Someone who makes sense
 

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

Someone who makes sense
 

"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

Someone who makes sense
 

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, "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.

Welcome back Em. Hope your holidays were all you had hoped for.

As you already know, Herring doesn't need a refresher course. He
doesn't want to live in a country with due process.

He's more aligned with our own J, the insurance salesman. We should
live according to the bible and regional counsels, like the KKK. That
way we'd be on an even footing with Afghanistan and not bound by the
rules of western civilization. Libertarian rule.

Someone who makes sense
 

On 1/8/2010 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



Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 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



Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

Someone who makes sense
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, "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.

Welcome back Em. Hope your holidays were all you had hoped for.

As you already know, Herring doesn't need a refresher course. He
doesn't want to live in a country with due process.

He's more aligned with our own J, the insurance salesman. We should
live according to the bible and regional counsels, like the KKK. That
way we'd be on an even footing with Afghanistan and not bound by the
rules of western civilization. Libertarian rule.


It would have been even better if it hadn't been a "working" vacation. I got
a lot of great contacts, solidified/resolved some distribution issues, and I
even brought back some samples for selling in the US/Canada. The latter
should be interesting, since all of my business starts with clothes shipped
from here.

I feel sad about John. He seems very fearful... he and a couple of others.
He also apparently tried a scam with the green energy stuff. But, you'll
notice how complicated it got after I called his bluff. I said I'd pay in
advance after I had proof he would actually sign up for it, but even with
lots of compromise on my part, he didn't do diddly. I still haven't even
gotten an email from him, so as far as I know it was just a plain
out-and-out scam.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

"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.

Someone who makes sense
 

John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.

Someone who makes sense
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, "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.
Welcome back Em. Hope your holidays were all you had hoped for.

As you already know, Herring doesn't need a refresher course. He
doesn't want to live in a country with due process.

He's more aligned with our own J, the insurance salesman. We should
live according to the bible and regional counsels, like the KKK. That
way we'd be on an even footing with Afghanistan and not bound by the
rules of western civilization. Libertarian rule.


It would have been even better if it hadn't been a "working" vacation. I got
a lot of great contacts, solidified/resolved some distribution issues, and I
even brought back some samples for selling in the US/Canada. The latter
should be interesting, since all of my business starts with clothes shipped
from here.

I feel sad about John. He seems very fearful... he and a couple of others.
He also apparently tried a scam with the green energy stuff. But, you'll
notice how complicated it got after I called his bluff. I said I'd pay in
advance after I had proof he would actually sign up for it, but even with
lots of compromise on my part, he didn't do diddly. I still haven't even
gotten an email from him, so as far as I know it was just a plain
out-and-out scam.



Welcome back. In your absence, John and Frogwatch have been competing
head to head for the Michelle Bachmann Nuttier than a Fruitcake Award.
SW Tom apparently admitted he has been spoofing my id here, and flajim
(jim) slipped up and made it apparent he was, too. Apparently some users
here decide payback was in order after all the weeks of right-wing ID
spoofing and began spoofing the spoofers and the real losers, like John
Herring. SW Tom left in one of his usual huffs. Herring is going rip****
over being spoofed.

Someone who makes sense
 

Don White wrote:
"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.



Or anything else. He is the definition of horse's ass.

Someone who makes sense
 

Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I
don't see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is
as much of an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.

The ID spoofing has nothing to do with snappy remarks. If it were, you
and your co-ID spoofers on the right would have been disqualified in the
first round.

Someone who makes sense
 

Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, "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.
Welcome back Em. Hope your holidays were all you had hoped for.

As you already know, Herring doesn't need a refresher course. He
doesn't want to live in a country with due process.

He's more aligned with our own J, the insurance salesman. We should
live according to the bible and regional counsels, like the KKK. That
way we'd be on an even footing with Afghanistan and not bound by the
rules of western civilization. Libertarian rule.


It would have been even better if it hadn't been a "working" vacation.
I got a lot of great contacts, solidified/resolved some distribution
issues, and I even brought back some samples for selling in the
US/Canada. The latter should be interesting, since all of my business
starts with clothes shipped from here.

I feel sad about John. He seems very fearful... he and a couple of
others. He also apparently tried a scam with the green energy stuff.
But, you'll notice how complicated it got after I called his bluff. I
said I'd pay in advance after I had proof he would actually sign up
for it, but even with lots of compromise on my part, he didn't do
diddly. I still haven't even gotten an email from him, so as far as I
know it was just a plain out-and-out scam.



Welcome back. In your absence, John and Frogwatch have been competing
head to head for the Michelle Bachmann Nuttier than a Fruitcake Award.
SW Tom apparently admitted he has been spoofing my id here, and flajim
(jim) slipped up and made it apparent he was, too. Apparently some users
here decide payback was in order after all the weeks of right-wing ID
spoofing and began spoofing the spoofers and the real losers, like John
Herring. SW Tom left in one of his usual huffs. Herring is going rip****
over being spoofed.

I should give you a poke in the nose or a felt up as well, you rude bitch.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, 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 populationof 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.

Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.

Were are the bombs and troops for Saudi Arabia that is unable to control
their terrorist Bedouins.

