(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?

"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.)

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

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

"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.

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

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.

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

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.