On Dec 3, 10:07*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bloody hell! Only in America.

On Dec 3, 10:21*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/3/2010 2:27 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 2, 8:32 pm, *wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
news:ZpednekOvePN_2vRnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have to realise many aid workers are in fact CIA spies. They know
this but don't know which is which. So they don't take chances and
kill them all.
They don't need any aid workers over there, whatever their motivations.

Jim Yanik wrote:

I used to live in Delaware and remember meeting Mr. Biden when I was
in middle school. He was a Senator then, and I'm 40 now, so you do
the math on his experience.

Experience at WHAT? All that shows is that he's been a "career
congressman".Never done anything else.
And useful idiots would have that sort make our laws,REPRESENT us!
Insanity.

Wow. Nice comparison there. You compare a lifelong senator to an unknown k00k
whom is clearly not ready (nor ever will be) to step-up should the need arise.
You compare a man who spent his whole life in service to his constituents to
some air head psychopath that shoots wolves from a helicopter. That ain't
huntin', that's killing for sport.

A MAJOR reason the US is SO screwed up at present.
One would think that a 40 yr old would have more sense.

It took GWB 8 years to royally **** the country into the worse shape it's been
in since the Great Depression. GWB inherited a budget SURPLUS, we all know he
left with our debt at an all-time high.

Some dude like you wants to know why Obama can't bring back the Clinton days
back fast enough! Remember then? We were respected in the International
Community back in those days.

Obama was also a Senator, I think that
gives him the edge on how Federal Government operates. Not that being
able to see Russia on a clear day, and serving a partial term as
Governor of a state with a population about equal to that of Waco, TX
(and it's 50 mile radius) doesn't have anything to offer.

What OTHER "real world" experience does Biden have? None.
Has he -ever- had a real non-public job? Run any business? No.
Neither has Comrade Obama.

I'm not going to dignify that comparison because it's not even fair to compare
the two.

What do you keep on about "real world" experience? Would you be happier if
Obama selected the pizza guy?


and your comment about "able to see Russia on a clear day" attributed to
Palin is hilarious,as that was a Saturday Night Live TV SHOW creation,and
here YOU are quoting it as Palin's words.

Yeah, that's called parody. SNL writers couldn't top what she really said, so
they paraphrased it.

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy
experience. What did you mean by that?


PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country,
Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada.
It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't
know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign
countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in
Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the
Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important
when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his
head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where
do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska
that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very
powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to--
to our state.

shakes head

I bet her college grades were better,too.Except that Comrade Obama
HIDES his college records and papers.

You bet? How bold of you.


That's his purgative.

"purgative" or "prerogative"?

It was the spell checker taunting me.

If your employer asked to see your transcripts
would you comply?


I'm not a public employee,and not running for public office,and no one is
questioning my education.
But prospective employers can look up my education,there's nothing hidden.

ALL the other Presidents have had open records.

ALL of them? IN CAPS? Are you sure about that? What about Bush's military
record, should that be public too?


Yet people say Comrade Obama is "brilliant" and "smart" yet there's no
evidence for that. His records are hidden,kept away from the public.

No evidence? He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School,
does it really matter what his grades were? You can't fake those degrees,
especially in the climate he came up in. He *earned* his degree. Can you say
the same thing with 100% certainty about GWB?


And "useful idiots" like you don't wonder why.

Awww. I must of hit a nerve, Palin-lover. Now you're down to
name-calling.

If it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck,walks like a duck,it is a duck.

Hey, it could be worse I guess. You could come down a step and call me a
non-useful idiot.

If the Mainstream(Old) Media had investigated and reported on POTUS-
candidate Obama as deeply and thoroughly as they did **VP-candidate**
Palin AND her family,Comrade Obama would never have been elected.

Uh, huh. Keep telling yourself that.

It's TRUE.

Boo-hoo.

The Old Media dug DEEP into Palin -AND her family-,had hundreds of people
chasing down everything they could,but for Comrade Obama,everything he said
was blindly accepted,no in-depth research by anybody. The Old Media was "in
the tank" for Comrade Obama.

And I'll counter that one by pointing out the group that started out pretty
large, and took a reeeeeeeeally loooooooooong time to thin out all but the
completely insane. 'The Birthers'

Even Faux News was hot on the story for a while, just hoping that Photoshopped
Kenyan birth certificate would "fly". Hahahaha.....

