C
ChasNemo
Guest
On Feb 17, 3:44�am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
> "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e437bf68-9ae5-47f4-9658-480c9394fd0e@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 1:12?am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fc3792c5-0992-45e9-9f71-6a9ad1ad80c0@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:04?am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:276946e1-106c-4af2-b40b-4f77ed1d3f61@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 14, 3:30?pm, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:bbf8bbaf-e5da-4ab6-8ed3-3801c24b89c1@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 13, 9:08?pm, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > America is in the shape it is in because of being infected with a
> > > > > disease
> > > > > called liberalism...
>
> > > > Liberals aren't responsbile for the totally bogus and disastrously
> > > > expensive (in many ways) Iraq and Afghanistan wars. ?Chew on that for
> > > > awhile
>
> > > > It appears you must have slept through the Clinton administration,
> > > > when
> > > > we
> > > > were attacked and he did nothing at all about it.
>
> > > Cite some proof that Clinton did nothing at all about it.
>
> > > Proof is in the pudding, kiddo!
>
> > > Oh...unless you want to count blowing up a powdered milk factory as
> > > retaliation.
>
> > THAT ALL YOU GOT?
>
> > > P.S. Better to do nothing at all than to have launched the ongoing
> > > Iraq/Afghanistan debacle!!!
>
> > > So, you'd just let anyone attack us or our assets at anytime, and do
> > > nothing
> > > about it?
> > > Glad you're not the president...you sound as if you are as big a coward
> > > as
> > > Clinton.
>
> > MACHO BU$H ****ED AMERIKKKA & THE WORLD WITH HIS WMD LIES & BOGUS
> > WARS.
>
> > The "LIES" were not his. ?Would you have preferred that twe just wimped
> > out
> > and did nothing? ?Of course you would...you are a cowardly liberal.
>
> SURE THE WMD LIES WERE BU$H'S. �THE BUCK STOPS AT HIS DESK, WHERE HE
> PIMPED THE LIES TO DEFRAUD THE WORLD.
>
> Wow...you have to shoout in the hopes that it will make someone believe yoru
> bullshit?
Evason duly noted. Bu$h was responsible for the WMD lies just as we
noted. The caps help to distinguish my facts from your evasions and
lies, Harriet NoNuts.
> > > > > Let anyone attack the country and do nothing about it.
> > > > > Allow anyone to come into the country illegally, and allow them to
> > > > > work
> > > > > "under the table", not pay taxes and then give them free health care
> > > > > and
> > > > > free education for all of their illegal kids, while reducing the
> > > > > standard
> > > > > of
> > > > > the educational system to accommodate them.
>
> > > > Immigration is no big deal. ?AmeriKKKa makes huge use of cheap labor
> > > > and would be in serious trouble without it.
>
> > > > It's thinking like that that made the current situation so bad...
>
> > > Prove that the immigration situation is bad.
>
> > > 11 million illegals...all sucking money out of our economy, not paying
> > > taxes, and getting free services that you and I have to pay for (I
> > > assume
> > > you pay taxes?). ?I am sure that the actual number of illegals is
> > > significantly higher.
>
> > Illegals do jobs no one else will do.
>
> > If there were no illegals to do the jobs, someone not illegal would do
> > them. ?The tired old BS "they do the jobs no one else will" is nothing byt
> > smoke you and other librerals try to blos because you don't have an
> > answer.
>
> WRONG, �MANY THINGS WOULD NOT GET DONE AT ALL. �FRUIT WOULD ROT IN THE
> FIELDS, AND LAWNS WOULD NOT BE MOWED.
>
> Not everyone is as lazy as you are.
We're comfortably set and don't need regular work anymore. Who do you
know that would mow lawns or pick fruit or veggies in the hot sun all
day?
> > ?They wouldn't be here if there
> > weren't plenty of jobs,
>
> > They wouldn't be here if there wren't plenty of people willing to break
> > the
> > law and pay illegals under the table. ?People like you.
>
> PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE THE LAW IS AN ASS & ILLEGALS ARE
> ESSENTIAL TO THE ECONOMY.
>
> So you admit that laws are not important and it's okay to break the law as
> long as it benefits you economically?
Stupid laws get no respect, and I'm not the one breaking any law by
employing illegals. I merely noted the reality that your whining
fails to understand.
> > ?and they work hard at those jobs as anyone
> > who's watched knows.
>
> > So you admit that you are lazy and do not work hard at your job?
>
> MORE RIGHTARD DISTORTION.
>
> You said "they work hard at those jobs"....
Yes, and you distorted that to a laziness distortion. Logic and truth
clearly are beyond your rightard capabilities, Harriet NoNuts.
> � HOW HARD I WORK OR DON'T WORK HAS NO
> RELATION TO WHAT OTHERS DO.
>
> Wrong. �If you are lazy, you can't fault laziness in others.
I'm not lazy. AmeriKKKan unwillingness to do the hard work that
illegals do is more a matter of being unwilling to hard work for small
pay.
> > > > > Not allow anyone to express any shred of religious belief at all in
> > > > > public....and make the word "God" one of the seven dirty words...
>
> > > > Religion has been used to support all kinds of evil deeds and whacko
> > > > beliefs --
>
> > > > So you ban it?
