Another Republican Pervert Bites The Big One.....
Too_Many_Tools
And hitting on the young pages....don't you get any?
Lock up your sons and daughters if a Republican enters the room.
Laugh....laugh....laugh....
TMT
Foley resigns from Congress over e-mails By DAVID ESPO and JIM
KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writers
Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., abruptly resigned
from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote
a former teenage male page.
"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the
people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a
statement issued by his office.
His departure sent Republicans scrambling for a replacement candidate
less than six weeks before midterm elections in which Democrats are
making a strong bid to gain control of the House.
Foley's two-sentence statement gave no reason for Foley's decision to
abandon a flourishing career in Congress. But several officials said
the resignation had been prompted by the e-mails, and he took his
action as fresh details emerged about electronic messages he had sent.
Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail
correspondence surfaced in recent days.
His resignation further complicates the political landscape for
Republicans, who are fighting to retain control of Congress. Democrats
need to win a net of 15 Republican seats to regain the power they lost
in 1994.
Florida Republicans planned to meet as soon as Monday to name a
replacement in Foley's district, which President Bush won with 55
percent in 2004 and is now in play for November. Though Florida ballots
have already been printed with Foley's name and cannot be changed, any
votes for Foley will count toward the party's choice.
Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican
congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said
there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at
the time of the e-mail correspondence.
The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record),
R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10
to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the
Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there
might be a potential problem."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Friday he had asked the chairman of
the House's page board, Rep. John Shimkus (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ill., to investigate the page system. "We want to make sure that all
our pages are safe and the page system is safe," Hastert said.
He said Foley submitted the letter of resignation to Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush and submitted a copy to him. A House clerk read Foley's
resignation on the House floor.
"He's done the right thing," Hastert said. Asked if the chain of events
was disturbing, he said, "None of us are very happy about it."
ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of
sexually explicit instant messages with current and former teenage male
pages. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote to one page: "Do I make
you a little horny?"
In another message, Foley wrote, "You in your boxers, too? ... Well,
strip down and get naked."
Foley, as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, had
introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by
adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed
to protect minors from abuse and neglect.
"We track library books better than we do sexual predators," Foley has
said.
Foley was a member of the Republican leadership, serving as a deputy
whip. He also was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Foley, who represents an area around Palm Beach County, e-mailed the
page in August 2005. Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane
Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday. The congressman also asked
the boy to send a photo of himself, according to excerpts of the
e-mails that were originally released by ABC News.
Foley's aides initially blamed Democratic rival Tim Mahoney and
Democrats with attempting to smear the congressman before the election.
The e-mails were posted Friday on Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington's Web site after ABC News reported their
existence. The group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct to investigate the exchange Foley had with the boy.
Naomi Seligman, a spokewoman for CREW, said the group also sent a
letter to the FBI after the group received the e-mails. CREW did not
post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead
waiting for the investigation.
"The House of Representatives has an obligation to protect the
teenagers who come to Congress to learn about the legislative process,"
the group wrote, adding that the committee, "must investigate any
allegation that a page has been subjected to sexual advances by members
of the House."
In 2003, Foley faced questions about his sexual orientation as he
prepared to run for Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record)'s seat.
At a news conference in May of that year, he said he would not comment
on rumors he was gay. He later decided not to seek the Senate seat to
care for his parents.
According to the CREW posting, the boy e-mailed a colleague in
Alexander's office about Foley's e-mails, saying, "This freaked me
out." On the request for a photo, the boy repeated the word "sick" 13
times.
He said Foley asked for his e-mail when the boy gave him a thank you
card. The boy also said Foley wrote that he e-mailed another page.
"he's such a nice guy," Foley wrote about the other boy. "acts much
older than his age...and hes in really great shape...i am just finished
riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym...whats
school like for you this year?"
In other e-mails, Foley wrote, "I am back in Florida now...its nice
here...been raining today...it sounds like you will have some fun over
the next few weeks...how old are you now?" and "how are you weathering
the hurricane...are you safe...send me an email pic of you as well."
What the boy wrote to Foley, who is single, wasn't available. The
e-mails were sent from Foley's personal account, which Foley spokesman
Jason Kello says he uses to communicate with many people, including the
governor.
Efforts to reach the boy were unsuccessful, but he told the St.
Petersburg Times last November, "I thought it was very inappropriate.
After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back."
The Times didn't publish the comments until Friday.
Alexander said the boy notified a staffer in his office about the
e-mails. The congressman said he learned of it from a reporter 10 or 11
months ago and promptly called the boy's parents.
"My concern then was the young man's interests and the parents'
interests," Alexander said Friday. "We weren't trying to protect
anybody except the parents. ... They told me they were comfortable with
it and didn't want to pursue anything, didn't want to talk about it
anymore."
Florida Republican Party lawyers were reviewing the process to pick a
replacement. Party Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan said she hopes a
replacement will be chosen by Monday. Among the possibilities was state
Rep. Joe Negron, who was a candidate for attorney general before
dropping out of the race to avoid a primary with former Rep. Bill
McCollum.
"It would be very time sensitive so the nominee would have the
opportunity to get around the district and campaign in a very short
amount of time," Jordan said.
David Johnson, a former state Republican chairman who worked as a
strategist for Foley, said it will be difficult for the party's pick to
win with Foley's name on the ballot.
Mahoney, a Republican who became a Democrat last year, is chairman and
chief operating officer of a $1 billion-a-year financial services
company. In his House bid, he has focused on Washington corruption and
oversized deficits.
In a statement, Mahoney said, "The challenges facing congressman Foley
make this is a difficult time for the people of the 16th district. The
families of all of those involved are in our thoughts and prayers."
In 1983, the House censured two lawmakers - Daniel Crane of Illinois
and Gerry Studds of Massachusetts - for having improper relationships
with pages.
The page program is for high school students who study at a
congressional school while also carrying out tasks for lawmakers.
___
Associated Press Writers Brendan Farrington in Florida and Natasha
Metzler in Washington contributed to this report.
MonkeyHawk
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159570029.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> What is it with Republicans and sex?
>
> And hitting on the young pages....don't you get any?
>
> Lock up your sons and daughters if a Republican enters the room.
>
> Laugh....laugh....laugh....
The Official Republican Motto:
"If they're too young to vote, fuck 'em."
A Brick in the Wall
"MonkeyHawk" <monke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fFhTg.2654$Rp3.286@dukeread12...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159570029.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> What is it with Republicans and sex?
>>
>> And hitting on the young pages....don't you get any?
>>
>> Lock up your sons and daughters if a Republican enters the room.
>>
>> Laugh....laugh....laugh....
>
>
> The Official Republican Motto:
>
> "If they're too young to vote, fuck 'em."
>
>
And if you get caught -- first blame your opponent for smearing you -- & I
think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this misconduct
10 - 11 months ago ---
light...@yahoo.com
who really cares what filthy politicos of any stripe do when they're
not fucking US?
Weatherlawyer
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
> news:fFhTg.2654$Rp3.286@dukeread12...
> >
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1159570029.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >> What is it with Republicans and sex?
> >>
> >> And hitting on the young pages....don't you get any?
> >>
> >> Lock up your sons and daughters if a Republican enters the room.
> >
> >
> > "If they're too young to vote, **** 'em."
>
> And if you get caught -- first blame your opponent for smearing you -- & I
> think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this misconduct
> 10 - 11 months ago ---
Ah yes but that was probably faulty intelligence. Here is another
example:
Asked about a U.S. intelligence report that concluded the Iraq war had
spread Islamic radicalism, Rumsfeld said intelligence could be faulty
and sometimes "flat wrong."
Ooh! Ooh! Oowhat's he talking about? I Oo! Oo! Oowonder.
Q: How many security reports does it take to get through to a
presidunce?
A: A banana.
Too_Many_Tools
misconduct 10 - 11 months ago ---"
I was wondering when someone was going to notice that little point.
The Party that is against gay marriage is apparently not against
man-boy love... who would ever have thought?
Kind of make them out as the HYPOCRITES they are, doesn't it?
