"I have rights!"



C

Charles

Guest
As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
rights!!

He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
that he is accorded the full protection of the law.

Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
'successful' bombings?

The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
something about.

Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
cousins. I do hope so!!

Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)
 
"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
> burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
> in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
> frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
> rights!!

> He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
> attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
> that he is accorded the full protection of the law.

> Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
> about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
> 'successful' bombings?

> The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
> high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
> regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
> mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
> something about.
>
> Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
> martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
> more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
> western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
> cousins. I do hope so!!
>
> Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)

He will probably get off on a technicality i.e. he may have not been read
his rights. Look for him to be back on the street within a few weeks.
Unfortunately this is just the beginning - there will be no end to these
bombings (or worse) and it will soon spread to USA, Australia etc
I'm sure you will have a great Sunday, Charles - you always do!
 
Charles wrote:
> As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
> burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
> in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
> frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
> rights!!
>
> He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
> attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
> that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>
> Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
> about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
> 'successful' bombings?
>
> The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
> high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
> regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
> mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
> something about.
>
> Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
> martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
> more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
> western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
> cousins. I do hope so!!
>
> Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)

Muslim = potential terrorist, period. The ones that don't hate the West are
what we would call liberal Muslims. They have compromised the teachings.
But all it takes is for one to decide that he should repent from his watered
down Islamic walk, turn conservative, and blow people up.

I heard an interesting piece of information the other day, and I don't know
if it's true. It was that the Christian Crusades were in response to the
ongoing Muslim crusade. I would like to learn more about that. If true,
and given our modern day circumstances, it would make that period of time
for Christianity look a lot less dark.

Any confirmation on this?
--
-Larry
 
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> "people in Arab countries" is not the same thing as "Muslim". The
> distinction is important, because anti-American sentiments are
> stronger in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia than they are
> among immigrant populations.

And for that matter, Iran isn't an Arab country; some arabs live there, most
of the population are Aryan (in the non-nazi sense; Iran means land of the
Aryans).

Peter
 
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Note the word alleged.
>
>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>
>>
>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>state suit you better bunky?
>
>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>"bunky"?!!
>

We will never be both FREE and 100% protected. No one is trying to
destroy our way of life except for our elected "reps". The so-called
terrorists are lashing out against decades of US and British
interference in their internal affairs. I don't approve of their
methods but what other means do they have left? As we saw with Bush,
COMPLETE acquiescence to US demands was NOT enough to prevent the US
from attacking them.


>>
>>I have close to zero faith in the gvt's desire to protect me or my
>>rights so I'd just as soon keep as many constraints on them as
>>possible and continue that gvts world wide observe all the requisite
>>laws and treat EVERYONE as innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just
>>assumed guilty. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
>
>You make valid points, but you offer nothing about how to handle
>international terrorism. Equally you overlooked the point of my
>posting which was the irony of a "would-be" bomber "blubbing" and
>claiming his "rights"!!
>

We handle it like any other threat. As the investigations of what we
were doing BEFORE 9.11 showed, we were ALREADY collecting ALL the
necessary data to prevent 9/11, we just weren't paying attention to
it. So what did we do? We gave the police all sorts of new ways to
put their jackboots on our neck, ways they did NOT need, as the
investigations had already showed. Yet we still have terrorists and
if we maintain our current policies we always will. You want a
solution? How about we keep our noses out of other peoples business.
Before we tried to force western style culture on them we never had a
problem, they ran their culture in accordance with centuries of
success and we did the same. They didn't come over here and try and
change us but we certainly keep going over there trying to change
them.

Try to look at what's gone on for the past hundred years as if you
came from a different planet and had no axe to grind and ask yourself
"who started this".


>>
>>
>>>in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
>>>frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
>>>rights!!
>>>
>>>He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
>>>attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
>>>that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>>>
>>>Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
>>>about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
>>>'successful' bombings?
>>>
>>>The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
>>>high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
>>>regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
>>>mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
>>>something about.
>>>
>>>Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
>>>martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
>>>more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
>>>western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
>>>cousins. I do hope so!!
>>>
>>>Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)


Me too, worked on my tan.
 