>
> > > Not at all. ?Just do your silly **** on your own time and money.
>
> > > Who is practicing religion on your nickel?
>
> > Anyone who prays in public schools.
>
> > Who are you to determine that?
>
> I'M PART OF THE MAJORITY THAT DETERMINED THAT PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
> SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
>
> It wasn't a majority that got it through. �It was only after 2 liberal
> judges were added to the Supreme Court that it was voted. �Try and keep
> up...
That's a majority on the Supreme Court. The decision is supported by
a majority of AmeriKKKans. Try to keep up.
> � YOU'RE THE ARROGANT, SICK MINORITY.
>
> It would seem that arrogance and sickness is your forte...you have been
> reduced to yelling liek a spoiled little girl. I, on the other hand, am not
> offended if someone wishes to say a prayer, or to include the words "under
> God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. �There are other problems far more
> imporant to worry about...like idiots like you that want to take away the
> guns....
The caps are merely to separate facts from your ongoing BS. Yes,
rightard refusal to accept limitation of prayer to non-tax funded
places is indeed an arrogant sickness.
> > > > Television has been used to support all kinds of evil deeds and whacko
> > > > beliefs...ban it!
>
> > > > Radio...ban it!
>
> > > > Newspapers....ban it!
>
> > > > Books...ban them!
>
> > > > The telephone...ban it!
>
> > > > Getting the picutre?
>
> > > I was using your own logic against you...I guess that means YOU are
> > > the
> > > one ****ed in the head.
>
> > You weren't using logic at all -- merely exaggerating with absurd fake
> > examples.
>
> > No exaggeration, and I simply used your own logic against you. ?Because it
> > shows how flawed your logic is, you are reduced to calling it
> > exaggeration.
>
> I USED NONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES, & IT'S A FACT THAT YOU FAKED THEM IN
> EXAGGERATION.
>
> You used an example...and those that I added are a logical extension of that
> example. �The truth hurts when it slaps you in the face the way it does you.
Your fake examples are NOT a logical extension of my example. We've
been bitch slapping you and your ilk with facts and logic for years,
and the strong tide of public opinion has shifted in our favor as the
result of Bu$h's disastrous presiDuncy and his followers insane
ravings. You're an example of the latter. Gospel.
> > > The picture is that you're ****ed in the head.
>
> > You're projecting again, Harriet NoNuts.
>
> TACIT ADMISSION DULY NOTED.
>
> I admit nothing, tacit or otherwise. �You are the one projecting now....
You don't have to admit anything. Your insanity is clear for all to
see.
> > > ? You rant all kinds of
> > > bans we never said.
>
> > > You ranted against it for supporting evil deeds etc..same as the other
> > > things I cited.
>
> > > ? Truth really is NOT your forte, Harriet NoNuts!
>
> > > You obvioulsy lack the abilty to see truth.
>
> > You haven't spoken truth yet. Harriet NoNuts.
>
> > I have spoken nothing but the truth. ?You are simply incapable of seeing
> > hte
> > truth. ?Don't feel too bad...it's a common affliction among brain-dead
> > liberals.
>
> 70% OF AMERIKKKA AGREES WITH ME,
>
> Citation?
Look at polls on support for Bu$h's bogus war and his other debacles.
> �SO YOUR BITTERNESS IS
> UNDERSTANDABLE.
>
> I have no bitterness at all...in fact, I am quite happy and amiable.
Your postings prove otherwise.
> � YOU'RE IN THE INCREASTINGLY ISOLATED MINORITY OF
> WARMONGERING RIGHTARD WHACKJOBS.
>
> I am not a "rightard". �I am not isolated, nor am I a member of a minority.
> Your desperate attempt to defend your obviously indefensible pack of lies
> makes you resort to making up names.....a pathetic attempt at that!
Now you're whing is becoming truly disgusting. At least you admitted
you're a minority. <snicker>
> � YOU'RE THE DINOSAURS OF THE 21ST
> CENTURY & WILL SOON BE EXTINCT.
>
> I would think that egalitarian thinking like yours is the dinosaur...
> You are not better than anyone else.
We're growing stronger, and our truth is superior to your lies. Eat
your black heart out.
> > > > from slavery and bogus wars to nutty "creationism". ?No
> > > > wonder the Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state!
> > > > But you're free to do all the religious $hit privately that you
> > > > desire. ?Just NOT on MY tax dollars!!!
>
> > > > So your kids can'r recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school because
> > > > of
> > > > MONEY ?????
>
> > > No one's kids can do that. ?My tax dollars won't pay for such
> > > religious ****ery. ?That's the law. ?Obey it for a change, Harriet
> > > NoNuts!
>
> > > When did I say you should pay for religion?
>
> OBVIOUSLY I WOULD PAY FOR TIME WASTED USING MY TAX DOLLARS ON SILLY
> PRAYERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
>
> Prayers are only silly to those who do not believe in them.
Yes, and we refuse to pay for your silly public prayers.
>
> � YOU SURE DON'T.
>
> I pay taxes, and I find many other uses of my taxes to be far more
> offensive.
So try to do something about that. We have succeeded.
> > You advocate prayer in public schools, which is wasting school time
> > that I'm paying for.
>
> > You cannot impose your religious beliefs on a system just because you
> > contribute tax dollars.