Now I am going to sit back and listen to all those self serving
Republican denounce one of their own perverts....just like they chose
to do over and over and over with President Clinton.
<the sound of a pin dropping>
What? Where is the outrage? Could it be that Republicans voters are
HYPOCRITES too?
Or maybe they are writing their emails to their own little boys?
Laugh...laugh...laugh.....
TMT
A Brick in the Wall wrote:
MonkeyHawk
>" I think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this
> misconduct 10 - 11 months ago ---"
>
> I was wondering when someone was going to notice that little point.
>
> The Party that is against gay marriage is apparently not against
> man-boy love... who would ever have thought?
>
> Kind of make them out as the HYPOCRITES they are, doesn't it?
>
> Now I am going to sit back and listen to all those self serving
> Republican denounce one of their own perverts....just like they chose
> to do over and over and over with President Clinton.
>
> <the sound of a pin dropping>
>
> What? Where is the outrage? Could it be that Republicans voters are
> HYPOCRITES too?
>
> Or maybe they are writing their emails to their own little boys?
>
> Laugh...laugh...laugh.....
I particularly appreciated this piece from www.newshounds.us
How Fox Would Have Reported Mark Foley's Resignation if He Were a Democrat
Reported by Melanie - September 29, 2006 - 28 comments
Dennis Hastert (R-IL) appeared on Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (September
29, 2006) ostensibly to talk about the supposed stock market "rally" Fox
keeps shouting about. In the middle of the segment with substitute host
David Asman, Asman paused and said,
By the way, ah, we should report something that's been, just crossed the
wires recently, that Congressman Mark Foley has resigned. He of course was
involved in a particular dust-up -- we're not sure of the details yet. It
involves emails between him and a teenaged boy. Did you encourage him to
resign?
Hastert replied:
Well, I haven't talked to Congressman Foley but he did the right thing. He
did resign. He sent a letter to the Governor which is the process to do that
and he's laid it down before the House so he has resigned before the House.
Asman:
All right. And, again, we don't know the details. We don't pretend to know
the details but he has resigned and you didn't try to discourage him from
resigning?
Hastert:
Ah, no.
And that was it.
Notice that Asman did not refer to Foley as Republican Congressman Mark
Foley.
Thanks to loyal and long time reader -R, here are the emails.
Comment: If Foley was a Democrat, Asman would have done something more like
this:
THIS IS A FOX NEWS ALERT! Again, we have a FOX NEWS ALERT! We have just
learned that Florida DEMOCRAT, Congressman Limp Wrist, has been forced to
resign his House seat, effective immediately. Again, this is BREAKING NEWS,
it just happened a little while ago and we're working on getting all the
details for you as soon as possible but since it's BREAKING NEWS we have to
go with what we know so far. What we know is that, again, BREAKING NEWS
HERE, several days ago, as we've been telling you all along, it came to
light that DEMOCRAT Wrist has been corresponding via email, in some very
suggestive, sexual ways, with a teenage BOY page at the Capitol. Not knowing
how to handle the situation, since, after all, Wrist is a POWERFUL,
INFLUENTIAL and PROMINENT DEMOCRAT, a member of the House Ways and Means
Committee and DEMOCRAT Chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited
Children's Caucus, the BOY wrote to another congressman, saying he was
totally and completely "freaked out" and that what Wrist wrote made him
downright "sick." Poor kid.
Our own Greta Van Sustren is on her way to the Capitol building right now
and we hope to have a live feed from her in a few minutes. I'm also hearing
in my ear that we are trying to get the BOY in for a live interview in the
next few minutes -- again, we're working under BREAKING NEWS conditions
here -- and we hope to have that LIVE INTERVIEW regarding this crisis for
the House DEMOCRATS - for you in this hour. Stay with us. We'll get back to
House DEMOCRAT leader Nancy Pelosi, we'll see what she knows about what
appears to be developing into a sex scandal involving a House DEMOCRAT,
later.
Meanwhile, we'll have lots more -- more live guests and more details as they
come in -- we're going to stay with this story affecting House DEMOCRATS for
as long as it takes -- more on this BREAKING NEWS after this. Stay with us.
This has been a FOX NEWS ALERT. Back in a minute.
A Brick in the Wall
<light...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159572030....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Dems seem to prefer fag sex as in Barney Fag and the one from NJ but
> who really cares what filthy politicos of any stripe do when they're
> not fucking US?
BWAHAHAHAHA --- You can't answer why the Repug House leadership BURIED the
problem for most of the last year --- you are too funny.
A Brick in the Wall
>" I think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this
> misconduct 10 - 11 months ago ---"
>
> I was wondering when someone was going to notice that little point.
>
> The Party that is against gay marriage is apparently not against
> man-boy love... who would ever have thought?
>
> Kind of make them out as the HYPOCRITES they are, doesn't it?
>
> Now I am going to sit back and listen to all those self serving
> Republican denounce one of their own perverts....just like they chose
> to do over and over and over with President Clinton.
>
> <the sound of a pin dropping>
>
> What? Where is the outrage? Could it be that Republicans voters are
> HYPOCRITES too?
>
> Or maybe they are writing their emails to their own little boys?
>
> Laugh...laugh...laugh.....
>
> TMT
>
Moffitt has already rolled out the Clinton did it defense line...
A Brick in the Wall
So the House Leadership knew about the problem -- If I recall properly ---
Hastert has some "minor" role in the House Leadership --- but he hasn't
talked to Foley --- Can we see the picture yet?
Captain America
light...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dems seem to prefer fag sex as in Barney Fag and the one from NJ but
> who really cares what filthy politicos of any stripe do when they're
> not fucking US?
You're overcompensating by your hatred of homosexuals. Does that mean
you are molesting minors too?
A Brick in the Wall
"Captain America" <america...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159575472.2...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Looking at the party -- one must assume the likelihood is high.
elkho...@yahoo.com
=20
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
Somebody said this was probably the best e-mail he'd seen in a long, =
long time. The following has been attributed to State Rep Mitchell Aye
=
from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help =
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more
riots, =
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the =
blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our =
great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and
=
establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt
=
ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths
=
to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill
=
of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or
any =
other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire
them, =
but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
country =
is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just =
you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different =
opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
will =
be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you =
stick a
screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the =
tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently =
wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. =
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly =
help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing =
generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve
=
nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional =
couch potatoes. (This is a pet peeve...get an education and go to =
work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be
=
nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested
in =
public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
=
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be =
surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If
=
you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
=
don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in
a =
place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or
a =
life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want =
you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we
=
expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and =
vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American =
means
that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot
=
easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws =
created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you
=
are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you
=
came from! (lastly....)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history
or =
heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And =
yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith,
or =
no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE
TRUST =
is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with
=
it, TOUGH!!!!
If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and =
nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about =
time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United
=
States speak out because if you do not, who will?
=20
Borrow money from pessimists -- they don't expect it back.=20
David Moffitt
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
news:451d7f67$1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159572718.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>" I think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this
>> misconduct 10 - 11 months ago ---"
>>
>> I was wondering when someone was going to notice that little point.
>>
>> The Party that is against gay marriage is apparently not against
>> man-boy love... who would ever have thought?
>>
>> Kind of make them out as the HYPOCRITES they are, doesn't it?
>>
>> Now I am going to sit back and listen to all those self serving
>> Republican denounce one of their own perverts....just like they chose
>> to do over and over and over with President Clinton.
>>
>> <the sound of a pin dropping>
>>
>> What? Where is the outrage? Could it be that Republicans voters are
>> HYPOCRITES too?
>>
>> Or maybe they are writing their emails to their own little boys?
>>
>> Laugh...laugh...laugh.....
>>
>> TMT
>>
>
>
> Moffitt has already rolled out the Clinton did it defense line...
%%%% Where? I just said that if it was a Democrat he could be staining
velvet dresses.
