On Dec 1, 8:58*am, Red Green wrote:
"Bill" wrote in news:8ln1edFiqoU1
@mid.individual.net:



And, as Woody Allen said, it automatically doubles your chance of a
date on
Saturday night.

*Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your
date chances.

Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals. You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would go
up 100x JUST being gay...

I could never figure out why anyone would want to put their Johnson in a
********.


Well, contact your republican congressman or priest and ask him.

Country wrote in news:34dfe7f6-1a60-49da-ad86-
:

On Dec 1, 7:38*am, "Bill" wrote:
And, as Woody Allen said, it automatically doubles your chance of a
date on
Saturday night.

*Actually the Woodster posited that being BISEXUAL was what double
your
date chances.

Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals. You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would go
up 100x JUST being gay...


How much time to you spend reading the man to man personals on
craigslist? Do you cruise airport restrooms too looking for some
Republican congresscritters?

For a straight man, wouldn't the woman to woman personals be more
interesting?



I can name that congressman in, errrr... 3 taps.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Remember, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any other
president since FDR (Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Somalia, and Albania).

And in both Bush cases (Afghan and Iraq), we went there with the
approval of the Congress under the War Powers Act.

Adhering to the War Powers Act (WPA) was more of a courtesy to the Congress
than actually required.

For example, Reagan didn't bother with the WPA in Grenada and Panama.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:19:27 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD


I'm not a fan of Hillary but she's smart. SP seems streetwise but not
very smart. She certainly is very ignorant for someone running for
President. And running she certainly seems to be.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


And in both Bush cases (Afghan and Iraq), we went there with the
approval of the Congress under the War Powers Act.

Adhering to the War Powers Act (WPA) was more of a courtesy to the Congress
than actually required.

For example, Reagan didn't bother with the WPA in Grenada and Panama.

And Clinton ignored it in a few of his excursions. Which brings up
the question of why did GW go against it and actually ask for the okay?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

.

Adhering to the War Powers Act (WPA) was more of a courtesy to the Congress
than actually required.


We don't know that for sure since neither side wants to get it in
front of a judge for various reasons.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! Sorry, no score. There is a special court set up years ago
to handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or
suspected, but announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant
from anyone even if a citizen is on the line is a different kettle of
fish. There is also the small matter that in order to hear those
conversations you have to collect pretty much every phone call and
e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which they do. So in fact they
are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another true-blue (or
should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows, depending on
what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. Maybe you
better stop singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act


Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone
had over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom.
The were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not
subject to the criminal law.

Bzzzzt! Another lost round. If you recall (or even if you don't
want to) the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters
were not entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers,
remember? Well, what do we do with terrorists? We try them in our
civilian courts and put them in prison, did it many times prior to
Bush being CIC. So, why didn't we do that again?

Because they are designated as NOT criminals and, therefore, not subject to
the criminal laws or the constitutional rights afforded criminals. They are
NOT POWs either (see below).

I refer you to the Quirin case where several German saboteurs (two of which
were U.S. citizens) snunk into the country . They were tried in a secret
military court and executed.


But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it.

Er, only to the ignorant.

Does a citizen
who took up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or
related offenses, or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the
usual protections according to treaties the U.S. has signed and
according to the U.S. military's own rules. Well? Which is it?

Neither one necessarily.


Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to
be tried and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock
up for years until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and let them go. Or they really were combatants and they
go back to fighting us after we've released them--too bad we didn't
convict them and put them in prison for a couple of decades huh?

They didn't make up a "new" category. They simply used a completely
different one that's been around for millennia.


It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish,
not fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with
them. Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

I agree the folks in Gitmo are not POWs. I also agree they are not
criminals. There IS a third category: Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

The conventions to which we subscribe define an "Enemy Combatant" as one
engage in an armed conflict who:
1. Wears a distinctive uniform or emblem.
2. Answers to a chain of command.
3. Carries arms openly.
4. Conforms to the general rules of war.

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those engaged in
warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are, by implication,
UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.

They are in the same general category as spies, saboteurs, guerrillas,
fifth-columnists, Democrats, and the like. According to the general rules of
war, they may be executed out of hand.

