VIVA JANET RENO
gazz...@my-deja.com
GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gazz...@my-deja.com
The Traveler
gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
either.
--
Support your local Search and Rescue Unit - get lost.
hors concours
Jim
> Before you buy.
God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
Vince Foster, etc. Jim
Don Sterner
>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
was suspended while we weren't watching.
The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
Jafo
>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>either.
In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
much to say about it during all those months.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Professor Vonroach
>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Some call multiple message repetition - trolling.
I suspect if you troll with Reno for bait, you will only catch a few
crabs - they bite best on rotten meat.
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>In article <8dt2k1$q3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>Finally, some cojones.
Really? Do you think Reno is a transvestite? Certainly is a
possibility.
Albert Nurick
news:390965db...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:19:00 GMT, hors concours <edix...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8dt2k1$q3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >>
> >Finally, some cojones.
>
> Really? Do you think Reno is a transvestite? Certainly is a
> possibility.
Mr. Vonroach, why do you sexualize so many threads? Homosexuality
and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
that?
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
hors concours
<A72EC7221DD95A3B.358DC6E4...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Albert Nurick" <alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
> Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:390965db...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <8dt2k1$q3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> > >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> > >>
> > >Finally, some cojones.
> >
> > Really? Do you think Reno is a transvestite? Certainly is a
> > possibility.
>
> Mr. Vonroach, why do you sexualize so many threads? Homosexuality
> and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
> that?
>
dciR...@cheetah.net
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
>Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>was suspended while we weren't watching.
>
A warrant signed by a judge based
on probable cause that a crime has
taken place and the evidence relating
to that case can be found at a location
described in the warrant. An arrest
warrant indicates based on probable
cause that a person as described in
declaration of the warrant will be
found at a location. The warrant that
describes a person as being wanted in
regard to a crime is good no matter where
the wanted person is as long as the
police have reasonable cause to believe
that person is in a specific location.
What the federal agents did was retrieve
a person from a location under the order
of the Attorney General. The order is
the warrant, a writ ordering such action.
There was no crime being committed by
the in-law relatives of Elian.
DCI
Zippy Komkwat
I don't remember Waco ... just a Wack-o and a bunch of armed felons who
endangered, and ultimately sacrificed, their own families (including young
children) for no better reason than the insatiable pride of one sad,
demented, little man whos name I can't even recall.
When all the cute little lemmings walk off the edge of the cliff ... do you
blame gravity for their death, the cliff, or their own thoughtlessness? We
haven't managed to find a way to save all those stupid lemmings yet, but we
do at least try.
Be a little more careful when pointing your finger of blame around the room
please.
Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:3901FF...@swbell.net...
gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
Vince Foster, etc. Jim
PB
----------
In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
Troll alert....
Just what does this have to do with California?
Regards,
PB
dciR...@cheetah.net
>As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>
>>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>>either.
>
>In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>much to say about it during all those months.
In regard to Bill Clinton, regardless
of how brilliant some folks consider
him in his rise to the presidency,
reality and responsibility has a way
of muting him at times of crises.
Had he used more discretion in his
private dealings with women, sought
counsel rather than approval of those
who possess wisdom, lent himself toward
achieving the practical rather than the
grandiose, his current lack of comment
on this international fiasco would have
been appreciated. Instead it shows him
for what he really is, a grand standing
typical run of the mill charlatan who
happened to be elected without a thorough
scrutiny of his character. His legacy
will be marked by a weakness of the flesh.
Recall the character in the movie "On
the Waterfront whines, "I could have been
somebody,. I could have been the champ."
The halo effect of his indiscretions will
reflect upon those in his administration,
even though many were of high standing
character and principles. Shame on him.
DCI
dciR...@cheetah.net
>
>
>----------
>In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>Troll alert....
>
>Just what does this have to do with California?
>
>Regards,
>PB
California happens to be part of
the United States of America. Bill
Clinton might end up in Hollywood
doing he routine of creating images.
DCI
PB
----------
In article <3901FF...@swbell.net>, Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote:
> gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
> Vince Foster, etc.
Well, why this is off topic for alt.california, there are a few questions
that should be asked.
What court issued the warrent for federal government thugs to enter a
private home?
Why couldn't Butch Waco and the Big Cigar go to a court, and request
that the court give them a warrant?
Furthermore, there is no way a "no knock" warrant can be given, unless
there is probable cause that there is evidence, such as drugs, that
a "no knock" warrant can be issued.
Otherwise, the law requires a policy of "knock and talk," not masked
goons pointing submachine guns at little kids.
Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
http://www.newsmax.com
It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
Take a look at the original picture for yourself. Then decide for
yourself whether you wish to believe what you see, or what the
government and mass media tell you.
The fisherman who rescued the kid, and his holding him has his hands
in clear sight.
I was not much older than Elian when I was taught:
1: Assume that every gun is loaded.
2: Never point a gun at anything or anyone that you
do not wish to see being killed. If you are so foolish
to claim that the gun is not loaded, refer to the first rule.
3: Always beware of the background. A bullet can hit its intended
target, yet still have unintended consequences.
4: Never place your finger within the trigger-guard, unless you are
prepared to shoot.
As the mass media continues its spin on this event, why not copy
the photo shown on http://www.newsmax.com.
It is one, of a series of seven. Showing one photo of this series,
is certainly no "proof" of Attorney General "Butch Waco's" lies,
even if she has the word of the "Big Cigar," who has been cited for
perjury to back her up.
While the mass media will show the other photos, the
truth... is available. The government is lying.
It almost reminds me of what people would have thought if
when JFK was shot, the full "Zapruder film" was released,
without the "missing" frames.
Regards,
PB
KSquare1
>> possibility.
>
>Mr. Vonroach, why do you sexualize so many threads? Homosexuality
>and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
>that?
>
>Albert Nurick
>alb...@nurick.com
Hmm. Well, I'm trying to figure out why Prof V. would switch over to
transvestitism here considering that if there are any rumors about Reno it is
that she is homosexual. I grew up in South Florida where Reno is from and it
seemed to be the topic du jour whenever she'd come speak at a school I
attended. However, I still fail to see any relevancy between Ms. Reno's sexual
orientation and what just happened in Miami...
Kevin K.
Houston, TX
ksqu...@aol.com
KSquare1
I'm just going to take (apparently) the only contrary viewpoint in this
newsgroup and say what Reno did was preposterous.
I've been watching Janet since I was a kid in Florida and she has a knack for
trying to do "the right thing", or the thing that the public supports, but
doing it in such a bungling or horrific way that it ends up leaving a terrible
taste in most people's mouths.
Surely I can't even conceive of the emergency situation here where it was
necessary for Reno to use uniformed, heavily armed, helmeted troopers (I'd like
to use Giuliani's term "stormtroopers") to gas all the reporters and everyone
around, break into the house from every angle, hold everyone inside at gunpoint
and threaten them, and then grab the kid out of the arms of the fellow who
saved his life and throw him in a van...
I'm not saying the boy should not be reunited with his father. I just can't
believe that there was not a better way to do this than as it was actually
done. I cringe everytime the video and photos come on CNN again.
I am equivocal on the issue of sending Elian back to Cuba. On one hand, I
don't think it sets good precedent to keep a child away from his father if the
father is competent, merely because the father lives in a country whose
policies we disagree with. Other countries could refuse to return our children
in the same manner (although it is worthy of note none of our children or their
parents are in boats trying to escape to Cuba). However, mitigating this
viewpoint are two facts worth considering:
1) The father is unlikely to be able to speak his mind freely here. Castro
could be threatening the lives of every single one of his relatives should he
defect or express any wishes to either have his son stay in America, or defect
to America himself and join his son here..
2) In Cuba, "parents" do not have the same role as they do in the U.S.
According to the Cuban Constitution (translated), "all children are the
property of the Cuban state". Parents in Cuba are not always allowed to
decide what is best for their children. Nor do they have any control over
when they will or will not have their children in their posession. One thing
is guaranteed - the child will be snached away from Juan Miguel for two years
to go through Young Communist training, which every child in Cuba must leave
home to go through..
Yours, Kevin K.
Houston, TX
ksqu...@aol.com
Jafo
>PB wrote:
>>Troll alert....
