Proof that Karl Rove is a Bald-Faced Liar
milt....@gmail.com
heads spin off trying to spin this one:
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
Start Spinning...
Bîllary/2008
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
"...As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD"
(the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife...." Matt Cooper
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899-3,00.html
--
Hate Greed Death Bush
3700 Dead
Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Bîllary/2008
"3700 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:2a7jc3d3gi97hc0jf...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
> <F#%K_Lib...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
>>
>><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>>
>>> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>>
>>> Start Spinning...
>>>
>>
>>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
>>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but
>>a
>>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
>>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> Spin #1: Attack the source.
>>
Liberal SPIN: Attack Karl Rove. Everything from the economy to Global
Warming is his fault. Karl Rove is the bogeyman, he's an extraterrestrial
disguised as a human.. Be afraid, be very afraid. Do you hear the
background music? It's the theme music from the X-Files, whooooo,
whooooooo, whooooooooo
3700 Dead
You must not have gotten your latest marching orders. You're supposed
to be saying "Karl who?" in preparation for the man's coming disgrace.
Anyway, Spin #2: make the criminal the victim.
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
><F#%K_Lib...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
>>
>><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>>
>>> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>>
>>> Start Spinning...
>>>
>>
>>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
>>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
>>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
>>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
>Spin #1: Attack the source.
>>
<LOL> Well that's because in Shook's case, his source is usually his
imagination, and in the case of Moveon.org, they simply are dishonest.
...and as for Zepp, he's just a loud-mouthed bystander since he can
get deported for getting too involved in U.S. politics.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:55:28 -0700, 3700 Dead
>
>
>
> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
>
> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >>> Start Spinning...
>
> >>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
> >>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
> >>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> >Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> <LOL> Well that's because in Shook's case, his source is usually his
> imagination, and in the case of Moveon.org, they simply are dishonest.
Do you ever tire of being wrong? Apparently not.
>
> ...and as for Zepp, he's just a loud-mouthed bystander since he can
> get deported for getting too involved in U.S. politics.
So, that possibility is considered an advance in American freedom by
you?
No one can be deported for speaking out about US politics, as long as
their speech doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. That
you think it is, or should be says a lot about you...
Bîllary/2008
"Steve" <steven...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
news:97ajc3d5m0sjrqmrg...@4ax.com...
I wonder what Zippy's boss would say if she found out he was using his
company computer to post useless nonsense on USENET? He supposed to be
technical taking support calls not making calls for political support.
milt....@gmail.com
%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
> <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No one tells me to do anything. And it's not opinion; it's right there
for you to see. Two videos from the same program.
I love it when they prove me right and don't even realize it..
milt....@gmail.com
%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
> "3700 Dead" <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2a7jc3d3gi97hc0jf...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
>
> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >>> Start Spinning...
>
> >>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
> >>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but
> >>a
> >>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> > Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> Liberal SPIN: Attack Karl Rove. Everything from the economy to Global
> Warming is his fault. Karl Rove is the bogeyman, he's an extraterrestrial
> disguised as a human.. Be afraid, be very afraid. Do you hear the
> background music? It's the theme music from the X-Files, whooooo,
> whooooooo, whooooooooo
Karl Rove is disguised as a human?
Jim Alder
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else and
that is "irrefutable proof"??
--
President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania
that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship,
provided they learn Spanish. - Ann Coulter
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote in news:1187615298.614932.67270
> @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> > Start Spinning...
>
> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else and
> that is "irrefutable proof"??
>
the grand jury, and Karl Rove essentially says the opposite, I would
say the fact that no one is going after Matt Cooper for perjury would
indicate that Rove is lying.
But feel free to spin...
zzpat
You still think we need proof? Besides, when was the last time a
Republican changed his mind because the facts changed or the truth was
exposed?
Republicans have allowed themselves to be sub-human, in that they'll
believe any lie that conforms to their conservative ideology. When the
facts expose the lie (neither Reagan nor Bush proposed a single balanced
budget) they simply ignore it.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com
Impeach Search Engine
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
3707 Dead
wrote:
>milt....@gmail.com wrote in news:1187615298.614932.67270
>@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>
>> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>
>> Start Spinning...
>
> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else and
>that is "irrefutable proof"??
Spin #3: try to change the subject
Gandalf Grey
"Bîllary/2008" <F#%K_Lib...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
news:7vgyi.2746$ni6.2269@trnddc03...
>
> <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>
>> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>
>> Start Spinning...
>>
>
> Your opinion is not PROOF.
Neither is yours, Shill. But we aren't talking about opinion here. So why
don't you go back to your model boat building and let the adults talk, since
as usual, you don't have a damned thing to say that's worth listening to.
Gandalf Grey
> <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
>><F#%K_Lib...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>>>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>>>
>>>> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>>>
>>>> Start Spinning...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
>>>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing
>>>but a
>>>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
>>>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>>
>>Spin #1: Attack the source.
>>>
>
>
> <LOL> Well that's because in Shook's case, his source is usually his
> imagination,
No. It's because you and your right wing lemming friends have nothing but
character assassination in your toolbox, "Canyon."
Steve
Actually, it says that I know what I talking about and that Shook, as
usual, doesn't have a clue.... See below:
U.S. Code
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5.
In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
States is deportable.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001227----000-.html#a_4_B
<LOL> ...and Shook likes to portray himself as knowledgable about
law.....
milt....@gmail.com
>
> <LOL> ...and Shook likes to portray himself as knowledgable about
> law.....
Where in the above does it say that a Canadian talking about US
politics can be deported? I would also note the words "presence and
activities," NOT speech. Do you know why that is, clown?
Read the Fourteenth Amendment and you'll have a clue. No, you won't
have a clue. You don't understand most of what you read.
Seriously, do you have a brain tumor or something that just prevents
you from reading the words that are actually THERE?
3707 Dead
You have to marvel at the logic there: if I were to be thrown out of
the country for "political involvement" -- something I've been guilty
of for over 40 years -- then I could simply log on from England or
Canada or whereever I fetched up and say anything I pleased, free of
even the few constraints American law does place upon me.
Still, that's Spin #4: threaten and stalk.
3707 Dead
You better call my boss and tell on me. Just tell them you're a
Usenet millionaire and I'm sure they patch you right through.
>
>
3707 Dead
Of COURSE! He's a POD PERSON! It all makes sense now...
milt....@gmail.com
Well, if his disguise is supposed to be human, he's failing miserably.
he's about as human-seeming as Dubya...
Waittttt.....
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Steve" <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
>
> news:97ajc3d5m0sjrqmrg...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:55:28 -0700, 3700 Dead
> > <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
>
> >>><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >>>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >>>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >>>> Start Spinning...
>
> >>>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
> >>>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing
> >>>but a
> >>>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >>>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> >>Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> > imagination,
>
> No. It's because you and your right wing lemming friends have nothing but
> character assassination in your toolbox, "Canyon."
Well, if he's into character assassination, he's failing at that, as
much as he fails at everything else. Have you seen his attempted
psychoanalysis of me? Apparently, I'm both psychotically introverted
AND scared to death that people will not like me, and abandon me...
(shakes my head laughing) And he thinks he comes off as "smart" with
this crap...
Gandalf Grey
<milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187640214.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Canyon continues to be a failure at everything he turns his hand to. At
least his consistancy is comforting.
Steve
Speech??? who said anything about speech, Shook. Maybe you should
learn to read before you respond. <LOL> So id Shook build this
strawman about speech, realizing that he can't argue against what I
really said. or was he just too stupid to comprehend what I wrote....
That's typical from Shook. Milt really needs to lean how to control
those illogical "gut feelings" of his that always come back to kick
him in the ass..
My cite says that any alien, Canadian or otherwise, can be deported if
his presence or activities might "have potentially serious adverse
foreign policy consequences for the United States," which is
certainly something that falls within the context of my statement
about "getting too involved in U.S. politics."
>Read the Fourteenth Amendment and you'll have a clue. No, you won't
>have a clue. You don't understand most of what you read.
>
>Seriously, do you have a brain tumor or something that just prevents
>you from reading the words that are actually THERE?
This is from Shook who totally misreads my statement about "getting
too involved in U.S. politics," and conjures into something about
speech....
"And he stalks Zepp and I, trying to find out everything he can about
us"
--Milt.Shook.. displaying his poor command of the English language.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton/msg/5a69644101ce5fed?hl=en&
Steve
wrote:
....see where I said, "***too*** involved in U.S. politics."
>then I could simply log on from England or
>Canada or whereever I fetched up and say anything I pleased, free of
>even the few constraints American law does place upon me.
<LOL> Sounds like a plan, Zepp...
>Still, that's Spin #4: threaten and stalk.
Oh, pooor, fat old Zepp... <OL> he feels threatened and stalked....
3707 Dead
See? Just like the movies.
In the movies, everyone in the audience could TELL there was something
wrong with these people, that they were a few chromosomes short of
being a Floridian.
But nobody in the movie itself seemed to notice except for the one
guy.
The entire GOP is the "rest of the cast".
milt....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:28:34 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 20, 2:19 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 20, 10:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:55:28 -0700, 3700 Dead
>
> >> >> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
> >> >> ><F#%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
> >> >> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >> >> >>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >> >> >>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >> >> >>> Start Spinning...
>
> >> >> >>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
> >> >> >>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
> >> >> >>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >> >> >>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> >> >> >Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> >> >> imagination, and in the case of Moveon.org, they simply are dishonest.
>
> >> >Do you ever tire of being wrong? Apparently not.
>
> >> >> ...and as for Zepp, he's just a loud-mouthed bystander since he can
> >> >> get deported for getting too involved in U.S. politics.
>
> >> >So, that possibility is considered an advance in American freedom by
> >> >you?
>
> >> >No one can be deported for speaking out about US politics, as long as
> >> >their speech doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. That
> >> >you think it is, or should be says a lot about you...
>
> >> usual, doesn't have a clue.... See below:
>
> >> U.S. Code
> >> Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5.
>
> >> In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
> >> the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
> >> potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
> >> States is deportable.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001227--...
