On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote:


And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.


You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you
like receiving it?

Projecting, Harry?
--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?


Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.

It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Again, totally the point.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:28 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give
a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill
us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber
cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of
our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'


Perfect example of why you should plonk me. You're an ass.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote:


And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.


You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you
like receiving it?

Projecting, Harry?
--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."


Maybe he's being observant. It must be a sockpuppet.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote:

And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.

You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you
like receiving it?
Projecting, Harry?
--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."


Maybe he's being observant. It must be a sockpuppet.



My understanding from the note that circulated is that some of those on
the left are going to ID spoof those on the right who started ID
spoofing or are among the most obnoxious posters until they stop
spoofing IDs. Herring is both among the most obnoxious posters and a
facilitator of right-wing mischief here.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with
missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an
airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of
terror. Such a good liberal you are.


Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.

It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Again, totally the point.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Exactly. Just a statement of fact.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet
you approve.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.
--

John H

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government
results from too much government."

Thomas Jefferson

John H wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:52:50 -0500, Jim wrote:

On 1/9/2010 1:38 PM, John H wrote:

And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.

You sure have been writing a lot about anal sex lately. Is it true you
like receiving it?

Projecting, Harry?
--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

I think Harry is trying go get hooked up.

John H wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257
Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume
OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.
Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.
Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.
Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.
How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Ask his daddy? Make assumptions like we do for those we hit with
missiles in Pakistan? Oh, maybe you don't consider blowing up an
airplane full of people over a densely populated area an act of
terror. Such a good liberal you are.
Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.
It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.

You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?
Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.
Again, totally the point.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.
No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.
No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Exactly. Just a statement of fact.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.
Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.
Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

Finally, your Messiah is using the words of a 'lying criminal', yet
you approve.

Goodbye plum. You're as vacuous as ever. Are you a blonde, by any
chance?

Never mind.

You don't need to filter Plum. She is here with you in your space, as
your guest. She should leave if she doesn't like the company.

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not
well defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Actually, enemy, or legal, combatant is rather well defined, as are the
protections given to them. Which is why, the Bush administration devised
their new terminology, "unlawful combatant" to avoid those protections.
John, as per usual, is playing fast and loose with his definitions. This
last perpetrator does not meet *any* of the definitions of a "lawful
combatant" under the Geneva Conventions. If he did, he would have
protected status, and could not be held personally responsible for
violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws of war.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:12:47 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.
How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not
well defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?

Actually, enemy, or legal, combatant is rather well defined, as are the
protections given to them. Which is why, the Bush administration devised
their new terminology, "unlawful combatant" to avoid those protections.
John, as per usual, is playing fast and loose with his definitions. This
last perpetrator does not meet *any* of the definitions of a "lawful
combatant" under the Geneva Conventions. If he did, he would have
protected status, and could not be held personally responsible for
violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws of war.

Miss de la plume stated she is an attorney. You wouldn't want to be
advising her on the law, would you?