>
> WE IN THE MAJORITY
>
> You "think you are in the majority, but you can;t even get yoru facts
> straight.
Again, see the polls on Bu$h and his disastrous presiDuncy. You
rightards are against everything decent, and most folks are sick of
it.
> �CAN AND DO REFUSE TO ALLOW RIGHTARDS TO IMPOSE
> THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
>
> No one imposes any religious beliefs on you. �No one forces kids to pray in
> school, but they should bve allowed to do so it they so desire.
Not on school time while others wait. If brainwashed kids want to
mumble mumbo jumbo to themselves at lunch, recess or during other free
time -- that's fine.
> �PAID FOR WITH MAJORITY TAX DOLLARS.
>
> "Majority tax dollars"??? �Do you know how ignorant that makes you sound?
> Like anyone cares what your beliefs are when you pay taxes? �Youreally are
> quite conceited.
I'm honest. Majority tax dollars must be used for majority benefit as
majority decides.
> �YOU'VE
> LOST. �ADMIT IT!
>
> I'm not the one reduced to yelling, throwing a childish tantrum, and calling
> names.
You're reduced to vague inanities.
> > > > > Fight hard to take away certain constitutional rights...especially
> > > > > the
> > > > > right
> > > > > to bear arms, the right to free speech (see earlier comment about
> > > > > religion),
> > > > > the right to free commerce, etc.
>
> > > > There is no Second Amendment right to bear arms for private citizens..
>
> > > > Wow...you certainly are brain damaged.
>
> > > Has there been a militia in the past 200 years? ?No? ?Then there's no
> > > 2nd Amendment right to guns.
>
> > > Again, you prove that you have no understanding of what the 2nd
> > > amendment
> > > means, and the interpretation that it has had since it'w inception. ?It
> > > is
> > > only the anti-gun lobby that claims it applies only to militia. ?The 2nd
> > > amendment gives the countyr the right to forms militia, and for the
> > > citizens
> > > to bear arms. ?It does not state that only militia are allowed to bear
> > > arms.
> > > The drafters of the amendment wanted to be sure that citizens would have
> > > the
> > > right ot arms so that they could not be subjugated by military force.
>
> > So form a legitimate militia and come see me again. ?We'll see what
> > happens.
>
> > I guess reading comprehension is also not one of your stronger skills.
>
> THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS ONLY PEOPLE IN MILITIAS TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS.
> CAN YOU PROVE OTHERWISE? �NO? �THOUGHT NOT!
>
> I asked you to prove your claim, and you cannot. �The Supreme Court has
> ruled not once, but twice on the issue, and both times refused to limit arms
> to a militia, because the 2nd Amendment deals with two issues; the right to
> have militias AND the right to bear arms. �It is only when somone (like
> you) that twists the words and ascribes meanings that do not exist that
> there is a misunderstanding. �The drafters of the constitution wanted the
> American citizen to not ever be forced into tyranny again, and therefore
> guaranteed them the right to own firearms. You'll never understand that,
> because in order to be a lberal like yourself, you have to have half of yrou
> brain lobotomized.
Cites and facts?
> > > > At the very least it's a subject of intense debate.
>
> > > > The "debate" is a fabrication of the liberal left who wishes to take
> > > > the
> > > > guns away.
>
> > Not so. ?If you don't have a legitimate milita, then you have no right
> > to guns.
>
> > That is your opinion . ?Luckily, the Supreme Court has seen it
> > differently.
>
> CITE? �NO? �THOUGHT NOT.
>
> �Lewis v. U.S. (1980)
>
> U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)
>
> � '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts
> of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained
> and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment
> protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and
> Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and
> reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall
> make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives
> shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the
> several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no
> means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth
> Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and
> powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of
> persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
> sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that
> community. "
>
> Therefore the Court viewed "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the
> same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments.
>
> That loud sound ringing in your ears is the echo of you being bitch slapped.
That's a start. See below for the current status. (You rightards
are big on citing outdated BS.)
"[A}major point of contention is whether {the Second Amendment]
protects against infringement of an individual right to personal
firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States
Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective"
interpretation and "individual" interpretation [7]. There is also a
"modified collective" view that says the right is protected for
individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a
militia.[8]
Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia
clause[9] and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all
constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been
allowed.)[10][11] All federal courts have found that reasonable
firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban is
currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia
v. Heller." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
.
That loud sound ringing in your ears is the sound of you being clubbed
into logical oblivion. <snicker>
> > > We're going to get your guns too.
>
> > > You won't.
>
> > We will.
>
> > Care to palce a bet on it?
>
> HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD TO LOSE FROM YOUR WELFARE CHECK?
>
> I can affore to lose the whole thing, because it woudl amount to a net loss
> of zero. �You can't "lose" something you don't have.
>
> Still care to place a bet on it? �I won't ask you to pay up until YOUR
> next welfare check arrives.
Let's see how you feel about petting your pittance after analyzing the
legal facts we've cited above, and then trying to refute them.
> > > But even if it did, it would do absolutely nothng to reduce gun crime in
> > > this country.
>
> > > ?Count on it.
>
> > > Don't hold your breath.
>
> > > ? Yes, we'll pry 'em
> > > out of your cold, dead hands if we have to do it.
