Bush vs. Saddam
 

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:24:45 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message

You've got to work on your ranting skills. I'd like you to quote from my
post where I said killing Iraqi kids was OK. My only point in the whole
thread is that these people are known to have planted shields in the past,
and that fact impacts on their credibility in the present. Nothing in that
premise condones the killing of kids.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:9N2Cb.7842

..... News reports of dead children -
those must be in my imagination.

Not at all, the report are real, and tragic. What is under-reported is
the fact that the target terrorists were successfully hit, target
venues were vetted in advance as clear of civilians, attack pilots saw
no children in the target area (in the one case that involved an open
field), and that the "placement" of civilian casualties is commonplace
in that part of the world, since they know full well that CNN will run
the story over and over and over. Ex post facto reports of civilian
casualties must of necessity be looked upon with a jaundiced eye.

I think my rantings are well-placed. You attempted to decrement the
validity of Doug's complaint of dead children by citing the fact that
these vermin use children as shields.

My point is: we would treat a perp who's thought responsible for
violence or murder in the states as hostile and ready for death by any
SWAT team. We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

If the kids are brown and half-way around the world it just doesn't
matter as much.

So much for our moral superiority.

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Bush vs. Saddam
 

"jps" wrote in message

....We would never consider taking him out if we knew he was
surrounded by kids.

And I believe the same principle applies in Iraq. If we know.

Bush vs. Saddam
 

On 13 Dec 2003 07:00:38 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..

Basskisser, we all agree that you think and write as well as you can. We
understand.

Can you oppose, with accuracy, the above statement?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Who is "we"? Have you had meetings or something to come up with the
above? Now,anything of any intelligence to interject?

The 'we' includes all who do not disagree with my post. Do you disagree with it?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Bush vs. Saddam
 

In article ,
88 says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Bush vs. Saddam
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Bush vs. Saddam
 

In article ,
88 says...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The report I heard said they had specifically sighted him and the
location was phoned in for either an air strike or another form of
precision attack.

If a target walks into a house and you have no idea what's in the house
besides the target, is it okay just to bomb?

jps

Bush vs. Saddam
 

Yes

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
88 says...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of
course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of
the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The report I heard said they had specifically sighted him and the
location was phoned in for either an air strike or another form of
precision attack.

If a target walks into a house and you have no idea what's in the house
besides the target, is it okay just to bomb?

jps

Bush vs. Saddam
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
88 says...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of
course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of
the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The report I heard said they had specifically sighted him and the
location was phoned in for either an air strike or another form of
precision attack.

If a target walks into a house and you have no idea what's in the house
besides the target, is it okay just to bomb?

Absolutely...in the same way that I think it's appropriate to shoot down a
hijacked airliner if it can be determined the hijackers are planning to
kamikaze the plane into a densely populated target.

Bush vs. Saddam
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:43:29 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:31:25 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Key words, jps, "...if we knew..."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

We knew, how do you think we targeted the bomb?

It's a choice more easily made halfway around the world when the kids
are progeny of the "enemy" we're trying to "liberate."

There was complete outrage when we did the same thing to Randy Weaver
and the freak in Waco.

There's no outrage when they're brown.

Are you stating that we knew we were about to bomb children? You do, of course,
have some back up for this statement. Or is this simply your opinion of the
armed forces of this country?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

The report I heard said they had specifically sighted him and the
location was phoned in for either an air strike or another form of
precision attack.

If a target walks into a house and you have no idea what's in the house
besides the target, is it okay just to bomb?

jps

This situation is much different from that of our purposely bombing children,
which is what you have been implying. You, thunder, and Harry -- birds of a
feather...!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Bush vs. Saddam
 

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.

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

Bush vs. Saddam
 

Bush vs. Saddam
 

Bush vs. Saddam
 

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

Bush vs. Saddam
 

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

Bush vs. Saddam
 

Bush vs. Saddam
 

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

Bush vs. Saddam
 

asskisser should move to france
 

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?

Bush vs. Saddam
 

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

asskisser should move to france
 

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.

asskisser should move to france
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:15:25 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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.

Read any Dale Brown lately? Comparing Bush to a tin man is quite a compliment.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Bush vs. Saddam
 

asskisser should move to france
 

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Bush vs. Saddam
 

On 19 Dec 2003 04:40:10 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
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?

so, you are saying that we should respect the laws of NATO, the UN,
and treaties such as the Geneva Convention?? Good, we can also lock
Bush up now.

Thanks for prooving you're a moron.

There you go, thank you! Finally, you ARE admitting Bush is like
Saddam!!! Bush has committed atrocious crimes against humanity too.

LOL! (just for you) You need that remedial english course again so you
would begine to understand what atrocious crimes against humanity are.

Thousands of innocent civilians lives have been taken. Let's hold him
accountable, too!

I figured you'd believe that, lunatic that you are.