>>
>>Just what does this have to do with California?
> California happens to be part of
> the United States of America. Bill
> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
> doing he routine of creating images.
Quite likely. He admires the environment and he already has the
routine of the casting couch down pat. And nobody seriously thinks
that he's going to be a docile househusband in New York.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Professor Vonroach
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
>Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>was suspended while we weren't watching.
That was the schedule the nazis followed in rounding up oven bound
jews. Odd that so many jews seem to be on Reno's side in the matter.
How short our memories are.
>
>The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
>seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
In my opinion the boy is in exactly the wrong place on his way back to
the concentration camp with Clinton's blessing.
Professor Vonroach
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:04:07 -0500, Don Sterner <dste...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>>
>>Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>>the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>>was suspended while we weren't watching.
>>
>
> A warrant signed by a judge based
> on probable cause that a crime has
> taken place and the evidence relating
> to that case can be found at a location
> described in the warrant. An arrest
> warrant indicates based on probable
> cause that a person as described in
> declaration of the warrant will be
> found at a location. The warrant that
> describes a person as being wanted in
> regard to a crime is good no matter where
> the wanted person is as long as the
> police have reasonable cause to believe
> that person is in a specific location.
>
> What the federal agents did was retrieve
> a person from a location under the order
> of the Attorney General. The order is
> the warrant, a writ ordering such action.
Yes in times such as these with lawyers running amok why be troubled
with little things like warrants, the Constitution, and the Federal
Appeals Court. Mere trifles, that all. One wasn't obtained at Waco.
Aviator
<wes...@fdn.com> wrote in message news:3938acdb....@news.fdn.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:39:05 -0700, Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> -- wrote:
>
> >As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
> >
> >>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >
> >>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
> >>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> >>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
> >>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> >>either.
> >
> >In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
> >much to say about it during all those months.
>
> or frantically trying to cover his ass.
Actually, what I find highly amusing is the reaction of certain hysterical
right wing polititians. They whine continually about the administration not
upholding the law, yet when they do uphold it, and act decicisely, they
whine anyway.
Go figure
>
>
> >
> >--
> >Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
>
Professor Vonroach
<Zip...@Your.House> wrote:
>
>I don't remember Waco ... just a Wack-o and a bunch of armed felons who
>endangered, and ultimately sacrificed, their own families (including young
>children) for no better reason than the insatiable pride of one sad,
>demented, little man whos name I can't even recall.
Gee Zipper, I'm glad thing like this don't trouble you. You'll
probably really enjoy the story of the round-up in Jews in Germany who
were hustled off to their ultimate fate in concentration camps.
>When all the cute little lemmings walk off the edge of the cliff ... do you
>blame gravity for their death, the cliff, or their own thoughtlessness? We
>haven't managed to find a way to save all those stupid lemmings yet, but we
>do at least try.
So drovers in the form of federal INS agents armed with automatic
weapons, breaking stuff up, without a warrant don't disturb you. The
same incompetent INS agents that we pay not to protect our borders.
>Be a little more careful when pointing your finger of blame around the room
>please.
OK, I point mine at the tyrant Clinton, his lawyer running dogs
including Reno, and the dull career bureaucrats of the INS.
>Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:3901FF...@swbell.net...
>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
>Vince Foster, etc. Jim
>
Aviator
<dciR...@cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:3902aa2...@news1.cheetah.net...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:39:05 -0700, Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote:
>
> >As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
> >
> >>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >
> >>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
> >>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> >>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
> >>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> >>either.
> >
> >In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
> >much to say about it during all those months.
>
>
Shame on Nixon [criminal]
Shame on Reagan [liar]
Shame on Bush [liar]
( Extensive details provided on request )
>
> DCI
Professor Vonroach
>As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>
>>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>>either.
>
>In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>much to say about it during all those months.
Speaking through his lawyer and his Attorney General he had volumes to
say.
Professor Vonroach
>
>
>----------
>In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>Troll alert....
>
>Just what does this have to do with California?
>
>Regards,
>PB
I guess as much as it has to do with Texas - Just Clinton-style canned
corn from the shyster's den in DC.
Professor Vonroach
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:39:05 -0700, Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> -- wrote:
>
>>As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>>> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>>>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>>>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>>>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>>>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>>>either.
>>
>>In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>>much to say about it during all those months.
>
>Indeed! It was difficult to tell whether he was just sitting on his hands
>or frantically trying to cover his ass.
>
We should be so lucky that he would cover his mouth with his hands
until he is relieved of his job.
>>
>>--
>>Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Toby
<blac...@asphalt.com> wrote:
> gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> > GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
> Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
> decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
> Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> either.
>
Clinton has nothing to lose at this point, anyway.
Toby
Professor Vonroach
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0700, "PB" <pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>>Troll alert....
>>
>>Just what does this have to do with California?
>>
>>Regards,
>>PB
>
> California happens to be part of
> the United States of America. Bill
> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
> doing he routine of creating images.
>
> DCI
The sooner the better, and take Reno, Craig, Carvill and his other
shyster running dogs with him.
Aviator
"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> was suspended while we weren't watching.
Now where did you see that no warrant was issued??
>
> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts decisively, in
a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen to
this crap.
By the way, you did see the report showing that the FBI did not, in fact
fire into the compound as alleged by the anti-government lobby, didn't you??
I agree they screwed up with Ruby Ridge, but it looks like you lose the Waco
argument
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:390965db...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:19:00 GMT, hors concours <edix...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8dt2k1$q3m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>> >>
>> >Finally, some cojones.
>>
>> Really? Do you think Reno is a transvestite? Certainly is a
>> possibility.
>
>Mr. Vonroach, why do you sexualize so many threads? Homosexuality
>and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
>that?
Someone attributed `cojones' to Janet Reno. She usually wears a dress
when she wants sympathy. Transvestites are the only people with
`cojones' that slouch around in dresses.
Toby
wrote:
> There was no crime being committed by
> the in-law relatives of Elian.
>
> DCI
other than Obstructing Governmental Administration.
Toby (waiting for the charges to be filed)
Professor Vonroach
>>> Really? Do you think Reno is a transvestite? Certainly is a
>>> possibility.
>>
>>Mr. Vonroach, why do you sexualize so many threads? Homosexuality
>>and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
>>that?
>>
>>--
>>Albert Nurick
>>alb...@nurick.com
>
>Hmm. Well, I'm trying to figure out why Prof V. would switch over to
>transvestitism here considering that if there are any rumors about Reno it is
>that she is homosexual. I grew up in South Florida where Reno is from and it
>seemed to be the topic du jour whenever she'd come speak at a school I
>attended. However, I still fail to see any relevancy between Ms. Reno's sexual
>orientation and what just happened in Miami...
>
>Kevin K.
>Houston, TX
>ksqu...@aol.com
Kevin are you familiar with Tex-mex slang. It was asserted that Ms.
Reno had cojones, and I was just noting when it wants sympathy it
wears a dress and shakes violently with an alleged palsy.
You seem better acquainted with Reno than I. Are you alleging that it
is homosexual? Doesn't she have any family? Why do you jump to that
conclusion?
Toby
<pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> > GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> Troll alert....
>
> Just what does this have to do with California?
>
> Regards,
> PB
And it affects New York and Houston differently?
Hardly a troll alert. It's (erroneously) become an international issue.
Toby
Toby
<pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> http://www.newsmax.com
>
> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
You better put your glasses back on. Look at that index finger again.
Toby
Aviator
>
> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> http://www.newsmax.com
>
> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
It does?? You want to lay off the Schlitz, buddy. I see a trigger finger,
fully extended, OUTSIDE the trigger guard, and the weapon pointed
approximately 15 degrees to the right
Funny how a whining hypocrite like you bitches about "off topic" posting,
and then proceeds to go into a long discussion on the very same topic.
Go piss up a rope
MWSmith
The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
away from the trigger.
Mike Smith
MWSmith
>
>"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>
>Now where did you see that no warrant was issued??
Try ABCNBCCBSFOX, the deputy attorney general, and the Drudge Report
(Drudge was first, of course).
>>
>> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
>> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
>
>Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts decisively, in
>a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen to
>this crap.
