unlimited war-making
powers."

He may wage war on whomever he wants.

Bull****.


You mistake the ability to "Declare" war with the act of "Making" war. I
assert that the president has plenary power to make war against whomever he
wishes and to any degree he wishes. This assertion is born out by the
original debates on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and various
court decisions.

Of court decisions, the first was the "Prize" cases. In every subsequent
court case, the principle that the president has unlimited war making power
has been upheld.

You may not like it, but your betters have found ample reasons to the
contrary.

For example, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president
since FDR (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and
one other whose name I forget).


torture,

## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may
not like it, but it's his prerogative.

More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the subject.
You really should learn before you speak.

As to the other objections you propose, some are correct but can be
over-ridden by exigent circumstances. As to your claim that torture does not
give reliable intelligence, you are right to be skeptical of information
derived from torture. Still, if, as you begin removing entrails, you ask
"Where is the farkin' bomb!" the subject gives a location, it's a simple
matter to look at that location and defuse the bomb, thereby saving the
lives of perhaps millions.

the "Patriot Act",

## Most people have no idea what was in the Patriot Act. For example,
they think it was a law - it wasn't a single law. It was a
collection of some huge number (60 as I recall) modifications to
existing laws, mainly to bring them up to date. For example, roaming
wiretaps to account for cell-phone usage and "letter subpoenas" were
expanded from a handful of businesses (car rental agencies, storage
facilities, banks) to any business.

Most of the "Patriot Act" is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment
therefore illegal.

Get a grip. The Patriot Act cannot be illegal or unconstitutional. Period.
PARTS of it may (and have been) declared so, but the act itself is an
omnibus collection of amendments to a wide variety of existing laws.

That said, and aside from the three provisions struck down, exactly what
provision of the PA do you think is a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Remember, neither you nor I get to decide what is unconstitutional. EVERY
law passed by a legislative body is DEFINED to be constitutional on its
face. It only becomes voided when a competent court decides so.


implementation of a theocracy,

## What theocracy? Are you compelled to attend the National Church?
Are you prevented from attending your own? Is some official set of
sacraments taught at your local school?

More bull****. Bush has stated numerous times that god told him to
invade Iraq. Direct transfers of tax dollars are now going to
churches and even before religionists escaped equal taxation. There
is no exemption in the Constitution for tax exemption to religion.

* I'd rather have God telling our president what to do than many humans.
* Tax dollars don't go to churches for religious purposes.
* There IS an exemption in the Constitution for religious tax exemptions and
deductions. Numerous court decisions have so declared. That you can't see it
means you haven't investigated the penumbras and emanations of the 1st
Amendment.


uncountable dead due to his EO against stem cell research,

## There was no executive order prohibiting stem cell research. The
only restriction the government put on stem cell research was that
the government wouldn't pay for research using new stem cell lines.

As I said, Bush's EO against stem cell research. Who do you think
funds medical research?

As for
uncountable dead, that's not true. The number of dead is zero. There
has been NO stem-cell-based cure for anything. There may never be
one.

You are wrong again. Diabetes and Parkinsons have been successfully
treated already, even with the depressed, and suppressed, stem cell
research programs hobbled by underfunding.

I'll correct myself on one thing: Bush did not prohibit funding of all stem
cell research, only research dealing with FETAL stem cells. I'll also
correct you on two things: Neither Diabetes nor Parkinson's Disease is
fatal. No one ever died directly from either. So my original claim of "the
number of dead is zero" still essentially stands.

Some treatments of the two diseases using stem-cell technology is
promising - but the treatment does not involve FETAL stem cells.

No, the presidental ban on funding fetal stem-cell research is a red
herring.



## I hate to be the one to tell you, but killing or capturing bin
Laden was never a goal of the United States

You're lying again:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W.
Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that
said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

These were initial gut reactions to the events that happened less than a
week before. Sober analysis and reflections generated more pragmatic
approaches. No one in the administration has put forth the 'capture or kill'
doctrine as a strategy.

This is NOT the case for the progressives. They tend to view bin Laden as a
criminal to be captured, tried, and rehabilitated (possibly in a half-way
house in a Republican district). Their view is that, with sufficient dialog,
bin Laden can be persuaded of the error of his ways and we can find mutually
acceptable compromises.



- I refer you to Douglas Feith's
[Undersecretary of Defense for Policy] book, "War and Decision." The
single strategy pursued with absolute dedication was/is to prevent
another attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To
achieve this goal, tactics were put in place to disrupt or destroy
terrorist communications, funding, training, movement, and
recruiting. If bin Laden were captured during any of these
endeavors, that would be a plus, but killing or capturing bin Laden
was never any kind of goal.