"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
A Brick in the Wall
"David Moffitt" <moff...@stompingweasels.com> wrote in message
news:nsjTg.722$Lv3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NoThanks.com> wrote in message
> news:451d7f67$1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>>
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159572718.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>" I think it is noteworthy the Repug leadership was informed of this
>>> misconduct 10 - 11 months ago ---"
>>>
>>> I was wondering when someone was going to notice that little point.
>>>
>>> The Party that is against gay marriage is apparently not against
>>> man-boy love... who would ever have thought?
>>>
>>> Kind of make them out as the HYPOCRITES they are, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Now I am going to sit back and listen to all those self serving
>>> Republican denounce one of their own perverts....just like they chose
>>> to do over and over and over with President Clinton.
>>>
>>> <the sound of a pin dropping>
>>>
>>> What? Where is the outrage? Could it be that Republicans voters are
>>> HYPOCRITES too?
>>>
>>> Or maybe they are writing their emails to their own little boys?
>>>
>>> Laugh...laugh...laugh.....
>>>
>>> TMT
>>>
>>
>>
>> Moffitt has already rolled out the Clinton did it defense line...
>
> %%%% Where? I just said that if it was a Democrat he could be staining
> velvet dresses.
>
AKA - the Clinton did it variant.
Too_Many_Tools
The best piece of writing I have seen in years.
And so very, very true of Faux News.
TMT
David Moffitt
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NOThanks.com> wrote in message
news:451d968e$1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
%%%% He was the original blue dress stain-er.
Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and
the war on terrorism. They don't give a shit how many folks get killed, as
long as it isn't themselves or any of their own. ---- Harry Hope in
alt.fan.rush-Limbaugh June 15, 2006
A Brick in the Wall
Just keep hoping that America is going to buy your repeated Clinton Did It
defense --- & then hope that they will accept the Repug Leadership was
hiding the problem all the while letting Foley have access to pages?
Do you want to see the transcript of an exchange?
Do you want him alone in the room with your child?
Have at it loserboy.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf
Maf54 (7:25:14 PM): hey
Auto response from Xxxxxxxxx (7:25:14 PM): scrounging for food...brb
Maf54 (7:25:25 PM): ok
Maf54 (7:25:35 PM): kep scrounging
Xxxxxxxxx (7:31:51 PM): boo
Maf54 (7:32:13 PM): bo dude
Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:17 PM): lol
Xxxxxxxxx (7:32:26 PM): whered ya go this afternoon
Maf54 (7:33:39 PM): i am in pensecola...had to catch a plane
Xxxxxxxxx (7:33:47 PM): oh well thats fun
Maf54 (7:34:04 PM): indeed
Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:14 PM): what are you doing in pensecola
Maf54 (7:34:21 PM): now in my hotel room
Xxxxxxxxx (7:34:39 PM): well ..like why did you go there
Maf54 (7:35:02 PM): for the campaign
Xxxxxxxxx (7:35:29 PM): have you officialy announced yt
Maf54 (7:35:45 PM): not yet
Xxxxxxxxx (7:36:06 PM): cool cool...
Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite young stud doing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:46 PM): tired and sore
Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:52 PM): i didnt no waltzing could make you sore
Maf54 (7:38:04 PM): from what
Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:34 PM): what do you mean from what
Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:42 PM): from waltzing...im sore from waltzing
Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): tahts good
Maf54 (7:39:32 PM): you need a massage Maf54 signed off at 7:39:37 PM. Maf54
signed on at 7:40:35 PM.
Xxxxxxxxx (7:40:44 PM): got kicked off?
Maf54 (7:41:24 PM): must have
Xxxxxxxxx (7:41:57 PM): ugh tomorrow i have the first day of lacrosse
practice
Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that
Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running
Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:38 PM): haha...they arent great
Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:45 PM): thats why we have conditioning
Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:56 PM): 2 days running....3 days lifting
Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:11 PM): every week
Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:14 PM): until the end of march
Maf54 (7:43:27 PM): well dont ruin my mental picture
Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:32 PM): oh lol...sorry
Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): nice
Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): youll be way hot then
Xxxxxxxxx (7:44:01 PM): haha...hopefully
Maf54 (7:44:22 PM): better be
Maf54 (7:46:01 PM): well I better let you go do oyur thing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:07 PM): oh ok
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:11 PM): have fun campaigning
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:17 PM): or however you spell it
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:18 PM): lol
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:25 PM): ill see ya in a couple of weeks
Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:38 PM): lol no
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:40 PM): im single right now
Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi
Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you
Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny
Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol...a bit
Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy
Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...
Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha
Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:51 PM): haha
Maf54 (7:50:02 PM): or tired..helps me sleep
Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:15 PM): thats true
Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:36 PM): havent been having a problem with sleep though.. i
just walk in the door and collapse well at least this weekend
Maf54 (7:50:56 PM): i am sure
Xxxxxxxxx (7:50:57 PM): i dont do it very often normally though
Maf54 (7:51:11 PM): why not
Maf54 (7:51:22 PM): at your age seems like it would be daily
Xxxxxxxxx (7:51:57 PM): not me
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:01 PM): im not a horn dog
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:07 PM): maybe 2 or 3 times a week
Maf54 (7:52:20 PM): thats a good number
Maf54 (7:52:27 PM): in the shower
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:36 PM): actually usually i dont do it in the shower
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:42 PM): just cause i shower in the morning
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:47 PM): and quickly
Maf54 (7:52:50 PM): in the bed
Xxxxxxxxx (7:52:59 PM): i get up at 530 and am outta the house by 610
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:03 PM): eh ya
Maf54 (7:53:24 PM): on your back
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:30 PM): no face down
Maf54 (7:53:32 PM): love details
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:34 PM): lol
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:36 PM): i see that
Xxxxxxxxx (7:53:37 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:53:39 PM): really
Maf54 (7:53:54 PM): do you really do it face down
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:03 PM): ya
Maf54 (7:54:13 PM): kneeling
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:31 PM): well i dont use my hand...i use the bed itself
Maf54 (7:54:31 PM): where do you unload it
Xxxxxxxxx (7:54:36 PM): towel
Maf54 (7:54:43 PM): really
Maf54 (7:55:02 PM): completely naked?
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:12 PM): well ya
Maf54 (7:55:21 PM): very nice
Xxxxxxxxx (7:55:24 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:00 PM): haha
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:05 PM): well ive never watched myslef
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:08 PM): but ya i guess
Maf54 (7:56:18 PM): i am sure not
Maf54 (7:56:22 PM): hmmm
Maf54 (7:56:30 PM): great visual
Maf54 (7:56:39 PM): i may try that
Xxxxxxxxx (7:56:43 PM): it works
Maf54 (7:56:51 PM): hmm
Maf54 (7:56:57 PM): sound inetersting
Maf54 (7:57:05 PM): i always use lotion and the hand
Maf54 (7:57:10 PM): but who knows
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:24 PM): i dont use lotion...takes too much time to clean up
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:37 PM): with a towel you can just wipe off....and go
Maf54 (7:57:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (7:57:45 PM): where do you throw the towel
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:48 PM): but you cant work it too hard....or its not good
Xxxxxxxxx (7:57:51 PM): in the laundry
Maf54 (7:58:16 PM): just kinda slow rubbing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:23 PM): ya....
