Someone who makes sense
 

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:41:32 -0500, John H
wrote:

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

let me type this slowly so you can read it....i answered this the
other day

our laws do not apply in yemen.

got that? yemen is not a US state. if you pull out ANY atlas, yemen
will not be included in the states of the union.

we now return you to our normal programming

jesus you're stupid

Someone who makes sense
 

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:56:48 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:41:32 -0500, John H
wrote:

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

let me type this slowly so you can read it....i answered this the
other day

our laws do not apply in yemen.

got that? yemen is not a US state. if you pull out ANY atlas, yemen
will not be included in the states of the union.

we now return you to our normal programming

jesus you're stupid

Purposefully stupid. It's a choice.

Anything to support his ideology. He's dedicated to stupid.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Jan 8, 3:41*pm, John H wrote:
I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

I'll bet when you wrote this drivel that you either didn't know, or
didn't want to know the fact that there have been a greater percentage
of terrorist convictions in public court than in military court. Maybe
THAT'S why the AG wants them tried in public court? Nah, that wouldn't
fit the agenda of the everything liberal = bad crowd.

Someone who makes sense
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...
I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257



Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because
things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs
that send terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Johnny spent his career as an army officer...he has no idea about American
principles or culture.

If he did, I would be shocked if what you say is true. US military officers
swear to defend the Constitution.

I'm afraid my little buddy Don has little knowledge of anything beyond
the Bowery like environs of his native Halifax neighborhood.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Jan 8, 4:00*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

(Sent through Google)

Someone who makes sense
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

I'm not so sure this is true. Check into it and get back to us.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

Someone who makes sense
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:28 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

Someone who makes sense
 

On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote:


And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.


You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you
like receiving it?