The first unlawful enemy combatant we encountered was one Major Andre.
General Washington, after a perfunctory hearing, had Major Andre hanged
within three days of his capture.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act
And it is a well established point of law in the US that as long
as the original tap is legal (or in this case not illegal) then there
are no requirements to get the okay to listen in on conversations and
use the evidence thereby obtained.
So, say there is a legal wire on the phone of Goomba one, anything
Goomba 2 says on the phone, even if G2 is calling from his own phone,
can be used against him. If the phone being tapped is outside the US,
then there mere fact that someone inside the US calls that phone is
irrelevant. Now if the tap is on the US phone, that is different.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 12/2/2010 10:19 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the
law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little
angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are
well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple
of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion
dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the
war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the
Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course
nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too.
You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as
much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate
backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held
over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD
'Lady MacBeth' is the term that comes to mind for Hillary.

--
aem sends...

On 12/2/2010 2:16 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:18 AM, DGDevin wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.

Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels
too. :-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in
the lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of
years back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion
dollars once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund
the war--and spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where
are the Repubs anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of
course nobody gets a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month
get one too. You almost have to admire the sheer gall of their
determination to direct as much of the nation's wealth as possible into
the hands of their corporate backers.

DG, what would happen if suddenly, every adult American citizen were to
be given 1 million dollars?

TDD
Within a week, a loaf of bread would be fifty bucks, is what would happen.

Status quo ante would be quickly restored, but with the decimal point on
prices shifted over a couple of notches.

--
aem sends...

On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! Sorry, no score. There is a special court set up years ago
to handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or
suspected, but announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant
from anyone even if a citizen is on the line is a different kettle of
fish. There is also the small matter that in order to hear those
conversations you have to collect pretty much every phone call and
e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which they do. So in fact they
are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another true-blue (or
should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows, depending on
what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. Maybe you
better stop singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act


Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone
had over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom.
The were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not
subject to the criminal law.

Bzzzzt! Another lost round. If you recall (or even if you don't
want to) the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters
were not entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers,
remember? Well, what do we do with terrorists? We try them in our
civilian courts and put them in prison, did it many times prior to
Bush being CIC. So, why didn't we do that again?

Because they are designated as NOT criminals and, therefore, not subject to
the criminal laws or the constitutional rights afforded criminals. They are
NOT POWs either (see below).

I refer you to the Quirin case where several German saboteurs (two of which
were U.S. citizens) snunk into the country . They were tried in a secret
military court and executed.


But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it.

Er, only to the ignorant.

Does a citizen
who took up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or
related offenses, or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the
usual protections according to treaties the U.S. has signed and
according to the U.S. military's own rules. Well? Which is it?

Neither one necessarily.


Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to
be tried and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock
up for years until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and let them go. Or they really were combatants and they
go back to fighting us after we've released them--too bad we didn't
convict them and put them in prison for a couple of decades huh?

They didn't make up a "new" category. They simply used a completely
different one that's been around for millennia.


It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish,
not fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with
them. Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

I agree the folks in Gitmo are not POWs. I also agree they are not
criminals. There IS a third category: Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

The conventions to which we subscribe define an "Enemy Combatant" as one
engage in an armed conflict who:
1. Wears a distinctive uniform or emblem.
2. Answers to a chain of command.
3. Carries arms openly.
4. Conforms to the general rules of war.

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those engaged in
warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are, by implication,
UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.


And like most people, you make the assumption that because they got
scooped up, they are guilty. News flash- the military screws up, a lot.
And they aren't real efficient at going back and correcting their
errors. Simple human decency, and the enlightened self interest of
showing the world that we are better than the other countries that just
lock people up and throw away the key, dictates that SOME sort of
investigation be done for the people they collect. If people world-wide
had not bitched about Gitmo, do you think they would have finally
started looking at the cases, and sending some of the people home? Mind
you, I agree that some are scum, and need to be locked away. But we need
to make sure the the relatively innocent bystanders don't suffer for the
sins of the scum.

--
aem sends...

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:52:16 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


And in both Bush cases (Afghan and Iraq), we went there with the
approval of the Congress under the War Powers Act.

Adhering to the War Powers Act (WPA) was more of a courtesy to the Congress
than actually required.

For example, Reagan didn't bother with the WPA in Grenada and Panama.

And Clinton ignored it in a few of his excursions. Which brings up
the question of why did GW go against it and actually ask for the okay?