>
> >> law.....
>
> >Where in the above does it say that a Canadian talking about US
> >politics can be deported? I would also note the words "presence and
> >activities," NOT speech. Do you know why that is, clown?
>
> learn to read before you respond. <LOL> So idShookbuild this
> strawman about speech, realizing that he can't argue against what I
> really said. or was he just too stupid to comprehend what I wrote....
Think I misunderstood? What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
Being active in politics, including advocating for a candidate or a
cause, is considered "speech," you idiot. How would anyone from canada
getting involved in US domestic politics, short of sedition, qualify
as having "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
the United States"? Come on; give us some examples of what you think
Zepp could do, short of being a Jose Padilla-type, that would qualify
him as "deportable."
>
> That's typical fromShook. Miltreally needs to lean how to control
> those illogical "gut feelings" of his that always come back to kick
> him in the ass..
This isn't gut feelings; this is basic logic. Anything you do with
regard to politics, short of sedition or treason, is considered
"speech," you idiot.
>
> My cite says that any alien, Canadian or otherwise, can be deported if
> his presence or activities might "have potentially serious adverse
> foreign policy consequences for the United States," which is
> certainly something that falls within the context of my statement
> about "getting too involved in U.S. politics."
Um, no. Sedition and treason, while apparently acceptable political
activities to Republicans these days, is most decidedly NOT a
political activity to those of us who occupy the reality-based
community.
>
> >Read the Fourteenth Amendment and you'll have a clue. No, you won't
> >have a clue. You don't understand most of what you read.
>
> >Seriously, do you have a brain tumor or something that just prevents
> >you from reading the words that are actually THERE?
>
> This is fromShookwho totally misreads my statement about "getting
> too involved in U.S. politics," and conjures into something about
> speech....
Misread what statement? What could Zepp do within the realm of actual
US politics, which might subject him to deportation? Please enlighten
us? Are you aware that all political speech, except sedition and
treason, which are decidedly extrapolitical activities, are expressly
protected under the First Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment
extends First Amendment coverage to Canadians?
Oh, that's right; you never did have a grasp of the First Amendment,
as three years of ass-whuppings have demonstrated.
>
> "And he stalks Zepp and I, trying to find out everything he can about
> us"
> --Milt.Shook.. displaying his poor command of the English language.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton/msg/5a69644...
Grammar flames is what you're down to? How sad...
milt....@gmail.com
The Stepford Party... I knew something was up...
Steve
I think Shook is trying to imply that being introverted and afraid of
people not liking him are somehow mutually exclusive, which, of
course, is hogwash. ...and Milt's ignorance on that subject just adds
to his ignorance about most everything else.
I suspect that Milt's mommy too him to a therapist a long time ago to
see what why he was such a mouse, and he was labeled as introverted...
Milt probably came away thinking that being introverted was synonymous
for his preferring to be alone, which isn't the case at all.. Milt's
shyness was and still is his reaction to his fear of being judged and
criticized, the logic being that if he doesn't hang out other people,
he has less chance of being judged inferior.
Introversion and extroversion are simply the way one uses their
intellect to view, analyse, and manage the world around them.
Introverts look inward to their own mind, while extroverts focus is
outside themselves. Shook seems to imagine that being introverted is
necessarily a bad thing and of course, it isn't.. Many of the world's
greatest thinkers were introverted... whereas most of the world's
worthless dreamers are more deeply introverted.
Introversion isn't the state of preferring to be alone. An
introverted person might be terribly unhappy if he's not the center of
attention,as in the case of a histrionic personality disorder, as I'm
beginning to believe is where Milt fits in given is aversion to being
judged and his dislike of having his opinions ignored and dismissed.
3707 Dead
Darn. "Steve" must have heard about me getting arrested for having
explosives in my shoe on that PanAm flight.
Wasn't terrorism, though. I was just fed up with Pan Am losing my
luggage all the time, is all.
Blackwater
says or does.
Smarter to keep your eye on whomever acts as his
replacement ....
Jim Alder
news:brfjc3p52odpki2ci...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:49:04 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
Re: Proof that Karl Rove is a Bald-Faced Liar
>> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something
>> else and that is "irrefutable proof"??
>
> Spin #3: try to change the subject
Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to read plain English. He is
both stupid and demented.
Jim Alder
50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
In that case, "irrefutabl;e proof would be a video of Karl Rove saying the
exact opposite under oath before the grand jury.
> But feel free to spin...
Don't need to. Your attempt is lame, as always.
milt....@gmail.com
> for his preferring to be alone, which isn't the case at all.. Milt's
> shyness was and still is his reaction to his fear of being judged and
> criticized, the logic being that if he doesn't hang out other people,
> he has less chance of being judged inferior.
First of all, you don't know what being introverted is, in a clinical
sense, which has been how you have been attempting to use it, despite
your feeble attempts to extract your head from your anus.
An introvert, in a clinical sense, is someone who feels energized by
being alone, and who actively avoids other people, because he finds
them draining. That is most certainly not me, and never has been, as
anyone who actually knows me would tell you.
You're not even skillful at attempting to cover up the blatant
stupidity of trying to analyze me from the incredibly scant
information you think you have, based on what people who don't really
know me tell you. that is, if you are actually talking to anyone at
all, which is doubtful.
>
> Introversion and extroversion are simply the way one uses their
> intellect to view, analyse, and manage the world around them.
> Introverts look inward to their own mind, while extroverts focus is
> outside themselves. Shook seems to imagine that being introverted is
> necessarily a bad thing and of course, it isn't.. Many of the world's
> greatest thinkers were introverted... whereas most of the world's
> worthless dreamers are more deeply introverted.
Nice try.
This is you:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/211776073403c97d
"It's obvious that Milt "suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Milt is, of course,
seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
and often are extremely deep thinkers.
"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
In short, you're a liar.
>
> Introversion isn't the state of preferring to be alone. An
> introverted person might be terribly unhappy if he's not the center of
> attention,as in the case of a histrionic personality disorder, as I'm
> beginning to believe is where Milt fits in given is aversion to being
> judged and his dislike of having his opinions ignored and dismissed.
The only people whose opinion of me I care about know it. You are not
one of those. I couldn't give a shit less what you think of me. And
Zepp and a few other weasels will attest to the fact that I am NEVER
afraid of expressing my opinion, and don't care if someone disagrees
with me. I have a series of web sites, on which I express my opinion,
and my opinions are routinely "ignored and dismissed,' and yet, I
continue to offer them.
Once more, I ask; do you ever tire of being wrong?
Do you also understand how lucky you are, given the outright slander
you have visited upon me here? Seriously, if I was the litigious sort,
I would have hauled your one-legged ass into court by now, and I would
have one hell of a case, because accusations of psychoses and mental
illness constitute a very serious case of defamation, especially when
they're not true. See, calling me an idiot and a moron isn't
defamation; diagnosing someone as mentally ill, in a public place,
where a potential employer or someone else might see it, and make a
negative decision based upon it, is a whole other matter.
Should I post the definition of "defamation" to you, as well?
milt....@gmail.com
Nope. I don't care about the Bushies. He committed treason, and he
should pay for that.
It's not about politics anymore. it's about right and wrong. Rove
broke one of the most important laws on the books.
Politically speaking, however, Rove is the linchpin. The GOP has to
know that they're done for a generation if Bush has to pardon Rove.
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote in news:1187625436.543312.302410@
> 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 11:49 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote in news:1187615298.614932.67270
> >> @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >> > Start Spinning...
>
> >> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else and
> >> that is "irrefutable proof"??
>
> > When Matt Cooper says exactly the same thing he said under oath before
> > the grand jury, and Karl Rove essentially says the opposite, I would
> > say the fact that no one is going after Matt Cooper for perjury would
> > indicate that Rove is lying.
>
> In that case, "irrefutabl;e proof would be a video of Karl Rove saying the
> exact opposite under oath before the grand jury.
I see. So in your mind, Rove didn't actually lie, because he didn't do
it under oath.
>
> > But feel free to spin...
>
> Don't need to. Your attempt is lame, as always.
Not as lame as your spin. You shoudl change your name to Jim Dreidel.
>
milt....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:47:00 -0700, 3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:25:43 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On Aug 20, 10:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:55:28 -0700, 3700 Dead
>
> >>> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
> >>> ><F#%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
> >>> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>> >>>I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >>> >>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >>> >>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >>> >>> Start Spinning...
>
> >>> >>Your opinion is not PROOF. Why just the other day you were pounding your
> >>> >>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
> >>> >>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >>> >>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> >>> >Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> >>> imagination, and in the case of Moveon.org, they simply are dishonest.
>
> >>Do you ever tire of being wrong? Apparently not.
>
> >>> ...and as for Zepp, he's just a loud-mouthed bystander since he can
> >>> get deported for getting too involved in U.S. politics.
>
> >>So, that possibility is considered an advance in American freedom by
> >>you?
>
> >>No one can be deported for speaking out about US politics, as long as
> >>their speech doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. That
> >>you think it is, or should be says a lot about you...
>
> >You have to marvel at the logic there: if I were to be thrown out of
> >the country for "political involvement" -- something I've been guilty
> >of for over 40 years --
>
> ....see where I said, "***too*** involved in U.S. politics."
Hmm... 40 years of political activism. Define "too involved"...
How's that foot taste, Canyon? A little like hickory?
>
> >then I could simply log on from England or
> >Canada or whereever I fetched up and say anything I pleased, free of
> >even the few constraints American law does place upon me.
You have no constraints on you here, as long as you don't hurt anyone
or cause harm to the country.
3707 Dead
>Rove is IRRELEVANT now ... doesn't matter what he
>says or does.
Until he's under oath, that is.
>
>Smarter to keep your eye on whomever acts as his
>replacement ....
Of course, he doesn't have to be IN the White House to have a lot of
influence...
3707 Dead
wrote:
>3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>news:brfjc3p52odpki2ci...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:49:04 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>
>Re: Proof that Karl Rove is a Bald-Faced Liar
>
>>> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something
>>> else and that is "irrefutable proof"??