I am not alone in my decision.

all that says it that there's a lot of fools out there.

Obviously. How many fools did the decision to hire-on Palin have to go through?

I'm registered Independent.

Lol. Impossible, that's an oxymoron. This is not to be confused with the word
'moron', idiot.

so much for your blind ASSumptions.

I like your CAPS KEY handy work. I'm going to try and be more like you.

and I would have never selected McCain for Republican POTUS candidate.

Not if you wanted the Republican Party to win. I think they (Repugs.) took a
dive on purpose. They don't know how to fix the mess their esteemed ex-leader
left behind, so it's really best to sit this one out. That way people like you
get to bitch and moan as the former Administration's economic disaster starts to
-really- be felt by many. It will take until the end of Obama's term for the
economy to start to show growth, at least that long.

He's a RINO.

If you say so. I could care less what affiliation he claims. You're supposed
to see it that way too, a real "Registered Independent" snicker would.

You're an IINO.

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.

FYI,Palin was the VICE presidential candidate,McCain was POTUS-candidate.
Considering all the verbal garbage Senator and now VP Joe Biden has
spouted,your comments about Palin really look ridiculous.

No genius. My logic prevailed after taking into account the age of Senator
McCain and his questionable health status. Hell, I wouldn't put it past the
Palin gang to plot an ASSassination ----(I did it!) to gain the "Throne".

No,but any rational person can see that socialist policies(such as the
Democrat Party espouse) DO NOT WORK. It's Communism on the lay-away plan.

sigh Please turn off Faux News for an hour and get a brisk walk to clear your
head.

But you keep your "progressive" blinders on.

I am not affiliated with any party, please try to keep up.

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

Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW, the relevancy is "free speech" as it relates to DWTS including viewer
voting in their show,besides demonstrating how "progressives" don't
actually KNOW what they're commenting upon,but just rattle off liberal
"talking points" they got from the liberal media.


Has the liberal media been covering the mind control implant scandal?

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

Jim Yanik wrote:

I bet Bush's college grades were better,too.

You like betting on grades.

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

On Dec 3, 1:11*pm, "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
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Re. Utube.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Jim Yanik wrote:

G. Morgan wrote in
:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

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

Let's call her a whore!


Now who's name-calling?
and you don't even know her or anything about her.

I know she was an unwed pregnant teen, too stupid to take a pill or make the
goofball boyfriend wear a wrapper.

If she wasn't being watched it would be another one of those sad, "Prom Night
Dumpster Babies" incidents.


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

On Dec 3, 1:54*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Steady on Duf. The Hollywood education's showing through again.

Jim Yanik wrote:

maybe the show's PRODUCERS "rigged" it,to boost ratings,but "Palin and
pals" don't have that ability.

After all,it's the RPODUCERS who include telephone voting in the
scoring,and it's been that way for *several seasons*.

but since it's a PALIN,some folks are biased.
More of that "progressive" hate.


Wait for it everyone! Jim's gonna blow a gasket and blame it all on the jooooos
next. The jooo PRODUCERS that CONTROL all of the LIBERAL MEDIA!! Right Jimmy??



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

On Dec 3, 2:29*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
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

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

On Dec 3, 4:48*pm, Country wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:54*pm, "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 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?

Are you saying that keeping a large force of poor underpaid workers
doesn't benefit the rich?

If the Democrat's agenda is to keep poor people poor, the why is one
of the key Republican talking points "redistribution of wealth"?

That Michael Jackson thing is a good-un tho.

-C-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. I see you've spotted where all this is leading to. The US
republicans want to get to the Chinese position where there is a huge
force of near slave labourers and a tiny minority of the rich.
All it takes now is for the workforce to get sufficiently starved or
desperate.
The weird thing is a lot of these must be voting republican themselves.

On Dec 3, 11:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:01 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oh,and Comrade Obama is any better?
Palin has more management experience and more REAL WORLD experience
than either Comrade Obama or VP Biden.
I bet her college grades were better,too.Except that Comrade Obama
HIDES his college records and papers.
And "useful idiots" like you don't wonder why.

Step away from the crack pipe. *Just listening to the persons speak
should be enough, unless you're going to argue that Palin has some
kind of learning disability that forces her to mangle the English
language.

I just recalled that several progressive journalists went all smirky when
Palin told a Tea Party audience that they should "... party like it's 1773!"