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:01:57 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2005-07-31, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>> burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>> in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
>> frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
>> rights!!
>>
>> He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
>> attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
>> that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>>
>> Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
>> about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
>> 'successful' bombings?
>
>Ironic isn't it ? These cold-blooded executioners are suddenly converted
>into advocates of this Western style "due process" that they previously
>dismissed as nonsense.
>

You sound surprised. I've seen several "law and order, throw the book
at em, hang em first, try em later, we don't need no stinking appeal
process..." politicians who wound up in trouble with the law and the
first thing they demand is that ALL their RIGHTS be scrupulously
followed. And after they are convicted they go for appeal after
appeal, after appeal. Seems that many people don't appreciate or see
the value of their Rights till after they find out just how valuable
those rights are.


>Milosevic and Saddam are extreme cases of this -- they accuse the courts
>of being unfair, but if the UN did it their way, they would be read a list
>of their crimes, taken outside and shot.
>
>Cheers,
 
Ashton Crusher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Ironic isn't it ? These cold-blooded executioners are suddenly converted
>>into advocates of this Western style "due process" that they previously
>>dismissed as nonsense.
>
>You sound surprised. I've seen several "law and order, throw the book
>at em, hang em first, try em later, we don't need no stinking appeal
>process..." politicians who wound up in trouble with the law and the
>first thing they demand is that ALL their RIGHTS be scrupulously
>followed. And after they are convicted they go for appeal after
>appeal, after appeal. Seems that many people don't appreciate or see
>the value of their Rights till after they find out just how valuable
>those rights are.

Murderers and rapists file one frivolous appeal and motion after
another; it's a popular activity for killing time in prison.

It has nothing to do with politicians, Skippy.
 
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:10:43 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Note the word alleged.
>>
>>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>>
>>>
>>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>>state suit you better bunky?
>>
>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>>"bunky"?!!
>>
>
>We will never be both FREE and 100% protected. No one is trying to
>destroy our way of life except for our elected "reps". The so-called
>terrorists are lashing out against decades of US and British
>interference in their internal affairs.

Er... not so Anton, they are settling in the UK in their millions,
among a people they despise and whose way of life they deplore.

They then set about attempting to change the British way of life to
their own entire satisfaction, aided and abetted by the woolly minded
liberati and PC Brigade, who are even attempting to have Christmas
banned in order not to offend our new 'friends'!!

Why should we have to change our culture in order to absorb theirs?
Quite frankly that is outrageous, yet it is our own people that are
advocating such policies, backed up by politicians looking for votes
and supported by a judiciary bent on defeating the will of Parliament.

>I don't approve of their
>methods but what other means do they have left? As we saw with Bush,
>COMPLETE acquiescence to US demands was NOT enough to prevent the US
>from attacking them.

There can never be a good reason for cowardly terrorism. Always
painting the US the UK and their allies as imperialist war-mongers is
trite and naive. You need to understand how these matters have evolved
and look at them with an open mind.

>
>
>>>
>>>I have close to zero faith in the gvt's desire to protect me or my
>>>rights so I'd just as soon keep as many constraints on them as
>>>possible and continue that gvts world wide observe all the requisite
>>>laws and treat EVERYONE as innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just
>>>assumed guilty. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
>>
>>You make valid points, but you offer nothing about how to handle
>>international terrorism. Equally you overlooked the point of my
>>posting which was the irony of a "would-be" bomber "blubbing" and
>>claiming his "rights"!!
>>
>
>We handle it like any other threat. As the investigations of what we
>were doing BEFORE 9.11 showed, we were ALREADY collecting ALL the
>necessary data to prevent 9/11, we just weren't paying attention to
>it. So what did we do? We gave the police all sorts of new ways to
>put their jackboots on our neck, ways they did NOT need, as the
>investigations had already showed. Yet we still have terrorists and
>if we maintain our current policies we always will.

That's because we are too soft on them and always opposing them with
one hand tied behind our backs, pandering to our own liberal left
loonies.