>
> > > The only prying will be what the undertaker has to do to get the lead
> > > out
> > > of
> > > your dead carcass.
>
> > Pack yer lunch, shorty.
>
> > They'll be packing your corpse in a coffin....
>
> YET ANOTHER AMUSING FANTASY.
>
> I don't find it amusing. �But I will defend my rights to whatever extent is
> necessary...to include putting a bullet through the skull of any idiot
> foolish enough to try and take away my weapons.
Then you'll go down with the rest of the dinosaurs.
> > > ? You can give 'em up
> > > the easy way or the hard way.
>
> > > Won't have to give them up...not even to cowards like you!
>
> > Count on giving 'em up.
>
> > I don't give up easily. ?And hollow threats like yours don't bother me.
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU MUST BE BOTHERED OR A MASOCHIST OR BOTH 'CAUSE YOU KEEP
> COMING BACK FOR MORE ABUSE. �<SNICKER>
>
> You are still here...and your are the one who is now YELLING .
Your desperation is proven by your repeated carping over caps used
merely to distinguish your BS from our facts.
> > > > ? Freedom of speech
> > > > -- who wiretapped illegally?
>
> > > > Clinton, Bush, Nixon...
>
> > > Bu$h and Nixon put everyone else to shame in the illegal wiretapping
> > > game. ?But prove Clinton wiretapped illegally. ?Go ahead. Try.
>
> > > The operation began under his watch. ?It was called Carnivore in those
> > > days.
>
> > Prove it, and its extent.
>
> > Clinton administration plan for FBI spying on email
>
> > FBI's Carnivore Devours Criminals - CBS News
>
> > Carnivore (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> > But of course, you'll deny all of it, because it is far easier to believe
> > your naive fantasies when you have your head in the sand...
>
> MINOR LEGAL WIRETAPPING OF AMERIKKKAN CRIMINALS -- NOT ILLEGAL
> WIRETAPPING OF EVERYONE WITHOUT WARRANTS!
>
> Wow...you really belive that, don't you?
Have you got FACTS? No? Thought not. Of course, our FACTS have
demolished your view of the Second Amendment (see above), and so you
probably can't muster the courage to debate on this issue either.
> > > > ?ReThuglyKKKans! ?Free commerce?
> > > > KKKorporate rightards have sold AmeriKKKan jobs to other countries.
>
> > > > The liberals are the ones co-opting the country for cheap labor. ?The
> > > > liberals are the ones that attach massive pork barrel spending onto
> > > > each
> > > > and
> > > > every bill introduced.
>
> > > Liberals don't run the big KKKorporations that export jobs.
>
> > > No, they own them!
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > Simply pick a major corporation, use google to find who owns it.
>
> THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, FOOL.
>
> YAWN
Dodge duly noted. Again. <yawwwwwn>
> > > P.S. What does alleged "pork barrel spending" have to do with cheap
> > > labor, fool?
>
> > > Guess you'll have to go back to school for the basics!
>
> > Guess you never went to school and thus don't have the basics.
>
> > You are in denial yet again...
>
> EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> Not evasion at all. �I merely stated a fact about you being in denial, and
> your comment about Carnivore and Clinton proved it.
Quit prancing in your tutu and answer the simple question: "What does
alleged "pork barrel spending" have to do with cheap
> > > labor, fool?"
> > > > But you, being the good little sheep that you are, believe what you
> > > > are told by yoru liberal handlers...
>
> > > We liberals simply read and learn how you NeoCon Nazis
>
> > > There is no such thing as a NeoCon Nazi...it's just a term that hate
> > > mongers like you use because you have no real truth to back you up.
>
> > The Bu$h/Cheney crime family proves every day that NeoCon Nazis exist
> > and are evil.
>
> > Ther is no such thing as a "NeoCon Nazi". ?It is just anothe lie that libs
> > like you use to make yourself feel more self-important.
>
> TACIT EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> Again, no evasion occured, except in your tiny little addled mind.
NEOCON NAZIS you are and always will be to all the world.
> > > ?lie, cheat and steal.
> > > Ah...the foundation of the liberal agenda!
>
> > No - "lie, cheat and steal" is the ReThuglyKKKan motto.
>
> > > Hardly...look at the Clinton administration...
> > > Clinton was a shining example of that. ?He did all three while in
> > > office.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > Wow...now you have your head up your ass!
>
> TACIT EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> You are repeating yourself....gues you have no real defense, huh?
You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you, liar boi.
<snicker>
>
> > > ? You rightards would sell your own slut mothers for a buck!!!
>
> > > While you pimp your mother for money.
> > > Honu
>
> > Your mother and sister both work the streets for quarters.
>
> > So you pimp your mother for free??
> > Honu
>
> YOUR TACIT ADMISSION OF YOUR MOTHER & SISTER WORKING THE STREET FOR
> QUARTERS IS DULY NOTED. �<SNICKER>
>
> You snicker because you know how weak, childish and pathetic your useless ad
> hominems are. �You have no defense, so you must attack on that level, and
> then try to make it cute by adding the <snicker> ****. �How old are
> you....9?
>
> Honu
We snicker because we've thoroughly demolished or at least challenged
you to prove every one of your absurdities. Care to try some more?