In the decade preceding 9-11, there were about one or two attacks on
the U.S. per year. WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassy bombings, diplomat
kidnappings, etc. Since the above policy was implemented, there has
not been a single terrorist incident involving U.S. civilian
interests, either at home or abroad.

Most people know that correlation is not proof.

Agreed.


destruction of the American reputation worldwide, etc.

## So what? Responsible people don't give a fig about reputation.

Apparently you don't know any.

We do what we do that's in our own best interests. We do not curry
favor with the world. Our sense of self-worth is not dependent on
the majority vote or approbation of the "world."

Spoken like a real Texan. Foolish too.

Here's one simple question: "Why do you care what other people think?"
Actually, that's the title of a book by Richard Feynman. Here's an example
of Feynman's thinking (paraphrased).

Ring-ring
"Hello"
"Is this Dr. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr Richard P. Feynman?"
"Yes"
"Dr. Feynman, my name is Joe Blow. I am the United States Ambassador to the
court of King Gustav VI of Sweden. It is my distinct pleasure to inform you
that you have been awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics."
"Do you have any idea what the hell time it is in California?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call me back after nine!"
click

It's a simple concept: if your self-worth is dependent on the approbation of
others, if your well-being is influenced by whether you're loved, if your
reason for existence is to be praised by the crowd, if your life's goal is
to do that which will garner praise, your entire life is but a balloon -
large when blown by the hot air of others, but essentially empty.




Either you've been living in a cave without tv or internet or are
lying.

Maybe both. But at least I don't live in a theocracy - and neither do
you.

Ok, you're lying.

HeyBub wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

## Nice buzz words; let's take them one at a time. "Illegal
invasion" - what law was broken?
Same as Korea and Vietnam, only Congress has the power to Declare War.
That didn't happen and I suspect you know damn well.

Under Article II of the Constitution - you do
believe in the supremecy of the Constitution, don't you - the
president has unlimited war-making powers.
Nope, grasshopper, the President does _not_ have "unlimited war-making
powers."

He may wage war on whomever he wants.
Bull****.


You mistake the ability to "Declare" war with the act of "Making" war. I
assert that the president has plenary power to make war against whomever he
wishes and to any degree he wishes. This assertion is born out by the
original debates on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and various
court decisions.

Of court decisions, the first was the "Prize" cases. In every subsequent
court case, the principle that the president has unlimited war making power
has been upheld.

You may not like it, but your betters have found ample reasons to the
contrary.

For example, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president
since FDR (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and
one other whose name I forget).


torture,
## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may
not like it, but it's his prerogative.
More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the subject.
You really should learn before you speak.


Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

.................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.

...............

So Para 1 states that it applies to persons taking no active part in
hostilities *including* members of armed forces. That means it covers
everybody, whether regular soldier or not. Torture is expressly
forbidden by this article for all persons no longer engaged in
hostilities by virtue of having been taken prisoner.

d

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may
not like it, but it's his prerogative.

More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the subject.
You really should learn before you speak.

Many readings of the G or H Cs suggests that unlawful enemy
combatants can be summarily executed. I keep telling those wanting to
invoke the GC to be careful what they wish for.


You are wrong again. Diabetes and Parkinsons have been successfully
treated already, even with the depressed, and suppressed, stem cell
research programs hobbled by underfunding.

I'll correct myself on one thing: Bush did not prohibit funding of all stem
cell research, only research dealing with FETAL stem cells. I'll also
correct you on two things: Neither Diabetes nor Parkinson's Disease is
fatal. No one ever died directly from either. So my original claim of "the
number of dead is zero" still essentially stands.

And in both cases stem cells are still in the mouse stage so nobody has
lived as of yet. Also, the general stem cell research continues with
many of the general basic science easily transferred to even embryonic
stem cell.

From the Wall Street Journal in 2006. :What is certain is the research
is spreading. Last year, NIH grants and contracts supported about 154
research projects involving the administration-approved stem cells. The
spending included $4.2 million for a new, national stem-cell bank in
Madison, Wisc., $3,000 for a stem-cell conference in Colorado, and
hundreds of thousands of dollars for government scientists tracing the
effects of cocaine and marijuana on human nerves.
"The limits imposed by Mr. Bush's policy have had a silver lining for
top schools. Rockefeller and other institutions have raised millions of
dollars in private funding to support their work, often from donors
angry with the President.