>>
>> Spin #3: try to change the subject
>
> Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to read plain English. He is
>both stupid and demented.
So you didn't mention Matt Cooper, Alderberry Whine?
3707 Dead
Well, I can't advocate armed overthrow, of course, and I cannot donate
money to a candidate at the federal level.
Granted, neither of these limits have ever caused me any
inconvenience.
>>
>> <LOL> Sounds like a plan, Zepp...
>>
>> >Still, that's Spin #4: threaten and stalk.
>>
>> Oh, pooor, fat old Zepp... <OL> he feels threatened and stalked....
I wonder if "Steve's" provider would consider it such under their
TOS...
>
Jim Alder
Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to follow a link, where he
would see that the 'proof' supplied was a statement by Matt Cooper that said
Rove lied.
Steve
wrote:
No, but I head about your tax liens and your court imposed fines,
Zepp.
Steve
enough to get deported because his activities were believed by the
Secretary of State to have potentially serious adverse foreign policy
consequences for the United States.. ..just like the law that you
didn't even know about said.
Steve
<LOL> That's from Shook who apparently believes that being
introverted and afraid of people not liking him are somehow mutually
exclusive,
>An introvert, in a clinical sense, is someone who feels energized by
>being alone, and who actively avoids other people, because he finds
>them draining.
No Milt, that isn't the case at all
>That is most certainly not me, and never has been, as
>anyone who actually knows me would tell you.
Actually, Milt does avoid others, but only because he fears
rejection.. He is able to get around that with the internet because
the contact with others is so slight.
Actually, that was almost a direct quote from a pretty good book.
>> Introversion isn't the state of preferring to be alone. An
>> introverted person might be terribly unhappy if he's not the center of
>> attention,as in the case of a histrionic personality disorder, as I'm
>> beginning to believe is where Milt fits in given is aversion to being
>> judged and his dislike of having his opinions ignored and dismissed.
>
>The only people whose opinion of me I care about know it. You are not
>one of those. I couldn't give a shit less what you think of me.
...and yet you show up again and again unsuccessfully trying to
dissuade me... You try to get back at me by using tactics that you
believe are hurtful.... and by so doing, you tell me what things
really bother you.... That helps me to understand you better
> And
>Zepp and a few other weasels will attest to the fact that I am NEVER
>afraid of expressing my opinion, and don't care if someone disagrees
>with me. I have a series of web sites, on which I express my opinion,
>and my opinions are routinely "ignored and dismissed,' and yet, I
>continue to offer them.
Well yes, you continue to offer them because it's really your only
outlet.. the only method you have of escaping total insignificance.
In real life, you sit quietly and stew because people ignore you
completely.
>Once more, I ask; do you ever tire of being wrong?
>
>Do you also understand how lucky you are, given the outright slander
>you have visited upon me here? Seriously, if I was the litigious sort,
>I would have hauled your one-legged ass into court by now, and I would
>have one hell of a case,
<LOL> Milt, Milt, everybody knew a very long time ago that you had
no knowledge of law, so you really don't have to continue to prove it
every day.
> because accusations of psychoses and mental
>illness constitute a very serious case of defamation, especially when
Wow, you say you think you have a psychosis? Being introverted
isn't a mental illness, Milt. It's a personality type, and a disorder
isn't a mental illness.... but it's interesting how you project all
this into a psychosis. Perhaps I'm getting through....
>they're not true. See, calling me an idiot and a moron isn't
>defamation; diagnosing someone as mentally ill, in a public place,
>where a potential employer or someone else might see it, and make a
>negative decision based upon it, is a whole other matter.
>
>Should I post the definition of "defamation" to you, as well?
Zepp already threatened me with a lawsuit, Milt, and now he suffers
having me throw it back in is face every now and then... get in
line...
Steve
>> learn to read before you respond. <LOL> So did Shook build this
>> strawman about speech, realizing that he can't argue against what I
>> really said. or was he just too stupid to comprehend what I wrote....
>
>Think I misunderstood?
No Shook, I think you imagined what I said instead of actually reading
it.... A typical reaction for someone with your disfunction. You
tend to misread things because you're substituting your gut feelings
as you go...
I said getting involved too deeply in US politics and you total
misread that as being about speech. Now, as usual, you're trying
to spin your way out of your stupid statement.
Note above where you said that my cite was about "presence and
activities," NOT speech indicating that you totally misread it....
>What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
I took it to mean that "an alien whose presence or activities in the
United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
the United States is deportable"
<snip more of Milt's spine and diversions..>
Steve
wrote:
Actually, you can't advocate any kind of overthrow.. and you can't
donate money or services...
>Granted, neither of these limits have ever caused me any
>inconvenience.
>
>>> <LOL> Sounds like a plan, Zepp...
>>>
>>> >Still, that's Spin #4: threaten and stalk.
>>>
>>> Oh, pooor, fat old Zepp... <OL> he feels threatened and stalked....
>
>I wonder if "Steve's" provider would consider it such under their
>TOS...
>>
Have at it, fatty....
Jim Alder
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>
>> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>
>> >> > Start Spinning...
>>
>> >> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else
and
>> >> that is "irrefutable proof"??
>>
>> > When Matt Cooper says exactly the same thing he said under oath before
>> > the grand jury, and Karl Rove essentially says the opposite, I would
>> > say the fact that no one is going after Matt Cooper for perjury would
>> > indicate that Rove is lying.
>>
>> In that case, "irrefutabl;e proof would be a video of Karl Rove saying
the
>> exact opposite under oath before the grand jury.
>
> I see. So in your mind, Rove didn't actually lie, because he didn't do
> it under oath?
Jesus, can you even read? I didn't say that at all, you moron. I SAID -
now read slowly - if you can show a video of him saying the exact opposite of
what he is saying in the OTHER video at your link above, THAT would be
irrefutable proof..
>> > But feel free to spin...
>>
>> Don't need to. Your attempt is lame, as always.
>
> Not as lame as your spin. You shoudl change your name to Jim Dreidel.
And you should look up 'spin.' I'm not spinning anything, I'm saying you're
full of shit, as is your source.
Count Zero
> I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> Start Spinning...
That isn't proof- that's two contradictory statements.
CZ
Count Zero
> >On Aug 20, 10:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:55:28 -0700, 3700 Dead
>
> >> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:16:51 GMT, "Bîllary/2008"
> >> ><F#%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
>
> >> >><milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:1187615298....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >> >>>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >> >>> Start Spinning...
>
> >> >>chest and bragging about how YOU ALWAYS provide proof. You're nothing but a
> >> >>left wing lemming. Moveon.org told you to write this, and like a good
> >> >>little lemming you obeyed your master's orders.
>
> >> >Spin #1: Attack the source.
>
> >> imagination, and in the case of Moveon.org, they simply are dishonest.
>
> >Do you ever tire of being wrong? Apparently not.
>
> >> ...and as for Zepp, he's just a loud-mouthed bystander since he can
> >> get deported for getting too involved in U.S. politics.
>
> >So, that possibility is considered an advance in American freedom by
> >you?
>
> >No one can be deported for speaking out about US politics, as long as
> >their speech doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. That
> >you think it is, or should be says a lot about you...
>
> usual, doesn't have a clue.... See below:
>
> U.S. Code
> Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5.
>
> In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
> the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
> potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
> States is deportable.
That seems an under-utilized law to me.
CZ
Steve
It most likely could be used for lot's of cases.. Perhaps it will,
someday.
3700 Dead
wrote:
>3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>news:es4kc31nbg39b6cjp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:58:09 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>>>news:brfjc3p52odpki2ci...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:49:04 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Re: Proof that Karl Rove is a Bald-Faced Liar
>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else
>>>>> and that is "irrefutable proof"??
>>>>
>>>> Spin #3: try to change the subject
>>>
>>> Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to read plain English. He is
>>> both stupid and demented.
>>
>> So you didn't mention Matt Cooper, Alderberry Whine?
>
> Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to follow a link, where he
>would see that the 'proof' supplied was a statement by Matt Cooper that said
>Rove lied.
Ah, so instead of Spin #3, change the subject, you are using Spin #1:
attack the source. Very good.
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
milt....@gmail.com
> >> people not liking him are somehow mutually exclusive, which, of
> >> to his ignorance about most everything else.
>
> >> see what why he was such a mouse, and he was labeled as introverted...Miltprobably came away thinking that being introverted was synonymous
> >> for his preferring to be alone, which isn't the case at all.. Milt's
> >> shyness was and still is his reaction to his fear of being judged and
> >> criticized, the logic being that if he doesn't hang out other people,
> >> he has less chance of being judged inferior.
>
> >First of all, you don't know what being introverted is, in a clinical
> >sense, which has been how you have been attempting to use it, despite
> >your feeble attempts to extract your head from your anus.
>
> introverted and afraid of people not liking him are somehow mutually
> exclusive,
Depends on what sort of introversion we're talking about.
This is the one you were talking about...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
"It's obvious that Milt "suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Milt is, of course,
seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
and often are extremely deep thinkers.
"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
In short, you're still a liar.
>
> >An introvert, in a clinical sense, is someone who feels energized by
> >being alone, and who actively avoids other people, because he finds
> >them draining.
>
> No Milt, that isn't the case at all
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
"It's obvious that Milt "suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Milt is, of course,
seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
and often are extremely deep thinkers.
"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
In short, you're an even bigger liar....
milt....@gmail.com
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote in news:1187647941.930112.149380
shit, then we actually agree.
milt....@gmail.com
One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
The other is an obvious lie.
Steve
Typical Milt Shook opinions.... expressed as fact.
Steve
No Milt, introversion does not exclude an aversion to being ignored an
judged insignificant... Introversion simply means that a person
focuses inwards when analysing and dealing with his environment.
Such a person might be extremely capable of taking a bunch of facts
and figures and analyse them, and produce solutions to problems.
A person who is relies to much on his emotions and gut feelings to the
exclusion of facts and reality would be called deeply introverted.