<snicker>
> "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e437bf68-9ae5-47f4-9658-480c9394fd0e@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 16, 1:12?am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fc3792c5-0992-45e9-9f71-6a9ad1ad80c0@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:04?am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:276946e1-106c-4af2-b40b-4f77ed1d3f61@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 14, 3:30?pm, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "ChasNemo" <chasn...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:bbf8bbaf-e5da-4ab6-8ed3-3801c24b89c1@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 13, 9:08?pm, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > America is in the shape it is in because of being infected with a
> > > > > disease
> > > > > called liberalism...
>
> > > > Liberals aren't responsbile for the totally bogus and disastrously
> > > > expensive (in many ways) Iraq and Afghanistan wars. ?Chew on that for
> > > > awhile
>
> > > > It appears you must have slept through the Clinton administration,
> > > > when
> > > > we
> > > > were attacked and he did nothing at all about it.
>
> > > Cite some proof that Clinton did nothing at all about it.
>
> > > Proof is in the pudding, kiddo!
>
> > > Oh...unless you want to count blowing up a powdered milk factory as
> > > retaliation.
>
> > THAT ALL YOU GOT?
>
> > > P.S. Better to do nothing at all than to have launched the ongoing
> > > Iraq/Afghanistan debacle!!!
>
> > > So, you'd just let anyone attack us or our assets at anytime, and do
> > > nothing
> > > about it?
> > > Glad you're not the president...you sound as if you are as big a coward
> > > as
> > > Clinton.
>
> > MACHO BU$H ****ED AMERIKKKA & THE WORLD WITH HIS WMD LIES & BOGUS
> > WARS.
>
> > The "LIES" were not his. ?Would you have preferred that twe just wimped
> > out
> > and did nothing? ?Of course you would...you are a cowardly liberal.
>
> SURE THE WMD LIES WERE BU$H'S. �THE BUCK STOPS AT HIS DESK, WHERE HE
> PIMPED THE LIES TO DEFRAUD THE WORLD.
>
> Wow...you have to shoout in the hopes that it will make someone believe yoru
> bullshit?
Evason duly noted. Bu$h was responsible for the WMD lies just as we
noted. The caps help to distinguish my facts from your evasions and
lies, Harriet NoNuts.
> > > > > Let anyone attack the country and do nothing about it.
> > > > > Allow anyone to come into the country illegally, and allow them to
> > > > > work
> > > > > "under the table", not pay taxes and then give them free health care
> > > > > and
> > > > > free education for all of their illegal kids, while reducing the
> > > > > standard
> > > > > of
> > > > > the educational system to accommodate them.
>
> > > > Immigration is no big deal. ?AmeriKKKa makes huge use of cheap labor
> > > > and would be in serious trouble without it.
>
> > > > It's thinking like that that made the current situation so bad...
>
> > > Prove that the immigration situation is bad.
>
> > > 11 million illegals...all sucking money out of our economy, not paying
> > > taxes, and getting free services that you and I have to pay for (I
> > > assume
> > > you pay taxes?). ?I am sure that the actual number of illegals is
> > > significantly higher.
>
> > Illegals do jobs no one else will do.
>
> > If there were no illegals to do the jobs, someone not illegal would do
> > them. ?The tired old BS "they do the jobs no one else will" is nothing byt
> > smoke you and other librerals try to blos because you don't have an
> > answer.
>
> WRONG, �MANY THINGS WOULD NOT GET DONE AT ALL. �FRUIT WOULD ROT IN THE
> FIELDS, AND LAWNS WOULD NOT BE MOWED.
>
> Not everyone is as lazy as you are.
We're comfortably set and don't need regular work anymore. Who do you
know that would mow lawns or pick fruit or veggies in the hot sun all
day?
> > ?They wouldn't be here if there
> > weren't plenty of jobs,
>
> > They wouldn't be here if there wren't plenty of people willing to break
> > the
> > law and pay illegals under the table. ?People like you.
>
> PEOPLE BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE THE LAW IS AN ASS & ILLEGALS ARE
> ESSENTIAL TO THE ECONOMY.
>
> So you admit that laws are not important and it's okay to break the law as
> long as it benefits you economically?
Stupid laws get no respect, and I'm not the one breaking any law by
employing illegals. I merely noted the reality that your whining
fails to understand.
> > ?and they work hard at those jobs as anyone
> > who's watched knows.
>
> > So you admit that you are lazy and do not work hard at your job?
>
> MORE RIGHTARD DISTORTION.
>
> You said "they work hard at those jobs"....
Yes, and you distorted that to a laziness distortion. Logic and truth
clearly are beyond your rightard capabilities, Harriet NoNuts.
> � HOW HARD I WORK OR DON'T WORK HAS NO
> RELATION TO WHAT OTHERS DO.
>
> Wrong. �If you are lazy, you can't fault laziness in others.
I'm not lazy. AmeriKKKan unwillingness to do the hard work that
illegals do is more a matter of being unwilling to hard work for small
pay.
> > > > > Not allow anyone to express any shred of religious belief at all in
> > > > > public....and make the word "God" one of the seven dirty words...
>
> > > > Religion has been used to support all kinds of evil deeds and whacko
> > > > beliefs --
>
> > > > So you ban it?
>
> > > Not at all. ?Just do your silly **** on your own time and money.
>
> > > Who is practicing religion on your nickel?