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:32 PM): or youll rub yourslef raw
Maf54 (7:58:37 PM): well I have aa totally stiff wood now
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:40 PM): cause the towell isnt very soft
Maf54 (7:58:44 PM): i bet..taht would hurt
Xxxxxxxxx (7:58:50 PM): but you cn find something softer than a towell i
guess
Maf54 (7:58:59 PM): but it must feel great spirting on the towel
Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:06 PM): ya
Maf54 (7:59:29 PM): wow
Maf54 (7:59:48 PM): is your little guy limp...or growing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:59:54 PM): eh growing
Maf54 (8:00:00 PM): hmm
Maf54 (8:00:12 PM): so you got a stiff one now
Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:19 PM): not that fast
Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:20 PM): hey
Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:32 PM): so you have a fetich
Maf54 (8:00:32 PM): hey what
Xxxxxxxxx (8:00:40 PM): fetish**
Maf54 (8:00:43 PM): like
Maf54 (8:00:53 PM): i like steamroom
Maf54 (8:01:04 PM): whats yours
Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:09 PM): its kinda weird
Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:14 PM): lol
Maf54 (8:01:21 PM): i am hard as a rock..so tell me when your reaches rock
Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:23 PM): i have a cast fetish
Maf54 (8:01:27 PM): well tell me
Maf54 (8:01:32 PM): cast
Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:44 PM): ya like...plaster cast
Maf54 (8:01:49 PM): ok..so what happens
Maf54 (8:01:58 PM): how does that turn you in
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:02 PM): i dont know
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:04 PM): it just does
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:08 PM): ive never had one
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:16 PM): but people that have them turn me on
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:27 PM): and if i had one it would probably turn me on
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:29 PM): beats me
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:32 PM): its kinda weird
Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:50 PM): but along with that i like the whole catholic girl
look....thats our schools uniform
Maf54 (8:03:02 PM): ha thats wild
Xxxxxxxxx (8:03:14 PM): ya but now im hard
Maf54 (8:03:32 PM): me 2
Maf54 (8:03:42 PM): cast got you going
Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited
Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true
Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol
Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you
Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out
Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:54 PM): brb...my mom is yelling
Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok
Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:02 PM): back
Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:54 PM): no no
Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:59 PM): she is computer dumb though
Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:01 PM): it makes me so mad
Maf54 (8:15:04 PM): good
Maf54 (8:15:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:15:11 PM): why
Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:23 PM): cause she cant do anything
Maf54 (8:15:31 PM): oh well
Xxxxxxxxx (8:15:41 PM): she couldnt figure out how to download a file from
an email and open it
Maf54 (8:15:53 PM): haha
Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:14 PM): and she only does it like a million times a day
Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:16 PM): oh well
Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:18 PM): whatever
Xxxxxxxxx (8:16:53 PM): well i better go finish my hw...i just found out
from a friend that i have to finish reading and notating a book for AP
english Maf54 signed off at 8:17:43 PM.
Bugman
great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is nothing
wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
<elkho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159575830....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Too_Many_Tools
children are molested by a God fearing Flag waving Republican
denouncing gay marriage and child porn.
God Help Us All.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
subject?
Are you trying to change the subject because you approve of child
molestation?
Hypocrites and perverts....and the November elections can't come too
soon.
TMT
A Brick in the Wall
"A Brick in the Wall" <NoS...@NOThanks.com> wrote in message
<mercy snip>
I hear crickets......
Too_Many_Tools
I hear even MORE and MORE crickets.
And where are the legions of conservatives foaming at the mouth
condemning this REPUBLICAN gay born again sexual predator and the
REPUBLICAN hypocritical Congressional leadership?
Could it be that they support this lifestyle?..the Republican
leadership apparently does.
Could it be that they support the preying of children?...the Republican
leadership apparently does.
Could it be that the Republican supporters are hypocrits?
Who would ever thought?
Laugh...laugh...laugh....
TMT
Rt309ra...@yahoo.com
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Ever notice how Republicans try to change the topic when they are the
> subject?
>
> Are you trying to change the subject because you approve of child
> molestation?
>
> Hypocrites and perverts....and the November elections can't come too
> soon.
>
> TMT
Google Charlie Nudo and you'll have all the answers you need on this
poster.
Gunner
<Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Gunner
wrote:
>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is nothing
>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
mondo time trying to find work arounds?
As for long term debt..FDR...
Gunner
Roger
news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>nothing
>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>
> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
List a few of these "work arounds:"
---------------------------
Here are some of Bush's:
----------------------------
- Searches without warrants
- Removing appeals to USSC for accused "enemy combatants"
- Claiming the federal courts can't hear challenges to their warrantless
searches
Joe
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>>nothing
>>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>
>> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
>> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
If there's noting wrong with the Constitution, why does Bush feel he
can abrogate any part of it he wishes?
Huh?
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Christopher Helms
So what? Ignoring your creative editing for a moment, we're not over
there because Saddams WMDs were a threat. The whole WMD argument is
passe. We're over there making Iraq a democracy because that's somehow
or other going to stop worldwide terrorism. Please try to keep up.
You're using last years RNC Crock of Shit.
Christopher Helms
>
> How Fox Would Have Reported Mark Foley's Resignation if He Were a Democrat
> Reported by Melanie - September 29, 2006 - 28 comments
> Dennis Hastert (R-IL) appeared on Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (September
> 29, 2006) ostensibly to talk about the supposed stock market "rally" Fox
> keeps shouting about. In the middle of the segment with substitute host
> David Asman, Asman paused and said,
If Foley was a Democrat it would be completely different. I can
actually see Steve and E.D. shaking their heads in sad disbelief as
Kilmeade grafts rumor and innuendo onto the actual story and does so in
a manner that makes it seem like he's giving more details on the whole
sordid mess, rather than drifting into pure speculation.
Hugh Gibbons
"Christopher Helms" <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But don't get too enamored of this current crock. Next year, we'll be
hearing about something entirely new, when it becomes too apparent to
too many people, EVEN REPUBLICANS that Iraq is not going to become
a western-friendly democratic state and that nothing we're doing over
there or are likely to do can stop terrorism. I have great confidence in
Karl Rove. That guy will think of something, and the Republicans will
swallow it like oysters on the half shell.
Gunner
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>>nothing
>>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>
>> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
>> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>
>List a few of these "work arounds:"
Gun Control, Roe v Wade, Imminent Domain, Hate Speech laws, just to name
a few
>---------------------------
>
>
>
>Here are some of Bush's:
>----------------------------
>- Searches without warrants
Cites? Be specific.
>- Removing appeals to USSC for accused "enemy combatants"
Removing? They never had it.
>- Claiming the federal courts can't hear challenges to their warrantless
>searches
Cites? Be specific
No comment on FDR eh?
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner
<Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Creative editing? Those are direct quotes from Democrats who VOTED for
the war.
It would appear to be last years DNC crock of shit it would appear too.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
Gunner
Your denial and evasion of the quotes above is fascinating.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
Roger
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:54:13 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>>>nothing
>>>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>>
>>> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
>>> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>>
>>List a few of these "work arounds:"
>
> Gun Control, Roe v Wade, Imminent Domain, Hate Speech laws, just to name
> a few
You seem to be under the impression that the "constitution" exists in some
sort of ideal universe where there are no courts, judges, and court
decisions.
This is not the case.
Law is the total of the written laws and the interpretation of those laws by
the courts.
All the things you've mentioned have been UPHELD by the USSC. They are
therefore constitutional, by definition.
>>---------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>Here are some of Bush's:
>>----------------------------
>>- Searches without warrants
> Cites? Be specific.
>
>>- Removing appeals to USSC for accused "enemy combatants"
>
> Removing? They never had it.
A little law passed last week. It was in all media.
>
>>- Claiming the federal courts can't hear challenges to their warrantless
>>searches
>
> Cites? Be specific
Start with the THREE federal judges who have found Bush's bugging to be
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If you can't find them, you're dumber than I thought.
>
>
> No comment on FDR eh?
>
> Laugh laugh laugh
You mean the guy that died over 1/2 a century ago?
Is he still setting government policy? Way to go, OLD OLD OLD DEAD man!
Joe
wrote:
>
>Creative editing? Those are direct quotes from Democrats who VOTED for
>the war.
Direct quotes proving most of the Dumbs are as evil as most of the
Pugs. So what? It should be freaking obvious to anyone who doesn't
have their head up the president's ass.
>It would appear to be last years DNC crock of shit it would appear too.
It would appear you need some new insults to slap on folks. All this
DNC shit is as stoopid as you, Gumby.
Bugman
Dan
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:54:13 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
> >>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
> >>>nothing
> >>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
> >>
> >> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
> >> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
> >
> >List a few of these "work arounds:"
>
> Gun Control,
No contradiction, therefore no "work around." (c.f. 2nd Amendment)
> Roe v Wade,
No contradiction, therefore no "work around." (c.f. 1st Amendment)
> Imminent Domain,
No contradiction, therefore no workaround (c.f. Amendment 5)
> Hate Speech laws,
Wow! Runner and I agree on something (the inadvisability
and unConstitutionality of those laws). Though not quite a
"work around," those laws built on precedence from a Court
decision long ago (c.f. Schenck v. United States in 1919).