>
The administration acted like they needed to appease Castro. There was
NO REASON to enter that house at that time. The only thing Clintoon
didn't count on was that photographer being there to record the
warrantless invasion (per the deputy attorney general on NBC & ABC
this morning).
Mike Smith
dot
PB wrote:
> ----------
> In article <3901FF...@swbell.net>, Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> > God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
> > Vince Foster, etc.
>
> Well, why this is off topic for alt.california, there are a few questions
> that should be asked.
>
> What court issued the warrent for federal government thugs to enter a
> private home?
A search warrant was issued at 6:00 PM for that residence. Next?
>
>
> Why couldn't Butch Waco and the Big Cigar go to a court, and request
> that the court give them a warrant?
Got one.
>
>
> Furthermore, there is no way a "no knock" warrant can be given, unless
> there is probable cause that there is evidence, such as drugs, that
> a "no knock" warrant can be issued.
They knocked. You have proof that they didn't? Thought not.
>
>
> Otherwise, the law requires a policy of "knock and talk," not masked
> goons pointing submachine guns at little kids.
Hummm, anti law enforcement are you?
>
>
> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> http://www.newsmax.com
>
> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
>
> Take a look at the original picture for yourself. Then decide for
> yourself whether you wish to believe what you see, or what the
> government and mass media tell you.
>
> The fisherman who rescued the kid, and his holding him has his hands
> in clear sight.
Idiot! You see what you want to see. The gun isn't pointed at anyone. And
the finger is not in the trigger guard.
>
>
> I was not much older than Elian when I was taught:
>
> 1: Assume that every gun is loaded.
>
> 2: Never point a gun at anything or anyone that you
> do not wish to see being killed. If you are so foolish
> to claim that the gun is not loaded, refer to the first rule.
>
> 3: Always beware of the background. A bullet can hit its intended
> target, yet still have unintended consequences.
>
> 4: Never place your finger within the trigger-guard, unless you are
> prepared to shoot.
>
> As the mass media continues its spin on this event, why not copy
> the photo shown on http://www.newsmax.com.
>
> It is one, of a series of seven. Showing one photo of this series,
> is certainly no "proof" of Attorney General "Butch Waco's" lies,
> even if she has the word of the "Big Cigar," who has been cited for
> perjury to back her up.
>
> While the mass media will show the other photos, the
> truth... is available. The government is lying.
>
> It almost reminds me of what people would have thought if
> when JFK was shot, the full "Zapruder film" was released,
> without the "missing" frames.
>
> Regards,
> PB
Your proof only proves what everyone is saying, that the gun was not pointed
at the boy, or at anyone else.
dot
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>
> >gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> > Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
> >Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
> >decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> >things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
> >Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> >either.
>
> In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
> much to say about it during all those months.
>
> --
> Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Humm, I recall him saying, time after time, that the decision was properly
that of the Justice Department and the courts, and that he was not going
to politicize the issue by speaking out about it. You feel his proper
roll should have been, what?
dot
Aviator wrote:
> <dciR...@cheetah.net> wrote in message
> news:3902aa2...@news1.cheetah.net...
> > On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:39:05 -0700, Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote:
> >
> > >As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
> > >
> > >>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> > >>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> > >
> > >> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
> > >>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
> > >>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> > >>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
> > >>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> > >>either.
> > >
> > >In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
> > >much to say about it during all those months.
> >
> >
Shame on dci [idoit!]
dot
Don Sterner wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> was suspended while we weren't watching.
A search warrent was issued at 6PM that night.Apparently you weren't
watching.
dot
dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:04:07 -0500, Don Sterner <dste...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >
> >
> >Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> >the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> >was suspended while we weren't watching.
> >
>
> A warrant signed by a judge based
> on probable cause that a crime has
> taken place and the evidence relating
> to that case can be found at a location
> described in the warrant. An arrest
> warrant indicates based on probable
> cause that a person as described in
> declaration of the warrant will be
> found at a location. The warrant that
> describes a person as being wanted in
> regard to a crime is good no matter where
> the wanted person is as long as the
> police have reasonable cause to believe
> that person is in a specific location.
>
> What the federal agents did was retrieve
> a person from a location under the order
> of the Attorney General. The order is
> the warrant, a writ ordering such action.
>
> There was no crime being committed by
> the in-law relatives of Elian.
>
> DCI
Well, ol'foot-in-the-mouth, the INS Commissionaire stated in an interview
this morning that a Federal Magistrate issued a search warrant at 6 PM the
night before the raid. So.........?
dot
Professor Vonroach wrote:
> Yes in times such as these with lawyers running amok why be troubled
> with little things like warrants, the Constitution, and the Federal
> Appeals Court. Mere trifles, that all. One wasn't obtained at Waco.
Wrong! Twice.
dot
MWSmith wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:43:19 GMT, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
> >> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> >> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> >> was suspended while we weren't watching.
> >
> >Now where did you see that no warrant was issued??
>
> Try ABCNBCCBSFOX, the deputy attorney general, and the Drudge Report
> (Drudge was first, of course).
>
> >>
> >> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
> >> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
> >
> >Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts decisively, in
> >a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen to
> >this crap.
> >
> The administration acted like they needed to appease Castro. There was
> NO REASON to enter that house at that time. The only thing Clintoon
> didn't count on was that photographer being there to record the
> warrantless invasion (per the deputy attorney general on NBC & ABC
> this morning).
>
> Mike Smith
Ah, the depth of your insanity. Do you believe that a photographer just
wandered in there with all of those armed guys? They took him with them,
idiot!
dot
dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0700, "PB" <pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >----------
> >In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >
> >Troll alert....
> >
> >Just what does this have to do with California?
> >
> >Regards,
> >PB
>
> California happens to be part of
> the United States of America. Bill
> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
> doing he routine of creating images.
>
> DCI
Or he could teach you spelling and grammar. Meet him at the local
library.
dot
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
> >PB wrote:
> >>Troll alert....
> >>
> >>Just what does this have to do with California?
>
> > California happens to be part of
> > the United States of America. Bill
> > Clinton might end up in Hollywood
> > doing he routine of creating images.
>
> Quite likely. He admires the environment and he already has the
> routine of the casting couch down pat. And nobody seriously thinks
> that he's going to be a docile househusband in New York.
>
> --
> Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
At least he wont be picking leaves out of the swimming pool, thrown
there by the Secret Service to keep him busy, like Reagan does.Or
hiding out like Bush and Ford.
dot
MWSmith wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:08:14 GMT, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> >> http://www.newsmax.com
> >>
> >> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> >> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
> >
> >It does?? You want to lay off the Schlitz, buddy. I see a trigger finger,
> >fully extended, OUTSIDE the trigger guard, and the weapon pointed
> >approximately 15 degrees to the right
> >
> >Funny how a whining hypocrite like you bitches about "off topic" posting,
> >and then proceeds to go into a long discussion on the very same topic.
> >
> >Go piss up a rope
> >
> The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
> The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> away from the trigger.
>
> Mike Smith
Oh? I thought you said it was IN the trigger guard? And since the left arm
of the guy holding the gun is pointing at the arm of the man holding Elian,
and the gun is outside of both arms, you are wrong again. But then, you
originally said that the gun was pointed at the kid. What web we weave, when
first we try to deceive....
dciR...@cheetah.net
>In article <390283d...@news1.cheetah.net>, <dciR...@cheetah.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>> There was no crime being committed by
>> the in-law relatives of Elian.
>>
>> DCI
>
>other than Obstructing Governmental Administration.
>
>
>Toby (waiting for the charges to be filed)
You took the statement out of context
in regard to the notion that agents
entered the house without a warrant.
DCI
dciR...@cheetah.net
>As viewed from alt.california, dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>>PB wrote:
>>>Troll alert....
>>>
>>>Just what does this have to do with California?
>
>> California happens to be part of
>> the United States of America. Bill
>> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
>> doing he routine of creating images.
>
>Quite likely. He admires the environment and he already has the
>routine of the casting couch down pat. And nobody seriously thinks
>that he's going to be a docile househusband in New York.
He'll most likely become a horny old
bastard that attracts frustrated
suburban housewives trying to see if
what they say about BIll is true.
DCI
dciR...@cheetah.net
Vonroach) wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:01:56 GMT, dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0700, "PB" <pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>>
>>>Troll alert....