>
> > Anyone who prays in public schools.
>
> > Who are you to determine that?
>
> I'M PART OF THE MAJORITY THAT DETERMINED THAT PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
> SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
>
> It wasn't a majority that got it through. �It was only after 2 liberal
> judges were added to the Supreme Court that it was voted. �Try and keep
> up...
That's a majority on the Supreme Court. The decision is supported by
a majority of AmeriKKKans. Try to keep up.
> � YOU'RE THE ARROGANT, SICK MINORITY.
>
> It would seem that arrogance and sickness is your forte...you have been
> reduced to yelling liek a spoiled little girl. I, on the other hand, am not
> offended if someone wishes to say a prayer, or to include the words "under
> God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. �There are other problems far more
> imporant to worry about...like idiots like you that want to take away the
> guns....
The caps are merely to separate facts from your ongoing BS. Yes,
rightard refusal to accept limitation of prayer to non-tax funded
places is indeed an arrogant sickness.
> > > > Television has been used to support all kinds of evil deeds and whacko
> > > > beliefs...ban it!
>
> > > > Radio...ban it!
>
> > > > Newspapers....ban it!
>
> > > > Books...ban them!
>
> > > > The telephone...ban it!
>
> > > > Getting the picutre?
>
> > > I was using your own logic against you...I guess that means YOU are
> > > the
> > > one ****ed in the head.
>
> > You weren't using logic at all -- merely exaggerating with absurd fake
> > examples.
>
> > No exaggeration, and I simply used your own logic against you. ?Because it
> > shows how flawed your logic is, you are reduced to calling it
> > exaggeration.
>
> I USED NONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES, & IT'S A FACT THAT YOU FAKED THEM IN
> EXAGGERATION.
>
> You used an example...and those that I added are a logical extension of that
> example. �The truth hurts when it slaps you in the face the way it does you.
Your fake examples are NOT a logical extension of my example. We've
been bitch slapping you and your ilk with facts and logic for years,
and the strong tide of public opinion has shifted in our favor as the
result of Bu$h's disastrous presiDuncy and his followers insane
ravings. You're an example of the latter. Gospel.
> > > The picture is that you're ****ed in the head.
>
> > You're projecting again, Harriet NoNuts.
>
> TACIT ADMISSION DULY NOTED.
>
> I admit nothing, tacit or otherwise. �You are the one projecting now....
You don't have to admit anything. Your insanity is clear for all to
see.
> > > ? You rant all kinds of
> > > bans we never said.
>
> > > You ranted against it for supporting evil deeds etc..same as the other
> > > things I cited.
>
> > > ? Truth really is NOT your forte, Harriet NoNuts!
>
> > > You obvioulsy lack the abilty to see truth.
>
> > You haven't spoken truth yet. Harriet NoNuts.
>
> > I have spoken nothing but the truth. ?You are simply incapable of seeing
> > hte
> > truth. ?Don't feel too bad...it's a common affliction among brain-dead
> > liberals.
>
> 70% OF AMERIKKKA AGREES WITH ME,
>
> Citation?
Look at polls on support for Bu$h's bogus war and his other debacles.
> �SO YOUR BITTERNESS IS
> UNDERSTANDABLE.
>
> I have no bitterness at all...in fact, I am quite happy and amiable.
Your postings prove otherwise.
> � YOU'RE IN THE INCREASTINGLY ISOLATED MINORITY OF
> WARMONGERING RIGHTARD WHACKJOBS.
>
> I am not a "rightard". �I am not isolated, nor am I a member of a minority.
> Your desperate attempt to defend your obviously indefensible pack of lies
> makes you resort to making up names.....a pathetic attempt at that!
Now you're whing is becoming truly disgusting. At least you admitted
you're a minority. <snicker>
> � YOU'RE THE DINOSAURS OF THE 21ST
> CENTURY & WILL SOON BE EXTINCT.
>
> I would think that egalitarian thinking like yours is the dinosaur...
> You are not better than anyone else.
We're growing stronger, and our truth is superior to your lies. Eat
your black heart out.
> > > > from slavery and bogus wars to nutty "creationism". ?No
> > > > wonder the Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state!
> > > > But you're free to do all the religious $hit privately that you
> > > > desire. ?Just NOT on MY tax dollars!!!
>
> > > > So your kids can'r recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school because
> > > > of
> > > > MONEY ?????
>
> > > No one's kids can do that. ?My tax dollars won't pay for such
> > > religious ****ery. ?That's the law. ?Obey it for a change, Harriet
> > > NoNuts!
>
> > > When did I say you should pay for religion?
>
> OBVIOUSLY I WOULD PAY FOR TIME WASTED USING MY TAX DOLLARS ON SILLY
> PRAYERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
>
> Prayers are only silly to those who do not believe in them.
Yes, and we refuse to pay for your silly public prayers.
>
> � YOU SURE DON'T.
>
> I pay taxes, and I find many other uses of my taxes to be far more
> offensive.
So try to do something about that. We have succeeded.
> > You advocate prayer in public schools, which is wasting school time
> > that I'm paying for.
>
> > You cannot impose your religious beliefs on a system just because you
> > contribute tax dollars.
>
> WE IN THE MAJORITY
>
> You "think you are in the majority, but you can;t even get yoru facts
> straight.
