"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
John Sobieski ] wrote in
:

On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote:
NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who
don't take up arms against this country.

The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and
subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who
at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in
office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a
base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental
religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear
with people like you and them in power. Sam

Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the
forefront of a Real US citizen's mind.

Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't you try
actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned the "dirty
bomb" allegation quite a while ago.

Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag? Where is Kennedy, Pelosi,
Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't they shouting out to the
American Public the injustice?. They have the podium for it. Maybe they
agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger to our country is not worth
their political careers?

What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter?

Thomas

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:22 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote:

Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag?

You just don't get it. No one is defending Padilla. They are defending
the Constitution of the United States.. If Padilla is such an "obvious
scumbag", charge him, and let the courts do their business. You don't
"disappear" him, like some third rate country. To allow a government to
lock up it's citizens, *any* citizens, without a trial, is tyranny.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Ranger" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
John Sobieski ] wrote in
:

On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote:
NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens
who don't take up arms against this country.

The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and
subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power,
who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have
in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars
and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental
religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear
with people like you and them in power. Sam

Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the
forefront of a Real US citizen's mind.

Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't
you try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned
the "dirty bomb" allegation quite a while ago.

Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag?

What led you to conclude that citizen Padilla is "an obvious scumbag"?
The now-abandoned "dirty bomb" allegation? Or something else claimed by
the same liars who originated the "dirty bomb" allegation?


Why didn't you answer my simple question? You snipped it out. I'll repeat
it.

Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't
they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the
podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger
to our country is not worth their political careers?

What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter?


Please answer the question. Maybe they know a hell of a lot more than you?

Your opinion is all I asked, not a snipped commentary on my thoughts. Trying
to be coy, clever, and evasive? It won't work.

Your opinion please!

Thomas

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:37:22 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote:

Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag?

You just don't get it. No one is defending Padilla. They are defending
the Constitution of the United States.. If Padilla is such an "obvious
scumbag", charge him, and let the courts do their business. You don't
"disappear" him, like some third rate country. To allow a government to
lock up it's citizens, *any* citizens, without a trial, is tyranny.

Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't
they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the
podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real danger
to our country is not worth their political careers? Surely they could make
political hay out of this if you are right. Ever think you may be wrong?
Ever think they know more than you?


What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter?

Thomas

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:28:51 -0400, Thomas Ranger wrote:


Where is Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, etc. in all of this. Why aren't
they shouting out to the American Public the injustice?. They have the
podium for it. Maybe they agree. Do they perceive protecting a real
danger to our country is not worth their political careers? Surely they
could make political hay out of this if you are right. Ever think you may
be wrong? Ever think they know more than you?


What is your opinion on why they remain silent in this matter?

Frankly, I don't know if they have remained silent. Regardless, I have my
own voice, and more importantly, my own mind. Kennedy, et.al., do not
speak for me. A democracy depends on the rule of law. If the government
can't be depended upon to follow the rule of law, how can you expect the
population to? Do you have a problem with Padilla being given a trial?


"It is tyranny's trademark to erase what came before, lest anyone trace
the road back and realize that the present has become far, far worse than
anything in the past." - Paul William Roberts

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Thomas Ranger" wrote in
:


"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
John Sobieski ] wrote in
:

On 10 Sep 2005, "Sam" wrote:
NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens
who don't take up arms against this country.

The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and
subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power,
who at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have
in office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars
and a base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental
religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear
with people like you and them in power. Sam

Messing around and planning to make a dirty bomb is not on the
forefront of a Real US citizen's mind.

Neither was it in the forefront of Jose Padilla's mind. Why don't
you try actually PAYING ATTENTION to the case? The Feds abandoned
the "dirty bomb" allegation quite a while ago.

Why do you insist on defending an obvious scumbag?

What led you to conclude that citizen Padilla is "an obvious scumbag"?
The now-abandoned "dirty bomb" allegation? Or something else claimed by
the same liars who originated the "dirty bomb" allegation?

Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist hellbent
on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that deserves no
protection.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist
hellbent on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that
deserves no protection.

Yes, I suppose we should entrust our civil liberties to ill-informed
dentists.

My rights weren't affected one bit by this decision...nor were yours. So
why do you care?

Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation. It
is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our civil
liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best, it
would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either entrust
a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the nuances
of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently out
debates you on every issue.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Who cares! Padilla is a POS gang-banger at best...and a terrorist
hellbent on destroying America at worst. Either way, he's trash that
deserves no protection.

Yes, I suppose we should entrust our civil liberties to ill-informed
dentists.


--
- - -
George W. Bush, our hero!

Hurricanes are hard work. We must prevent all future hurricanes.

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation. It
is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our
civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best,
it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either
entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the nuances
of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently
out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?

NOYB,
Definitely not too shabby for someone who graduated from a tech school. ; )

I would have expected someone with a Liberal Arts degree from a Ivy League
School to out debate you in a second. Now if we could only find someone
with a Liberal Arts Degree from an Ivy League school who wants to debate
you. ; )

Since we agree more than disagree, I will refrain from your debates. ; )


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our
civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best,
it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either
entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he
consistently out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?