> just to name a few
Well, nearly one, in fact.
But typical bluster on the Coward's part.
Dan
Gunner
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:shluh2lr3rb1cdvvo...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:54:13 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>>>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>>>>nothing
>>>>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>>>
>>>> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
>>>> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>>>
>>>List a few of these "work arounds:"
>>
>> Gun Control, Roe v Wade, Imminent Domain, Hate Speech laws, just to name
>> a few
>
>You seem to be under the impression that the "constitution" exists in some
>sort of ideal universe where there are no courts, judges, and court
>decisions.
>
You seem to think that the Constitution is a Dynamic document changeable
by judicial fiat. This is not the case.
Its a contract between the Government and the People. Lets say you
bought a house. Its a contract between you and the bank. If you treated
the contract with the bank, the same way you think the Constitution
should be treated, you will shortly discover the bank has sublet the
basement to a family from Ecuador, the 2nd bedroom has been converted to
a time share and the backyard was just taken by a animal rendering
plant. And the price just tripled and the balance on your 15 yr note,
is due last month.
>This is not the case.
>
>Law is the total of the written laws and the interpretation of those laws by
>the courts.
True enough, but the Constitution isnt law..its a Contract. The terms
are renegotiatble..but require a Constitutional Amendment and all that
that entails. Like renegotiation with the bank. Much ado and not easily
done without the full agreement of all parties..ie the People.
>
>All the things you've mentioned have been UPHELD by the USSC. They are
>therefore constitutional, by definition.
So was slavery and Prohibition, just to name a few.
>
>>>---------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Here are some of Bush's:
>>>----------------------------
>>>- Searches without warrants
>> Cites? Be specific.
>>
>>>- Removing appeals to USSC for accused "enemy combatants"
>>
>> Removing? They never had it.
>
>A little law passed last week. It was in all media.
So you are unable to provide specifics?
>
>
>>
>>>- Claiming the federal courts can't hear challenges to their warrantless
>>>searches
>>
>> Cites? Be specific
>
>Start with the THREE federal judges who have found Bush's bugging to be
>UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
See the little law that passed last week.
>
>If you can't find them, you're dumber than I thought.
So you admit to being unable to provide anything besides hearsay.
>
>
>>
>>
>> No comment on FDR eh?
>>
>> Laugh laugh laugh
>
>You mean the guy that died over 1/2 a century ago?
>
Yup..we are still paying for his malfeaseance. And the same with LBJ's.
>Is he still setting government policy? Way to go, OLD OLD OLD DEAD man!
No wonder you treat the Constitution in such a cavalier fashion..after
all..the people that formed that Contract are old old old dead guys.
Speaks volumes about you. None good.
Hugh Gibbons
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
Gunner, you have no credibility. I don't take anything you say
seriously, not even your empty threats against patriotic Americans who
are the only ones standing between you and designation as an enemy
combatant, which would result in your being disappeared into a secret
prison, never to be seen again.
I have noted that despite the fact that I would stand up for your right
to a fair trial, you are too selfish and cowardly to stand up for anyone
else's. Or maybe you just hate everybody who doesn't share your
opinions. That's just as bad in my book.
As for the quotes, I simply don't care. Republicans, in particular the
Bush administration, sold us this war. They sold it to a lot of
Republicans and Democrats in Congress, too, with their phony intel and
carefully edited analysis. It was a bill of goods. You should accept
that historic fact and move on. There's plenty you could let yourself
be right about if you get yourself unwrapped from the axle about being
wrong on this one.
Hugh Gibbons
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
> >great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is nothing
> >wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>
> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>
> As for long term debt..FDR...
>
> Gunner
Water under the bridge, Gunner. Let's get back on topic. What is so
wrong with the Constitution? Why don't you support it?
Roger
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:09:06 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news:shluh2lr3rb1cdvvo...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:54:13 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>>>>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>>>>>nothing
>>>>>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
>>>>> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>>>>
>>>>List a few of these "work arounds:"
>>>
>>> Gun Control, Roe v Wade, Imminent Domain, Hate Speech laws, just to name
>>> a few
>>
>>You seem to be under the impression that the "constitution" exists in some
>>sort of ideal universe where there are no courts, judges, and court
>>decisions.
>>
>
> You seem to think that the Constitution is a Dynamic document changeable
> by judicial fiat. This is not the case.
Here's a part of the constitution you seem to have missed:
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times,
receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a
State and Citizens of another State;11--between Citizens of different
States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign
States, Citizens or Subjects.
>
> Its a contract between the Government and the People. Lets say you
> bought a house. Its a contract between you and the bank. If you treated
> the contract with the bank, the same way you think the Constitution
> should be treated, you will shortly discover the bank has sublet the
> basement to a family from Ecuador, the 2nd bedroom has been converted to
> a time share and the backyard was just taken by a animal rendering
> plant. And the price just tripled and the balance on your 15 yr note,
> is due last month.
Any laws the government passes superceed your contract.
Learn just a little bit about what you're talking about. Christ.
MonkeyHawk
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Here's a part of the constitution you seem to have missed:
>
> Article III.
>
> Section. 1.
>
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
> Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
> ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
> shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated
> Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
> diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> Section. 2.
>
> Clause 1:
> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
> under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
> or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting
> Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of
> admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United
> States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more
> States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;11--between
> Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming
> Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
> Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Oh, damn. There ya go!
Introducing *facts* into the argument!
How *dare* you!?
Str...@flashlight.net
<not_a...@address.com> wrote:
Don't let those in Congress off the hook by suggesting that
they were fooled. The committee heads, those with more than a few
terms in office, the insiders, Democrats and Republicans, (to numerous
to list) were aware of what the intel agencies were putting out and
that the Neocons were doctoring the analyst's reports. This was
nothing new. Clinton's people did the same to further his agenda.
These members of Congress were aware of the growing terrorist problem
15 years ago. They are also keenly aware of the illegal alien menace
and in fact have conspired with the administration to foist the
illegal aliens and the terrorists upon us. In short, the American
people have been had.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Roger
If the President forgets about this document, his sheep do to.
Just a reminder.
Gunner
<not_a...@address.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your denial and evasion of the quotes above is fascinating.
>>
>Gunner, you have no credibility. I don't take anything you say
>seriously, not even your empty threats against patriotic Americans who
>are the only ones standing between you and designation as an enemy
>combatant, which would result in your being disappeared into a secret
>prison, never to be seen again.
Frankly Huge..you are a loon, and whether or not I have credibility
with a loon, is hardly of any concern to me.
>
>I have noted that despite the fact that I would stand up for your right
>to a fair trial, you are too selfish and cowardly to stand up for anyone
>else's. Or maybe you just hate everybody who doesn't share your
>opinions. That's just as bad in my book.
Really? How do you figure this? Ive always said Tribunal, then hanging.
Like pillage rape and burn..you always have to remember..getting the
burn and rape out of order is simply self defeating.
>
>As for the quotes, I simply don't care. Republicans, in particular the
>Bush administration, sold us this war. They sold it to a lot of
>Republicans and Democrats in Congress, too, with their phony intel and
>carefully edited analysis. It was a bill of goods. You should accept
>that historic fact and move on. There's plenty you could let yourself
>be right about if you get yourself unwrapped from the axle about being
>wrong on this one.
You simply dont care? Most of those quotes were from 3 yrs before Bush
took office. And they were directed by Bush?????
Huge..you descend further and further into loonishness with every post.
Pity.
Gunner
Oddly enough Huge..Im a big defender of the Constitution. In fact I
swore the Oath several times to protect and defend it, from enemies,
foriegn and domestic (of which I count you and yours)
So Huge..why do you hate the Constitution and have hitched your wagon to
those that have spend countless millions and countless hours attempting
to harm it?