>>>
>>>Just what does this have to do with California?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>PB
>>
>> California happens to be part of
>> the United States of America. Bill
>> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
>> doing he routine of creating images.
>>
>> DCI
>The sooner the better, and take Reno, Craig, Carvill and his other
>shyster running dogs with him.
Professor,
Please! we have enough problems in
California.
DCI
Albert Nurick
news:20000423045050...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Hmm. Well, I'm trying to figure out why Prof V. would switch over to
> transvestitism here considering that if there are any rumors about Reno it
is
> that she is homosexual. I grew up in South Florida where Reno is from and
it
> seemed to be the topic du jour whenever she'd come speak at a school I
> attended. However, I still fail to see any relevancy between Ms. Reno's
sexual
> orientation and what just happened in Miami...
But then, you're not obsessed with what our friend would no doubt label as
"deviant sexuality". For someone who doesn't like these things, he sure
tries to change the topic of conversation to 'em on a frequent basis.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
Albert Nurick
> >and now transvestitism seem to be very much on your mind. Why is
> >that?
> Someone attributed `cojones' to Janet Reno. She usually wears a dress
> when she wants sympathy. Transvestites are the only people with
> `cojones' that slouch around in dresses.
If you're familiar with the vernacular, it indicates that the individual
has a strong will. I seriously doubt that the original poster was
saying anything beyond this, yet it caused you to titter in glee as you
had a chance to sexualize yet another thread.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@nurick.com
dciR...@cheetah.net
>
>
>dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:04:07 -0500, Don Sterner <dste...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >>THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >>GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>> >
>> >
>> >Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> >the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> >was suspended while we weren't watching.
>> >
>>
>> A warrant signed by a judge based
>> on probable cause that a crime has
>> taken place and the evidence relating
>> to that case can be found at a location
>> described in the warrant. An arrest
>> warrant indicates based on probable
>> cause that a person as described in
>> declaration of the warrant will be
>> found at a location. The warrant that
>> describes a person as being wanted in
>> regard to a crime is good no matter where
>> the wanted person is as long as the
>> police have reasonable cause to believe
>> that person is in a specific location.
>>
>> What the federal agents did was retrieve
>> a person from a location under the order
>> of the Attorney General. The order is
>> the warrant, a writ ordering such action.
>>
>> There was no crime being committed by
>> the in-law relatives of Elian.
>>
>> DCI
>
>Well, ol'foot-in-the-mouth, the INS Commissionaire stated in an interview
>this morning that a Federal Magistrate issued a search warrant at 6 PM the
>night before the raid. So.........?
Read carefully, the magistrate
gave the attorney general the
go ahead, as in agreed to let
her take the actions. Elian was
not delivered to the magistrate.
He was taken into custody by the
agents assigned.
DCI
MWSmith
>
>
>MWSmith wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:43:19 GMT, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
>> >> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> >> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> >> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>> >
>> >Now where did you see that no warrant was issued??
>>
>> Try ABCNBCCBSFOX, the deputy attorney general, and the Drudge Report
>> (Drudge was first, of course).
>>
>> >>
>> >> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
>> >> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
>> >
>> >Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts decisively, in
>> >a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen to
>> >this crap.
>> >
>> The administration acted like they needed to appease Castro. There was
>> NO REASON to enter that house at that time. The only thing Clintoon
>> didn't count on was that photographer being there to record the
>> warrantless invasion (per the deputy attorney general on NBC & ABC
>> this morning).
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
>Ah, the depth of your insanity. Do you believe that a photographer just
>wandered in there with all of those armed guys? They took him with them,
>idiot!
Are you truly that stupid? That clueless? Did you read a damn thing
about the photographer and how he entered the house?
Pull your head out of clintoon's ass and read about the photographer
before you post your ridiculous statements.
Mike Smith
MWSmith
OK, idiot.
Please cite where I stated that his finger was on the trigger. Please
cite where I stated that the gun was pointed at the kid. (Yes, this is
a reading comprehension skill test. I expect that you will fail it.
Hint: count the number of > in this statement)
Mike Smith
dciR...@cheetah.net
>
>
>dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0700, "PB" <pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >----------
>> >In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>> >
>> >Troll alert....
>> >
>> >Just what does this have to do with California?
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >PB
>>
>> California happens to be part of
>> the United States of America. Bill
>> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
>> doing he routine of creating images.
>>
>> DCI
>
>Or he could teach you spelling and grammar. Meet him at the local
>library.
Thank you for the suggestion;
however, you should be able to
differentiate a typo from poor
grammar. "Bill Clinton might end
up doing `THE' routine of creating
images."
I ain't got to show you no stinking
grammar . . .
Enjoy this Easter day, Dot.
DCI
Jafo
> The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
Really? Holovision? Tell me, Mike, where do you get one of those
3-D computer monitors and how much do they cost?
>The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
>away from the trigger.
Where would you suggest he keep his finger? Should he have broken
it off and stuck it up his nostril?
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Jafo
>wes...@fdn.com wrote:
>>Jafo wrote:
>>>As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>>>> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>>>>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>>>>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>>>>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>>>>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>>>>either.
>>>In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>>>much to say about it during all those months.
>>Indeed! It was difficult to tell whether he was just sitting on his hands
>>or frantically trying to cover his ass.
>We should be so lucky that he would cover his mouth with his hands
>until he is relieved of his job.
At this late stage of his Presidency he's probably more worried that
you'd cover the mouths of his favorite interns.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Jafo
>Aviator wrote:
>> <dciR...@cheetah.net> wrote...
Er, Avi, in your zeal to deflect the issue by mentioning all of those
long-gone guys you forgot to cast "Shame on Clinton [habitual liar]".
He is, after all, the current occupant of the White House.
Doubtless an oversight on your part... :)
> Shame on dci [idoit!]
I hate to appear to be doing a spell flame, dot, but the misspelling
of "idiot" says more about you than it does about dci. :)
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Jafo
>Don Sterner wrote:
>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>A search warrent was issued at 6PM that night.Apparently you weren't
>watching.
Maybe Don needs to call the Cable Guy.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Aviator
"dot" <dot...@dot.com> wrote in message news:39032749...@dot.com...
>
>
> Aviator wrote:
>
> > <dciR...@cheetah.net> wrote in message
> > news:3902aa2...@news1.cheetah.net...
> > >
> > > >As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> > > >>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> > > >
in
> > > >>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take
the
> > > >>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
> > > >>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the
scapegoat.
> > > >>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
> > > >>either.
> > > >
> > > >In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
> > > >much to say about it during all those months.
> > >
> > >
>
> Shame on dci [idoit!]
Yeah right! Oh the temptation...........................!!
ROFL!!
>
Aviator
"Jafo" <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:krf6gsg4mejubc6qd...@4ax.com...
> As viewed from alt.california, dot wrote:
>
> >> <dciR...@cheetah.net> wrote...
> long-gone guys you forgot to cast "Shame on Clinton [habitual liar]".
> He is, after all, the current occupant of the White House.
>
> Doubtless an oversight on your part... :)
Jeeeez, jafo, if you had bothered to read the thread, you will see that my
response was to just such a slight on his character.
Maybe you just woke up with a hangover........
Aviator
"MWSmith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:3C7FCEFAD065AB45.0DDA9814...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:08:14 GMT, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> >> http://www.newsmax.com
> >>
> >> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> >> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
> >
> >It does?? You want to lay off the Schlitz, buddy. I see a trigger finger,
> >fully extended, OUTSIDE the trigger guard, and the weapon pointed
> >approximately 15 degrees to the right
> >
> >Funny how a whining hypocrite like you bitches about "off topic" posting,
> >and then proceeds to go into a long discussion on the very same topic.
> >
> >Go piss up a rope
> >
Look at the picture when you are sober
> The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> away from the trigger.
No shit! But the previous idiot said, and I quote "with his finger within
the trigger guard."
Get a clue
>
> Mike Smith
>
Jafo
>MWSmith wrote:
>> The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart
>> level. The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than
>> a heart-beat away from the trigger.
>Oh? I thought you said it was IN the trigger guard? And since the
>left arm of the guy holding the gun is pointing at the arm of the
>man holding Elian, and the gun is outside of both arms, you are
>wrong again. But then, you originally said that the gun was pointed
>at the kid.