For instance, B.D. Colen, a spokesman for Harvard University's stem-cell
institute, says it has raised more than $30 million from donors for all
forms of stem-cell research. By contrast, in 2005 Harvard and its
affiliated hospitals received $1.7 million in NIH grants for work on the
Bush-approved stem-cells lines. "

As far as where the money comes from, the allocation for the ENTIRE
National Institutes of Health (including funding for public education,
research into healthcare delivery, etc.) was $30 billion in 2006, the
same year the Pharma Companies ALONE spent twice that. And that figure
doesn't include all the money coming from in private sources, research
funding by disease-specific groups such American Diabetes Association,
research funding provided by universities, etc.
Fed funding for health research never has been anywhere near half
the total pie.

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:


Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the
subject.
You really should learn before you speak.


Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.

What part of persons taking no active part in the hositlities are
you missing. These are not people who have laid down arms (indeed many
actively tell their interrogators that they will be more than happy to
come back and do nasty things in the name of Allah), are not hors de
combat as evidenced by attacks on guards, etc. .

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the
subject.
You really should learn before you speak.

Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.

What part of persons taking no active part in the hositlities are
you missing. These are not people who have laid down arms (indeed many
actively tell their interrogators that they will be more than happy to
come back and do nasty things in the name of Allah), are not hors de
combat as evidenced by attacks on guards, etc. .

"Persons taking no active part in hostilities" *are* prisoners of war -
that is how they are labelled by the Convention.

d

On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:
On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I
think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If you
haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that
happen). The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the
states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT
ON!

time for me to fly
http://arebelflag.net/last_confederate_flag.htm

On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I
think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years
ago. Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If you
haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that
happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed
that up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and
incase your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately
held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the
states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT
ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk
or McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and
think it's fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an
opportunity since '03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of
balls let me know. I wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the
rest are nothing but pop up targets that shoot back and that just
makes it interesting.
--
Keith
Mercenaries kill for money, sociopaths kill for pleasure and soldier
don't need a reason to take your scalp.

On Nov 13, 8:13*am, Don Pearce wrote:

Geneva? Yeah I ****ed a gal named that. OH! You were talking about
that piece of toilet paper the rest of the world wipes their asses
with and America STUPID holds onto and even hugs getting **** from the
rest of the world. Yeah that piece of crap... I'd just as soon burn
the damn thing. I was a soldier once and young...we are the ONLY
people that put effort into following it. A STUPID move. But you
wouldn't and couldn't understand.

Ignorant fantasy world living fool.
--
Keith

On Nov 13, 8:54*am, Don Pearce wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Don Pearce wrote:

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the
subject.
You really should learn before you speak.

Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.

* * What part of persons taking no active part in the hositlities are
you missing. These are not people who have laid down arms (indeed many
actively tell their interrogators that they will be more than happy to
come back and do nasty things in the name of Allah), are not hors de
combat as evidenced by attacks on guards, etc. .

"Persons taking no active part in hostilities" *are* prisoners of war -
that is how they are labelled by the Convention.

d- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only if they are in uniform otherwise they should be made exapmles of
say dissarming IED's or just take them out put a bullet through the
base of the skull and leave the body right outside your gate
(optionally you hang them on either side of the gate until they rot
off) That is how you convince them the stop ****ing with us.

But a fantasy living wimp wouldn't understand REAL deterence of
terrorists.

**** the geneva conventrion it's NEVER done us any good.
--
keith

On Nov 13, 7:24*pm, "S'mee" wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:



On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I
think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years
ago. Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If you
haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that
happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed
that up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and
incase your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately
held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the
states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT
ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk
or McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and
think it's fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an
opportunity since '03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of
balls let me know. I wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the
rest are nothing but pop up targets that shoot back and that just
makes it interesting.
--
Keith
Mercenaries kill for money, sociopaths kill for pleasure and soldier
don't need a reason to take your scalp.

Keith, you are so off base with your assessments. You sound really
sick by the way but still, you are way off of your assessments. I've
known about the fed banks, irs and all of the like for many decades.
I've also seen a little more action then I like to remember - and most
of the friends I have don't make mention about wanting more like you
do. Arrogance never came to play with me. I will, however, stand with
my friends (the same ones that you're claiming not to shot at) and
retake what is ours as my family has for 10 generation of being in MY
country.