Palin's reference to 1773 was held up to ridicule and, to the liberal
bloggers and journalists, was evidence sufficient of Palin's totally
ignorant knowledge of American history.

Gwen Ifill (PBS correspondent and moderator of the Palin / Biden debates)
got her licks in. Markos Moulitsas, of the Daily Kos, blogged sarcastically
"She's so smart!"

From Wikipedia:
"On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three
shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships
and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor."

To be sure, stump speakers make mistakes. But "1773" wasn't one of them.
Even Barak Obama was accused of a gross error when he said he wanted to
campaign in "... all 57 states." That was only a minor goof inasmuch as the
Democratic party held primaries in 57 venues. They we

* The fifty states, of course.
* District of Columbia
* Guam
* The U.S. Virgin Islands
* Patagonia
* Shangri-La
* Rhodesia
* Canal Zone(?)

I'm surprised he didn't come over here. (UK).

On Dec 4, 1:15*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
ktos wrote aweb.com:





"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in
:

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

GWB can't read.

GWB is far smarter than Comrade Obama.
He's a Yale graduate(with HIS records open to the public),graduated
military fighter jet school(a far harder accomplishment than anything
Comrade Obama has done) and ran a business before becoming Governor of
Texas and then POTUS.

Flying a F-102 is NOT any simple or easy thing to learn.(and it requires
the ability to read complex manuals...)
Nor getting through SERE school.

Comrade Obama is a know-nothing PUNK compared to GW Bush.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, Bush is smart after all. I just thought he was just dumb. That
means he must be evil.

On 12/4/2010 2:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, The Daring
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Steady on Duf. The Hollywood education's showing through again.

Hollywood didn't teach me anything about telecom which is why I laugh
myself silly whenever I watch a movie that has a phone phreak tampering
with telecom infrastructure. :-)

TDD

On 12/4/2010 2:23 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:15 pm, wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:01 am, Jim wrote:

Oh,and Comrade Obama is any better?
Palin has more management experience and more REAL WORLD experience
than either Comrade Obama or VP Biden.
I bet her college grades were better,too.Except that Comrade Obama
HIDES his college records and papers.
And "useful idiots" like you don't wonder why.

Step away from the crack pipe. Just listening to the persons speak
should be enough, unless you're going to argue that Palin has some
kind of learning disability that forces her to mangle the English
language.

I just recalled that several progressive journalists went all smirky when
Palin told a Tea Party audience that they should "... party like it's 1773!"

Palin's reference to 1773 was held up to ridicule and, to the liberal
bloggers and journalists, was evidence sufficient of Palin's totally
ignorant knowledge of American history.

Gwen Ifill (PBS correspondent and moderator of the Palin / Biden debates)
got her licks in. Markos Moulitsas, of the Daily Kos, blogged sarcastically
"She's so smart!"

From Wikipedia:
"On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three
shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships
and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor."

To be sure, stump speakers make mistakes. But "1773" wasn't one of them.
Even Barak Obama was accused of a gross error when he said he wanted to
campaign in "... all 57 states." That was only a minor goof inasmuch as the
Democratic party held primaries in 57 venues. They we

* The fifty states, of course.
* District of Columbia
* Guam
* The U.S. Virgin Islands
* Patagonia
* Shangri-La
* Rhodesia
* Canal Zone(?)

I'm surprised he didn't come over here. (UK).

The "Let The World Vote For America's President" treaty hasn't been
ratified yet. Those silly Republicans keep shooting it down claiming
it's too expensive. :-)

TDD

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

It took GWB 8 years to royally **** the country into the worse shape it's
been
in since the Great Depression. GWB inherited a budget SURPLUS, we all know
he
left with our debt at an all-time high.

Actually he didn't. The surplus peaked in FY 2000 (which started in
October of 1999) and was on its way down. We were back in deficit by the
time GW's budgets came along. Clinton's surpluses were largely related a
grossly overheated economy.



--
"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 12/4/2010 1:48 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:07 am, The Daring
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bloody hell! Only in America.

What does The Queen's menstrual cycle have to do with hell? Hell,
she quit laying eggs long ago. :-)

TDD

On 12/4/2010 2:17 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:54 pm, 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 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?

Are you saying that keeping a large force of poor underpaid workers
doesn't benefit the rich?

If the Democrat's agenda is to keep poor people poor, the why is one
of the key Republican talking points "redistribution of wealth"?