Christ, somebody'd better get the gun out of that guy's hand before
he sprays the room - it's wandering all over the place! :-D
>What web we weave, when first we try to deceive....
Oh, come on dot, it's just a matter of distorting the facts to
support one's personal agenda. He probably learned the technique
from reading many of your posts. You're just on the other end for
a change.
So how does it feel? :-D
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Aviator
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> >> >> http://www.newsmax.com
> >> >>
> >> >> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> >> >> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
> >> >
> >> >It does?? You want to lay off the Schlitz, buddy. I see a trigger
finger,
> >> >fully extended, OUTSIDE the trigger guard, and the weapon pointed
> >> >approximately 15 degrees to the right
> >> >
> >> >Funny how a whining hypocrite like you bitches about "off topic"
posting,
> >> >and then proceeds to go into a long discussion on the very same topic.
> >> >
> >> >Go piss up a rope
> >> >
> >> The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> >> away from the trigger.
> >>
> >
> >Oh? I thought you said it was IN the trigger guard? And since the left
arm
> >of the guy holding the gun is pointing at the arm of the man holding
Elian,
> >and the gun is outside of both arms, you are wrong again. But then, you
when
> >first we try to deceive....
> >
>
> Please cite where I stated that his finger was on the trigger. Please
> cite where I stated that the gun was pointed at the kid. (Yes, this is
> a reading comprehension skill test. I expect that you will fail it.
> Hint: count the number of > in this statement)
Is this your best argument?? I have just enlarged, enhanced and studied the
photo in question, and made the following observations.
1. The officers finger is fully extended OUTSIDE the trigger guard, as is
prescribed by just about law enforcement agency in this country.
2. The officers left hand is to the left of Elians face above the adults
left elbow. In order to do any damage to either Elian or the adult, he
would have to blow his arm off.
The point that moron PB tried to make [quote] "It clearly shows Buth Waco's
thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the poor kid, with his finger within the
trigger guard" is clearly a damned lie at worst, and totally inaccurate at
best
Checkmate.
> Mike Smith
>
Aviator
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:43:19 GMT, "Aviator" <S...@tter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
> >> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> >> was suspended while we weren't watching.
> >
>
> Try ABCNBCCBSFOX, the deputy attorney general, and the Drudge Report
> (Drudge was first, of course).
Well, keep your eyes on the press. A warrant WAS in fact issued. And we all
know you can trust that idiot Drudge to start rumors long before any real
evidence is available. I guess he is looking pretty damned stupid now
>
> >>
> >> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
> >> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
> >
> >Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts decisively,
in
> >a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen to
> >this crap.
> >
> The administration acted like they needed to appease Castro.
Another hysterical conspiracy theory
There was
> NO REASON to enter that house at that time.
Right. It would have served your purposes better if it had been done at
midday, putting hundreds more people at risk. Am I glad we dont have people
like you in government.
The only thing Clintoon
> didn't count on was that photographer being there to record the
> warrantless invasion (per the deputy attorney general on NBC & ABC
> this morning).
Why don't you go and get the full picture, Mike?? In fact all seven of
them. When you put them all together in sequence, it paints a somewhat
different picture. I would suspect that the media at large chose the one
photo with the most impact. Like the last picture in the series which shows
the officer with his weapon pointing at the ground just a few seconds later.
Just doesn't have the sensational impact to get knee-jerkers like yourself
moving.
http://wire.ap.org/GoToAP.cgi
>
> Mike Smith
Aviator
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:eet4gsk817rbvctus...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> >> >> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> >> >> was suspended while we weren't watching.
> >> >
> >> >Now where did you see that no warrant was issued??
> >>
> >> Try ABCNBCCBSFOX, the deputy attorney general, and the Drudge Report
> >> (Drudge was first, of course).
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
> >> >
> >> >Interesting point of view. Even when the administration acts
decisively, in
> >> >a well planned, perfectly executed operation, we still have to listen
to
> >> >this crap.
> >> >
> >> NO REASON to enter that house at that time. The only thing Clintoon
> >> didn't count on was that photographer being there to record the
> >> warrantless invasion (per the deputy attorney general on NBC & ABC
> >> this morning).
> >>
> >
> >Ah, the depth of your insanity. Do you believe that a photographer just
> >wandered in there with all of those armed guys? They took him with them,
> >idiot!
>
> Are you truly that stupid? That clueless? Did you read a damn thing
> about the photographer and how he entered the house?
>
> Pull your head out of clintoon's ass and read about the photographer
> before you post your ridiculous statements.
Hey, Mike, here is something to make you and all the others who bitched
about a warrant not being obtained feel as stupid as you have acted.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The seizure of Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami
relatives to reunite the boy with his father was ``a perfectly legal,
properly carried out operation,'' immigration commissioner Doris Meissner
said today.
``We had a search warrant, which we got from a federal judge,'' she said on
CBS' ``Face the Nation.'' She disputed contentions from the family that
agents threatened to shoot them. "
http://wire.ap.org/GoToAP.cgi
Gee, does his mean that Matt Drudge is a hysterical liar?? Or is he too
damned stupid to wait for facts before shouting off his mouth??
The latter I would suspect.
Oh, and by the way, the hysterical accusation that the photo of Elian with
his dad was faked?? Debunked by experts employed by FoxNews to analyze the
photos
Jeeeez, looks like all your bitching was for nothing.
>
> Mike Smith
lexcat
Gonzales has been in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States
since he entered this country illegally on Thanksgiving Day. If he weren't
Cuban, he could have been deported immediately, with no court hearing. Since
he is Cuban, the law permits him to remain for 1 year in order to apply for
asylum. While he is here, he is technically in the custody of the Attorney
General, who can allow him to live with relatives or in a detention center if
she so chooses. She allowed relatives to keep him. When she revoked their
custody 10 days ago and told them to turn the boy over to his father and they
refused to do so, they became law breakers. She could actually prefer
criminal charges against them, possibly for kidnapping and definitely for
harboring an illegal alien, although I doubt she will. She didn't need a
warrant to enter their home to remove him, any more than the INS needs a
warrant when it goes to a work place and rounds up a bunch of illegals. It
was not a criminal proceeding, like a search for drugs. Since immigration
matters are civil in nature instead of criminal, the protections found in the
Bill of Rights that protect us from the government in criminal matters don't
apply. For example, aliens don't have a right to counsel at deportation
proceedings under the 6th Amendment as persons accused of a crime do. Their
only rights are 5th Amendment Due Process claims. Elian has not been denied
due process. The Miami relatives have no rights at all, since it is not a
criminal proceeding. Constitutional rights do not apply in civil court. For
example, you do not have the right to the effective assistance of counsel in
a civil proceeding. While an incompetent lawyer can cause a criminal case to
be reversed, in civil court the only remedy is a malpractice suit. These
relatives thought they were in charge of the federal government and tried
calling the shots. They thought they could get away with it. Apparently,
they weren't paying attention on April 19, 1993. If they had been, they
would have thought twice before trying to play games with General Janet.
By the way, for those who think that these law are unnecessarily harsh
towards aliens, this is what the Republicans have given us in their 1996
immigration reform legislation. These same folks like Specter and Smith and
DeLay that are getting all their free publicity while howling in outrage
before the TV cameras are the same folks that voted these laws in and seem to
have no difficulty at all applying them to poor starving children from other
poor, third world dictatorships.
PB wrote:
> ----------
> In article <3901FF...@swbell.net>, Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> > God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
> > Vince Foster, etc.
>
> Well, why this is off topic for alt.california, there are a few questions
> that should be asked.
>
> What court issued the warrent for federal government thugs to enter a
> private home?
>
> Why couldn't Butch Waco and the Big Cigar go to a court, and request
> that the court give them a warrant?
>
> Furthermore, there is no way a "no knock" warrant can be given, unless
> there is probable cause that there is evidence, such as drugs, that
> a "no knock" warrant can be issued.
>
> Otherwise, the law requires a policy of "knock and talk," not masked
> goons pointing submachine guns at little kids.