Because he didn't want to have to go back begging for money and have it turned
down. After approving of the gambit it would be very difficult for them to
bounce the check.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:26:44 -0500, aemeijers wrote:

On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! Sorry, no score. There is a special court set up years ago
to handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or
suspected, but announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant
from anyone even if a citizen is on the line is a different kettle of
fish. There is also the small matter that in order to hear those
conversations you have to collect pretty much every phone call and
e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which they do. So in fact they
are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another true-blue (or
should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows, depending on
what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. Maybe you
better stop singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act


Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone
had over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom.
The were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not
subject to the criminal law.

Bzzzzt! Another lost round. If you recall (or even if you don't
want to) the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters
were not entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers,
remember? Well, what do we do with terrorists? We try them in our
civilian courts and put them in prison, did it many times prior to
Bush being CIC. So, why didn't we do that again?

Because they are designated as NOT criminals and, therefore, not subject to
the criminal laws or the constitutional rights afforded criminals. They are
NOT POWs either (see below).

I refer you to the Quirin case where several German saboteurs (two of which
were U.S. citizens) snunk into the country . They were tried in a secret
military court and executed.


But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it.

Er, only to the ignorant.

Does a citizen
who took up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or
related offenses, or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the
usual protections according to treaties the U.S. has signed and
according to the U.S. military's own rules. Well? Which is it?

Neither one necessarily.


Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to
be tried and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock
up for years until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and let them go. Or they really were combatants and they
go back to fighting us after we've released them--too bad we didn't
convict them and put them in prison for a couple of decades huh?

They didn't make up a "new" category. They simply used a completely
different one that's been around for millennia.


It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish,
not fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with
them. Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

I agree the folks in Gitmo are not POWs. I also agree they are not
criminals. There IS a third category: Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

The conventions to which we subscribe define an "Enemy Combatant" as one
engage in an armed conflict who:
1. Wears a distinctive uniform or emblem.
2. Answers to a chain of command.
3. Carries arms openly.
4. Conforms to the general rules of war.

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those engaged in
warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are, by implication,
UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.


And like most people, you make the assumption that because they got
scooped up, they are guilty. News flash- the military screws up, a lot.
And they aren't real efficient at going back and correcting their
errors.

Which is why there should be *military* tribunals, in secret, if need be.

Simple human decency, and the enlightened self interest of
showing the world that we are better than the other countries that just
lock people up and throw away the key, dictates that SOME sort of
investigation be done for the people they collect. If people world-wide
had not bitched about Gitmo, do you think they would have finally
started looking at the cases, and sending some of the people home? Mind
you, I agree that some are scum, and need to be locked away. But we need
to make sure the the relatively innocent bystanders don't suffer for the
sins of the scum.

Don't forget the law of unintended consequences. Given the mess they will no
longer be captured, rather shot on the spot.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:23:50 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

We have had for many years, indefinite detention (not military) of
people for decades. All in immigration laws (Mariel Cubans) supported
by our courts of jurisdiction and SCOTUS.

Did you notice my use of the word "citizen"?


And I said "people". A Cuban refugee, that floats across the Florida
Straights on an air mattress and steps one single foot on shore is
treated as a non-citizen that can immediately file for release by
requesting asylum. IOW he is treated with the same affordability of
rights as a "citizen".

Haitians that fled Haiti during the same time (1980) and still now are
automatically deported. ( 30 years ago?)

"... reading mail or listening to phone calls without a warrant,
holding a citizen indefinitely without charges much less a trial.."

I've done all the above with legal approval. http://www.bop.gov/

Warrants aren't required for monitoring the communications of incarcerated
felons unless you want to listen in while they're talking to their lawyers.

Well the felon can always give permission. Federal phone banks for
inmate use have policy stickers posted. In essence -- "talk on this
phone we keep and use the taped conversations". They see the warning,
learn in A&O week, etc.

Want a private conversation with your lawyer, go see the counselor.
They will arrange it, even dial the number.

And if you've held a citizen without charge or trial indefinitely, pray
tell, who would that have been?

Sorry I wasn't clear. These were Cubans forced onto boats in Havana by
armed military. Fidel Castro opened his prisons and asylums, forced
them onto boats that went to get family members. They were forced to
board the vessels based on what Castro dictated.