>You want a
>solution? How about we keep our noses out of other peoples business.

I suppose it's fine with you that Iran and North Korea should be
allowed to develop Nuclear weapons. It may not be acceptable to the
rest of us and in the interests of world peace it may be necessary to
intervene there.

>Before we tried to force western style culture on them we never had a
>problem, they ran their culture in accordance with centuries of
>success and we did the same. They didn't come over here and try and
>change us but we certainly keep going over there trying to change
>them.

That is so much nonsense, see the history of Islamic imperialism, and
their stated aim of a world given over to the worship of the Muslim
God complete with Sharia law. All who oppose those ideals are infidels
and worthy only of death.

>
>Try to look at what's gone on for the past hundred years as if you
>came from a different planet and had no axe to grind and ask yourself
>"who started this".

The possession of the bulk of the world's energy requirements has made
some very backward countries unbelievably wealthy. That they have not
managed that wealth to the betterment of their populations, is not the
fault of the users of their essential product.

What they have done is to use that wealth to sponsor their religious
war and effectively bite the hand that feeds them.

Of course the real answer is to find quickly an alternative energy
source, and be free of the bastards for good. Close the borders, end
immigration, repatriate those that don't want to 'fit in' and then we
will be able to let them get on with "their own culture" and we can
live peacefully in ours.

>
>>>
>>>>in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
>>>>frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
>>>>rights!!
>>>>
>>>>He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
>>>>attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
>>>>that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>>>>
>>>>Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
>>>>about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
>>>>'successful' bombings?
>>>>
>>>>The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
>>>>high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
>>>>regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
>>>>mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
>>>>something about.
>>>>
>>>>Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
>>>>martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
>>>>more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
>>>>western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
>>>>cousins. I do hope so!!
>>>>
>>>>Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)
>
>
>Me too, worked on my tan.

We haven't seen the sun for a week!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Note the word alleged.
>
>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>
>>
>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>state suit you better bunky?
>
>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>"bunky"?!!

You deserve to be a subject.

>
>>
>>I have close to zero faith in the gvt's desire to protect me or my
>>rights so I'd just as soon keep as many constraints on them as
>>possible and continue that gvts world wide observe all the requisite
>>laws and treat EVERYONE as innocent until PROVEN guilty, not just
>>assumed guilty. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
>
>You make valid points, but you offer nothing about how to handle
>international terrorism. Equally you overlooked the point of my
>posting which was the irony of a "would-be" bomber "blubbing" and
>claiming his "rights"!!
>
>>
>>
>>>in their west London flat, one of them began blubbing, said he was
>>>frightened, and reminded his non-compromising confronters that he had
>>>rights!!
>>>
>>>He is now in custody where no doubt a highly paid lawyer is in
>>>attendance, and he will in due course have a human rights QC to ensure
>>>that he is accorded the full protection of the law.
>>>
>>>Just one thing sticks in my craw with that cosy little scenario: what
>>>about the rights of those 56 dead and 700 injured from the
>>>'successful' bombings?
>>>
>>>The only positive to emerge is that these 'failed' bombers do have a
>>>high degree of concern for their own persons, even if they have scant
>>>regard for the well-being of their intended targets. This is a
>>>mentality which we can understand and which perhaps we can do
>>>something about.
>>>
>>>Those fanatics who blow themselves to pieces in order to become
>>>martyrs, and to achieve their reward of 72 virgins, are a great deal
>>>more complex. Perhaps our home grown terrorists have been softened by
>>>western decadence, and lack the fortitude of their native born
>>>cousins. I do hope so!!
>>>
>>>Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:40:37 -0500, John Hanson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
>misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Note the word alleged.
>>
>>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>>
>>>
>>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>>state suit you better bunky?
>>
>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>>"bunky"?!!
>
>You deserve to be a subject.

I've been subjected to that before! ;o)

However, that is the way we have been brought up in this country and
most of us don't want to bear arms, and neither do we want our police
armed.

However, you know quite well JH, that doesn't mean that I don't own
guns or that I don't use them for a variety of reasons.