Gunner
Yes and?
>
>>
>> Its a contract between the Government and the People. Lets say you
>> bought a house. Its a contract between you and the bank. If you treated
>> the contract with the bank, the same way you think the Constitution
>> should be treated, you will shortly discover the bank has sublet the
>> basement to a family from Ecuador, the 2nd bedroom has been converted to
>> a time share and the backyard was just taken by a animal rendering
>> plant. And the price just tripled and the balance on your 15 yr note,
>> is due last month.
>
>Any laws the government passes superceed your contract.
>
>Learn just a little bit about what you're talking about. Christ.
Then we in the Red States can pass a law removing freedom of speech from
liberals? And enslaving them for a period of 7 yrs after which they are
to be executed without trial, for simply entering into Red States.
Is this your claim?
Gunner
wrote:
And these have what to do with the Constitution?
So..if a Judge says that we can hang liberals up by their thumbs until
they rot off..its ok with you. Is that your claim is?
Its obvious that your grasp of both the law and Constitutional law is
non existant. But hey..ignorance loves company and you and Huge make a
great couple...of idiots.
Baldin...@msn.com
elkho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or
> any =
> other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire
> them, =
> but no one is guaranteeing anything.
Agreed
> ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This
> country =
> is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just =
> you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different =
> opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always
> will =
> be.
Agreed
> ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you =
> stick a
> screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the =
> tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently =
> wealthy.
Agreed
> ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. =
> Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly =
> help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing =
> generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve
> =
> nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional =
> couch potatoes. (This is a pet peeve...get an education and go to =
> work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
Agreed
> ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be
> nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested
> in public health care.
Also true
> ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
> If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be =
> surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
True enough
> ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If
> you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
> don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in
> a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or
> a life of leisure.
>
Absolutely
> ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want =
> you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we
> expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and =
> vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
So far, so good
> ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American =
> means
> that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot
> easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws =
> created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
There ya go, sherriff
> ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you
> are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you
> came from! (lastly....)
There is no law requiring a US citizen speak English. This is your wet
dream, and nothing more.
> ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history
> or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God.
Sorry, but no. This belief shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our
history.
> And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith,
> or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE
> TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with
> it, TOUGH!!!!
Some of these are right, but the last two are close to bullshit.
Pramer
Roger
Not okay with me.
Still the law.
>
> Its obvious that your grasp of both the law and Constitutional law is
> non existant. But hey..ignorance loves company and you and Huge make a
> great couple...of idiots.
You're so ignorant of the law you don't know how ignorant.
Read. If you have the balls.
miles
> There is no law requiring a US citizen speak English. This is your wet
> dream, and nothing more.
US tax $'s should not be used to pay for conducting of local business in
any language other than English. Simply because immigrants do not wish
to learn English is not a valid reason to do so.
Baldin...@msn.com
I agree, miles. I was merely pointing out the facts. The idea that we
should have to pay extra to translate into other languages for the
convenience of theose who won't learn English is ridiculous.
By the way, I wanted to reply to you on another thread when I reached
my posting limit. I can't find the thread now, so here it is:
miles wrote:
> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> > miles wrote:
> >> American Jesus wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Democratic plan is to engage allies instead of alienating them.
> >> The Democratic plan is to appease enemies in the fear they may attack us
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > On what evidence to you base this assertion? Of course, I don't expect
> > an answer. Just calling you out.
>
> Evidence? Look at what the Dems wish to do. All they tout is more
> diplomacy with terrorist organizations. Hell, when OBL himself offered
> his so called peace treaty many Dems here bashed Bush for rejecting it.
I don't recall that, but I will take your word for it. In any case,
individual Democrats here are not in charge of policy in Washington DC.
You are mistaking usenet posters for Democratic policy makers.
> Yes they want to appease these thugs. They also want to return to the
> concept of treating terrorism as a police action. That method was tried
> and failed by both Dems and Reps for decades leading up to 9/11.
It was effective enough to deal with the level of terrorism at that
time. Clinton began escalating our response to terrorists just as he
was leaving office. I don't think Bush's approach of attacking secular
Middle East countries is the right approach either.
The problem is militant Islam. When we start attacking the countries
that actually support it, as opposed to Saddam's Iraq, then get back to
me on how effective Bush's policy is.
In any case, I owe you an apology. I mistook you for someone who would
not try to defend his views with a logical argument. Sorry about that.
Pramer
Gunner
>>>
>>>Oh, damn. There ya go!
>>>
>>>Introducing *facts* into the argument!
>>>
>>>How *dare* you!?
>>>
>> And these have what to do with the Constitution?
>>
>> So..if a Judge says that we can hang liberals up by their thumbs until
>> they rot off..its ok with you. Is that your claim is?
>
>Not okay with me.
>
>Still the law.
Blink blink..of all the ignorant responses I was expecting from
you..this one blind sided me. I just downgraded my description of you to
imbecile.
>
>
>>
>> Its obvious that your grasp of both the law and Constitutional law is
>> non existant. But hey..ignorance loves company and you and Huge make a
>> great couple...of idiots.
>
>You're so ignorant of the law you don't know how ignorant.
>
>Read. If you have the balls.
>
Chuckle..I have. Many times. And repeatedly since the military and the
police academy.
You and Huge make a marvelous pair. Which one is the husband today?
MonkeyHawk
>>> So..if a Judge says that we can hang liberals up by their thumbs until
>>> they rot off..its ok with you. Is that your claim is?
>>
>>Not okay with me.
>>
>>Still the law.
>
> Blink blink..of all the ignorant responses I was expecting from
> you..this one blind sided me. I just downgraded my description of you to
> imbecile.
Then one must assume that you think the 2000 SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore
was worthy of revolution.
By a vote of 5-4, the conservative-dominated Republican-appointed majority
specifically stated their decision should not be construed as a precident as
Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and Kennedy bestowed the Oval Office on
George WMD Bush.
I think they were wrong. Since they went to extreme efforts to try to make
their decision a non-precident, Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and
Kennedy seemed to think they were wrong.
Had Democrats been less patriotic, and not accepted the rule of law from the
SCOTUS, a second Civil War might have resulted.
Okay, you'll say, the Democrats are wimps.
Perhaps. But the point is, the Supreme Court can make bad decisions and it
takes something more than a snitty attitude to overrule what the Highest
Court in the Land decides.
Your reductio ad absurdum argument, "Gunner," that "...if a judge says we
can hang liberals by their thumbs..." indicates a contempt for the
Constitution of the United States that attempts to put you ego above and
beyond the core of Americanism: that this is a government of laws, not of
men.
The "election" of George WMD Bush in 2000 was a constitutional fluke, a
judicial coup d'etat perhaps, and a mistake the SCOTUS desperately tried to
distance itself from, even as the 5-4 decision was handed down.
Grudgingly, Democrats accepted it, because it was the law.
For eight months -- and until Shrub diverted the "war on terrod" to a
misguided, ill-planned, and ultimately futile invasion and occupation of
Iraq -- the loyal opposition to George Dumbya Bush's Reign of Error tried to
accept the rule of law.
But "law" doesn't mean squat to Bushevics. The Constitution means nothing
to an administration bent on removing the Bill of Rights by executive fiat,
bit by bit, until the only thing left will be your protection against
quartering troops.
What's that knock at the door?
Hope you have enough eggs for the 3rd Infantry's breakfast.
Dan
"miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:9c8Ug.16118$tO5.13624@fed1read10...
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Dan
P.S. No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question (have your mommy
explain it to you).
miles
> "miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
> news:9c8Ug.16118$tO5.13624@fed1read10...
>> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>> There is no law requiring a US citizen speak English. This is your wet
>>> dream, and nothing more.
>> US tax $'s should not be used to pay for conducting of local business in
>> any language other than English. Simply because immigrants do not wish
>> to learn English is not a valid reason to do so.