The next time you call someone out, be sure they are not on the same
side as you are. You are cussing me while saying the same thing that
I said. You need to check yourself. I've never made it a practice to
underestimate the my opponent but unless you've been partying hard and
are just talking s#^t, I'd bet dimes to dollars you'd never see me
coming, especially from 800 yards. If you do mellow out a bit, maybe I
can help you graduate from those pop-ups someday.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:24:00 -0800, S'mee wrote:

On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be
wise to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something
your side would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for the
original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I think
most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years ago.
Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our constitution
from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our Constitution NEVER
said anything about socializing our nation. If you haven't noticed, we
ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed that
up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and incase
your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the states.
Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk or
McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and think it's
fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an opportunity since
'03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of balls let me know. I
wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the rest are nothing but pop
up targets that shoot back and that just makes it interesting.

Remember those who voted for these policies, the judges who ruled contrary
to the Constitution, and the collaborators who financed and voted for them.

Look in the yellow pages under "Lawyers" too.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

S'mee wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:13=A0am, Don Pearce wrote:

Geneva? Yeah I ****ed a gal named that. OH! You were talking about
that piece of toilet paper the rest of the world wipes their asses
with and America STUPID holds onto and even hugs getting **** from the
rest of the world. Yeah that piece of crap... I'd just as soon burn
the damn thing. I was a soldier once and young...we are the ONLY
people that put effort into following it. A STUPID move. But you
wouldn't and couldn't understand.

Why do you hate our troops so much?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Nov 11, 10:46*pm, Twibil wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:33*pm, BrianNZ wrote:

It's not for riding, it's for posing in da 'hood.

Er, having just been elected President of the United States, I sort of
doubt that Obama feels any need to "pose" for *anyone*.

However, his street cred in da 'hood was probably pretty good anyway
after he sank those three point shots while playing basketball in Iraq.

Yeah, but his alley cred was shot all to hell trying to bowl with the
rednecks.

On Nov 13, 7:55*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:24:00 -0800, S'mee wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be
wise to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something
your side would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for the
original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I think
most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years ago.
Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our constitution
from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our Constitution NEVER
said anything about socializing our nation. If you haven't noticed, we
ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed that
up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and incase
your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the states..
Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk or
McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and think it's
fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an opportunity since
'03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of balls let me know. I
wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the rest are nothing but pop
up targets that shoot back and that just makes it interesting.

Remember those who voted for these policies, the judges who ruled contrary
to the Constitution, and the collaborators who financed and voted for them.

Look in the yellow pages under "Lawyers" too.

--
Regards, Curly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
* * * Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

.................................................. ..............
* * * * Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
* * * * * * * * * athttp://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

What is really sad is that when it comes down to most issues, all of
us (outside of DC) pretty much want the same thing. The problems start
when the vast majority of the public is tricked into thinking there
are two groups in politics and you need to pick one. What a scam.

If people would open their eyes they would see that Democrats and
Republicans are just two arms of the same cartel. If people recognized
that those people in DC work for us they might start to think about
what we are paying them for and hire better people for the job!

Most of us, that argue forever, really want the same thing. There are
some differences like a right to believe in something and abortion
issues but for the rest of it most of us would agree if we sat down
like a normal business.

As for that 700B bailout, that is something like $140,000 for each
fool that lied on their loan application. Would someone please tell me
where that money is going?

Don Pearce wrote:

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the
Geneva or Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are
silent on the subject. You really should learn before you speak.


Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,
each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in
all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or
any other similar criteria.


Agreed. But we're not talking about non-combatants or soldiers who have
surrendered. Non-combatants include medical personnel, truck drivers, civil
construction workers, entertainers(!), and others who support the war effort
but do not bear arms. Soldiers who have laid down their arms are obvious.
These, and others, are legitimate prisoners of war to whom the Geneva
convention applies.

In the case of warriors on the battlefield, there are two kinds: lawful
enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants. To be considered a member of
the first group, an individual must possess all of four distinct
characteristics:

1. He must be wearing a uniform or distinctive badge.
2. He must be part of a responsible chain of command.
3. He must carry his arms openly.
4. He must abide by the rules of war.

If any of the four is missing,* the individual is an unlawful enemy
combatant and NONE of the conventions or rules of war apply. Within this
group are spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. Since
time immemorial, they have been shot out of hand. In sum, unlawful enemy
combatants are outside the basket of Geneva and Hague conventions and
protocols.

Our first unlawful enemy combatant was one Major Andre, caught behind our
lines, out of uniform, and carrying the plans for West Point.