Yes. Some were held, they had an immigration hold. These were the ones
that rubbed **** all over themselves on a routine basis. A few cases
lived in cells with 1/4" steel plate inside, it was indefinite
housing.

If we tried to send them back Castro would have shot them. (see
Atlanta / Talladega prison riots over deportation, the State Dept.
caused).

The Daring Dufas wrote:

DG, what would happen if suddenly, every adult American citizen were
to be given 1 million dollars?


Once upon a time, some great worthy asked what would happen if the total
wealth of the U.S. was equally divided.

The answer deemed most likely is that within a short time - say a month -
the original wealth distribution would be back.

Country wrote:


The United States is such a great country. Where else do poor people
worry so much about the plight of the rich and rich people worry so
much about keeping poor people poor.


Rich people, per se, aren't into the business of keeping poor people poor.
Fact is, they would like to see EVERYBODY rich. That said, whose interests
are really served by keeping poor people poor?

I suggest there's only one corporate body with that as an agenda: the
Democrats.

The U.S. IS a great country. Consider Michael Jackson. Where else could a
poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's
daughter?

aemeijers wrote:
By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those
engaged in warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are,
by implication, UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.


And like most people, you make the assumption that because they got
scooped up, they are guilty. News flash- the military screws up, a
lot. And they aren't real efficient at going back and correcting their
errors. Simple human decency, and the enlightened self interest of
showing the world that we are better than the other countries that
just lock people up and throw away the key, dictates that SOME sort of
investigation be done for the people they collect. If people
world-wide had not bitched about Gitmo, do you think they would have
finally started looking at the cases, and sending some of the people
home? Mind you, I agree that some are scum, and need to be locked
away. But we need to make sure the the relatively innocent bystanders
don't suffer for the sins of the scum.

Ah, but we don't know whether they were just "scooped up" or whether there
were 27 eyeball witnesses to their alleged outrages including the Imam of
Baghdad, the Archbishop of Tikrit, 12 Holy Sisters, twelve high-ranking
military officers from three different countries, and a partridge in a pear
tree.

As for sending the "relatively innocent" bystanders home, I remind you there
are three reasons for punishment:

1. To rehabilitate the offender,
2. To protect society from further depredations of the accused, and
3. To serve as a deterrent to those similarily inclined.

I suggest that just lining them up and shooting their skanky asses at least
fulfills reason number 3.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 18:54:12 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Country wrote:


The United States is such a great country. Where else do poor people
worry so much about the plight of the rich and rich people worry so
much about keeping poor people poor.


Rich people, per se, aren't into the business of keeping poor people poor.
Fact is, they would like to see EVERYBODY rich. That said, whose interests
are really served by keeping poor people poor?

I suggest there's only one corporate body with that as an agenda: the
Democrats.

The rich are predominately Demonicrats and yes, they do want to keep the poor,
poor and living under their thumb.

The U.S. IS a great country. Consider Michael Jackson. Where else could a
poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's
daughter?

harry wrote:

So your idea of capitalsm is based on the ideas of some who died 200
years ago. No wonder your ideas are dross. After watching the total
failure of capitalism you still think money can be conjured out of
thin air?

As I said, "money" is not "wealth." And, yes, wealth can be conjured out of
thin air. Not only do I believe that, but many of my ideas are based on the
teachings from Sinai some 3,300 years ago.

A truth is eternal - whether it was written on stone tablets 33 centuries
ago or published in London in 1776.


I hear that these *******s in America that profited out of it all pay
less tax than a shopfloor worker.

Yes, that's often true. For example, Ross Perot paid NO federal taxes. This
is because at least half of the tax laws are designed to foster some social
goal. In Perot's case, the national government encouraged the buying of
municipal bonds by exempting the interest on the bonds from federal
taxation. Perot had ALL his money in municipal bonds.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:13:03 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

So your idea of capitalsm is based on the ideas of some who died 200
years ago. No wonder your ideas are dross. After watching the total
failure of capitalism you still think money can be conjured out of
thin air?

As I said, "money" is not "wealth." And, yes, wealth can be conjured out of
thin air. Not only do I believe that, but many of my ideas are based on the
teachings from Sinai some 3,300 years ago.

A truth is eternal - whether it was written on stone tablets 33 centuries
ago or published in London in 1776.