That Michael Jackson thing is a good-un tho.

-C-- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. I see you've spotted where all this is leading to. The US
republicans want to get to the Chinese position where there is a huge
force of near slave labourers and a tiny minority of the rich.
All it takes now is for the workforce to get sufficiently starved or
desperate.
The weird thing is a lot of these must be voting republican themselves.

"The US republicans..." I wasn't aware that any other countries had a
Republican party. Darn! A French Republican would be one very arrogant
SOB, that's scary. :-)

TDD

On 12/4/2010 1:51 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:21 am, The Daring
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have to realise many aid workers are in fact CIA spies. They know
this but don't know which is which. So they don't take chances and
kill them all.
They don't need any aid workers over there, whatever their motivations.

So the British doctor who was murdered was a CIA spy? Darn, the CIA has
agents behind every tree, they're watching me now.......er, whats that
sound.... OMG, there's a Stealth Black Helicopter hovering outside! I
gotta get out of here! Beware of the CIA SBH's, they're everywhere!

TDD

On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, 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
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Re. Utube.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD

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

stuff snipped

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.

Your words "by implication" don't mean "settled, decided and Supreme Court
tested." They just mean "some people believe."

But you've got a bigger problem. Who decides who is engaged in lawful or
unlawful combat? A LEO would surely know that an "on the street" (aka the
battlefield) pre-arrest investigation is not very deep and innocent people
are sometimes taken into custody because you just can't sort out all the
facts there on the street.

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.

Hey, they screw up so much because they're too busy *concealing* things like
the Pat Tillman incident and so many others. I have trouble with the whole
concept of our troops arresting people on a battlefield we defined and
created. Would we tolerate another country's invading the US and hauling
off for indefinite detention anyone who resisted? It was a dippy PR stunt
in the PR laden "War on Terror." Another instance of "security theater"
that's come back to bite our butts. Like Colin Powell almost said, "you
take them, you own them!"

Simple human decency,

Those are the three key words to live by. Lose sight of them and we're no
better than the scum we're fighting.

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.

I've concluded that the people who don't get that don't understand what's
happened in the last 50 years. We're all deeply interconnected now and a
lot of the prestige of the US is tarnishing. It's because we can't possibly
imagine another country invading us the way we invaded AfRaq. We can't put
ourselves in the shoes of some poor dopes being conned into thinking they
are fighting an invader. We can't seem to understand what our own citizens
would do if invaded.

Habeas Corpus is an idea a lot of Americans have died for and it means, in
essence, that the King (or more lately the President), can't just lock
people away without *meaningful* adjudication of some kind. It's essential
to the balance of powers that has kept this country on an even keel longer
than many.

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 relatively innocent
bystanders don't suffer for the sins of the scum.

It was the Red Cross that really got the ball rolling on Gitmo because we
refused access repeatedly. Watch the History Channel and you'll see stories
about US soldiers who break down in tears describing how the Red Cross saved
their lives when *they* had been held as POWs. Here's just one, I've seen a
dozen.

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/11144...r-freedom.html

I am sure in years to come, the "torture" crisis will turn into a great
stain on the reputation of many men. I must say, I respected McCain for his
nearly steadfast opposition to legalized torture of any kind. Perhaps as a
former POW he knew that pictures of prisoners with bags over their heads
being attacked by dogs is not what America should be about. I think in his
heart, McCain knew that, even if it was political suicide to say so.

--
Bobby G.

harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
N8N wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:01 am, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oh,and Comrade Obama is any better?
Palin has more management experience and more REAL WORLD experience
than either Comrade Obama or VP Biden.
I bet her college grades were better,too.Except that Comrade Obama
HIDES his college records and papers.
And "useful idiots" like you don't wonder why.

Step away from the crack pipe. Just listening to the persons speak
should be enough, unless you're going to argue that Palin has some
kind of learning disability that forces her to mangle the English
language.

I just recalled that several progressive journalists went all smirky
when Palin told a Tea Party audience that they should "... party
like it's 1773!"

Palin's reference to 1773 was held up to ridicule and, to the liberal
bloggers and journalists, was evidence sufficient of Palin's totally
ignorant knowledge of American history.

Gwen Ifill (PBS correspondent and moderator of the Palin / Biden
debates) got her licks in. Markos Moulitsas, of the Daily Kos,
blogged sarcastically "She's so smart!"

From Wikipedia:
"On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return
three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists
boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston
Harbor."