The latter is just an extreme example of the former... Instead of
highly developed analytical ability of the former, the latter becomes
the dreamer.. the guy that imagines that his acquaintances are his
girlfriends and the people he's known are his friends... the guy
that so wants to have been dating girls, knowing people, going places,
having careers that other would envy him for, will make up stories
where he actually becomes that person.
>This is the one you were talking about...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
>
>"It's obvious that Milt "suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
>leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Milt is, of course,
>seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
>pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
>primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
>when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
>a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
>and often are extremely deep thinkers.
>
>"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
>Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
>they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
>they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
>people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
>It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
>
>In short, you're still a liar.
Milt seems quite upset tonight.... but still he makes these
undocumented assertions so typical of him....
>> >An introvert, in a clinical sense, is someone who feels energized by
>> >being alone, and who actively avoids other people, because he finds
>> >them draining.
>>
>> No Milt, that isn't the case at all
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
>
>"It's obvious that Milt "suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
>leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Milt is, of course,
>seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
>pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
>primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
>when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
>a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
>and often are extremely deep thinkers.
>
>"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
>Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
>they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
>they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
>people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
>It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
>
>In short, you're an even bigger liar....
In short, as he always does, Milt provides nothing to back up his
**gut feelings**.
Jim Alder
news:6fdkc3hpses43qdq7...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:30:06 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>>news:es4kc31nbg39b6cjp...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:58:09 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>3707 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>>>>news:brfjc3p52odpki2ci...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:49:04 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Re: Proof that Karl Rove is a Bald-Faced Liar
>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. Karl Rove says one thing and Matt Cooper says something else
>>>>>> and that is "irrefutable proof"??
>>>>>
>>>>> Spin #3: try to change the subject
>>>>
>>>> Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to read plain English. He
is
>>>> both stupid and demented.
>>>
>>> So you didn't mention Matt Cooper, Alderberry Whine?
>>
>> Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead's inability to follow a link, where he
>>would see that the 'proof' supplied was a statement by Matt Cooper that said
>>Rove lied.
>
> Ah, so instead of Spin #3, change the subject, you are using Spin #1:
> attack the source. Very good.
Please excuse Zeppy the Pinhead. He is just too goddamned stupid to live.
milt....@gmail.com
Think these idiots will ever understand the concept of irony?
3700 Dead
Humor is a prerequisite, and this lot seems to be a bit impaired that
way.
Could you imagine Steve EVER giving a self-deprecating chuckle and
admitting he made a mistake?
3700 Dead
wrote:
Doesn't your tail HURT when you bite it like that?
Steve
Irony anyone?
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:22 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Aug 20, 9:36 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:56 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >On Aug 20, 7:48 pm, Count Zero <david.work...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Aug 20, 9:08 am,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
>>> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>>>
>>> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>>>
>>> >> > Start Spinning...
>>>
>>> >> That isn't proof- that's two contradictory statements.
>>> >> CZ
>>>
>>> >One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
>>> >jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
>>>
>>> >The other is an obvious lie.
>>>
>>> TypicalMiltShookopinions.... expressed as fact.
>>
>>Think these idiots will ever understand the concept of irony?
>
>Humor is a prerequisite, and this lot seems to be a bit impaired that
>way.
>
>Could you imagine Steve EVER giving a self-deprecating chuckle and
>admitting he made a mistake?
>>
Irony anyone... remember when Zepp claimed Id go to jail for
reporting my capital gains on the 1040 form.... then tried to spin
his way out of it.....
But OTOH, remember when I mistook the wiccan werewolf woman for Zepp
because I couldn't imagine any female being so proud of her drunken,
disorderly past? then admitted that I was wrong?
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:14:00 GMT, 3700 Dead
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:22 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>On Aug 20, 9:36 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:56 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> >On Aug 20, 7:48 pm, Count Zero <david.work...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> On Aug 20, 9:08 am,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >>> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >>> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >>> >> > Start Spinning...
>
> >>> >> That isn't proof- that's two contradictory statements.
> >>> >> CZ
>
> >>> >One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
> >>> >jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
>
> >>> >The other is an obvious lie.
>
> >>> TypicalMiltShookopinions.... expressed as fact.
>
> >>Think these idiots will ever understand the concept of irony?
>
> >Humor is a prerequisite, and this lot seems to be a bit impaired that
> >way.
>
> >Could you imagine Steve EVER giving a self-deprecating chuckle and
> >admitting he made a mistake?
>
> Irony anyone... remember when Zepp claimed Id go to jail for
> reporting my capital gains on the 1040 form.... then tried to spin
> his way out of it.....
See? He's too stupid to realize that HE provided the irony, and that
HE just proved you right.
>
> But OTOH, remember when I mistook the wiccan werewolf woman for Zepp
> because I couldn't imagine any female being so proud of her drunken,
> disorderly past? then admitted that I was wrong?
More irony. Wow. You really don't understand the concept, do you?
milt....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:22 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 20, 9:36 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:56 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >On Aug 20, 7:48 pm, Count Zero <david.work...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 20, 9:08 am,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >> >> > Start Spinning...
>
> >> >> That isn't proof- that's two contradictory statements.
> >> >> CZ
>
> >> >One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
> >> >jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
>
> >> >The other is an obvious lie.
>
>
> >Think these idiots will ever understand the concept of irony?
>
> Irony anyone?
Jesus... this is just sad.
milt....@gmail.com
And he found out all about this all because he doesn't stalk people on
here?
milt....@gmail.com
> >> strawman about speech, realizing that he can't argue against what I
> >> really said. or was he just too stupid to comprehend what I wrote....
>
> >Think I misunderstood?
>
> it.... A typical reaction for someone with your disfunction. You
> tend to misread things because you're substituting your gut feelings
> as you go...
Try again. You put your foot in your proverbial mouth yet again, and
now, rather than just admitting you fucked up, you're trying to make
it right.
> I said getting involved too deeply in US politics and you total
> misread that as being about speech. Now, as usual, you're trying
> to spin your way out of your stupid statement.
Now, that's irony.
If I misread what you said (and you keep repeating it, so you must
think it makes sense), then please explain to all of us what Zepp
might possibly do to get "involved too deeply" in US politics that
might cause him to be deported. Or do you think sedition and treason
are political acts? Because that's about where the line is drawn. He
would have to break the law to be deported. Now which part of "US
politics" does breaking campaign finance law fall under?
Like I said; I know you Republicans think treason is a legitimate
political activity these days, but it really isn't. It's actually very
much an extra-political activity.
>
> Note above where you said that my cite was about "presence and
> activities," NOT speech indicating that you totally misread it....
What part of "being involved in US politics" does NOT fall under the
category of speech, Canyon? Come on and tell us. As the Supreme Court
sees it, even writing a check to a candidate or cause falls under the
category of "speech."
The law you cited is not about "getting involved in US politics" to
any degree. It's about being here expressly to cause trouble or commit
seditious acts.
>
> >What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
>
> I took it to mean that "an alien whose presence or activities in the
> United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
> would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
> the United States is deportable"
Gawd, that's as priceless as when Bush says "in other words," and then
proceeds to repeat the same thing. You don't know what it means.
>
> <snip more of Milt's spine and diversions..>
Translation: <snip more evidence of Milt kicking my ass>
Count Zero
> One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
> jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
>
> The other is an obvious lie.
So the "proof" that Rove is a liar is that his explanation is
an"obvious" lie? Perhaps you don't really understand what is meant by
proof. The independent counsel knows what constitutes proof in a court
of law and has not seen fit to indict, although we all know he would
be happy to do so. In any case, if all you have is circular arguments,
you'll not be convincing me soon.
CZ
Steve
I've been shaking my head and smiling at Shook about that for several
years... The poor sad loon just continues to fluster and bluster and
make a fool of himself at every opportunity....
As far back as I can remember, Shook has never backed up any claims,
although I do remember him trying to claim the City of Slokie/Nazi
party case as being an example of a private party being subject to the
First Amendment, totally passing over the obvious fact that the city
of Skokie is a government entity and not a private party.. That's
when it became clear that Milt wasn't capable of comprehending the
things he read... Something in his make-up that permits him to
invent and substitute his own version of reality
Steve
<LOL> Shook is really led around by his fantasies... The loon can
read black into white and summer into winter if it suit shim to do
so....
milt....@gmail.com
> judged insignificant... Introversion simply means that a person
> focuses inwards when analysing and dealing with his environment.
> Such a person might be extremely capable of taking a bunch of facts
> and figures and analyse them, and produce solutions to problems.
>
> A person who is relies to much on his emotions and gut feelings to the
> exclusion of facts and reality would be called deeply introverted.
> The latter is just an extreme example of the former... Instead of
> highly developed analytical ability of the former, the latter becomes
> the dreamer.. the guy that imagines that his acquaintances are his
> girlfriends and the people he's known are his friends... the guy
> that so wants to have been dating girls, knowing people, going places,
> having careers that other would envy him for, will make up stories
> where he actually becomes that person.
>
>
>
> >This is the one you were talking about...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
>
> >leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Miltis, of course,
> >seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
> >pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
> >primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
> >when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
> >a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
> >and often are extremely deep thinkers.
>
> >"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
> >Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
> >they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
> >they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
> >people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
> >It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
>
> >In short, you're still a liar.
>
> undocumented assertions so typical of him....
>
"undocumented," then you just undermined every claim that you have
ever made that I don't document anything.
And you don't upset me. People like you amuse me. I've known people
like you all of my life; people who pretend they're so sure they're
right about everything, but prove they're not by abandoning an
argument in favor of "personal attacks" on someone they don't even
know intimately.
And the irony... gawd...
People who don't have a sense of humor and who lack a sense of irony
have always fascinated me, because I can't imagine going through life
without either.
>
> >> >An introvert, in a clinical sense, is someone who feels energized by
> >> >being alone, and who actively avoids other people, because he finds
> >> >them draining.
>
> >> NoMilt, that isn't the case at all
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/21177607340...
>
> >"It's obvious thatMilt"suffers" from a pretty severe disorder that
> >leads him to those kinds of illogical thinking. Miltis, of course,
> >seriously introverted and it seems to have progressed into a
> >pathological problem. Introverted people are simply people whose
> >primary focus is inward and are comfortable being alone and work best
> >when they *are* alone. That can be a very good thing when it enables
> >a person to concentrate and solve problems. Normal introverts can be
> >and often are extremely deep thinkers.