Steve

asskisser should move to france
 

On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

asskisser should move to france
 

Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message
...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows
possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck
Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

asskisser should move to france
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I know, I know. You need to point out every spelling error, syntax
error, grammatical error you see? Is that just when you know the
person, is RIGHT, even though they don't agree with you? By the way,
it isn't "callin", it's spelled CALLING.

asskisser should move to france
 

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.

So, what is YOUR excuse? Basskisser is a proper noun, to be
capitalized, and is also the beginning of a sentence.

asskisser should move to france
 

On 21 Dec 2003 15:26:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I know, I know. You need to point out every spelling error, syntax
error, grammatical error you see? Is that just when you know the
person, is RIGHT, even though they don't agree with you? By the way,
it isn't "callin", it's spelled CALLING.

You're the one that brought it up, not me! And, when you say, "But there NOT,"
(as you did in a response to thunder) you might have meant to say, "But they're
not." Further, when you jump on someone for not using upper case for the first
letter of your name, keep in mind that you're (not your) the one who signs off
with a lower case first letter.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

asskisser should move to france
 

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 21 Dec 2003 15:26:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I know, I know. You need to point out every spelling error, syntax
error, grammatical error you see? Is that just when you know the
person, is RIGHT, even though they don't agree with you? By the way,
it isn't "callin", it's spelled CALLING.

You're the one that brought it up, not me! And, when you say, "But there NOT,"
(as you did in a response to thunder) you might have meant to say, "But they're
not." Further, when you jump on someone for not using upper case for the first
letter of your name, keep in mind that you're (not your) the one who signs off
with a lower case first letter.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


As I said, if you can't find anything to debate, just so you stay in
line with the other BushCo goose steppers, you must find spelling and
grammatical errors? I thought you were more of a man than that. But,
apparently, I was wrong.

asskisser should move to france
 

basskisser wrote:
JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 21 Dec 2003 15:26:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 19 Dec 2003 04:42:37 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"Robert White" wrote in message ...
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

Spoken like a true redneck republican. I remember, either your with
us, or agin us. (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush lovers
will understand.)

Well, since you brought it up, 'your' should be 'you're'. One shows possession,
the other is the contraction of 'you are'.

But, I'm sure that was done on purpose also!

Name-callin' doesn't win arguments against anyone, even redneck Republicans.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I know, I know. You need to point out every spelling error, syntax
error, grammatical error you see? Is that just when you know the
person, is RIGHT, even though they don't agree with you? By the way,
it isn't "callin", it's spelled CALLING.

You're the one that brought it up, not me! And, when you say, "But there NOT,"
(as you did in a response to thunder) you might have meant to say, "But they're
not." Further, when you jump on someone for not using upper case for the first
letter of your name, keep in mind that you're (not your) the one who signs off
with a lower case first letter.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


As I said, if you can't find anything to debate, just so you stay in
line with the other BushCo goose steppers, you must find spelling and
grammatical errors? I thought you were more of a man than that. But,
apparently, I was wrong.


I also had some hope for John.

--
Email sent to is never read.

asskisser should move to france
 

On 22 Dec 2003 04:36:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

You're the one that brought it up, not me! And, when you say, "But there NOT,"
(as you did in a response to thunder) you might have meant to say, "But they're
not." Further, when you jump on someone for not using upper case for the first
letter of your name, keep in mind that you're (not your) the one who signs off
with a lower case first letter.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


As I said, if you can't find anything to debate, just so you stay in
line with the other BushCo goose steppers, you must find spelling and
grammatical errors? I thought you were more of a man than that. But,
apparently, I was wrong.

basskisser, about a week ago I made a comment to the effect that you should not
be calling people 'stupid' and using incorrect grammar to do so. Shortly
thereafter your grammar etc. seemed to improve, and your name calling went down.

Then, out of the ether, comes," (John, against is misspelled on purpose so Bush
lovers will understand.)" This cute, little line I took as an invitation to look
for atrocities. Sure enough, they abounded.

Now you say, "As I said, if you can't find anything to debate...." When did you
say that? I didn't see it. You are not quite correct in saying I can't find a
debate. I could debate something with you. I just don't want to. Be pleased that
I responded, in a polite tone of voice, to someone who thinks name-calling is
the way to win.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

asskisser should move to france
 

On 21 Dec 2003 15:28:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.

So, what is YOUR excuse? Basskisser is a proper noun, to be
capitalized, and is also the beginning of a sentence.

Then why don't you capitalize it? "basskisser" is the proper way of
referring to you since that is how you refer to yourself. If someone
doesn't want to capitalize their own nickname, why shouldn't everyone
else respect that and do the same? Idiot! See, there was a properly
capitalized noun referring to you.

Steve

asskisser should move to france
 

asskisser should move to france
 

On 22 Dec 2003 13:59:48 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 21 Dec 2003 15:28:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.