Washington had him hanged forthwith.

--------------
* There are some exceptions, such as the emergency mobilization of an armed,
civilian militia organized to repel an imminent invasion. This is probably
what Churchill had in mind when he said: "... we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in
the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we will never surrender..."

Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.


Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock.
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

HeyBub wrote:
Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock.
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

That was LAST week. This week there is a possibility it may be different.
It's hard to tell what the plan really is.

And Danny... if you really don't want the government to own the auto
industry and the banking industry, the number one thing you can do to
prevent it is to go out right now and buy auto industry and banking
stocks. Not only that, they are a pretty good investment.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Nov 13, 9:31špm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock.
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

ÐÏÌÕÞÉÔØ ÏÂÒÁÚÏ×ÁÎÉÅ ÉÌÉ ÓÔÒÁÄÁÔØ ÏÔ ÐÏÓÌÅÄÓÔ×ÉÊ

On Nov 13, 9:51*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock..
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

That was LAST week. *This week there is a possibility it may be different.

On Nov 13, 9:51*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock..
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

That was LAST week. *This week there is a possibility it may be different.

On Nov 13, 10:23*pm, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:31špm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock.
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

ÐÏÌÕÞÉÔØ ÏÂÒÁÚÏ×ÁÎÉÅ ÉÌÉ ÓÔÒÁÄÁÔØ ÏÔ ÐÏÓÌÅÄÓÔ×ÉÊ

its russian.... the type face isn't coming up right.
get an education or suffer the consequences

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:15:15 -0800, Danny T wrote:

On Nov 13, 7:55Â*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:24:00 -0800, S'mee wrote:
On Nov 13, 9:04Â*am, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:15Â*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07Â*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be
wise to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something
your side would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like
some playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE,
*count it ONE side. That's the constitution and if you aren't
constantly questioning you motives, methods and actions in support
of it. Then you are against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly,
I think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or
the Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical
question - do you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years
ago. Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel
safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If
you haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush
let that happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist
country since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor
informed enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he
even ****ed that up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and
incase your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately
held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very
serious internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between
the states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say
BRING IT ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk
or McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and
think it's fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an
opportunity since '03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of
balls let me know. I wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his
duty...the rest are nothing but pop up targets that shoot back and
that just makes it interesting.

Remember those who voted for these policies, the judges who ruled
contrary to the Constitution, and the collaborators who financed and
voted for them.

Look in the yellow pages under "Lawyers" too.

--
Regards, Curly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Â* Â* Â* Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for
Bush/Cheney
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

.................................................. .............. Â* Â* Â*
* Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*
athttp://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous,
UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

What is really sad is that when it comes down to most issues, all of us
(outside of DC) pretty much want the same thing. The problems start when
the vast majority of the public is tricked into thinking there are two
groups in politics and you need to pick one. What a scam.

"A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the
majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses
over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship"
-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

If people would open their eyes they would see that Democrats and
Republicans are just two arms of the same cartel. If people recognized
that those people in DC work for us they might start to think about what
we are paying them for and hire better people for the job!

Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
-- Winston Churchill

Most of us, that argue forever, really want the same thing. There are
some differences like a right to believe in something and abortion
issues but for the rest of it most of us would agree if we sat down like
a normal business.

I'm not so sure the end of America was avoidable. Sure, the Republicans
dealt the death knell but the Democrats followed Bush into hell. Let's
not forget that Clinton, even while he brought prosperity to most, was a
lying scumbag too. Then there was "Read My Lips" Bush before him and
Reagan, the hypocrite to end all hypocrites. Reagan invented Bush43's
fiscal policy that deficits don't matter.

You're right, the vast majority of us are in the middle but voters have
given their proxy rights to two parties who are little more than flip
sides of the same coin. I've fought for 30 years to educate people into
refusing the preselected choices for governance, to pick the absolute best
candidate, to no avail.

America is doomed, get out while you can.

As for that 700B bailout, that is something like $140,000 for each
fool
that lied on their loan application. Would someone please tell me where
that money is going?

Into the pockets of Wall Street Tycoons and New York Bankers but you ain't
seen nuttin' yet! There is over $2,000,000,000,000.00 more than the $7
billion already allocated that has been thrown to somebody. Paulson
refuses to disclose who got it. Imagine that, the Bush Administration has
close to $3 _TRILLION_ dollars of tax money that they are _giving_ away
and refuse to let us know who is receiving it!