>
> Take a look at the picture. I am refering to the one shown at
> http://www.newsmax.com
>
> It clearly shows Buth Waco's thug pointing a sub-machine gun at the
> poor kid, with his finger within the trigger guard.
>
> Take a look at the original picture for yourself. Then decide for
> yourself whether you wish to believe what you see, or what the
> government and mass media tell you.
>
> The fisherman who rescued the kid, and his holding him has his hands
> in clear sight.
>
> I was not much older than Elian when I was taught:
>
> 1: Assume that every gun is loaded.
>
> 2: Never point a gun at anything or anyone that you
> do not wish to see being killed. If you are so foolish
> to claim that the gun is not loaded, refer to the first rule.
>
> 3: Always beware of the background. A bullet can hit its intended
> target, yet still have unintended consequences.
>
> 4: Never place your finger within the trigger-guard, unless you are
> prepared to shoot.
>
> As the mass media continues its spin on this event, why not copy
> the photo shown on http://www.newsmax.com.
>
> It is one, of a series of seven. Showing one photo of this series,
> is certainly no "proof" of Attorney General "Butch Waco's" lies,
> even if she has the word of the "Big Cigar," who has been cited for
> perjury to back her up.
>
> While the mass media will show the other photos, the
> truth... is available. The government is lying.
>
> It almost reminds me of what people would have thought if
> when JFK was shot, the full "Zapruder film" was released,
> without the "missing" frames.
>
> Regards,
> PB
lexcat
Don Sterner wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>
Don Sterner
>
>
>Don Sterner wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>
>A search warrent was issued at 6PM that night.Apparently you weren't
>watching.
Yep, I was wartching this morning when the INS Commisioner
claimed that they did have a warrant. However, I find it
interesting that none of the contacts made by CNN, MSNBC, Fox,
etc. yesterday couldn't locate anyone who knew anything about it.
Every time I heard it mentioned yesterday, the news said that no
warrant existed & that one wasn't necessary (but they never
explained why).
Rob
ATTENTION !!!!!!!
Buyerteam Realty is offering free foreclosed property lists to all southern
California residents.. these properties are at their lowest prices ever! Act
fast to take advantage of these prices... They won't last forever!
www.buyerteam.ath.cx
<gazz...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
MWSmith
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:41:40 GMT, dot <dot...@dot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Don Sterner wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>>> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>>
>>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>>> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>>> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>>
>>A search warrent was issued at 6PM that night.Apparently you weren't
>>watching.
>
>
>Yep, I was wartching this morning when the INS Commisioner
>claimed that they did have a warrant. However, I find it
>interesting that none of the contacts made by CNN, MSNBC, Fox,
>etc. yesterday couldn't locate anyone who knew anything about it.
>Every time I heard it mentioned yesterday, the news said that no
>warrant existed & that one wasn't necessary (but they never
>explained why).
Also, on NBC and ABC, the Deputy Attorney General stated that there
was no warrant, it was an internal decision within the justice
department..
Mike Smith
Tecknomage
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>
>
> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> was suspended while we weren't watching.
Sorry, no warrant needed. Both a state court and a federal court said
the custody of Elian was an INS matter. The INS originally gave the
Miami relatives *temporary* custody under a signed agreement. The INS
revoked their custody of Elian 9 days before his rescue.
>
> The boy is finally in the right place, but Clinton/Reno still
> seem to be following the policies that created Ruby Ridge & Waco.
==== Tecknomage ====
Whiners! Some people would complain if
you hung them with a new rope.
MWSmith
>Hey, Mike, here is something to make you and all the others who bitched
>about a warrant not being obtained feel as stupid as you have acted.
>
>"WASHINGTON (AP) - The seizure of Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami
>relatives to reunite the boy with his father was ``a perfectly legal,
>properly carried out operation,'' immigration commissioner Doris Meissner
>said today.
>
>``We had a search warrant, which we got from a federal judge,'' she said on
>CBS' ``Face the Nation.'' She disputed contentions from the family that
>agents threatened to shoot them. "
>http://wire.ap.org/GoToAP.cgi
>
>Gee, does his mean that Matt Drudge is a hysterical liar?? Or is he too
>damned stupid to wait for facts before shouting off his mouth??
>
>The latter I would suspect.
>
>Oh, and by the way, the hysterical accusation that the photo of Elian with
>his dad was faked?? Debunked by experts employed by FoxNews to analyze the
>photos
>
>Jeeeez, looks like all your bitching was for nothing.
No, it looks like the clintoonistas cannot get their stories straight.
The following came from Tin Russert's show this morning:
MR. RUSSERT: Why not get a federal court order
ordering the relatives to turn the child over?
MR. HOLDER: That was unnecessary. We had an
order from a judge who said the government was acting
appropriately. We had an order from INS that said that the
child had to be transferred. The vast majority of INS
decisions are made administratively; that is, without the
involvement of the federal courts. We saw no reason to
make this one any different.
In case anyone is wondering about that "acting appropriately"
statement, read the following from the same program:
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Holder, the 11th Circuit did not
grant the order you had requested to turn over the child
by Lazaro to the father. What was the legal basis for the
raid on the home, court order, search warrant, what?
MR. HOLDER: We had the INS, which controls in
these matters an administrative determination that the
action that we took was appropriate. And the question I’d have for
Congressman DeLay is he saying that the state judge who
dismissed, in essence, the custody application, the
custody suit by the family—was that judge wrong? That elected
official in Miami, was that person wrong?
Now, was there, or wasn't there, a court order. Who do you believe?
Clintoon, the Deputy Attorney General, or Doris Meissner?
BTW, what position do you hold in the Clintoon admin? Why else would
anyone want to cover this buffoon of a president's butt?
Mike Smith
Don Sterner
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:04:07 -0500, Don Sterner <dste...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>>
>>
>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
>> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
>> was suspended while we weren't watching.
>
>Sorry, no warrant needed. Both a state court and a federal court said
>the custody of Elian was an INS matter. The INS originally gave the
>Miami relatives *temporary* custody under a signed agreement. The INS
>revoked their custody of Elian 9 days before his rescue.
Oh, so the 4th Amendment now has an asterisk clause which
stipulates that it only applies in certain situations. Is that
correct? When did that become effective. It doesn't make sense
that any court ruling OR especially an administrative ruling by
an agency can take the place of a warrant. IMO, the INS needs a
warrant prior to forcible entry of a home just as the same is
required of any other law enforcement agency.
Somebody earlier equated the situation with INS raids of
workplaces. They're not considered as the same under the
Constitution. A home is protected (supposedly).
HM
----------
In article
<3C7FCEFAD065AB45.0DDA9814...@lp.airnews.net>, MWSmith
<m...@wt.net> wrote:
> The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
> The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> away from the trigger.
There was a series of about seven photographs taken. That explains why
different people look at "the picture," and claim to see different things.
Some how the sub-machine gun not pointed at anyone, and no finger in the
trigger guard, but others show exactly that.
Once there were five blind elephants decided to find out what a man
would look like. They all agreed- "the man is flat." :)
Regards,
HM
lexcat
being used to secure evidence to be used against an accused in a criminal
prosecution. The only method of exercising one's 4th Amendment rights are
to file a motion in a court of competent jurisdiction asking to suppress
the evidence that the government seized during an unlawful search and/or
seizure and which it is seeking to introduce against you for the purpose of
depriving you of life or liberty. Even if the government illegally seizes
evidence, if it is not seeking to introduce the illegally seized evidence
against you, there is nothing to suppress, and your rights have not been
violated. The 4th Amendment does not apply in civil proceedings.
Immigration and custody matters are civil proceedings. No one is charged
with criminal activity. Not all searches and seizures without warrants are
unreasonable. Not all searches and seizures with a warrant stand up in
court. Right wing lawmakers and Supreme Court judges who trumpet about how
they are tough on crime have eroded the 4th Amendment over the years until
the exception has swallowed the rule. This has been done in the name of
the War on Drugs, and the multi-billion dollar industry of incarcerating
over a million people. The same Republicans who are now bad mouthing Reno
and yelling about warrants are the very same people who say the
Exclusionary Rule should be abolished, and who have almost accomplished
their goal. For example, Tom DeLay has been howling for about 48 hours
over Elian.