Again, see the polls on Bu$h and his disastrous presiDuncy. You
rightards are against everything decent, and most folks are sick of
it.
> �CAN AND DO REFUSE TO ALLOW RIGHTARDS TO IMPOSE
> THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
>
> No one imposes any religious beliefs on you. �No one forces kids to pray in
> school, but they should bve allowed to do so it they so desire.
Not on school time while others wait. If brainwashed kids want to
mumble mumbo jumbo to themselves at lunch, recess or during other free
time -- that's fine.
> �PAID FOR WITH MAJORITY TAX DOLLARS.
>
> "Majority tax dollars"??? �Do you know how ignorant that makes you sound?
> Like anyone cares what your beliefs are when you pay taxes? �Youreally are
> quite conceited.
I'm honest. Majority tax dollars must be used for majority benefit as
majority decides.
> �YOU'VE
> LOST. �ADMIT IT!
>
> I'm not the one reduced to yelling, throwing a childish tantrum, and calling
> names.
You're reduced to vague inanities.
> > > > > Fight hard to take away certain constitutional rights...especially
> > > > > the
> > > > > right
> > > > > to bear arms, the right to free speech (see earlier comment about
> > > > > religion),
> > > > > the right to free commerce, etc.
>
> > > > There is no Second Amendment right to bear arms for private citizens..
>
> > > > Wow...you certainly are brain damaged.
>
> > > Has there been a militia in the past 200 years? ?No? ?Then there's no
> > > 2nd Amendment right to guns.
>
> > > Again, you prove that you have no understanding of what the 2nd
> > > amendment
> > > means, and the interpretation that it has had since it'w inception. ?It
> > > is
> > > only the anti-gun lobby that claims it applies only to militia. ?The 2nd
> > > amendment gives the countyr the right to forms militia, and for the
> > > citizens
> > > to bear arms. ?It does not state that only militia are allowed to bear
> > > arms.
> > > The drafters of the amendment wanted to be sure that citizens would have
> > > the
> > > right ot arms so that they could not be subjugated by military force.
>
> > So form a legitimate militia and come see me again. ?We'll see what
> > happens.
>
> > I guess reading comprehension is also not one of your stronger skills.
>
> THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS ONLY PEOPLE IN MILITIAS TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS.
> CAN YOU PROVE OTHERWISE? �NO? �THOUGHT NOT!
>
> I asked you to prove your claim, and you cannot. �The Supreme Court has
> ruled not once, but twice on the issue, and both times refused to limit arms
> to a militia, because the 2nd Amendment deals with two issues; the right to
> have militias AND the right to bear arms. �It is only when somone (like
> you) that twists the words and ascribes meanings that do not exist that
> there is a misunderstanding. �The drafters of the constitution wanted the
> American citizen to not ever be forced into tyranny again, and therefore
> guaranteed them the right to own firearms. You'll never understand that,
> because in order to be a lberal like yourself, you have to have half of yrou
> brain lobotomized.
Cites and facts?
> > > > At the very least it's a subject of intense debate.
>
> > > > The "debate" is a fabrication of the liberal left who wishes to take
> > > > the
> > > > guns away.
>
> > Not so. ?If you don't have a legitimate milita, then you have no right
> > to guns.
>
> > That is your opinion . ?Luckily, the Supreme Court has seen it
> > differently.
>
> CITE? �NO? �THOUGHT NOT.
>
> �Lewis v. U.S. (1980)
>
> U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)
>
> � '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts
> of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained
> and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment
> protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and
> Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and
> reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall
> make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives
> shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the
> several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no
> means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth
> Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and
> powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of
> persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
> sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that
> community. "
>
> Therefore the Court viewed "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the
> same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments.
>
> That loud sound ringing in your ears is the echo of you being bitch slapped.
That's a start. See below for the current status. (You rightards
are big on citing outdated BS.)
"[A}major point of contention is whether {the Second Amendment]
protects against infringement of an individual right to personal
firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] The United States
Courts of Appeals are in disagreement over the "collective"
interpretation and "individual" interpretation [7]. There is also a
"modified collective" view that says the right is protected for
individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a
militia.[8]
Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia
clause[9] and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all
constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been
allowed.)[10][11] All federal courts have found that reasonable
firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban is
currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia
v. Heller." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
.
That loud sound ringing in your ears is the sound of you being clubbed
into logical oblivion. <snicker>
> > > We're going to get your guns too.
>
> > > You won't.
>
> > We will.
>
> > Care to palce a bet on it?
>
> HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD TO LOSE FROM YOUR WELFARE CHECK?
>
> I can affore to lose the whole thing, because it woudl amount to a net loss
> of zero. �You can't "lose" something you don't have.
>
> Still care to place a bet on it? �I won't ask you to pay up until YOUR
> next welfare check arrives.
Let's see how you feel about petting your pittance after analyzing the
legal facts we've cited above, and then trying to refute them.
> > > But even if it did, it would do absolutely nothng to reduce gun crime in
> > > this country.
>
> > > ?Count on it.
>
> > > Don't hold your breath.
>
> > > ? Yes, we'll pry 'em
> > > out of your cold, dead hands if we have to do it.