Yet nobody is running to Washington with pitchforks in their hands, no
protests, hardly a news mention. And it's going to get worse, much, much,
worse if history is any indicator. Always, at the end of a dictators
term, the economy is heavily looted in the last days. America was a very
rich nation, the plundering is going amaze everyone.

---begin article---

G.W. Bush Buys Land In Northern Paraguay author: tammy whynot
As George W. Bush surveys his empire and sees it crumbling around him,
with two lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with the U.S. public fed
up with his domestic policies, apparently Dubya has decided that the best
way to save his worthless hide is to run and hide in Paraguay.
On October 13, 2006, the Prensa Latina paper reported that George W. Bush
had purchased 98, 842 acres on the Acuifero Guarani in northern Paraguay,
between Bolivia and Brazil. This news was also reported in Asuncion,
Paraguay on Oct. 12, and by Upsidedownworld on Oct. 11. The Fortunate Son
is not the first Bush to do so -- earlier George H.W. Bush purchased 173,
000 acres in Paso de Patria, the Chaco area of Paraguay. Jenna Bush has
spent time in Paraguay as a representative of UNICEF. One of the 25 top
censored stories, "U.S. Military In Paraguay" revealed that the U.S.
military had purchased land in Paraguay, and had sent 500 U.S. troops to
Paraguay in 2005, along with ammunition, weapons, helicopters, and planes.
The U.S. military base was set up in the region of Mariscal Estigarribia,
not long after the government of Paraguay gave U.S. politicians, U.S.
troops, and U.S. civilians complete immunity from national and
international criminal prosecution. Both U.S. and Paraguayan government
officials hotly deny the existence of a U.S. military base at Mariscal
Estigarribia, and the Bush estates -- dismissing them as rumors. However,
a leaked classified memo, which was later included in the 9/11 Commission
report, stated that the U.S. government regretted the lack of good targets
in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and suggested that the U.S. initiate military
attacks in South America (and possibly Southeast Asia) to surprise the "al
Qaeda terrorists." After 9/11, Douglas Feith appointed two men to write
the memo: Michael Maloof, former defense analyst and David Wurmser, a
Middle East expert and the #1 foreign-policy aide to V.P. Dick Cheney.
This memo, claiming U.S. intelligence reports, said that Hezbollah
terrorists, supported by Iran, were active in the border region of Brazil,
Argentina, and Paraguay -- and that a U.S. military raid on the terrorist
base would have a detrimental effect on other terrorist groups operating
in South America. Not surprisingly, the U.S. military base in Mariscal
Estigarribia, Paraguay, is not too far away from the large, rich gas
fields in Bolivia. It is obvious that the U.S. government/military have
understood nothing from their lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/347592.shtml
---end article---

Remember, Parguay is one of the few remaining nations on earth that has no
extradition treaties with anyone...


--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP -- Robert Lee Burnside 11/23/26 - 9/1/05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Nov 13, 10:34*pm, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:23*pm, Danny T wrote:

On Nov 13, 9:31špm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Danny T wrote:
The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Well, no. The bailout for banks involved the purchase of preferred stock.
Preferred stock conveys no ownership (or voting) rights.

ÐÏÌÕÞÉÔØ ÏÂÒÁÚÏ×ÁÎÉÅ ÉÌÉ ÓÔÒÁÄÁÔØ ÏÔ ÐÏÓÌÅÄÓÔ×ÉÊ

its russian.... the type face isn't coming up right.
get an education or suffer the consequences

Hummm... That sounded rude and it wasn't intended to. I meant to put
it in russian and make it funny.... anyway, no meanness intended

HeyBub wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the
Geneva or Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are
silent on the subject. You really should learn before you speak.

Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,
each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in
all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or
any other similar criteria.


Agreed. But we're not talking about non-combatants or soldiers who have
surrendered. Non-combatants include medical personnel, truck drivers, civil
construction workers, entertainers(!), and others who support the war effort
but do not bear arms. Soldiers who have laid down their arms are obvious.
These, and others, are legitimate prisoners of war to whom the Geneva
convention applies.

In the case of warriors on the battlefield, there are two kinds: lawful
enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants. To be considered a member of
the first group, an individual must possess all of four distinct
characteristics:

1. He must be wearing a uniform or distinctive badge.
2. He must be part of a responsible chain of command.
3. He must carry his arms openly.
4. He must abide by the rules of war.

If any of the four is missing,* the individual is an unlawful enemy
combatant and NONE of the conventions or rules of war apply. Within this
group are spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. Since
time immemorial, they have been shot out of hand. In sum, unlawful enemy
combatants are outside the basket of Geneva and Hague conventions and
protocols.