To be sure, stump speakers make mistakes. But "1773" wasn't one of
them. Even Barak Obama was accused of a gross error when he said he
wanted to campaign in "... all 57 states." That was only a minor
goof inasmuch as the Democratic party held primaries in 57 venues.
They we

* The fifty states, of course.
* District of Columbia
* Guam
* The U.S. Virgin Islands
* Patagonia
* Shangri-La
* Rhodesia
* Canal Zone(?)

I'm surprised he didn't come over here. (UK).

He did go to Germany.

G. Morgan wrote:

It took GWB 8 years to royally **** the country into the worse shape
it's been in since the Great Depression. GWB inherited a budget
SURPLUS, we all know he left with our debt at an all-time high.

You're right. The Bush years added about $800 billion to the national debt.
The Obama administration topped that their first month in office. The CBO
predicts deficits of about $1 TRILLION for EACH year of the Obama
administration.


Some dude like you wants to know why Obama can't bring back the
Clinton days back fast enough! Remember then? We were respected in
the International Community back in those days.

And being respected in the international community is a goal exactly why?





ALL the other Presidents have had open records.

ALL of them? IN CAPS? Are you sure about that? What about Bush's
military record, should that be public too?

I think it was. Heck, somebody even conjured up some fake stuff! ("The facts
were wrong, but the narrative was correct").


No evidence? He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law
School, does it really matter what his grades were? You can't fake
those degrees, especially in the climate he came up in. He *earned*
his degree. Can you say the same thing with 100% certainty about GWB?




Hmm. Bush is a graduate of Yale and Harvard, so I'd say they were somewhat
equivalent.


I'm registered Independent.

Lol. Impossible, that's an oxymoron. This is not to be confused with
the word 'moron', idiot.

No. In some states one must register their party affiliation as a condition
of voter registration. The choices include "Republican", "Democrat", and
"Independent." (There are often others).

Robert Green wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:

stuff snipped

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.

Your words "by implication" don't mean "settled, decided and Supreme
Court tested." They just mean "some people believe."

They weren't MY words, they were the determination of the Supreme Court in
the Quirin case. In that case, a group of German Saboteurs were put ashore
by U-boat on Long Island and the Florida coast (one claimed U.S.
citizenship). They were almost immediately captured and sentenced to death
by a military court. In their appeal for habeus protection, the Supreme
Court applied the Geneva Convention definitions and concluded they were
"unlawful combatatans" by definition. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court
said:

" Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in
addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for
acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and
without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war,
seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or
an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for
the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar
examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the
status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war
subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "


But you've got a bigger problem. Who decides who is engaged in
lawful or unlawful combat? A LEO would surely know that an "on the
street" (aka the battlefield) pre-arrest investigation is not very
deep and innocent people are sometimes taken into custody because you
just can't sort out all the facts there on the street.

Uh, the president (or his designee) decides.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?


Indeed. Most liberals are humorless scolds.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:53:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:52:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD

Sure he is. When his new library opens it will display the last
authentic shoes of Jimmy Hoffa, recovered from the lunar surface.

Johnny Carson said they found the shoes there...


Jimmy Hoffa isn't dead, contrary to popular belief. In your mind's
eye, picture Jimmy Hoffa in a dress. Now picture Janet Napolitano.
Coincidence? I think not.

"Country" wrote in message
On Dec 3, 8:48 am, "Bill" wrote:
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?

....Well, either that or I was just having some fun with you.

I think you were having a bit of fun... :-)

In article ,
DFBonnett wrote:

Jimmy Hoffa isn't dead, contrary to popular belief. In your mind's
eye, picture Jimmy Hoffa in a dress. Now picture Janet Napolitano.
Coincidence? I think not.

YOu never heard about the positive DNA tests showing he is really Janet
Reno.
'

--
"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 12/4/2010 8:07 AM, DFBonnett wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:53:00 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:52:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I miss Bush.

i t was all ********. You can't create wealth out of thin air. We now
see the results of trying to. It will take a decade to fix Bush's
mess.

Bush screwed up England too? Darn, I didn't know the man was so
powerful. :-)

TDD

Sure he is. When his new library opens it will display the last
authentic shoes of Jimmy Hoffa, recovered from the lunar surface.

Johnny Carson said they found the shoes there...