>
> Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
So you believe that the Gov. should be required to print all document
transaction papers, forms etc. between private individuals and the Gov.
to be in Spanish and English and any other language? My point is the
answer should be NO. They can if they want. They should not be
required to. That issue is a hot topic here in AZ. Mexicans want all
such documents to be in Spanish as well as English. They also want to
require Spanish speaking employees at all Gov. offices that deal
directly with the public. Requiring it is wrong.
Roger
miles
> Prove it.
Oh geez. Arizona has been a battle ground (along with California) on
English-Only bills. It is the Mexicans that have been fighting it like
crazy. Trying to get government business to be conducted in both
languages which includes the cost of forms to be in Spanish as well as
bilingual employees required to handle them.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/AR1.htm
They are still at it trying to repeal laws that allow schools to teach
English only.
Before you shoot your mouth off, I have family from Mexico with some
living there.
MonkeyHawk
The California state constitution was written in Spanish.
Gunner
wrote:
>
>By a vote of 5-4, the conservative-dominated Republican-appointed majority
>specifically stated their decision should not be construed as a precident as
>Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and Kennedy bestowed the Oval Office on
>George WMD Bush.
Hint..SCOTUS wasnt "conservative dominated" until last year, and in
fact..was rather liberal.
But nice try...not.
Fucktard.
Gunner
miles
> The California state constitution was written in Spanish.
Wrong. It was written in English and then translated to Spanish. This
translated copy was for the purpose of sending to Mexico following the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ending the Mexican War. Nice try though.
Hugh Gibbons
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:49:24 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
> <not_a...@address.com> wrote:
> >Water under the bridge, Gunner. Let's get back on topic. What is so
> >wrong with the Constitution? Why don't you support it?
>
> Oddly enough Huge..Im a big defender of the Constitution. In fact I
> swore the Oath several times to protect and defend it, from enemies,
> foriegn and domestic (of which I count you and yours)
If you swore that, it's clear you were either lying or have changed
your mind and backed out. You don't support the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th
or 7th Amendments.
> So Huge..why do you hate the Constitution and have hitched your wagon to
> those that have spend countless millions and countless hours attempting
> to harm it?
That is simply a lie.
Hugh Gibbons
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
Hello? Anybody there? I didn't think so, and now I know for sure.
Roger
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:01:45 -0500, "MonkeyHawk" <monke...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>By a vote of 5-4, the conservative-dominated Republican-appointed majority
>>specifically stated their decision should not be construed as a precident
>>as
>>Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and Kennedy bestowed the Oval Office
>>on
>>George WMD Bush.
>
> Hint..SCOTUS wasnt "conservative dominated" until last year, and in
> fact..was rather liberal.
The 7 judges nominated by REPUBLICANS sure fooled their nominators.
And those PRESIDENTS sure were morons, eh?
Roger
You have no idea what integrity in information sources, do you?
You're such a flake. Pathetic.
Roger
Perhaps if there was one before the US STOLE the state from Mexico, it would
have been.
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <b1b1i25riah1flruj...@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:49:24 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
>> <not_a...@address.com> wrote:
>> >Water under the bridge, Gunner. Let's get back on topic. What is so
>> >wrong with the Constitution? Why don't you support it?
>>
>> Oddly enough Huge..Im a big defender of the Constitution. In fact I
>> swore the Oath several times to protect and defend it, from enemies,
>> foriegn and domestic (of which I count you and yours)
>
>If you swore that, it's clear you were either lying or have changed
>your mind and backed out. You don't support the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th
>or 7th Amendments.
Sure I do. I support them all. You on the other hand only support a
few, and try to subvert the rest. That is called treason, making you
an Enemy of the people.
Ill rejoice the day they strap you to a gurney and stick a lethal
needle in your arm and kill you.
>
>> So Huge..why do you hate the Constitution and have hitched your wagon to
>> those that have spend countless millions and countless hours attempting
>> to harm it?
>
>That is simply a lie.
>
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Gunner
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."
"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Gunner
>>
>> Hint..SCOTUS wasnt "conservative dominated" until last year, and in
>> fact..was rather liberal.
>
>The 7 judges nominated by REPUBLICANS sure fooled their nominators.
Hardly..they knew they were nominating liberals.
>
>And those PRESIDENTS sure were morons, eh?
Why? Because they nominated Liberals? Hummm I do tend to agree with
you there.
miles
> You're such a flake. Pathetic.
Is that your best debating tactics you have? Typical liberal.
miles
> Perhaps if there was one before the US STOLE the state from Mexico, it would
> have been.
Who gave it to Mexico in the first place?
Roger
Are you for real? Are you really this stupid?
Roger
> Roger wrote:
>
>> You're such a flake. Pathetic.
>
> Is that your best debating tactics you have? Typical liberal.
Special tactics just for you.
Dan
No, I don't believe "immigrants do not wish to learn English."
Dan
Dan
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:01:45 -0500, "MonkeyHawk" <monke...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >By a vote of 5-4, the conservative-dominated Republican-appointed
majority
> >specifically stated their decision should not be construed as a precident
as
> >Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and Kennedy bestowed the Oval Office
on
> >George WMD Bush.
>
> Hint..SCOTUS wasnt "conservative dominated" until last year, and in
> fact..was rather liberal.
Liberal, as compared with Runner.
In other words, not liberal at all.
Hint: liberal would not ignore the Constitution to select Bush while
Constitutional and legal remedies remained...
> But nice try...not.
But nice try... ...NOT.
> Fucktard.
Don't be so hard on your self. You may be a snivelling coward, but
I ahve never called you a "fucktard."
Keep it up, and I may change my mind.
> Gunner
Dan
Dan
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:jml4i2laoqbq1ht9i...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:17:04 -0600, Hugh Gibbons <pa...@myhouse.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <b1b1i25riah1flruj...@4ax.com>,
> > Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:49:24 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
> >> <not_a...@address.com> wrote:
> >> >Water under the bridge, Gunner. Let's get back on topic. What is so
> >> >wrong with the Constitution? Why don't you support it?
> >>
> >> Oddly enough Huge..Im a big defender of the Constitution. In fact I
> >> swore the Oath several times to protect and defend it, from enemies,
> >> foriegn and domestic (of which I count you and yours)
> >
> >If you swore that, it's clear you were either lying or have changed
> >your mind and backed out. You don't support the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th
> >or 7th Amendments.
>
> Sure I do. I support them all. You on the other hand only support a
> few, and try to subvert the rest. That is called treason, making you
> an Enemy of the people.
Any evidence to support your baseless assertion?
> Ill rejoice the day they strap you to a gurney and stick a lethal
> needle in your arm and kill you.
Nope, Runner doesn't support murder against his betters. Nope.
And, you know, I really think he believes himself when he tells
himself everyone is out to get him...
> >> So Huge..why do you hate the Constitution and have hitched your wagon
to
> >> those that have spend countless millions and countless hours attempting
> >> to harm it?
> >
> >That is simply a lie.
> >
> Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Ah, were it only true that you believed what you write here.
Dan
Hugh Gibbons
Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:17:04 -0600, Hugh Gibbons <pa...@myhouse.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <b1b1i25riah1flruj...@4ax.com>,
> > Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:49:24 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
> >> <not_a...@address.com> wrote:
> >> >Water under the bridge, Gunner. Let's get back on topic. What is so
> >> >wrong with the Constitution? Why don't you support it?
> >>
> >> Oddly enough Huge..Im a big defender of the Constitution. In fact I
> >> swore the Oath several times to protect and defend it, from enemies,
> >> foriegn and domestic (of which I count you and yours)
> >
> >If you swore that, it's clear you were either lying or have changed
> >your mind and backed out. You don't support the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th
> >or 7th Amendments.
>
> Sure I do. I support them all. You on the other hand only support a
> few, and try to subvert the rest. That is called treason, making you
> an Enemy of the people.
You do not. You have proven that many times in your posts. I could
look up the specific examples, but since you and I both know what
I'm talking about, it's not worth my time, because at best, you'd do
what you've done in the past, which is to deny that what you said
means what you plainly meant to say. You only give lip service to
caring about the Constitution, when in fact you don't give a shit.