If our economy wasn't crushed and sold down the Chang Jiang River perhaps
our young men could get employment other than turn to the military. Some
day they will start a war and no one will show up to play soldier.

John is just a thumb sucking dumb-ass looking to make a thread he can't
support. He plays with nose pickers that are proud of the nasty habit.
Look for smarter people to joust with. Have a great day and it is good to
see you back.

Someone who makes sense
 

cupcake wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, 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 populationof 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.


Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.



Good argument, except we in this instance was the Bush Family and last
I heard they("W" and Senior") are Republican's.

DP_Diddly

Someone who makes sense
 

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.


Be shocked.

Someone who makes sense
 

"cupcake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, 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 populationof 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.

Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

If you're talking about Iraq, I agree. The leadership in Afganistan,
however, supported bin laden.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.

The Saudi's admittedly did little pre-9/11 to deal with his crowd, but they
did boot him out and revoke his citizenship, I believe well in advance of
the attacks.


Were are the bombs and troops for Saudi Arabia that is unable to control
their terrorist Bedouins.

Unable to control and unwilling to control are two diff things. At first,
they were unwilling. Now they're willing and mostly do.

If our economy wasn't crushed and sold down the Chang Jiang River perhaps
our young men could get employment other than turn to the military. Some
day they will start a war and no one will show up to play soldier.

Someday the military will have to hold a bakesale to pay for yet another
fighter jet we don't really need.

John is just a thumb sucking dumb-ass looking to make a thread he can't
support. He plays with nose pickers that are proud of the nasty habit.
Look for smarter people to joust with. Have a great day and it is good to
see you back.

A bit harsh, but despite the allure of France, it's good to be home.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

On Jan 8, 5:30*pm, John H wrote:
On 1/8/2010 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

Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

Oh, and to be sure, Loogy displays much more intelligence than the
rest of the liberals hereabouts.

Someone who makes sense
 

On 1/8/2010 6:12 PM, Jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:30:36 -0500, John H
wrote:

On 1/8/2010 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


Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I
don't see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is
as much of an idiotic asshole as I am.

I figured that was the best you could do.

He's about out of snappy remarks. It's not like the old days when he was
more entertaining and a little edgey.


Let's be real here. Neither you nor I have ever posted a "snappy remark"
in rec.boats.

Someone who makes sense
 

John H wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:30 pm, John H wrote:
On 1/8/2010 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
Of course, since I have all the moderates and liberals filtered, I don't
see their replies, except for loogy, and everyone knows he is as much of
an idiotic asshole as I am.

Oh, and to be sure, Loogy displays much more intelligence than the
rest of the liberals hereabouts.


Someone is ID spoofing herring...what a giggle.

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?

Someone who makes sense
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

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?

Projecting, Harry?
--
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
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
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.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?


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

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.

It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.


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.

Again, totally the point.

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.

No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

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.

Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
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?'


Perfect example of why you should plonk me. You're an ass.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

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?

Projecting, Harry?
--
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."


Maybe he's being observant. It must be a sockpuppet.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Someone who makes sense
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

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?
Projecting, Harry?
--
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."


Maybe he's being observant. It must be a sockpuppet.



My understanding from the note that circulated is that some of those on
the left are going to ID spoof those on the right who started ID
spoofing or are among the most obnoxious posters until they stop
spoofing IDs. Herring is both among the most obnoxious posters and a
facilitator of right-wing mischief here.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with
missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an
airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of
terror. Such a good liberal you are.


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

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.

It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.


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.

Again, totally the point.

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.

No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Exactly. Just a statement of fact.

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.

Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet
you approve.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.
--

John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

Someone who makes sense
 

John H wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

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?

Projecting, Harry?
--
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."

I think Harry is trying go get hooked up.

Someone who makes sense
 

John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
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.
How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with
missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an
airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of
terror. Such a good liberal you are.
Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.
It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.

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.
Again, totally the point.

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.
No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Exactly. Just a statement of fact.

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.
Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet
you approve.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.

You don't need to filter Plum. She is here with you in your space, as
your guest. She should leave if she doesn't like the company.

Someone who makes sense
 

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


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.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not
well defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Actually, enemy, or legal, combatant is rather well defined, as are the
protections given to them. Which is why, the Bush administration devised
their new terminology, "unlawful combatant" to avoid those protections.
John, as per usual, is playing fast and loose with his definitions. This
last perpetrator does not meet *any* of the definitions of a "lawful
combatant" under the Geneva Conventions. If he did, he would have
protected status, and could not be held personally responsible for
violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws of war.

Someone who makes sense
 

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


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.
How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not
well defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Actually, enemy, or legal, combatant is rather well defined, as are the
protections given to them. Which is why, the Bush administration devised
their new terminology, "unlawful combatant" to avoid those protections.
John, as per usual, is playing fast and loose with his definitions. This
last perpetrator does not meet *any* of the definitions of a "lawful
combatant" under the Geneva Conventions. If he did, he would have
protected status, and could not be held personally responsible for
violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws of war.

Miss de la plume stated she is an attorney. You wouldn't want to be
advising her on the law, would you?