(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
The fact that you think it's "kinda like Saddam in Iraq" is proof that
you're a moron who makes stupid posts without understanding a thing
about what you're posting. Your understanding of politics and law is
just as deficient as your understanding of physics and engines has
proven to be.

Steve

Yeah, sure, Stevey. What a putz. There's those blinders of yours
again, pulled tight to your eyes.

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Dec 2003 03:52:09 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 13 Dec 2003 07:03:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message m...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

Did I miss anything?

Yes. The neurotransmitters between your axons.
\
Idiot. You've not given one sentence that opposes, with accuracy,
anything in the original post.

You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

Personally, I've read it. But I didn't see in it anywhere that allows
Bush to kill you simply for making your original post to this thread.
If you find such a provision, please point it out. Otherwise we'll just
have to assume that you were being specious with your line above and
really have no legitimate rebuttal.

Oh, you poor person. Here you try to come off on this newsgroup as a
know it all, and then say something that stupid! You want an exact
"provision" in the Patriot Act allowing Bush to kill someone for
writing to a newsgroup? That is just plain stupid, Steve, and you know
it.

Well, then, shoe the other foot, there, Steve. Show any documentation
that statest that Saddam can kill someone who is "thought to be
subversive". I know, you'll come back with some long winded bull****,
but without the documentation, huh?

Great! You're admitting that you were stupid to mention the Patriot Act
as a rebuttal to the argument that one difference between Bush and
Saddam is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and made this
post and Bush wouldn't kill you as an American who made this post.

But, there are many, many provisions for the detention of someone who
is just *thought* to be subversive. Who knows where this detention
could lead.....hmm, kinda like Saddam in Iraq, huh?

The fact that you think it's "kinda like Saddam in Iraq" is proof that
you're a moron who makes stupid posts without understanding a thing
about what you're posting. Your understanding of politics and law is
just as deficient as your understanding of physics and engines has
proven to be.

Steve

I'll be waiting for your documentation that gives Saddam, in exact
wording, just like you expect someone to gleen from the Patriot Act,
the exact phrases that say that Saddam can kill someone "thought to be
subversive."

On 17 Dec 2003 04:13:27 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 16 Dec 2003 03:52:09 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 13 Dec 2003 07:03:59 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message m...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

Did I miss anything?

Yes. The neurotransmitters between your axons.
\
Idiot. You've not given one sentence that opposes, with accuracy,
anything in the original post.

You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

Personally, I've read it. But I didn't see in it anywhere that allows
Bush to kill you simply for making your original post to this thread.
If you find such a provision, please point it out. Otherwise we'll just
have to assume that you were being specious with your line above and
really have no legitimate rebuttal.

Oh, you poor person. Here you try to come off on this newsgroup as a
know it all, and then say something that stupid! You want an exact
"provision" in the Patriot Act allowing Bush to kill someone for
writing to a newsgroup? That is just plain stupid, Steve, and you know
it.

Well, then, shoe the other foot, there, Steve. Show any documentation
that statest that Saddam can kill someone who is "thought to be
subversive". I know, you'll come back with some long winded bull****,
but without the documentation, huh?

Great! You're admitting that you were stupid to mention the Patriot Act
as a rebuttal to the argument that one difference between Bush and
Saddam is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and made this
post and Bush wouldn't kill you as an American who made this post.

But, there are many, many provisions for the detention of someone who
is just *thought* to be subversive. Who knows where this detention
could lead.....hmm, kinda like Saddam in Iraq, huh?

The fact that you think it's "kinda like Saddam in Iraq" is proof that
you're a moron who makes stupid posts without understanding a thing
about what you're posting. Your understanding of politics and law is
just as deficient as your understanding of physics and engines has
proven to be.

I'll be waiting for your documentation that gives Saddam, in exact
wording, just like you expect someone to gleen from the Patriot Act,
the exact phrases that say that Saddam can kill someone "thought to be
subversive."

Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law. Is that the case? If you
actually believe that, you're probably the only one in the world who
does.

Steve

On 17 Dec 2003 04:09:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
The fact that you think it's "kinda like Saddam in Iraq" is proof that
you're a moron who makes stupid posts without understanding a thing
about what you're posting. Your understanding of politics and law is
just as deficient as your understanding of physics and engines has
proven to be.

Yeah, sure, Stevey. What a putz. There's those blinders of yours
again, pulled tight to your eyes.

Good comeback. It's about at the level of what we've come to expect
from you. You've really proven you know what you're talking about!

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

On 18 Dec 2003 03:56:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Actually, no I did. Here's what you said in response to NYOB:
You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

So why did you bring up the Patriot Act?

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

Good, you disagree with yourself.

Steve

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:56:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Actually, no I did. Here's what you said in response to NYOB:
You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

So why did you bring up the Patriot Act?