>
> >"Normal introverts are comfortable in the world, pathological
> >Introverts are not. They dislike their situation in the world and
> >they refuse to accept, but instead of trying to alter that situation,
> >they simply alter their perception of it. Pathological introverted
> >people don't see the world as it is, but as they think it should be.
> >It's a unconscious strategy to alleviate their anxiety."
>
> >In short, you're an even bigger liar....
>
> In short, as he always does,Milt provides nothing to back up his
> **gut feelings**.
Yeah, there's no irony in that, is there?
Read your own words. Do you even know what "pathological introverts"
are, you idiot?
Steve
Punching a name into a search engine and reading what pops out isn't
stalking, Milt. I know you'd like it to be, but it's not.
Steve
<LOL> This is from Shook who read the words "getting too involved in
U.S. politics," and misread that to mean "speech."
>> I said getting involved too deeply in US politics and you total
>> misread that as being about speech. Now, as usual, you're trying
>> to spin your way out of your stupid statement.
>
>Now, that's irony.
>
>If I misread what you said (and you keep repeating it, so you must
<LOL> "getting involved too deeply in US politics" does not
translate to "speech." that was your reading mistake and it's really
funny to watch you try to spin it some other way....
>think it makes sense), then please explain to all of us what Zepp
>might possibly do to get "involved too deeply" in US politics that
>might cause him to be deported.
Well, for one thing, he can't contribute money... of course, Zepp
doesn't have any money....
>Or do you think sedition and treason
>are political acts? Because that's about where the line is drawn. He
>would have to break the law to be deported.
<LOL> DUH!
...and I even cited a law he'd be deported for breaking....
>Now which part of "US
>politics" does breaking campaign finance law fall under?
.
....Another Shook attempt to divert attention away from his simple
reading comprehension error....
>Like I said; I know you Republicans think treason is a legitimate
>political activity these days, but it really isn't. It's actually very
>much an extra-political activity.
<LOL> Again.... Shook attempts to change the subject to divert
attention away from his simple reading comprehension error....
>> Note above where you said that my cite was about "presence and
>> activities," NOT speech indicating that you totally misread it....
>
>What part of "being involved in US politics" does NOT fall under the
>category of speech, Canyon? Come on and tell us. As the Supreme Court
>sees it, even writing a check to a candidate or cause falls under the
>category of "speech."
<LOL> The law clearly states that the mere presence of an
individual can be reason for being deported, however, granted that
Zepp would have to be far more significant than he is..
>The law you cited is not about "getting involved in US politics" to
>any degree. It's about being here expressly to cause trouble or commit
>seditious acts.
Errrr, "causing trouble" in the realm of U.S. politics wouldn't be an
example of "getting too involved in U.S. politics?" <LOL> Now
Shook tries using word games to try to spin away his reading
mistakes...
>> >What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
>>
>> I took it to mean that "an alien whose presence or activities in the
>> United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
>> would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
>> the United States is deportable"
>
>
>Gawd, that's as priceless as when Bush says "in other words," and then
>proceeds to repeat the same thing. You don't know what it means.
<ROTFLMAO> the words in that law are pretty clear, Milt. I
understand that your disfunction inhibits your ability to fully
understand it, but that's your problem. Maybe if you sit down and
read it real slow.... go one word at a time, and look up the words
that you don't understand....
>> <snip more of Milt's spine and diversions..>
>
>Translation: <snip more evidence of Milt kicking my ass>
>
<LOL> Another example of Milt posting his fantasy as fact..
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 21, 5:11 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:56:22 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >On Aug 20, 9:36 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:56 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >On Aug 20, 7:48 pm, Count Zero <david.work...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Aug 20, 9:08 am,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > I mean, we already knew this, but I can't wait to watch the wingnuts'
> >> >> >> > heads spin off trying to spin this one:
>
> >> >> >> >http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2007/08/karl-rove-is-a-.html
>
> >> >> >> > Start Spinning...
>
> >> >> >> That isn't proof- that's two contradictory statements.
> >> >> >> CZ
>
> >> >> >One is a repetition of a statement made under oath before a grand
> >> >> >jury, and has never been challenged as perjurious.
>
> >> >> >The other is an obvious lie.
>
>
> >> >Think these idiots will ever understand the concept of irony?
>
> >> Irony anyone?
>
> >Jesus... this is just sad.
>
> years... The poor sad loon just continues to fluster and bluster and
> make a fool of himself at every opportunity....
>
> although I do remember him trying to claim the City of Slokie/Nazi
> party case as being an example of a private party being subject to the
> First Amendment, totally passing over the obvious fact that the city
> of Skokie is a government entity and not a private party.. That's
> things he read... Something in his make-up that permits him to
> invent and substitute his own version of reality
More irony. Why don't you tell us why the judge ordered the City of
Skokie to not just issue the permit, but to also provide protection,
which you claim isn't available under the First Amendment?
While you're at it, why don't you tell us what sort of "US political
involvement" would cause a Canadian to be deported?
You don't understand what you read, even after someone who's consulted
with experts explains it to you for three years, yet you make the
above claim...
And you think you get irony?
Steve
<LOL> I certainly never made any such claim, Milt... but the fact
is, as anyone who could actually understand the ruling could easily
see, is that the First Amendment issues had nothing to do with
providing protection nor did any decisions of any federal court.
>While you're at it, why don't you tell us what sort of "US political
>involvement" would cause a Canadian to be deported?
The sort of activities that the Secretary of State has reasonable
ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign
policy consequences for the United States is deportable," as the law
states.
>
>You don't understand what you read, even after someone who's consulted
>with experts explains it to you for three years, yet you make the
>above claim...
<LOL> There goes Milt trying to pass himself off as being
knowledgable about the law.... and this after his being repeatedly
slapped for his stupid, illogical claims like : "The US Constitution
is also state law,"
-- Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d162eaa4668419a1?&hl=en
Steve
<LOL> I didn't contradict myself, Milt....
>And you don't upset me. People like you amuse me. I've known people
>like you all of my life;
And that's undoubtedly a true statement.. I'd bet that for all of
milt's life he's been questioned about his strange and illogical
behavior.
>people who pretend they're so sure they're
>right about everything, but prove they're not by abandoning an
>argument
Arguing with Milt would be like arguing with my friends cat about
eating the potted plants... Like the cat, Milt doesn't have any
understand of ordinary simple logic and even if he did, he'd discard
it in order to satisfy his wants and needs.
Present Milt with a cite that is in total disagreement with his
position and he'll simply claim that it supports, not disagrees, with
him....
This was the case where I cited about twenty cites declaring that the
First Amendment and/or the entire Bill of Rights only applies to
government actions and Milt claimed they supported his claim that:
"The Bill of Rights not only protects you from government excess, but
also requires the government to protect you from people who would
violate your rights under them."
--Milt.Shook...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/215df19b874340ec
>in favor of "personal attacks" on someone they don't even
>know intimately.
OMG, Milt, I certainly don't want to know you intimately.. and it
would seem that nobody does..
>And the irony... gawd...
<LOL> Yes indeed....
>People who don't have a sense of humor and who lack a sense of irony
>have always fascinated me, because I can't imagine going through life
>without either.
Actually, Milt's fascination seems to be limited to people he can deal
with through the internet...
<ROTFLMAO> I obviously do, Milt, since I explained it to you...
*us*
>...don't really understand what is meant by
>proof ...
Yellowcake from Niger ... ?
milt....@gmail.com
> U.S. politics," and misread that to mean "speech."
>
> >> I said getting involved too deeply in US politics and you total
> >> misread that as being about speech. Now, as usual, you're trying
> >> to spin your way out of your stupid statement.
>
> >Now, that's irony.
>
> >If I misread what you said (and you keep repeating it, so you must
>
> <LOL> "getting involved too deeply in US politics" does not
> translate to "speech." that was your reading mistake and it's really
> funny to watch you try to spin it some other way....
Then please, explain what anyone could do "getting involved in US
politics" that would qualify under that law, Mr. Legal Expert?
>
> >think it makes sense), then please explain to all of us what Zepp
> >might possibly do to get "involved too deeply" in US politics that
> >might cause him to be deported.
>
> Well, for one thing, he can't contribute money... of course, Zepp
> doesn't have any money....
No, I asked you to tell us what he might possibly DO that might
qualify. You cited the law; please explain what someone could do that
would constitute "involvement in US politics" that would get a
Canadian deported.
>
> >Or do you think sedition and treason
> >are political acts? Because that's about where the line is drawn. He
> >would have to break the law to be deported.
>
> <LOL> DUH!
>
> ...and I even cited a law he'd be deported for breaking....
Okay, so what "activities" would qualify, Mr. Legal Expert.
>
> >Now which part of "US
> >politics" does breaking campaign finance law fall under?
>
> .
> ....Another Shook attempt to divert attention away from his simple
> reading comprehension error....
I'm not the one who cited a law he doesn't understand.
Zepp writes about politics, debates, participates in forums, organizes
and protests. Which one of those activities will get him deported
under the law you cited?
You don't know, do you?
>
> >Like I said; I know you Republicans think treason is a legitimate
> >political activity these days, but it really isn't. It's actually very
> >much an extra-political activity.
>
> <LOL> Again.... Shook attempts to change the subject to divert
> attention away from his simple reading comprehension error....
Changing what subject? What political activities could a Canadian
participate in that would get him kicked out of the country? You made
a statement, and cited the law. C'mon... tell us what you think he
might do, and how that constitutes "too involved in US politics."
>
> >> Note above where you said that my cite was about "presence and
> >> activities," NOT speech indicating that you totally misread it....
>
> >What part of "being involved in US politics" does NOT fall under the
> >category of speech, Canyon? Come on and tell us. As the Supreme Court
> >sees it, even writing a check to a candidate or cause falls under the
> >category of "speech."