I hear that these *******s in America that profited out of it all pay
less tax than a shopfloor worker.

Yes, that's often true. For example, Ross Perot paid NO federal taxes. This
is because at least half of the tax laws are designed to foster some social
goal. In Perot's case, the national government encouraged the buying of
municipal bonds by exempting the interest on the bonds from federal
taxation. Perot had ALL his money in municipal bonds.

Try that today. The AMT would kill ya'.

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:03:22 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those
engaged in warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are,
by implication, UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.


And like most people, you make the assumption that because they got
scooped up, they are guilty. News flash- the military screws up, a
lot. And they aren't real efficient at going back and correcting their
errors. Simple human decency, and the enlightened self interest of
showing the world that we are better than the other countries that
just lock people up and throw away the key, dictates that SOME sort of
investigation be done for the people they collect. If people
world-wide had not bitched about Gitmo, do you think they would have
finally started looking at the cases, and sending some of the people
home? Mind you, I agree that some are scum, and need to be locked
away. But we need to make sure the the relatively innocent bystanders
don't suffer for the sins of the scum.

Ah, but we don't know whether they were just "scooped up" or whether there
were 27 eyeball witnesses to their alleged outrages including the Imam of
Baghdad, the Archbishop of Tikrit, 12 Holy Sisters, twelve high-ranking
military officers from three different countries, and a partridge in a pear
tree.

As for sending the "relatively innocent" bystanders home, I remind you there
are three reasons for punishment:

1. To rehabilitate the offender,

It don't work. You cannot rehabilitate a person the has never been
habilitated.

Sample. Florida changed an agency name for Florida Department of
Offender Rehabilitation too the Department of Corrections.


2. To protect society from further depredations of the accused, and
3. To serve as a deterrent to those similarily inclined.

I suggest that just lining them up and shooting their skanky asses at least
fulfills reason number 3.

On 12/2/2010 1:06 PM, dgk wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:19:27 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD


I'm not a fan of Hillary but she's smart. SP seems streetwise but not
very smart. She certainly is very ignorant for someone running for
President. And running she certainly seems to be.

If she were a community organizer, she would be qualified to serve as
President? :-)

TDD

On Dec 2, 3:19*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, * * *wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" *wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. *The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. *So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? *School lunches and PBS. *And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. *You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! *Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. *Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hilary, no she's pretty clever. Hard nosed bitch I would say.

On Dec 2, 8:32*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! *Sorry, no score. *There is a special court set up years ago
to handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or
suspected, but announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant
from anyone even if a citizen is on the line is a different kettle of
fish. *There is also the small matter that in order to hear those
conversations you have to collect pretty much every phone call and
e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which they do. *So in fact they
are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another true-blue (or
should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows, depending on
what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. *Maybe you
better stop singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act

Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone
had over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom.
The were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not
subject to the criminal law.

Bzzzzt! *Another lost round. *If you recall (or even if you don't
want to) the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters
were not entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers,
remember? *Well, what do we do with terrorists? *We try them in our
civilian courts and put them in prison, did it many times prior to
Bush being CIC. *So, why didn't we do that again?

Because they are designated as NOT criminals and, therefore, not subject to
the criminal laws or the constitutional rights afforded criminals. They are
NOT POWs either (see below).

I refer you to the Quirin case where several German saboteurs (two of which
were U.S. citizens) snunk into the country . They were tried in a secret
military court and executed.



But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it.

Er, only to the ignorant.

Does a citizen
who took up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or
related offenses, or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the
usual protections according to treaties the U.S. has signed and
according to the U.S. military's own rules. *Well? *Which is it?

Neither one necessarily.



Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to
be tried and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock
up for years until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and let them go. *Or they really were combatants and they
go back to fighting us after we've released them--too bad we didn't
convict them and put them in prison for a couple of decades huh?

They didn't make up a "new" category. They simply used a completely
different one that's been around for millennia.



It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish,
not fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with
them. Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

I agree the folks in Gitmo are not POWs. I also agree they are not
criminals. There IS a third category: Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

The conventions to which we subscribe define an "Enemy Combatant" as one
engage in an armed conflict who:
1. Wears a distinctive uniform or emblem.
2. Answers to a chain of command.
3. Carries arms openly.
4. Conforms to the general rules of war.