You just enjoy saying nasty things about people and wishing evil upon
them. It's how you entertain yourself.
> Ill rejoice the day they strap you to a gurney and stick a lethal
> needle in your arm and kill you.
Don't hold your breath.
Hugh Gibbons
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:i0n3i2h93ihshpccs...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:01:45 -0500, "MonkeyHawk" <monke...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>By a vote of 5-4, the conservative-dominated Republican-appointed majority
> >>specifically stated their decision should not be construed as a precident
> >>as
> >>Thomas, Scalia, O'Conner, Rhenquist, and Kennedy bestowed the Oval Office
> >>on
> >>George WMD Bush.
> >
> > Hint..SCOTUS wasnt "conservative dominated" until last year, and in
> > fact..was rather liberal.
>
> The 7 judges nominated by REPUBLICANS sure fooled their nominators.
>
> And those PRESIDENTS sure were morons, eh?
>
I think you would be hard pressed to find liberals, in particular liberal
judges and constitutional scholars, who would characterize the USSC in
the 1990s through last year as liberal, or even moderate. Most liberals
think of the court of that time period as conservative, and the present
court as dominated by rightist idealogues.
If the liberals won't claim them as like-minded, then they aren't
liberal, but something else. The rightists didn't like them either,
because anyone left of Mussolini is too liberal for them. Pre-neocon
Republicans were pretty pleased with them.
Harold Burton
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is it with Republicans and sex?
The same thing as it is with DemocRATs and sex.
Hugh Gibbons
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rhetorical:
€ (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a
statement rather than to elicit information.
Harold Burton
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
> >>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
> >>nothing
> >>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
> >
> > If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
> > mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>
> List a few of these "work arounds:"
Ya didn't notice Hillary's suggestion that the electoral college needed
changing?
Harold Burton
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:54:13 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
> >>>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
> >>>nothing
> >>>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
> >>
> >> If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left spend
> >> mondo time trying to find work arounds?
> >
> >List a few of these "work arounds:"
>
> Gun Control, Roe v Wade, Imminent Domain, Hate Speech laws, just to name
> a few
Don't forget the Electoral College.
Harold Burton
Hugh Gibbons <pa...@myhouse.com> wrote:
> Most liberals think...
not really.
Harold Burton
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
> news:cDiUg.16613$tO5.12724@fed1read10...
> > Dan wrote:
> >> "miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9c8Ug.16118$tO5.13624@fed1read10...
> >>> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There is no law requiring a US citizen speak English. This is your wet
> >>>> dream, and nothing more.
> >>> US tax $'s should not be used to pay for conducting of local business in
> >>> any language other than English. Simply because immigrants do not wish
> >>> to learn English is not a valid reason to do so.
> >>
> >> Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
> >
> > So you believe that the Gov. should be required to print all document
> > transaction papers, forms etc. between private individuals and the Gov. to
> > be in Spanish and English and any other language? My point is the answer
> > should be NO. They can if they want. They should not be required to.
> > That issue is a hot topic here in AZ. Mexicans want all such documents to
> > be in Spanish as well as English. They also want to require Spanish
> > speaking employees at all Gov. offices that deal directly with the public.
> > Requiring it is wrong.
> Prove it.
Roger, you can't be that stupid. Oops, yes you can as you've proved
time and again.
Harold Burton
Hugh Gibbons <pa...@myhouse.com> wrote:
You've got Roger pretty well pegged.
Gunner
wrote:
> Most liberals
>think of the court of that time period as conservative, and the present
>court as dominated by rightist idealogues.
Most liberals also think Marx is better than sliced bread.
Doesnt speak well for liberals does it?
Gunner
wrote:
>> Sure I do. I support them all. You on the other hand only support a
>> few, and try to subvert the rest. That is called treason, making you
>> an Enemy of the people.
>
>You do not. You have proven that many times in your posts. I could
>look up the specific examples, but since you and I both know what
>I'm talking about, it's not worth my time,
Translation: Im talking out my ass again and hope no one will catch
it.
Provide your cites dickweed. Double dog dare you.
Roger
news:party-5DDDF9....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Conservatives think anyone to the left of them is liberal.
They are so extreme they think things are off/on, liberal/conservative,
pro-Bush/anti-Bush.
Roger
Actually, I'd really like to know.
Is this guy, and others like him, pretending to be as dense as weapons grade
plutonium, or really that dense.
It matters. If America is really populated by people with people this dumb,
we're doomed.
Roger
news:hal.i.burton-D882...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
No proof.
No shit.
Bullshit spews, and it must originate from within.
Str...@flashlight.net
wrote:
>
>"miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
>news:%0kUg.16630$tO5.15231@fed1read10...
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Oh geez. Arizona has been a battle ground (along with California) on
>> English-Only bills. It is the Mexicans that have been fighting it like
>> crazy. Trying to get government business to be conducted in both
>> languages which includes the cost of forms to be in Spanish as well as
>> bilingual employees required to handle them.
>>
>> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/AR1.htm
>>
>> They are still at it trying to repeal laws that allow schools to teach
>> English only.
>>
>> Before you shoot your mouth off, I have family from Mexico with some
>> living there.
>
>The California state constitution was written in Spanish.
You should have no problem producing a copy of the original.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Gunner
>>
>> If the liberals won't claim them as like-minded, then they aren't
>> liberal, but something else. The rightists didn't like them either,
>> because anyone left of Mussolini is too liberal for them. Pre-neocon
>> Republicans were pretty pleased with them.
>
>Conservatives think anyone to the left of them is liberal.
Libtards ARE to the left of conservatives.
You suddenly discovering this factoid?
Gunner
Not to mention gun control, asset forfeiture and so forth.
Mitchell Holman
news:urv6i29upc15lsk00...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:44:45 -0400, Harold Burton
> <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <FsDTg.8514$%i.2...@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i7ath2pqvumnhld7t...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:11:22 -0500, "Bugman" <jmpo...@hotmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>The only thing you fuckers are gonna leave to our
>>> >>great-great-great-grandchildren is massive debt and shame. There is
>>> >>nothing
>>> >>wrong with the constitution now. Why do you hate America?
>>> >
>>> > If there is nothing wrong with the Constitution..why do the Left
spend
>>> > mondo time trying to find work arounds?
>>>
>>> List a few of these "work arounds:"
>>
>>
>>Ya didn't notice Hillary's suggestion that the electoral college needed
>>changing?
>
> Not to mention gun control,
Still legal under the GOP government.
> asset forfeiture and so forth.
>
Still legal under the GOP government.
> Gunner
Joe
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:23:02 GMT, "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If the liberals won't claim them as like-minded, then they aren't
>>> liberal, but something else. The rightists didn't like them either,
>>> because anyone left of Mussolini is too liberal for them. Pre-neocon
>>> Republicans were pretty pleased with them.
>>
>>Conservatives think anyone to the left of them is liberal.
>
>
>Libtards ARE to the left of conservatives.
>
Form 2 lines, Libtards to the Left and Fucktards to the right. Move
along now.
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Gunner
Just because they havent removed Democrat law..makes the Democrat
blameless..right?
govern...@comcast.net
>Conservatives think anyone to the left of them is liberal.
>
>They are so extreme they think things are off/on, liberal/conservative,
>pro-Bush/anti-Bush.
Liberals think anyone to the right of them is conservative.
They are so extreme they think things are on/off,
conservative/liberal, anti-Bush/pro-Bush.
Swill
govern...@comcast.net
>Form 2 lines, Libtards to the Left and Fucktards to the right. Move
>along now.
That leaves the middle line kinda crowded dunnit?
Swill
govern...@comcast.net
>Actually, I'd really like to know.
>
>Is this guy, and others like him, pretending to be as dense as weapons grade
>plutonium, or really that dense.
>
>It matters. If America is really populated by people with people this dumb,
>we're doomed.
Seriously, I don't think it's a problem of absolute intelligence, I
suspect it has more to do with ignorance, greed and arrogance.
Swill