So, what is YOUR excuse? Basskisser is a proper noun, to be
capitalized, and is also the beginning of a sentence.

Then why don't you capitalize it? "basskisser" is the proper way of
referring to you since that is how you refer to yourself. If someone
doesn't want to capitalize their own nickname, why shouldn't everyone
else respect that and do the same? Idiot! See, there was a properly
capitalized noun referring to you.

Awe, whats the matter, Steve? Still sulking because I won't play your
little game, and I damn well know the answers? By the way, stupid,

Ah, but you do keep playing. And by doing so, continue to prove that
you don't know the answer.

isn't the first letter of a sentence capitalized? Now, do you want me

That depends. If a person decided to always spell their name starting
with a lower case letter, it might not be improper to start a sentence
with a lower case letter if the first word is their name.

to dig up some of YOUR spelling, or grammatical errors?

If that's what gets you off. Talk about playing little games! At least
finding spelling or grammatical errors on my part is something that
should be easier for you to accomplish than solving the trailer problem
.... which we already know you can't do.

Steve

asskisser should move to france
 

asskisser should move to france
 

On 23 Dec 2003 03:47:15 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 13:59:48 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 21 Dec 2003 15:28:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.

So, what is YOUR excuse? Basskisser is a proper noun, to be
capitalized, and is also the beginning of a sentence.

Then why don't you capitalize it? "basskisser" is the proper way of
referring to you since that is how you refer to yourself. If someone
doesn't want to capitalize their own nickname, why shouldn't everyone
else respect that and do the same? Idiot! See, there was a properly
capitalized noun referring to you.

Awe, whats the matter, Steve? Still sulking because I won't play your
little game, and I damn well know the answers? By the way, stupid,

Ah, but you do keep playing. And by doing so, continue to prove that
you don't know the answer.

isn't the first letter of a sentence capitalized? Now, do you want me

That depends. If a person decided to always spell their name starting
with a lower case letter, it might not be improper to start a sentence
with a lower case letter if the first word is their name.

to dig up some of YOUR spelling, or grammatical errors?

If that's what gets you off. Talk about playing little games! At least
finding spelling or grammatical errors on my part is something that
should be easier for you to accomplish than solving the trailer problem
... which we already know you can't do.

So, let's see here, it's somehow justifiable, and okay for YOU to find
spelling or grammatical errors on my part, but it's "playing little
games" if it's reversed? How so?

More proof that you don't have the intelligence to follow a simple
thread and that your drug use must have burned out your short term
memory. If you look above you'll see that I didn't correct your
spelling or grammatical errors. All I did was to say that your
correction of someone else's spelling and grammatical error was
unjustified. Now, find above where I corrected a spelling or
grammatical error on your part OR if you can't, admit that you're a
stupid idiot. Either one will do.

Steve

asskisser should move to france
 

asskisser should move to france
 

On 24 Dec 2003 04:13:51 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 23 Dec 2003 03:47:15 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 13:59:48 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 21 Dec 2003 15:28:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message . com...
Go easy on him, John. basskisser is one of the lefties' most illiterate
posters here.

So, what is YOUR excuse? Basskisser is a proper noun, to be
capitalized, and is also the beginning of a sentence.

Then why don't you capitalize it? "basskisser" is the proper way of
referring to you since that is how you refer to yourself. If someone
doesn't want to capitalize their own nickname, why shouldn't everyone
else respect that and do the same? Idiot! See, there was a properly
capitalized noun referring to you.

Awe, whats the matter, Steve? Still sulking because I won't play your
little game, and I damn well know the answers? By the way, stupid,

Ah, but you do keep playing. And by doing so, continue to prove that
you don't know the answer.

isn't the first letter of a sentence capitalized? Now, do you want me

That depends. If a person decided to always spell their name starting
with a lower case letter, it might not be improper to start a sentence
with a lower case letter if the first word is their name.

to dig up some of YOUR spelling, or grammatical errors?

If that's what gets you off. Talk about playing little games! At least
finding spelling or grammatical errors on my part is something that
should be easier for you to accomplish than solving the trailer problem
... which we already know you can't do.

So, let's see here, it's somehow justifiable, and okay for YOU to find
spelling or grammatical errors on my part, but it's "playing little
games" if it's reversed? How so?

More proof that you don't have the intelligence to follow a simple
thread and that your drug use must have burned out your short term
memory.
What is this then: "basskisser" is the proper way of
referring to you since that is how you refer to yourself.


Please provide any proof you have of my drug use. Have none? Yes or
no, please. I think that your drinking problem has turned your brain
into mush. Either that, or you are just too stupid to understand what
YOU have typed!

You still haven't showed anywhere above that I corrected a spelling or
grammatical error on your part. If you think you have, it must be
because of your frequent drug use.

Steve

Bush vs. Saddam
 

your Thorazine dose at noon