Jimmy Hoffa isn't dead, contrary to popular belief. In your mind's
eye, picture Jimmy Hoffa in a dress. Now picture Janet Napolitano.
Coincidence? I think not.

I have a friend from Californiastan who's a crossdresser, he's not
homosexual, he's a grandfather but he likes to wear women's clothing.
When the guy dresses up, he looks like an ugly Janet Reno. :-)

TDD

On 12/4/2010 7:28 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?


Indeed. Most liberals are humorless scolds.


The life of those of a Liberal bent must be very stressful because
they take life too seriously. Funny, they always describe Conservatives
of acting like they have a stick up their butt. :-)

TDD

On Dec 4, 10:04*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 1:48 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 3, 10:07 am, The Daring
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bloody hell! *Only in America.

What does The Queen's menstrual cycle have to do with hell? Hell,
she quit laying eggs long ago. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hell is the USA. Where te great Satan lives.

On Dec 4, 10:25*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, *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
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. *I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.

On Dec 4, 1:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
m...
On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:

stuff snipped

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.

Your words "by implication" don't mean "settled, decided and Supreme
Court tested." *They just mean "some people believe."

They weren't MY words, they were the determination of the Supreme Court in
the Quirin case. In that case, a group of German Saboteurs were put ashore
by U-boat on Long Island and the Florida coast (one claimed U.S.
citizenship). They were almost immediately captured and sentenced to death
by a military court. In their appeal for habeus protection, the Supreme
Court applied the Geneva Convention definitions and concluded they were
"unlawful combatatans" by definition. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court
said:

" Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in
addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for
acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and
without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war,
seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or
an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for
the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar
examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the
status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war
subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "



But you've got a bigger problem. *Who decides who is engaged in
lawful or unlawful combat? *A LEO would surely know that an "on the
street" (aka the battlefield) pre-arrest investigation is not very
deep and innocent people are sometimes taken into custody because you
just can't sort out all the facts there on the street.

Uh, the president (or his designee) decides.

BTW. When was war declared? It's known as abduction or kidnap.

On Dec 4, 1:28*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

Indeed. Most liberals are humorless scolds.

It's called responsible behavior.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:00:37 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

It took GWB 8 years to royally **** the country into the worse shape it's
been
in since the Great Depression. GWB inherited a budget SURPLUS, we all know
he
left with our debt at an all-time high.

Actually he didn't. The surplus peaked in FY 2000 (which started in
October of 1999) and was on its way down. We were back in deficit by the
time GW's budgets came along. Clinton's surpluses were largely related a
grossly overheated economy.

....combined with a, more or less, conservative (Newt Gingrich, et. al.)
Congress with a choke-hold on Clinton.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:10:24 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:29*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
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

Aha. You saw the real "W" when he was in that schoolroom and was
informed about 11/9.

There's that famous "Hollywood education" of yours again, harry. Michael
Moore flicks are a damned poor school.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:04:51 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/4/2010 1:48 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:07 am, The Daring
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bloody hell! Only in America.

What does The Queen's menstrual cycle have to do with hell?

They're both in the UK?

Hell, she quit laying eggs long ago. :-)

Perhaps, but her offspring are doing a bang-up job of it.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:11:41 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
DFBonnett wrote:

Jimmy Hoffa isn't dead, contrary to popular belief. In your mind's
eye, picture Jimmy Hoffa in a dress. Now picture Janet Napolitano.
Coincidence? I think not.

YOu never heard about the positive DNA tests showing he is really Janet
Reno.

Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano are the same person? Now it's starting to
make sense!

On 12/4/2010 10:26 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:25 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/4/2010 2:05 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 3, 1:11 pm, 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
Hardly rates as a sworn statement.
Good one Heh Heh.
However more "Hollywood" fiction. I hope you don't base all life's
descisions on this sort of stuff.

Harry, what's happened to you? Are you humor impaired now?

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
Americans don't understand Brit humour.


What? I love Monty Python!

TDD

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:00:37 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

...combined with a, more or less, conservative (Newt Gingrich, et. al.)
Congress with a choke-hold on Clinton.

Interesting stat around that time. If you look at the 5 years before
the takeover, the average increase over the next 5 years was about 3/4%
lower (year to year increase). The next 5 years, it was back up to what
it was before the takeover. GOP's fiscal restraint lasted only until
they found out how much it could be spending other's money. After that
it was Katy bar the door as both sides starting shovelling out with both
hands.

--
"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