Because it certainly gives the government MUCH more power, and,
thusly, and this is what has political scholars worried, is it takes
away many, many of the checks and balances that were in place to
ensure that people got a fair trial, etc. But, I'm sure you don't know
of any of that, blinders too tight and all.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

Good, you disagree with yourself.

Steve

Are you really that stupid, or just acting that way to try and be
funny? Slowly now.....loosen those blinders.......how could we justify
holding Saddam, if according to you, he had the authority to kill
anyone he pleased? If that is true, what has he done wrong?

If you don't, you will have 12 more years of Bush. Remember Jeb? America
will definitely be the greatest country ever! All the liberal crap from
carter on will be gone.
Bob

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:56:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush
the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the
act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing
in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Actually, no I did. Here's what you said in response to NYOB:
You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you
that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and
posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In
absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable
response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot
Act?

So why did you bring up the Patriot Act?

Because it certainly gives the government MUCH more power, and,
thusly, and this is what has political scholars worried, is it takes
away many, many of the checks and balances that were in place to
ensure that people got a fair trial, etc. But, I'm sure you don't know
of any of that, blinders too tight and all.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone
he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

Good, you disagree with yourself.

Steve

Are you really that stupid, or just acting that way to try and be
funny? Slowly now.....loosen those blinders.......how could we justify
holding Saddam, if according to you, he had the authority to kill
anyone he pleased? If that is true, what has he done wrong?

On 18 Dec 2003 10:17:10 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:56:28 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
Since YOU are the one who insinuated that the Patriot Act gives Bush the
power to kill anyone he wants just for making a post to an internet
newsgroup, then YOU are the one who has to find the provision in the act
that gives him that power. If you can't then you were just ****ing in
the wind again, as usual.

Jeez, hate to burst your bubble, there, Steve, but before I ever
mentioned the Patriot Act, it was stated that Saddam could kill me for
making that statement. So, using your above diatribe, it is YOU that
has to "find a provision" that says that Saddam has that power, and
that right. If not, then it is YOU who is ****ing in the wind. Let's
recap, just to test your comprehension, and see if you are indeed,
****ing in the wind, or have any kind of proof of your statements. YOU
first said that Saddam could kill someone for making a statement like
I made. Before I EVER brought up the Patriot Act. Is that true, or
not? Okay, so you someone twist it around, and say I need to show you
exactly how the patriot act gives power to the government to seize
anyone thought to be subversive?? You show me how the Iraqi regime can
first, then I will in turn. That is only fair, Steve. You made your
statement first, so show some proof first.

Actually, no I did. Here's what you said in response to NYOB:
You asked for a difference between Saddam and Bush...and I told you that one
difference is that Saddam would kill you if you were an Iraqi and posted
such a question.

If you don't agree with the answer, then offer a rebuttal. In absence of
such, it becomes obvious that when unable to offer a reasonable response,
you simply revert to name-calling.

So,I take it that you haven't read the newest version of the Patriot Act?

So why did you bring up the Patriot Act?

Because it certainly gives the government MUCH more power, and,
thusly, and this is what has political scholars worried, is it takes
away many, many of the checks and balances that were in place to
ensure that people got a fair trial, etc. But, I'm sure you don't know
of any of that, blinders too tight and all.

Fine. At least you can admit that it's not a rebuttal to the post you
were replying to, that you were unable to offer a resonable response and
you simply reverted to name calling. Thanks, that's all I was after.

Now, on to what you're asking from me, I take it that you actually
believe that when Saddam was in power, he *couldn't* just kill anyone he
wanted because it would be against the law.

Then why are we holding him?

Good, you disagree with yourself.

Are you really that stupid, or just acting that way to try and be
funny? Slowly now.....loosen those blinders.......how could we justify
holding Saddam, if according to you, he had the authority to kill
anyone he pleased? If that is true, what has he done wrong?

WOW, that's deep. You shouldn't think so hard. It's hurting your
brain. BTW, it's called crimes against humanity. Even if under Iraqi
law (which he can make anything he wants) it was legal for him to kill
anyone he wants as you claim, we can justify holding him the same way we
justified holding many others who have commited crimes against humanity.
Are you saying we were wrong every time we hold someone for crimes
against humanity if it was legal for them to commit those crimes in
their country when they ruled?

Steve

WaIIy wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:29:58 GMT, "Robert White"
wrote:

If you don't, you will have 12 more years of Bush. Remember Jeb? America
will definitely be the greatest country ever! All the liberal crap from
carter on will be gone.
Bob

Look how shrill Krause, Gould, gps, basskisser, et al have been lately.

By next fall, they will be on life support.

Oh, boy I love it.


Shrill? Poor Wally. Check the crap coming out of Dr. Toothless here;
he's hellbent on convincing the world that Bush is NOT a combination of
the tin man, the cowardly lion and the scarecrow...heartless, a wuss and
brainless. He's not succeeding.



--
Email sent to is never read.