>
> <LOL> The law clearly states that the mere presence of an
> individual can be reason for being deported, however, granted that
> Zepp would have to be far more significant than he is..
The "presence" means a Canadian who's intent on overthrowing the
government, or intent on wreaking havoc. You don't even know what it
means.
>
> >The law you cited is not about "getting involved in US politics" to
> >any degree. It's about being here expressly to cause trouble or commit
> >seditious acts.
>
> Errrr, "causing trouble" in the realm of U.S. politics wouldn't be an
> example of "getting too involved in U.S. politics?"
No, it wouldn't.
<LOL> NowShooktries using word games to try to spin away his
reading
> mistakes...
Word games? You're the one citing a law and trying to apply it here.
Please; apply it. What could he do that would qualify?
>
> >> >What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
>
> >> I took it to mean that "an alien whose presence or activities in the
> >> United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
> >> would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
> >> the United States is deportable"
>
> >Gawd, that's as priceless as when Bush says "in other words," and then
> >proceeds to repeat the same thing. You don't know what it means.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> the words in that law are pretty clear,Milt.
Than you should have no problem explaining what activities qualify.
> I
> understand that your disfunction inhibits your ability to fully
> understand it, but that's your problem. Maybe if you sit down and
> read it real slow.... go one word at a time, and look up the words
> that you don't understand....
I understand it. Note my use of the words "sedition" and "treason" as
examples when I responded.
>
> >> <snip more ofMilt'sspine and diversions..>
>
> >Translation: <snip more evidence ofMiltkicking my ass>
>
> <LOL> Another example ofMiltposting his fantasy as fact..
I'm not the one pretending to be a legal expert, and citing a law that
would only apply to Zepp if he was doing things that transcended
politics.
3700 Dead
I think that in order to commit treason, I would have to, oh, say, try
to blow up the Houses of Parliament. And even that would be subject
to debate in some quarters.
milt....@gmail.com
> behavior.
>
> >people who pretend they're so sure they're
> >right about everything, but prove they're not by abandoning an
> >argument
>
> eating the potted plants... Like the cat,Miltdoesn't have any
> understand of ordinary simple logic and even if he did, he'd discard
> it in order to satisfy his wants and needs.
>
involved in US politics," and you cited a law that doesn't support
you. But you claim it does, so, please; give us an example of
something that could get Zepp deported under that law, and would still
fall under the category of "getting involved in US politics."
You cited the law, now apply it. And don't just quote back the law to
me; I know what it says. I want you to give us examples.
> Present Milt with a cite that is in total disagreement with his
> position and he'll simply claim that it supports, not disagrees, with
> him....
Again with the irony. You produced a cite. if it doesn't disagree with
my "position," you should be able to give me an example. Tell me how a
Canadian being politically active can be deported under that law,
short of sedition or treason.
> This was the case where I cited about twenty cites declaring that the
> First Amendment and/or the entire Bill of Rights only applies to
> government actions andMiltclaimed they supported his claim that:
> "The Bill of Rights not only protects you from government excess, but
> also requires the government to protect you from people who would
> violate your rights under them."
> --Milt.Shook...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/215df19b874...
>
That could be because they did.
milt....@gmail.com
> >> reading comprehension error....
>
> >I'm not the one who cited a law he doesn't understand.
>
> >Zepp writes about politics, debates, participates in forums, organizes
> >and protests. Which one of those activities will get him deported
> >under the law you cited?
>
> >You don't know, do you?
>
> >> >Like I said; I know you Republicans think treason is a legitimate
> >> >political activity these days, but it really isn't. It's actually very
> >> >much an extra-political activity.
>
talking about something, and then says "In other words..." and then
repeats the exact same thing again?
makes you wonder if he's Jeb's sock puppet...
Steve
No Milt, I'm not here to analyse the law for you, only to cite it as
documentation of my earlier statement.
>> >think it makes sense), then please explain to all of us what Zepp
>> >might possibly do to get "involved too deeply" in US politics that
>> >might cause him to be deported.
>>
>> Well, for one thing, he can't contribute money... of course, Zepp
>> doesn't have any money....
>
>No, I asked you to tell us what he might possibly DO that might
>qualify. You cited the law; please explain what someone could do that
>would constitute "involvement in US politics" that would get a
>Canadian deported.
<LOL> Milt got caught totally misreading my statement and now he
tries to spin it away with this pathetic muddying of the waters.
>> >Or do you think sedition and treason
>> >are political acts? Because that's about where the line is drawn. He
>> >would have to break the law to be deported.
>>
>> <LOL> DUH!
>>
>> ...and I even cited a law he'd be deported for breaking....
>
>Okay, so what "activities" would qualify, Mr. Legal Expert.
<shrug>
>> >Now which part of "US
>> >politics" does breaking campaign finance law fall under?
>>
>> .
>> ....Another Shook attempt to divert attention away from his simple
>> reading comprehension error....
>
>I'm not the one who cited a law he doesn't understand.
<LOL> I'm not the one that asked what it meant, you did....
>Zepp writes about politics, debates, participates in forums, organizes
>and protests. Which one of those activities will get him deported
>under the law you cited?
Errrr, I don't remember saying that anything he did would get him
deported, Milt. Is your imagination running away with you again?
>You don't know, do you?
>>
>> >Like I said; I know you Republicans think treason is a legitimate
>> >political activity these days, but it really isn't. It's actually very
>> >much an extra-political activity.
>>
>> <LOL> Again.... Shook attempts to change the subject to divert
>> attention away from his simple reading comprehension error....
>
>Changing what subject?
The subject wasn't about treason....
>What political activities could a Canadian
>participate in that would get him kicked out of the country? You made
>a statement, and cited the law. C'mon... tell us what you think he
>might do, and how that constitutes "too involved in US politics."
<LOL> Milt wants an interpretation of the law... Only judges are
qualified to do that. My simply citing the law documents my statement
quite adequately. An alien can get deplored for getting too
involved in our politics as documented in the U.S. codeTitle 8,
Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5, which says that an alien can get
deported if his actions or presence is deemed to be harmful to our
foreign policy..
>> >> Note above where you said that my cite was about "presence and
>> >> activities," NOT speech indicating that you totally misread it....
>>
>> >What part of "being involved in US politics" does NOT fall under the
>> >category of speech, Canyon? Come on and tell us. As the Supreme Court
>> >sees it, even writing a check to a candidate or cause falls under the
>> >category of "speech."
>>
>> <LOL> The law clearly states that the mere presence of an
>> individual can be reason for being deported, however, granted that
>> Zepp would have to be far more significant than he is..
>
>The "presence" means a Canadian who's intent on overthrowing the
>government, or intent on wreaking havoc. You don't even know what it
>means.
Ahhhhh, here's yet another example of Milt presenting his opinion as
fact.. Typical....
>> >The law you cited is not about "getting involved in US politics" to
>> >any degree. It's about being here expressly to cause trouble or commit
>> >seditious acts.
>>
>> Errrr, "causing trouble" in the realm of U.S. politics wouldn't be an
>> example of "getting too involved in U.S. politics?"
>
>No, it wouldn't.
Ahhhhh, here's yet another example of Milt presenting his opinion as
fact.. Typical....
> <LOL> NowShooktries using word games to try to spin away his
>reading
>> mistakes...
>
>Word games? You're the one citing a law and trying to apply it here.
>Please; apply it. What could he do that would qualify?
No... sorry... not necessary.. the law itself demonstrates that
there are activities that could get a person deported.. The mere
fact that the law speaks directly to foreign policy indicates that it
would be of a political nature... IOW, my statement is already
documented and all you're doing is trying to divert attention away
from your stupid mistake.
It's not going to work... you simply misread my statement and now
you're trying to cover it up... Here's a clue, it would have been
easier if you;d simply said "oh, I misread what you said, but now, by
applying all these diversionary tactics, you indicate once again, how
sensitive you are to your mistakes...
>> >> >What did you take the law you quoted to mean?
>>
>> >> I took it to mean that "an alien whose presence or activities in the
>> >> United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
>> >> would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for
>> >> the United States is deportable"
>>
>> >Gawd, that's as priceless as when Bush says "in other words," and then
>> >proceeds to repeat the same thing. You don't know what it means.
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> the words in that law are pretty clear,Milt.
>
>Than you should have no problem explaining what activities qualify.
<ROTFAO> Those activities that the Secretary of State has reasonable
ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign
policy consequences for the United States...
>> I
>> understand that your disfunction inhibits your ability to fully
>> understand it, but that's your problem. Maybe if you sit down and
>> read it real slow.... go one word at a time, and look up the words
>> that you don't understand....
>
>I understand it. Note my use of the words "sedition" and "treason" as
>examples when I responded.
Actually, those words are from another law, not the one I cited, you
moron. Try to focus that sad little dysfunctional mind of yours
better, Milt.
>> >> <snip more ofMilt'sspine and diversions..>
>>
>> >Translation: <snip more evidence ofMiltkicking my ass>
>>
>> <LOL> Another example ofMiltposting his fantasy as fact..
>
>I'm not the one pretending to be a legal expert, and citing a law that
>would only apply to Zepp if he was doing things that transcended
>politics.
>
Soooo, <LOL> Milt claims that my citing a law is akin to
pretending to be legal expert... while he demonstrates, once again,
that all he has are his undocumented and very stupid opinions...
apparently in a ridiculous effort to claim that actions having to do
with foreign policy isn't covered by the word "politics."
Steve
>On Aug 21, 8:06 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>Yeah, ya did. You have made the claim for three years... you've been
>claiming for three years that a judge will laugh me out of court when
>I ask him to protect my right to free speech.
No Milt, I said you'd be laughed out of court for trying to sue a
private citizen with the First Amendment
> Skokie is a great
>example. The judge didn't just stop at ordering the city to issue the
>permit; he forced them to provide protection. Get it yet?
Well, first of all, no federal judge made such an order, Milt.. and
secondly, it was made because a pre-existing law required that to go
along with the permit to march, not because the First Amendment
required it..
>> but the fact
>> is, as anyone who could actually understand the ruling could easily
>> see, is that the First Amendment issues had nothing to do with
>> providing protection nor did any decisions of any federal court.