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those engaged in
warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are, by implication,
UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.

They are in the same general category as spies, saboteurs, guerrillas,
fifth-columnists, Democrats, and the like. According to the general rules of
war, they may be executed out of hand.

The first unlawful enemy combatant we encountered was one Major Andre.
General Washington, after a perfunctory hearing, had Major Andre hanged
within three days of his capture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are freedom fighters. They are fighting against illegal occupiers
of their country. And as such they are combatants under the Hague
convention.
Now American revolutionaries WERE unlawful combatants.

On Dec 2, 10:55*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 12/2/2010 10:19 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:



On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the
law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little
angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are
well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple
of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion
dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the
war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the
Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course
nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too.
You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as
much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate
backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held
over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD

'Lady MacBeth' is the term that comes to mind for Hillary.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More like one of the witches.

On Dec 3, 1:13*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

So your idea of capitalsm is based on the ideas of some who died 200
years ago. *No wonder your ideas are dross. After watching the total
failure of *capitalism you still think money can be conjured out of
thin air?

As I said, "money" is not "wealth." And, yes, wealth can be conjured out of
thin air. Not only do I believe that, but many of my ideas are based on the
teachings from Sinai some 3,300 years ago.

A truth is eternal - whether it was written on stone tablets 33 centuries
ago or published in London in 1776.



I hear that these *******s in America that profited out of it all pay
less tax than a shopfloor worker.

Yes, that's often true. For example, Ross Perot paid NO federal taxes. This
is because at least half of the tax laws are designed to foster some social
goal. In Perot's case, the national government encouraged the buying of
municipal bonds by exempting the interest on the bonds from federal
taxation. Perot had ALL his money in municipal bonds.

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.
Heh Heh. And you claim to have been a cop.

On 12/3/2010 2:20 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 3:19 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 7:46 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 8:33 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:52 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 7:45 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/2/2010 1:27 AM, harry wrote:

On Dec 2, 6:18 am, wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in ...

"Legally"? My goodness, we've become awfully delicate about the law
since a Democrat was elected President, haven't we.
Democrats never do anything wrong and Republicans are little angels too.
:-)

Democrats do plenty wrong, but at the moment the Republicans are well in the
lead when it comes to carpet-chewing crazy. The CBO said a couple of years
back that the real cost of the war in Iraq would top two trillion dollars
once the interest was paid on the borrowed money used to fund the war--and
spending in Iraq hasn't stopped in the meantime. So where are the Repubs
anxious to cut spending? School lunches and PBS. And of course nobody gets
a tax cut unless people making over $20,000 a month get one too. You almost
have to admire the sheer gall of their determination to direct as much of
the nation's wealth as possible into the hands of their corporate backers.

Carpet chewing crazy! Heh Heh. I love that one.
Talking of which, how about your very own Sarah P. Her North/South
Korea gaffs have been widely reported over here. She's getting
Americans a bad name. Confirming many theories and anecdotes held over
here.

I'm amazed at how nasty Liberals are to her. They must be terrified
of the woman.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, she frightens the **** out of me. The thought she could be
president?
WW3 a year later.

Kind of a female Teddy Roosevelt, eh?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nah. Nothing like. She's a mad iggerant crazy bitch.

There you go, I suppose you're revealing Liberal press education. :-)
You probably think Hillary Clinton is angelic. *snicker*

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hilary, no she's pretty clever. Hard nosed bitch I would say.

I know people who believe she's so smart and worldly that she
would make a great President. One of my grownup girlfriends
voted for Bill Clinton because he was pretty, she would probably
vote for Hitlery Clinton because she's married to Bill.

TDD

On 12/3/2010 2:27 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Refuting one of your observations: governments have been listening
in on enemy conversations for a long time.

Bzzzzt! Sorry, no score. There is a special court set up years ago
to handle listening in on *citizens* talking to enemies real or
suspected, but announcing you just don't need no stinkin' warrant
from anyone even if a citizen is on the line is a different kettle of
fish. There is also the small matter that in order to hear those
conversations you have to collect pretty much every phone call and
e-mail sent or received in the U.S., which they do. So in fact they
are listening in when *you* call or e-mail another true-blue (or
should that be true-red-state?) citizen, and who knows, depending on
what you say the computer scanning your message might find it
interesting enough to flag it for further attention. Maybe you
better stop singing the praises of sawed-off shotguns.