Our first unlawful enemy combatant was one Major Andre, caught behind our
lines, out of uniform, and carrying the plans for West Point.

Washington had him hanged forthwith.

--------------
* There are some exceptions, such as the emergency mobilization of an armed,
civilian militia organized to repel an imminent invasion. This is probably
what Churchill had in mind when he said: "... we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in
the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we will never surrender..."



You are gibbering. None of that is there - the rules are simple. Once
you have captured him and he is no longer in a position to sustain
combat *whoever he is* the rules of the third Geneva Convention apply.
That is why they include the specification "including members of the
armed services" - to make sure you don't make a special case for regular
soldiers and torture them.

d

On Nov 13, 6:47*pm, Danny T wrote:
On Nov 13, 7:24*pm, "S'mee" wrote:





On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I
think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years
ago. Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe.

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If you
haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that
happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed
that up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and
incase your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately
held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the
states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT
ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk
or McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and
think it's fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an
opportunity since '03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of
balls let me know. I wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the
rest are nothing but pop up targets that shoot back and that just
makes it interesting.
--
Keith
Mercenaries kill for money, sociopaths kill for pleasure and soldier
don't need a reason to take your scalp.

Keith, you are so off base with your assessments. You sound really
sick by the way but still, you are way off of your assessments. I've
known about the fed banks, irs and all of the like for many decades.
I've also seen a little more action then I like to remember - and most
of the friends I have don't make mention about wanting more like you
do. Arrogance never came to play with me. I will, however, stand with
my friends (the same ones that you're claiming not to shot at) and
retake what is ours as my family has for 10 generation of being in MY
country.

The next time you call someone out, be sure they are not on the same
side as you are. You are *cussing me while saying the same thing that
I said. You need to check yourself. I've never made it a practice to
underestimate the my opponent but unless you've been partying hard and
are just talking s#^t, I'd bet dimes to dollars you'd never see me
coming, especially from 800 yards. If you do mellow out a bit, maybe I
can help you graduate from those pop-ups someday.- Hide quoted text -

I call them like I see them and like you...when I don't want to be
seen I'm not. 800yds? Wave that little one bubba. I know how much
practice it takes. I takes perfect practice to make perfection.

Spend half your life being on both ends of the nuke. Soon nothing
scares you and whiners and complainers just **** you off. Arrogance?
That would be YOU. Not me, I just soldier on. Ruck up as needed when
needed and nothing really bothers me. Bad ass? Not like a snake eater.
They expect to have a chance. I knew I'd NEVER have a chance.
But a guy like you doesn't get why I or anyone like me wont stand for
you or yours. You are TOO stuck on yourselves and ideals. Ideals are
for political speeches and idiots.

Ideals and they are prioritized. I have only a few My word My family
and My country. Ain't no god to worry about...only the weak need a god
when their word means naught, their family is nonfunctional and
unloving and their country oppreses them.

I belive in the country...not the assholes you idiots put in office.
But I'd defend their sorry asses in heartbeat. Obviously you wouldn't.
Just because I no longer serve...doesn't mean I went back on my word.
You think on that. But like the man said "You are incredably
brilliant, possibly the smartest man of your era. BUT, you always come
to exactly the worng conclusion."

That's how I see you and every schmuck like you...smart, but always
wrong.
--
Keith

On Nov 14, 1:17*am, "S'mee" wrote:
On Nov 13, 6:47*pm, Danny T wrote:



On Nov 13, 7:24*pm, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 9:04*am, Danny T wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:15*am, "S'mee" wrote:

On Nov 13, 12:07*am, Danny T wrote:

Push us. Go ahead. Our side has a different mindset and you'd be wise
to understand it. Failure to understand may cause something your side
would never be able to contend with.

Sides, SIDES! WHO THE **** CARES ABOUT SIDES!!! You sound like some
playground loser who finely wins one. There is only ONE, *count it ONE
side. That's the constitution and if you aren't constantly questioning
you motives, methods and actions in support of it. Then you are
against it...

--
Keiht

Well, I don't count myself as being reconstructed but I do stand for
the original constitution. I do stand for STATE RIGHTS and frankly, I
think most people have no idea what the Constitution reads - or the
Declaration of Independence for that matter. (rhetorical question - do
you?)

DUH...it's a yearly read and contemplate. I burnt the bibles years
ago. Religion is for the weak and those in need of cults to feel safe..