>
>Oh, really? Not even the part of the Skokie case that ordered the city
>of Skokie to provide police protection for the Nazis? Or did you
>choose not to read that part of the case?
See above.... and if you disagree and want to argue that it was a
requirement of the First Amendment, and so ruled by a federal judge,
start by presenting documentation instead of your usual "yes it was."
Of course you can't do that....
>> >While you're at it, why don't you tell us what sort of "US political
>> >involvement" would cause a Canadian to be deported?
>>
>> The sort of activities that the Secretary of State has reasonable
>> ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign
>> policy consequences for the United States is deportable," as the law
>> states.
>>
>Uh huh. IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think
>it's possible to "get involved in US politics" to the point that such
>a thing is possible?
Obviously, or there wouldn't be a law about t....
>Or would you have to do something that would take
>you out of the realm of US politics and into something, say, seditious
>or treasonous?
Milt, if that was the case, the laws relating to sedition
and treason would cover it and they wouldn't need the one I cited..
>> >You don't understand what you read, even after someone who's consulted
>> >with experts explains it to you for three years, yet you make the
>> >above claim...
>>
>> <LOL> There goesMilttrying to pass himself off as being
>> knowledgable about the law....
>
>You really don't get irony, do you?
>
>YOU are the one who cited the law as an example of proof that Zepp
>could somehow be deported if he became "too involved in US politics."
>I'm just saying, the law says nothing of the kind. Of course, if you'd
>like to explain exactly what someone getting involved in US politics
>could do that would qualify under that law, then let's have it.
<LOL> The law says that an alien, like Zepp, can be deported if his
actions or presence endangers our foreign policies.... That's all I
need to say to document my statement unless you really want to argue
that nothing related to foreign policy falls under the definition of
politics...
Face it, Milt, all you're trying to do with all these demands for me
to take my statement to a higher level is just an attempt for you to
try to bury your stupid mistake in bluster..
You screwed up. live with it.
>> and this after his being repeatedly
>> slapped for his stupid, illogical claims like : "The US Constitution
>> is also state law,"
>
>And again... you have no clue how stupid you are, do you? Of COURSE
>the US Constitution is state law! You moron! Do you even know what it
>means to "ratify" something?
>> --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d162eaa4668...
<LOL> The US Constitution is federal law and only federal law, you
dimwit and the fact that the states have to ratify it doesn't make it
state law....
Your statement above is another keeper, BTW...
"Of COURSE the US Constitution is state law! You moron! Do you even
know what it means to "ratify" something?"
--.Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b27b8b27a4ae5e03?hl=en&
Thanks again...
>> >And you think you get irony?
>
>Jesus... I dunno why you don't just walk away... you're way out of
>your league...
<LOL>
3700 Dead
Maybe he actually is Putsch, and that's why he's so afraid that people
will learn his true identity. It's not like Putsch has anything
better do do with his time.
Of course, "Steve" can usually spell words correctly and even use
proper grammar, so perhaps not. Putsch could never manage that.
But they're both dishonest, crazy and obsessed.
You know, there's millions of Canadians in America. We control your
entertainment, we control much of your television. We control your
minds.
But fear us not, earthling, for we are here To Serve Man.
In the meantime, you might want to amuse yourself by asking "Steve" if
he knows of any Canadians who have been kicked out for engaging in
politics.
milt....@gmail.com
You're a liar. You do a lot more than that, and you know it...
Steve
I have noticed that when Milt needs to cover up one of his many
mistakes, he tries to establish arguments to the side of what was
being discussed.. Milt is desperate to get me for slapping him around
so bad, and he's desperate to lead the argument away from the fact
that he screwed up and argued against something I never said...
It would have been so much easier for him to simply say that he
misread my statement, but he's afraid that will show that he is led
around by his overactive imagination...
Steve
It supports my statement quite nicely.. all by itself.
>You cited the law, now apply it. And don't just quote back the law to
>me; I know what it says. I want you to give us examples.
Nope, sorry, not necessary. The existence of a law that clearly
states that an alien can get deported for actions that involve foreign
policy is in itself, adequate documentation for my simple statement
that an alien can get deported for getting too involved in U.S.
politics.
<LOL> If you want to try to ague that foreign policy doesn't fall
under "politics," go ahead, but that's the only thread you have
here...
>> Present Milt with a cite that is in total disagreement with his
>> position and he'll simply claim that it supports, not disagrees, with
>> him....
>
>Again with the irony. You produced a cite. if it doesn't disagree with
>my "position," you should be able to give me an example. Tell me how a
>Canadian being politically active can be deported under that law,
>short of sedition or treason.
By political actions involving foreign policy... as the law so it
states. I'm not going to take it to another level, Milt, because I
don't need to. I already documented my statement by citing a law that
applies to actions that can get an alien deported, and since the law
has to do with foreign policy, those actions would involve politics..
I don't need to show examples of those actions.
>> This was the case where I cited about twenty cites declaring that the
>> First Amendment and/or the entire Bill of Rights only applies to
>> government actions andMiltclaimed they supported his claim that:
>> "The Bill of Rights not only protects you from government excess, but
>> also requires the government to protect you from people who would
>> violate your rights under them."
>> --Milt.Shook...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/215df19b874...
>>
>That could be because they did.
All you need to do is prove it... and, of course, you can't.
Another Milt's loony gut feelings with o basis.
Steve
If I was afraid that people will learn [my] true identity," why would
I be here slapping you morons around?
>Of course, "Steve" can usually spell words correctly and even use
>proper grammar, so perhaps not. Putsch could never manage that.
>
>But they're both dishonest, crazy and obsessed.
>
>You know, there's millions of Canadians in America. We control your
>entertainment, we control much of your television. We control your
>minds.
>
>But fear us not, earthling, for we are here To Serve Man.
>
>In the meantime, you might want to amuse yourself by asking "Steve" if
>he knows of any Canadians who have been kicked out for engaging in
>politics.
So why is Zepp afraid to ask me himself????????
Steve
Really? what do you imagine that I do? The Jamieson's court records
and his tax liens are all within easy range of search engines... and
you.... you're an open book.... and you've also pissed people
off...
You know what's really sad is your claims that I've tried to contact
your friends... because, since I haven't, and you claim they say I
have, it tells me that you don't trust the people you believe to be
your friends..
Your imagination gets you in trouble, Milt.
milt....@gmail.com
So, what you're telling me is that most Canadians are Jewish?
>
> But fear us not, earthling, for we are here To Serve Man.
>
> In the meantime, you might want to amuse yourself by asking "Steve" if
> he knows of any Canadians who have been kicked out for engaging in
> politics.
> --
Something tells me he doesn't really know very many people. He's too
busy trying to dig up dirt on us.
You know, for a couple of losers, he sure is obsessed with us, huh?
3707 Dead
Jews! Feh! We OWN the Jews!
>
>>
>> But fear us not, earthling, for we are here To Serve Man.
>>
>> In the meantime, you might want to amuse yourself by asking "Steve" if
>> he knows of any Canadians who have been kicked out for engaging in
>> politics.
>> --
>
>Something tells me he doesn't really know very many people. He's too
>busy trying to dig up dirt on us.
>
>You know, for a couple of losers, he sure is obsessed with us, huh?
Yeah, I know, him being rich and powerful and a man of consequence,
and us being just secretaries or something.
Maybe Canadians beat him up on his way home from practice and stole
his violin when he was a kid.
milt....@gmail.com
> private citizen with the First Amendment
Which I never said would happen.
I said I would take him to a state court, and ask a judge to make him
stop. It would be based on the First Amendment, because of where I
was. The nexus of the First Amendment basis for the suit would be the
public street, not the idiot who ran me off, you dope. Ironically,
that's what EVERY SINGLE case you cited said, as well.
>
> > Skokie is a great
> >example. The judge didn't just stop at ordering the city to issue the
> >permit; he forced them to provide protection. Get it yet?
>
> Well, first of all, no federal judge made such an order,Milt.. and
> secondly, it was made because a pre-existing law required that to go
> along with the permit to march, not because the First Amendment
> required it..
Better read the decision again. They ruled several (4 or 6?)
ordinances unconstitutional, including a requirement that the Nazis
provide $350,000 in insurance coverage. read the discussion of that
for a clue.
>
> >> but the fact
> >> is, as anyone who could actually understand the ruling could easily
> >> see, is that the First Amendment issues had nothing to do with
> >> providing protection nor did any decisions of any federal court.
>
> >Oh, really? Not even the part of the Skokie case that ordered the city
> >of Skokie to provide police protection for the Nazis? Or did you
> >choose not to read that part of the case?
>
> See above.... and if you disagree and want to argue that it was a
> requirement of the First Amendment, and so ruled by a federal judge,
> start by presenting documentation instead of your usual "yes it was."
It's in the case. Have you not read the case? Have you been telling me
what the case said for three years without even having read it?
>
> Of course you can't do that....
>
> >> >While you're at it, why don't you tell us what sort of "US political
> >> >involvement" would cause a Canadian to be deported?
>
> >> The sort of activities that the Secretary of State has reasonable
> >> ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign
> >> policy consequences for the United States is deportable," as the law
> >> states.
>
> >Uh huh. IOW, you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think
> >it's possible to "get involved in US politics" to the point that such
> >a thing is possible?
>
> Obviously, or there wouldn't be a law about t....
The law doesn't cover "involvement in US politics," you jackass. What
activity involved with US politics" would qualify as creating a danger
to our foreign policy? Surely you should be able to give some
examples...
>
> >Or would you have to do something that would take
> >you out of the realm of US politics and into something, say, seditious
> >or treasonous?
>
> Milt, if that was the case, the laws relating to sedition
> and treason would cover it and they wouldn't need the one I cited..
Oh, like no laws on the books overlap, ever...
So if not sedition, then what other activities would be covered?
Spying, perhaps? is spying a part of US political involvement?
>
> >> >You don't understand what you read, even after someone who's consulted
> >> >with experts explains it to you for three years, yet you make the
> >> >above claim...