Don Sterner wrote:
Yet Congressman DeLay has repeatedly advocated that Congress impeach
federal judges who issue rulings with which he doesn't agree, including
ones that uphold evidence being excluded as a result of illegal searches.
Apparently Mr. DeLay is only concerned with rights as long as they are
attached a cause which will garner him some publicity.
Jafo
>Tecknomage wrote:
>>Don Sterner wrote:
>>> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle
>>> of the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th
>>> Amendment was suspended while we weren't watching.
>>Sorry, no warrant needed. Both a state court and a federal
>>court said the custody of Elian was an INS matter. The INS
>>originally gave the Miami relatives *temporary* custody under
>>a signed agreement. The INS revoked their custody of Elian
>>9 days before his rescue.
>Oh, so the 4th Amendment now has an asterisk clause which
>stipulates that it only applies in certain situations. Is that
>correct? When did that become effective. It doesn't make sense
>that any court ruling OR especially an administrative ruling by
>an agency can take the place of a warrant. IMO, the INS needs a
>warrant prior to forcible entry of a home just as the same is
>required of any other law enforcement agency.
>
>Somebody earlier equated the situation with INS raids of
>workplaces. They're not considered as the same under the
>Constitution. A home is protected (supposedly).
The occupants of the home were holding a child who was not their own
and for whom they had no custody rights - and were doing so in direct
defiance of the clearly expressed wishes of the child's parent. In
short, a kidnapped child.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
Zippy Komkwat
Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:390b0807...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:33:09 -0500, "Zippy Komkwat"
> <Zip...@Your.House> wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't remember Waco ... just a Wack-o and a bunch of armed felons who
> >endangered, and ultimately sacrificed, their own families (including
young
> >children) for no better reason than the insatiable pride of one sad,
> >demented, little man whos name I can't even recall.
>
> Gee Zipper, I'm glad thing like this don't trouble you. You'll
> probably really enjoy the story of the round-up in Jews in Germany who
> were hustled off to their ultimate fate in concentration camps.
Actually I caught that story a few times, that's why I assume you will
respectfully agree that it's a bad analogy. First, the Jewish citizens were
not illegally stockpiling weapons in Germany and blatantly ignoring the laws
of the government. In fact (at first), much the opposite is true.
Secondly, Koresh (I looked up the name ... but it remains forgettable) used
his mindless followers as a more or less human shield from the law. It's
not like Koresh was being persecuted soley because he was different or even
because he was merely perceived as dangerous. In his recent martyrdom, most
people have eschewed those useless things called facts which deflate the
sanctity of their heroes. It's sort of like they have a filter on that only
lets through information supporting their premise.
>
> >When all the cute little lemmings walk off the edge of the cliff ... do
you
> >blame gravity for their death, the cliff, or their own thoughtlessness?
We
> >haven't managed to find a way to save all those stupid lemmings yet, but
we
> >do at least try.
>
> So drovers in the form of federal INS agents armed with automatic
> weapons, breaking stuff up, without a warrant don't disturb you. The
> same incompetent INS agents that we pay not to protect our borders.
Actually, in this *particular* case no. What disturbs me is that the family
holding the boy could bring it to this. My personal opinion is that they
all belong in jail for interfering in the first place. In this case, the
INS giveth and the INS taketh away.
>
> >Be a little more careful when pointing your finger of blame around the
room
> >please.
>
> OK, I point mine at the tyrant Clinton, his lawyer running dogs
> including Reno, and the dull career bureaucrats of the INS.
Surely you didn't expect me to defend any of these people? But I will try
at least one. I lived in California during the 80's and I recall border
patrol and border policy being as botched from Cal to Florida under the
Reagan administration as Clinton's. The only difference is that Reagan was
an outstanding leader and president with significant contributions in many
other arenas (I know I'm begging for trouble from the lefties here) and
Clinton is nothing more than an 8 year scar on American history blowing our
tax money in a last minute scam to travel around the world and look like he
did something contructive. In short ... the INS isn't crappy because of the
current administration. They've always been crappy.
As far as who's to blame for the manner in which the child was returned to
his father ... well that lies totally in the lap of the idiot family who was
holding him for ransom with their variable, totally insatiable demands and
everyone that was helping them to foster a totally hostile atmosphere for a
peaceful exchange. No matter how I despise Ms. Reno and her present
employer, she did an excellent job (finally) in upholding the law in less
than docile circumstances.
Hey ... America really is "all that", but it doesn't give us the right to
abduct children from their parents simply because they live in a country
with a competing ideology. I don't care if Castro possibly did force the
father to come get the child. It still doesn't make it right on our end.
We must truly be turning into a land of opportunists as we have waved our
fingers at Castro chanting "Finders keepers, losers weepers" for the last
several months. He's a little boy, not a pawn to be used to strike a blow
to Cuba. He has a father who wants him, in the following weeks we will
likely find that he wants to leave with his father as well. Whether it be
to little or big Havana ...
> >Jim <oldm...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3901FF...@swbell.net...
> >gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >
> >God you must have lost your marbles. Do you forget Waco, File Gate,
> >Vince Foster, etc. Jim
> >
>
Jafo
>where is this california?
Below Oregon, to the left of Nevada and Arizona, above Mexico and
just a bit to the right of the Pacific Ocean. You can't miss it.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
dot
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, dot wrote:
>
> >MWSmith wrote:
> >> The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart
> >> level. The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than
> >> a heart-beat away from the trigger.
>
> >Oh? I thought you said it was IN the trigger guard? And since the
> >left arm of the guy holding the gun is pointing at the arm of the
> >man holding Elian, and the gun is outside of both arms, you are
> >wrong again. But then, you originally said that the gun was pointed
> >at the kid.
>
> Christ, somebody'd better get the gun out of that guy's hand before
> he sprays the room - it's wandering all over the place! :-D
He's on loan to INS from El Monte PD "Oooooooo
>
>
> >What web we weave, when first we try to deceive....
>
> Oh, come on dot, it's just a matter of distorting the facts to
> support one's personal agenda. He probably learned the technique
> from reading many of your posts. You're just on the other end for
> a change.
>
> So how does it feel? :-D
Feelings again, Jafo? That's twice in one day.If you want distortion,
take another look at Elian's cousin crying and lying at the same time at
her news conference with Bob I'm Not A Republican Smith in the
background. Wait, he IS the background.
>
>
> --
> Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
dot
HM wrote:
> ----------
> In article
> <3C7FCEFAD065AB45.0DDA9814...@lp.airnews.net>, MWSmith
> <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
> > The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
> > The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> > away from the trigger.
>
> There was a series of about seven photographs taken. That explains why
> different people look at "the picture," and claim to see different things.
>
> Some how the sub-machine gun not pointed at anyone, and no finger in the
> trigger guard, but others show exactly that.
>
> Once there were five blind elephants decided to find out what a man
> would look like. They all agreed- "the man is flat." :)
>
> Regards,
> HM
Post the others, if you can. But you can't.
dot
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, dot wrote:
>
> > Shame on dci [idoit!]
>
> I hate to appear to be doing a spell flame, dot, but the misspelling
> of "idiot" says more about you than it does about dci. :)
>
> --
> Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
I blame my Netscape spell checker!
dot
MWSmith wrote:
> grant the order you had requested to turn over the child
> by Lazaro to the father. What was the legal basis for the
> raid on the home, court order, search warrant, what?
> MR. HOLDER: We had the INS, which controls in
> these matters an administrative determination that the
> action that we took was appropriate. And the question I’d have for
> Congressman DeLay is he saying that the state judge who
> dismissed, in essence, the custody application, the
> custody suit by the family—was that judge wrong? That elected
> official in Miami, was that person wrong?
>
> Now, was there, or wasn't there, a court order. Who do you believe?
> Clintoon, the Deputy Attorney General, or Doris Meissner?
>
> BTW, what position do you hold in the Clintoon admin? Why else would
> anyone want to cover this buffoon of a president's butt?
>
> Mike Smith
Post the court order, or a url leading to it, or admit your wrong and shut up!
dot
Don Sterner wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:46:18 -0700, Tecknomage <teck...@cts.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:04:07 -0500, Don Sterner <dste...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> >GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting that they thought a forced entry during the middle of
> >> the night didn't require a warrant. Apparently, the 4th Amendment
> >> was suspended while we weren't watching.