The "NEW" change coming has self declared an attack to our
constitution from start to end. My side is the Constitution. Our
Constitution NEVER said anything about socializing our nation. If you
haven't noticed, we ARE a socialist country now (and yes Bush let that
happen).

Wow you are an ignorant putz aren't you. It's been a socialist country
since the early 30's but you obviously NOT smart enough nor informed
enough to understand that. Bush did jack and **** and he even ****ed
that up.

The government now owns the assets of the banks, is about to
own the automotive industry and the list goes on and on with each
bailout.

Really? They don't own mine... Obviously you are delusional. Oh and
incase your high ignorant didn't know the Fed Reserve is privately
held.

No matter if you like it or not, we are heading for some very serious
internal trouble - perhaps even a sequel to the war between the
states. Personally, and among ALL of my friends, we all say BRING IT
ON!

Not a problem...very few of you chickenhawks served except at a desk
or McDonalds. The rest of use can shoot through body armour...and
think it's fun. Man hunting is great sport and I haven't had an
opportunity since '03. So WHEN you and your "friends" grow a pair of
balls let me know. I wont shoot at soldeir of LEO doing his duty...the
rest are nothing but pop up targets that shoot back and that just
makes it interesting.
--
Keith
Mercenaries kill for money, sociopaths kill for pleasure and soldier
don't need a reason to take your scalp.

Keith, you are so off base with your assessments. You sound really
sick by the way but still, you are way off of your assessments. I've
known about the fed banks, irs and all of the like for many decades.
I've also seen a little more action then I like to remember - and most
of the friends I have don't make mention about wanting more like you
do. Arrogance never came to play with me. I will, however, stand with
my friends (the same ones that you're claiming not to shot at) and
retake what is ours as my family has for 10 generation of being in MY
country.

The next time you call someone out, be sure they are not on the same
side as you are. You are *cussing me while saying the same thing that
I said. You need to check yourself. I've never made it a practice to
underestimate the my opponent but unless you've been partying hard and
are just talking s#^t, I'd bet dimes to dollars you'd never see me
coming, especially from 800 yards. If you do mellow out a bit, maybe I
can help you graduate from those pop-ups someday.- Hide quoted text -

I call them like I see them and like you...when I don't want to be
seen I'm not. 800yds? Wave that little one bubba. I know how much
practice it takes. I takes perfect practice to make perfection.

Spend half your life being on both ends of the nuke. Soon nothing
scares you and whiners *and complainers just **** you off. Arrogance?
That would be YOU. Not me, I just soldier on. Ruck up as needed when
needed and nothing really bothers me. Bad ass? Not like a snake eater.
They expect to have a chance. I knew I'd NEVER have a chance.
But a guy like you doesn't get why I or anyone like me wont stand for
you or yours. You are TOO stuck on yourselves and ideals. Ideals are
for political speeches and idiots.

Ideals and they are prioritized. I have only a few My word My family
and My country. Ain't no god to worry about...only the weak need a god
when their word means naught, their family is nonfunctional and
unloving and their country oppreses them.

I belive in the country...not the assholes you idiots put in office.
But I'd defend their sorry asses in heartbeat. Obviously you wouldn't.
Just because I no longer serve...doesn't mean I went back on my word.
You think on that. But like the man said "You are incredably
brilliant, possibly the smartest man of your era. BUT, you always come
to exactly the worng conclusion."

That's how I see you and every schmuck like you...smart, but always
wrong.
--
Keith

if you think 800 yards is hard, you never practiced. Its not. I have
done better actually. I do practice all the time. Been out 3 times
this week. My LTR can pull that off but given that my Remington 700
with a 26 inch bull barrel and heavy stock is usually close by, 800
yards with a strong wind would be no problem. I go both ways though. I
actually prefer my win 70 and its easy with that too.

I’m not trying to get in a ****ing match with you. You don’t have any
reason to worry me. You should think about what you say though.
Someone might smack you up side your pinhead someday. You just sound
like a wannabee freak to me. Too many shrooooooms dude! DD probably?
Oh, and the strongest, meanest, and smartest of all of them usually
believe in God. Tell you what, explain to me how 17 completely
independent parts of an electric motor evolved inside a cell
(Mitochondria) and I'll give up God. Till then, you're uneducated and
hiding from responsibility and nothing more.

If you ever do get down south to LA and want to do a little plinking
to establish a real pecking order, you just let me know. We've got a
few private ranges here and can go anytime you show up.