>
> > > The only prying will be what the undertaker has to do to get the lead
> > > out
> > > of
> > > your dead carcass.
>
> > Pack yer lunch, shorty.
>
> > They'll be packing your corpse in a coffin....
>
> YET ANOTHER AMUSING FANTASY.
>
> I don't find it amusing. �But I will defend my rights to whatever extent is
> necessary...to include putting a bullet through the skull of any idiot
> foolish enough to try and take away my weapons.
Then you'll go down with the rest of the dinosaurs.
> > > ? You can give 'em up
> > > the easy way or the hard way.
>
> > > Won't have to give them up...not even to cowards like you!
>
> > Count on giving 'em up.
>
> > I don't give up easily. ?And hollow threats like yours don't bother me.
>
> OBVIOUSLY YOU MUST BE BOTHERED OR A MASOCHIST OR BOTH 'CAUSE YOU KEEP
> COMING BACK FOR MORE ABUSE. �<SNICKER>
>
> You are still here...and your are the one who is now YELLING .
Your desperation is proven by your repeated carping over caps used
merely to distinguish your BS from our facts.
> > > > ? Freedom of speech
> > > > -- who wiretapped illegally?
>
> > > > Clinton, Bush, Nixon...
>
> > > Bu$h and Nixon put everyone else to shame in the illegal wiretapping
> > > game. ?But prove Clinton wiretapped illegally. ?Go ahead. Try.
>
> > > The operation began under his watch. ?It was called Carnivore in those
> > > days.
>
> > Prove it, and its extent.
>
> > Clinton administration plan for FBI spying on email
>
> > FBI's Carnivore Devours Criminals - CBS News
>
> > Carnivore (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> > But of course, you'll deny all of it, because it is far easier to believe
> > your naive fantasies when you have your head in the sand...
>
> MINOR LEGAL WIRETAPPING OF AMERIKKKAN CRIMINALS -- NOT ILLEGAL
> WIRETAPPING OF EVERYONE WITHOUT WARRANTS!
>
> Wow...you really belive that, don't you?
Have you got FACTS? No? Thought not. Of course, our FACTS have
demolished your view of the Second Amendment (see above), and so you
probably can't muster the courage to debate on this issue either.
> > > > ?ReThuglyKKKans! ?Free commerce?
> > > > KKKorporate rightards have sold AmeriKKKan jobs to other countries.
>
> > > > The liberals are the ones co-opting the country for cheap labor. ?The
> > > > liberals are the ones that attach massive pork barrel spending onto
> > > > each
> > > > and
> > > > every bill introduced.
>
> > > Liberals don't run the big KKKorporations that export jobs.
>
> > > No, they own them!
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > Simply pick a major corporation, use google to find who owns it.
>
> THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU, FOOL.
>
> YAWN
Dodge duly noted. Again. <yawwwwwn>
> > > P.S. What does alleged "pork barrel spending" have to do with cheap
> > > labor, fool?
>
> > > Guess you'll have to go back to school for the basics!
>
> > Guess you never went to school and thus don't have the basics.
>
> > You are in denial yet again...
>
> EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> Not evasion at all. �I merely stated a fact about you being in denial, and
> your comment about Carnivore and Clinton proved it.
Quit prancing in your tutu and answer the simple question: "What does
alleged "pork barrel spending" have to do with cheap
> > > labor, fool?"
> > > > But you, being the good little sheep that you are, believe what you
> > > > are told by yoru liberal handlers...
>
> > > We liberals simply read and learn how you NeoCon Nazis
>
> > > There is no such thing as a NeoCon Nazi...it's just a term that hate
> > > mongers like you use because you have no real truth to back you up.
>
> > The Bu$h/Cheney crime family proves every day that NeoCon Nazis exist
> > and are evil.
>
> > Ther is no such thing as a "NeoCon Nazi". ?It is just anothe lie that libs
> > like you use to make yourself feel more self-important.
>
> TACIT EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> Again, no evasion occured, except in your tiny little addled mind.
NEOCON NAZIS you are and always will be to all the world.
> > > ?lie, cheat and steal.
> > > Ah...the foundation of the liberal agenda!
>
> > No - "lie, cheat and steal" is the ReThuglyKKKan motto.
>
> > > Hardly...look at the Clinton administration...
> > > Clinton was a shining example of that. ?He did all three while in
> > > office.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> > Wow...now you have your head up your ass!
>
> TACIT EVASION DULY NOTED.
>
> You are repeating yourself....gues you have no real defense, huh?
You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you, liar boi.
<snicker>
>
> > > ? You rightards would sell your own slut mothers for a buck!!!
>
> > > While you pimp your mother for money.
> > > Honu
>
> > Your mother and sister both work the streets for quarters.
>
> > So you pimp your mother for free??
> > Honu
>
> YOUR TACIT ADMISSION OF YOUR MOTHER & SISTER WORKING THE STREET FOR
> QUARTERS IS DULY NOTED. �<SNICKER>
>
> You snicker because you know how weak, childish and pathetic your useless ad
> hominems are. �You have no defense, so you must attack on that level, and
> then try to make it cute by adding the <snicker> ****. �How old are
> you....9?
>
> Honu
We snicker because we've thoroughly demolished or at least challenged
you to prove every one of your absurdities. Care to try some more?
<snicker>