> >
> >Sorry, no warrant needed. Both a state court and a federal court said
> >the custody of Elian was an INS matter. The INS originally gave the
> >Miami relatives *temporary* custody under a signed agreement. The INS
> >revoked their custody of Elian 9 days before his rescue.
>
> Oh, so the 4th Amendment now has an asterisk clause which
> stipulates that it only applies in certain situations. Is that
> correct? When did that become effective. It doesn't make sense
> that any court ruling OR especially an administrative ruling by
> an agency can take the place of a warrant. IMO, the INS needs a
> warrant prior to forcible entry of a home just as the same is
> required of any other law enforcement agency.
A warrent was issued by a Federal Magistrate at 6PM on Friday night.For the
elevenhundredth time :(
dot
dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:01:15 GMT, dot <dot...@dot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:22:25 -0700, "PB" <pbi...@jps.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >----------
> >> >In article <8dt2h3$psg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
> >> >> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
> >> >
> >> >Troll alert....
> >> >
> >> >Just what does this have to do with California?
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >PB
> >>
> >> California happens to be part of
> >> the United States of America. Bill
> >> Clinton might end up in Hollywood
> >> doing he routine of creating images.
> >>
> >> DCI
> >
> >Or he could teach you spelling and grammar. Meet him at the local
> >library.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion;
> however, you should be able to
> differentiate a typo from poor
> grammar. "Bill Clinton might end
> up doing `THE' routine of creating
> images."
>
> I ain't got to show you no stinking
> grammar . . .
>
> Enjoy this Easter day, Dot.
>
> DCI
Maybe Congress will give you a voucher for a typing class.
Professor Vonroach
>As viewed from alt.california, dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
monkey boy where is this california?
Professor Vonroach
>
><wes...@fdn.com> wrote in message news:3938acdb....@news.fdn.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:39:05 -0700, Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> -- wrote:
>>
>> >As viewed from alt.california, The Traveler wrote:
>> >
>> >>gazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JANET!
>> >>> GOD BLESS YOU, CLINTON.
>> >
>> >> Oh puuuuuhlease. If Billy couldn't do what was needed to be done in
>> >>Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>> >>decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>> >>things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>> >>Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>> >>either.
>> >
>> >In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>> >much to say about it during all those months.
>>
>> Indeed! It was difficult to tell whether he was just sitting on his hands
>> or frantically trying to cover his ass.
>
>Actually, what I find highly amusing is the reaction of certain hysterical
>right wing polititians. They whine continually about the administration not
>upholding the law, yet when they do uphold it, and act decicisely, they
>whine anyway.
>
decicisely? you mean like the stuttering incompetent cowards they are
monkey kid?
>
Professor Vonroach
snipped all but relevant stuff from Toby the clown boy.
>Toby
Professor Vonroach
>
>Once there were five blind elephants decided to find out what a man
>would look like. They all agreed- "the man is flat." :)
>
>Regards,
>HM
Wow HM, that's a knee slapper. Is that a real california joke?
Professor Vonroach
<alb...@nurick.com> wrote:
>If you're familiar with the vernacular, it indicates that the individual
>has a strong will. I seriously doubt that the original poster was
>saying anything beyond this, yet it caused you to titter in glee as you
>had a chance to sexualize yet another thread.
Oh really albert? ROFL.
dciR...@cheetah.net
Blame anything but never take
responsibility for your own
mistakes.
DCI
dciR...@cheetah.net
Sac Of Tomatoes
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, MWSmith wrote:
>
> > The gun is pointed at the man holding Elain, at about heart level.
>
> Really? Holovision? Tell me, Mike, where do you get one of those
> 3-D computer monitors and how much do they cost?
>
> >The finger is in the "good-to-go" position, less than a heart-beat
> >away from the trigger.
>
> Where would you suggest he keep his finger? Should he have broken
> it off and stuck it up his nostril?
HAhahahahaha..... perhaps the agents should have stormed the
house and demanded that the kidnappers release their hostage
under threat of being pummeled with Beanie Babies.
"What? You think we just have camera's in the house?
If [the government] try to come in, they could be hurt"
--- Gloria Estefan wannabe Marisleysis Gonzalez.
KSquare1
>On 23 Apr 2000 08:50:50 GMT, ksqu...@aol.com (KSquare1) wrote:
>>Hmm. Well, I'm trying to figure out why Prof V. would switch over to
>>transvestitism here considering that if there are any rumors about Reno it is
>>that she is homosexual. I grew up in South Florida where Reno is from and it
>>seemed to be the topic du jour whenever she'd come speak at a school I
>>attended. However, I still fail to see any relevancy between Ms. Reno's
sexual
>>orientation and what just happened in Miami...
>From: vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com (Professor Vonroach)
>You seem better acquainted with Reno than I. Are you alleging that it
>is homosexual? Doesn't she have any family? Why do you jump to that
>conclusion?
Professor Vonroach-
It is bad enough, I think, that you take every single thread and write about
nothing whatsoever that has anything to do with that thread, on a constant
basis. But lately you have been doing this with a rash of misattributions to
people, and misquotings of people. And you are not reading carefully.
Read what I wrote above. I wrote "If there are any rumors about Reno it is
that she is homosexual." Did I say that I KNOW she is homosexual? Did I state
that as a fact? Did I jump to the conclusion that Reno was a homosexual?
Hardly, Vonroach. What I said was that when I was young growing up in South
Floridai that there were rumors that flew around the schools I attended that
Reno was homosexual. Please read more carefully!
Janet Reno has no children and has never been married. Her family consists of
three younger siblings and their children. Her father and mother have passed
away.
Kevin K.
Houston, TX
ksqu...@aol.com
dot
dciR...@cheetah.net wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:19:12 GMT, dot <dot...@dot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
Ah, a role model at last. Can I use your quote above as a sig line?
KSquare1
>> >Kosovo, what makes you think that he would have been able to take the
>> >decisive step? As it is now, Janet Reno deserves all the credit. Had
>> >things went terribly wrong, Janet Reno would have been the scapegoat.
>> >Billy might not have gained anything, but he didn't lose anything
>> >either.
>>
>> In fact, he was the one person in the administration who didn't have
>> much to say about it during all those months.
>>
>> Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
>
>Humm, I recall him saying, time after time, that the decision was properly
>that of the Justice Department and the courts, and that he was not going
>to politicize the issue by speaking out about it. You feel his proper
>roll should have been, what?
Firstly, I have been following this story closely and have never heard Clinton
speak about how this is an issue best left to the courts. Clinton has briefly
acknowledged that the case is IN the courts, but he does not believe it should
be there. He believes that the case falls strictly in the juristiction of the
INS and the Justice Department, and that is it, period.
Al Gore is the one who has advocated court proceedings for this boy,
particularly for custody as well as asylum. Gore openly broke with, and
shocked, the administration when he clarified this position recently, although
he had been sort of leaning that way for some time.
Summary: Clinton and Gore are on opposite sides of this issue. They disagree,
and Clinton DOES NOT think that this case ought to be in the courts. His
belief is that the child and father should be sent back to Cuba immediately.
His acknowledgment that this cannot be done currently does not change his views
on the subject.
And by the way, I am not exactly sure what either of you are talking about,
even though one of you is anti-Clinton and one is pro-Clinton. You both seem
to agree that Clinton has not spoken out about this issue. However, I seem to
recall him holding a press conference exclusively on this issue two days ago in
the Rose Garden.
Clinton does have to approve an operation like this. That was and is his
proper role. He delegated most of the duties to Reno, but in the end he stayed
up all night and approved the 5AM operation. Which is what he should do given
this situation - either support or stop the Attorney General. The President
is the boss of the AG and generally gets involved in cases of great sensitivity
or a lot of publicity.
Bottom line is, this was a Clinton administration operation. Janet Reno had the
most to say, but tons of others were involved, including Eric Holder, John
Podesta, Doris Meissner, and Clinton. If you thought it was neato, then give
credit to the administration. If you thought it was heinous, then you may bash
the administration.
I personally agreed with the administration's goals, but deplored the method
that they used.
Professor Vonroach
>
>
Monkey boy continues to imagine from his point of view (way out in
left field)