Correct. The FISA court.

However, the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) was signed into law on August
5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of
foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the
United States.[1] The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many
provisions of the Protect America Act

Refuting another claim, during WWII, we held literally hundreds of
thousands of German and Italian POWs on U.S. soil. (My state alone
had over 100 POW camps.) Of those held, thousands were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). NOT ONE ever appeared in a U.S. courtroom.
The were not "charged" because they were not criminals and not
subject to the criminal law.

Bzzzzt! Another lost round. If you recall (or even if you don't
want to) the Bush administration said captured Taliban or AQ fighters
were not entitled to POW status since they were not soldiers,
remember? Well, what do we do with terrorists? We try them in our
civilian courts and put them in prison, did it many times prior to
Bush being CIC. So, why didn't we do that again?

Because they are designated as NOT criminals and, therefore, not subject to
the criminal laws or the constitutional rights afforded criminals. They are
NOT POWs either (see below).

I refer you to the Quirin case where several German saboteurs (two of which
were U.S. citizens) snunk into the country . They were tried in a secret
military court and executed.



But then they also wanted to hold a couple of U.S. citizens as "enemy
combatants"--sounds kind of like POWS, doesn't it.

Er, only to the ignorant.

Does a citizen
who took up arms against his own country get a trial for treason or
related offenses, or is he a POW in which case he's entitled to the
usual protections according to treaties the U.S. has signed and
according to the U.S. military's own rules. Well? Which is it?

Neither one necessarily.



Nope, they just made up a new category--not POWS, not terrorists to
be tried and convicted, not anything--just guys we're going to lock
up for years until we maybe admit they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time and let them go. Or they really were combatants and they
go back to fighting us after we've released them--too bad we didn't
convict them and put them in prison for a couple of decades huh?

They didn't make up a "new" category. They simply used a completely
different one that's been around for millennia.



It's quite the bizarre world they built for those *******s, not fish,
not fowl, just locked up because we don't know what else to do with
them. Another lovely legacy of the Bush administration.

I agree the folks in Gitmo are not POWs. I also agree they are not
criminals. There IS a third category: Unlawful Enemy Combatant.

The conventions to which we subscribe define an "Enemy Combatant" as one
engage in an armed conflict who:
1. Wears a distinctive uniform or emblem.
2. Answers to a chain of command.
3. Carries arms openly.
4. Conforms to the general rules of war.

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those engaged in
warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are, by implication,
UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.

They are in the same general category as spies, saboteurs, guerrillas,
fifth-columnists, Democrats, and the like. According to the general rules of
war, they may be executed out of hand.

The first unlawful enemy combatant we encountered was one Major Andre.
General Washington, after a perfunctory hearing, had Major Andre hanged
within three days of his capture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are freedom fighters. They are fighting against illegal occupiers
of their country. And as such they are combatants under the Hague
convention.
Now American revolutionaries WERE unlawful combatants.

OK, so a guy from Syria fighting Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan is a
freedom fighter? This Syrian who would murder civilian aid workers who
volunteer their services to help those in a war torn country is a
freedom fighter? Here's an example of what those freedom fighters do:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ajka57

I used a Syrian as an example because many of the "freedom fighters"
come from other countries to fight the Christian Crusader Infidels.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:


I know people who believe she's so smart and worldly that she
would make a great President. One of my grownup girlfriends
voted for Bill Clinton because he was pretty, she would probably
vote for Hitlery Clinton because she's married to Bill.


I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".

--
You'll be Ok, Enjoy. Life is nothing more than a bunch of mini
vacations all rolled into one. - Old Gringo

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:


I know people who believe she's so smart and worldly that she
would make a great President. One of my grownup girlfriends
voted for Bill Clinton because he was pretty, she would probably
vote for Hitlery Clinton because she's married to Bill.


I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".

You can't believe that maybe they just played the game better when
votes were still being divided amongst many people?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

G. Morgan wrote in
:

The Daring Dufas wrote:


I know people who believe she's so smart and worldly that she
would make a great President. One of my grownup girlfriends
voted for Bill Clinton because he was pretty, she would probably
vote for Hitlery Clinton because she's married to Bill.


People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.