If it aint broke don't fix it!
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:02:53 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:


>However, you know quite well JH, that doesn't mean that I don't own
>guns or that I don't use them for a variety of reasons.
>

Like rape?


TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:02:53 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:40:37 -0500, John Hanson
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
>>misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
>>>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>>>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>Note the word alleged.
>>>
>>>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
>>>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
>>>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
>>>>state suit you better bunky?
>>>
>>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
>>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
>>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
>>>"bunky"?!!
>>
>>You deserve to be a subject.
>
>I've been subjected to that before! ;o)
>
>However, that is the way we have been brought up in this country and
>most of us don't want to bear arms, and neither do we want our police
>armed.

I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.

>
>However, you know quite well JH, that doesn't mean that I don't own
>guns or that I don't use them for a variety of reasons.
>
>If it aint broke don't fix it!

Your country is broke. You don't even have the right to defend
yourselves.
 
"John Hanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:02:53 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 07:40:37 -0500, John Hanson
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:50:24 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:29:15 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>As the SFO units of the British police, supported by SAS troopers,
> >>>>>burst upon the presence of two of the alleged would-be London bombers
>
>>>>......................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^
> >>>>
> >>>>Note the word alleged.
> >>>
> >>>I wrote the piece and it was *my* "alleged".
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I suppose you prefer that we give the police the right to kill anyone
> >>>>anytime, like the damn near have based on how they killed the
> >>>>Brazilian Electrician execution style. Would that kind of fascist
> >>>>state suit you better bunky?
> >>>
> >>>If you were a regular here you would know I am against the bearing of
> >>>arms by both police and the public, but I do want the public protected
> >>>against fanatics that seek to destroy our way of life, er...
> >>>"bunky"?!!
> >>
> >>You deserve to be a subject.
> >
> >I've been subjected to that before! ;o)
> >
> >However, that is the way we have been brought up in this country and
> >most of us don't want to bear arms, and neither do we want our police
> >armed.
>
> I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.
>
> >
> >However, you know quite well JH, that doesn't mean that I don't own
> >guns or that I don't use them for a variety of reasons.
> >
> >If it aint broke don't fix it!
>
> Your country is broke. You don't even have the right to defend
> yourselves.

Brits should get rid of that ridiculous monarchy. The future king is a moron
(just for a start)
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.

Yeah, not like the buttburglar we have for a president.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:09:44 -0400, The Bill Rodgers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:02:53 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>However, you know quite well JH, that doesn't mean that I don't own
>>guns or that I don't use them for a variety of reasons.
>>
>
>Like rape?

No, Bill, I don't own "rape" although I have grown it extensively!!
;o)
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Your country is broke. You don't even have the right to defend
>yourselves.

Apparently the lard has invaded the empty space between fat boys ears.
The USA is FAR MORE broke than the UK, thanks to a moron in the white
house.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26:56 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

>Like rape?
>
>No, Bill, I don't own "rape" although I have grown it extensively!!
>;o)
>

No, butt I'm sure you need guns to have sex. That or GHB.

TBR
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
 
"The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.
>
> Yeah, not like the buttburglar we have for a president.
>
and your people elected a buttburglar for his second term with a big
majority? just a fluke, right?
 
On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.
>>
>> Yeah, not like the buttburglar we have for a president.
>>
> and your people elected a buttburglar for his second term with a big
> majority? just a fluke, right?

It wasn't exactly a landslide. And I'm not sure what you mean by
'your people'. I doubt the guy you're following up to (or for that matter,
his state) voted for GWB.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-08-01, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "The Bill Rodgers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 08:14:17 -0500, John Hanson
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I can see why as they appear to be incompetent.
> >>
> >> Yeah, not like the buttburglar we have for a president.
> >>
> > and your people elected a buttburglar for his second term with a big
> > majority? just a fluke, right?
>
> It wasn't exactly a landslide. And I'm not sure what you mean by
> 'your people'. I doubt the guy you're following up to (or for that matter,
> his state) voted for GWB.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back