>
> >> <LOL> There goesMilttrying to pass himself off as being
> >> knowledgable about the law....
>
> >You really don't get irony, do you?
>
> >YOU are the one who cited the law as an example of proof that Zepp
> >could somehow be deported if he became "too involved in US politics."
> >I'm just saying, the law says nothing of the kind. Of course, if you'd
> >like to explain exactly what someone getting involved in US politics
> >could do that would qualify under that law, then let's have it.
>
> <LOL> The law says that an alien, like Zepp, can be deported if his
> actions or presence endangers our foreign policies....
And you used that to justify your ridiculous statement that Zepp can't
afford to be "too involved" in US politics. You must have had an
activity or two in mind. or were you just looking for a quick cite to
make yourself look smart?
It didn't work, because the above law does NOT apply to political
involvement. It would require something decidedly extra-political.
> That's all I
> need to say to document my statement unless you really want to argue
> that nothing related to foreign policy falls under the definition of
> politics...
Of course, I'm arguing pretty much the opposite. I'm saying that no US
political involvement would qualify under that law. Handing over
secrets, outing CIA agents, spying, representing foreign governments
and undermining US foreign policy... those do not connote "involvement
in US politics," anymore than running across the field naked at the
Super Bowl constitutes "involvement in the game."
>
> Face it,Milt, all you're trying to do with all these demands for me
> to take my statement to a higher level is just an attempt for you to
> try to bury your stupid mistake in bluster..
Mine? I'm not the one who cited the law. I'm not asking for a higher
level. I'm asking you to cite for us examples of "activities" that
Zepp might be involved in that would fall under that law.
>
> You screwed up. live with it.
Awww... if that's not the greatest irony of all. I didn't cite the
law; you did.
>
> >> and this after his being repeatedly
> >> slapped for his stupid, illogical claims like : "The US Constitution
> >> is also state law,"
>
> >And again... you have no clue how stupid you are, do you? Of COURSE
> >the US Constitution is state law! You moron! Do you even know what it
> >means to "ratify" something?
> >> --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d162eaa4668...
>
> <LOL> The US Constitution is federal law and only federal law, you
> dimwit and the fact that the states have to ratify it doesn't make it
> state law....
Yeah, I kind of overstated that. Only the Bill of Rights is actually
state law.
>
> Your statement above is another keeper, BTW...
You're lucky I don't keep any of yours. Seriously, three years of
kicking your ass on the First Amendment, and you still don't even
bother to crack open a book to find out the truth.
milt....@gmail.com
Actually, you're too stupid to even realize that the fact that you
can't come up with examples demonstrates that it doesn't support it at
all.
>
> >You cited the law, now apply it. And don't just quote back the law to
> >me; I know what it says. I want you to give us examples.
>
> Nope, sorry, not necessary. The existence of a law that clearly
> states that an alien can get deported for actions that involve foreign
> policy is in itself, adequate documentation for my simple statement
> that an alien can get deported for getting too involved in U.S.
> politics.
Hmmm...
U.S. Code
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5.
In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
States is deportable.
Doesn't say that here... It specifically states that it must have an
"adverse effect" on foreign policy.
BTW, wanna see the above in context?
(4) Security and related grounds
(A) In general
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after
admission engages in -
(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States
relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any
law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods,
technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public
safety or national security, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition
to,
or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United
States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is deportable.
(B) Terrorist activities
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after
admission engages in any terrorist activity (as defined in
section 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv) of this title) is deportable.
(C) Foreign policy
(i) In general
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe
would
have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences
for the United States is deportable.
(ii) Exceptions
The exceptions described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of
section 1182(a)(3)(C) of this title shall apply to
deportability under clause (i) in the same manner as they
apply to inadmissibility under section 1182(a)(3)(C)(i) of
this title.
(D) Participated in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing
Any alien described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section
1182(a)(3)(E) of this title is deportable.
It's a security statute, Canyon. Please explain for all of us how
anything security-related would fall under the category of "too
involved in US politics." It's pretty clear that someone would have to
do something outside the political realm.
Now, you must have some examples of the type of "activities" you
imagine Zepp to have been involved with that would constitute "adverse
foreign policy consequences," so please, enlighten us.
> <LOL> If you want to try to ague that foreign policy doesn't fall
> under "politics," go ahead, but that's the only thread you have
> here...
Involvement in US politics would NEVER have "adverse foreign policy
consequences." Note that you keep on leaving out that word "adverse."
>
> >> PresentMiltwith a cite that is in total disagreement with his
> >> position and he'll simply claim that it supports, not disagrees, with
> >> him....
>
> >Again with the irony. You produced a cite. if it doesn't disagree with
> >my "position," you should be able to give me an example. Tell me how a
> >Canadian being politically active can be deported under that law,
> >short of sedition or treason.
>
> By political actions involving foreign policy...
See how you twist things? You again left out the "potentially serious
adverse" designation again. How could US political activism have
"potentially serious adverse foreign policy effects"?
> as the law so it
> states.
It actually doesn't state that. Which are you; too dumb to know what
the law says, or just a liar?
> I'm not going to take it to another level,Milt, because I
> don't need to. I already documented my statement by citing a law that
> applies to actions that can get an alien deported, and since the law
> has to do with foreign policy, those actions would involve politics..
> I don't need to show examples of those actions.
No, you implied that the above law was relevant to Zepp's political
activity in some way. I'm reading that law over and over, and can't
find anything that would apply to being "too involved in US politics."
Given the heading of the actual statute, it is obviously meant to be a
security statute.You know, because the heading says so. So, what sort
of political activities constitute a security threat, as described
above?
>
> >> This was the case where I cited about twenty cites declaring that the
> >> First Amendment and/or the entire Bill of Rights only applies to
> >> government actions andMiltclaimed they supported his claim that:
> >> "The Bill of Rights not only protects you from government excess, but
> >> also requires the government to protect you from people who would
> >> violate your rights under them."
> >> --Milt.Shook...http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/215df19b874...
>
> >That could be because they did.
>
> All you need to do is prove it... and, of course, you can't.
I don't have to. People can read the cases you cited.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:57:09 GMT, 3700 Dead
>
Gawd... no sense of humor... no sense of irony...
No wonder he's such a prick.
>
> >Of course, "Steve" can usually spell words correctly and even use
> >proper grammar, so perhaps not. Putsch could never manage that.
>
> >But they're both dishonest, crazy and obsessed.
>
> >You know, there's millions of Canadians in America. We control your
> >entertainment, we control much of your television. We control your
> >minds.
>
> >But fear us not, earthling, for we are here To Serve Man.
>
> >In the meantime, you might want to amuse yourself by asking "Steve" if
> >he knows of any Canadians who have been kicked out for engaging in
> >politics.
>
> So why is Zepp afraid to ask me himself????????
Okay, I'm asking you. Name one foreign-born person EVER who has been
kicked out for being involved in US politics.
milt....@gmail.com
Musta been a Canadian girl... kind of like Karl Rove, huh?
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:25:01 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 21, 6:31 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:37:48 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
<mercy snip>
> NoMilt, I'm not here to analyse the law for you, only to cite it as
> documentation of my earlier statement.
I see. You cited it, but you can't explain how it applies.
>
> >> >think it makes sense), then please explain to all of us what Zepp
> >> >might possibly do to get "involved too deeply" in US politics that
> >> >might cause him to be deported.
>
> >> Well, for one thing, he can't contribute money... of course, Zepp
> >> doesn't have any money....
>
> >No, I asked you to tell us what he might possibly DO that might
> >qualify. You cited the law; please explain what someone could do that
> >would constitute "involvement in US politics" that would get a
> >Canadian deported.
>
> <LOL> Miltgot caught totally misreading my statement and now he
> tries to spin it away with this pathetic muddying of the waters.
I didn't misread your statement. YOU misread the law. It would never
apply to political activity. it would apply to people who present a
security risk to the United States.
>
> >> >Or do you think sedition and treason
> >> >are political acts? Because that's about where the line is drawn. He
> >> >would have to break the law to be deported.
>
> >> <LOL> DUH!
>
> >> ...and I even cited a law he'd be deported for breaking....
>
> >Okay, so what "activities" would qualify, Mr. Legal Expert.
>
> <shrug>
You have no idea. Well, there you go. Proof that you have no idea what
you're talking about.
milt....@gmail.com
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:39:19 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 21, 10:15 am, 3700 Dead <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> mistakes, he tries to establish arguments to the side of what was
> so bad, and he's desperate to lead the argument away from the fact
> that he screwed up and argued against something I never said...
More irony. I'm so shocked.
>
> It would have been so much easier for him to simply say that he
> misread my statement, but he's afraid that will show that he is led
> around by his overactive imagination...
I didn't misread anything. Getting involved in US politics is not
against the law, and the statute you cited definitely refers to
lawbreakers, or those who would undermine the United States' foreign
policy mission.
Involvement in US politics is considered speech, and is expressly
protected by the First Amendment.
Oh, wait; you still don't even get the First Amendment after 3 years
of schooling...
BTW, here's the exchange: though I snipped some of the above, I left
this:
Me: No one can be deported for speaking out about US politics, as long
as their speech doesn't advocate the overthrow of the government. That
you think it is, or should be says a lot about you...
>
Canyon: Actually, it says that I know what I talking about and that
Shook, as usual, doesn't have a clue.... See below:
U.S. Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 5.
In general An alien whose presence or activities in the United States
the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United
States is deportable.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/
usc_sec_08_00001227--...
>
<LOL> ...and Shook likes to portray himself as knowledgable about
law.....
-----------------------------------
Hmmm... funny... you keep claiming the opposite in all of your posts.
You keep claiming I brought up speech in response to your posting of
this law. Seems that it was quite the opposite.
Again; explain what the above law has to do with a foreigner speaking
out politically in the United States, as long as the speech doesn't
advocate for the overthrow of the government.
How's that foot taste? need some Tabasco?
Steve
Ahhh, Milt, you guys are just one of my hobbies... I like seeing
leftists squirm.. especially bigmouthed leftists
...and thanks for the feedback...