I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".


only if organizing and using their voting power is "rigging".

But that is what "progressives" claim about political elections too,if
their candidate doesn't win.

I suspect you don't know what "Citizens United" is about,either.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM

Jim Yanik wrote:

I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".


only if organizing and using their voting power is "rigging".

But that is what "progressives" claim about political elections too,if
their candidate doesn't win.

I suspect you don't know what "Citizens United" is about,either.

I think you are one of those that received the mind control implant. You didn't
get a flu shot did you?

--
You'll be Ok, Enjoy. Life is nothing more than a bunch of mini
vacations all rolled into one. - Old Gringo

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".

You can't believe that maybe they just played the game better when
votes were still being divided amongst many people?

I'm just saying, maybe the better dancer should be able to continue, hmmm?

It is supposed to be a dance contest, not a popularity contest.

I do find it fascinating that so many people actually like her. I can't wrap my
head around the fact that she came so close to being in control of our military
might. shudder Seriously? shakes head

For goodness sake, the Republicans better find a better candidate than her. She
was the reason I "got off the fence" when deciding whom to vote for.




--
You'll be Ok, Enjoy. Life is nothing more than a bunch of mini
vacations all rolled into one. - Old Gringo

On 12/3/2010 5:48 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
The Daring wrote:


I know people who believe she's so smart and worldly that she
would make a great President. One of my grownup girlfriends
voted for Bill Clinton because he was pretty, she would probably
vote for Hitlery Clinton because she's married to Bill.


I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".


Well hell! Let's just call Palin's daughter an Affirmative Action
dancer. :-)

TDD

On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
Kurt wrote:

I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".

You can't believe that maybe they just played the game better when
votes were still being divided amongst many people?

I'm just saying, maybe the better dancer should be able to continue, hmmm?

It is supposed to be a dance contest, not a popularity contest.

I do find it fascinating that so many people actually like her. I can't wrap my
head around the fact that she came so close to being in control of our military
might.shudder Seriously?shakes head

For goodness sake, the Republicans better find a better candidate than her. She
was the reason I "got off the fence" when deciding whom to vote for.


Holy crap, all television programs on commercial networks are about
popularity! It's like an election, people called in and voted for
whom they wanted. You expect me to believe some nefarious operatives
of the Republican party spent millions of dollars to take over the
national phone system to disrupt a stupid television show? GEEZ!!

TDD

On 12/3/2010 7:11 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Anything written X thousand years ago be desert ragheads is suspect.
But oh, I seem to remember you consider it to be "good evidence". I
bet you're a creationist too.

I agree that anything written X thousand years ago to be suspect, along with
anything written yesterday or at any time between.

The test is whether what was written is sufficiently strong, standing alone,
to compel a rational mind of the probable truth of the assertion made.

Heh Heh. And you claim to have been a cop.

Yep. I even put people in jail whose actions violated some written rule I
thought absurd.

For example, I would have had to arrest this fellow, although I'd be on his
side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXy1iiQgOAM



I see you liked that video too.

TDD

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I believe that Sarah Palin and pals rigged "Dancing with the Stars".

You can't believe that maybe they just played the game better when
votes were still being divided amongst many people?

I'm just saying, maybe the better dancer should be able to continue, hmmm?

It is supposed to be a dance contest, not a popularity contest.

Yeah that is why you get a bunch of C or D list celebrities with
little or no dancing background on the show. This, Idol, and most of the
other shows where the general public is deeply involved are popularity
contests. Always have been.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 12/03/10 07:53 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

People think Comrade Obama is "smart" or "brilliant",yet he doesn't release
his college records or papers.
And he needs a teleprompter to sound intelligent.

You don't think that the previous president didn't use a teleprompter
too? And he still managed to sound unintelligent much of the time.

Perce

Actually read through some of the craigslist man to man personals.
You
will notice that it is not *if* they get a date, rather *which one*
they are going to select out of many.

You are talking men here and they all are quite willing - all want
the
same thing, etc., so I would guess the "chances" for a date would
go
up 100x JUST being gay...


How much time to you spend reading the man to man
personals on craigslist?

I just look at the pictures.:-) Why are you so interested in my love
life?

FYI - As to other people being interested in my love life... I find
that men in their 20's need to know all about this, 30's not so
interested, 40's plus could care less. Why is that?