In article 24df7511-1e4f-42b4-bdcd-3a5225485c40
@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Aug 17, 10:33*pm, Jim wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
On Aug 16, 8:49 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

You notice that he refuses to actually answer my question? He and
Nuckles
and "Larry" claim they aren't reading my posts. They're liars of
course.

Liar!! *I have never claimed that I'm not reading anything here. *It's
just pointless to argue with an idiot.

If the mosque builders had any respect and feelings for others, they'd
stop their plans, look for another site, and set up a fund of about $1
million that would help the children of the people that died in the
towers. *That would help to build a bridge of peace and
understanding. *Instead, they want to fan the flames.

I thought the feds already paid millions of dollars to those families.
If the 9/11 families have a problem with American Muslims and the 1st
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, they should just come right out and
say it instead of whining about their "feelings."
****ing lib crybabies. *Sound like a Barbara Streisand song.
Or was that Dolly Parton?
You want war with American Muslims, just ****ing declare war.

Jim - Crybabies **** me off. *Worse than the pols that get them crying.

So, you've decided that all 9/11 families are liberals? Hmmm.... that
seems unlikely.

Doesn't matter, those terms don't mean anything to me.
It's wingnut stuff. *Sometimes I use their lingo.
What I said goes for the poster named Jack too.
Talking about "feelings" is either lib crybaby talk or right wingnut
weaseling lies.
He can take his pick.
Saying that the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply because of "feelings"
only means you don't believe the 1st Amendment should apply for American
Muslims but are too god damned cowardly to come out and say it.
Why the **** should American Muslims care about his "feelings" or
anybody else's? *They didn't cause 9/11.
Some of them were first responders.
Backing down would be a tacit admission of guilt by them.
Looks like the anti-mosque crowd is trying to start a jihad.
No ****ing better than AQ.
And that weaseling Obama should make it clear whether or not he cares
about the "feelings" of this anti-American trash who want the 1st
Amendment breached in spirit by pressure tactics dressed up as "feelings."
He's another one too cowardly to talk straight.
I say **** them all and the horses they rode in on.

Jim - Nope. *I'm not a Muslim. *Don't like that religion at all.
But I am an American. *And I see trash all over the place.

Wow. What a crybaby Jim is.

Jack - Wondering why Jim whines here.

Yeah, the schtick is getting worn out... This mamby pamby middle of the
road stuff is for girls

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

On 8/16/10 11:55 PM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:03 pm, Harry wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:49 PM, Jack wrote:





On Aug 16, 9:31 pm, Harry wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:07 PM, Jack wrote:

On Aug 16, 8:49 pm, wrote:

You notice that he refuses to actually answer my question? He and Nuckles
and "Larry" claim they aren't reading my posts. They're liars of course.

Liar!! I have never claimed that I'm not reading anything here. It's
just pointless to argue with an idiot.

Which is why I simply dismiss the right-wing vomit you post here.

Liar!! You post replies to almost everything I write. It's your
narcissism.

Besides, she already said she didn't like old and fat, so you don't
have a chance, knight of the low transom.

Dismiss is not a synonym for ignore, braindead. The crap you post is not
worthy of consideration, just derision.

Got it?

I got that you just had to respond to my post... again.

Got it? :-


I don't have to respond to all of your post, I choose to respond to all
of your posts.

GOT IT?

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

In article ,
says...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...

Your game is fun I guess but sometimes you miss the point. The point
here is that Imam is a terrorist sympathizer and is building this *Mosk*
with the help of the Saudi's who did 911, and the placement is meant to
only show power and stick a finger in the eye of America... Period...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

"Mosk", is it?

Good catch, my little ferret!

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID.

John H wrote:


I agree. The feds should have no involvement in what the Muslims build or don't
build, as long as the appropriate zoning laws, etc, are met. They should be
treated no differently, by the government, than any other religious organization
that wanted to build a structure on the site.

However, folks should also have the right to bitch and demonstrate about it,
which they are doing. Of course, we don't see much of that in the liberal media
which panders, along with our President, to the Muslims - radical or otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any mention of this demonstration.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010...-zero-part-ii/

Of course, it could have been on the news while I was boating. Who knows?


Anybody can bitch all they want.
I've seen them all over the news on all channels.
The libs are spouting the same nonsense about "feelings" that the cons
are.
Also seen many lying about the Imam head of the mosque.
The guy was picked by Bush to run around the world with Karen Hughes
telling ragheads that "America is Good" and has been working with the
FBI for years to track terrorists.
Common sense says he's an national security asset.
Looks to me like the protesters are plain anti-Muslim, libs and all.
That's their right. I just don't care much for liars.
If they want jihad or a new round of Crusades, they should advocate for
that.
Not whine about "feelings."
But maybe they want jihad or Crusades.
That's the natural outcome of telling American Muslims to take their
mosque to the back of the bus.
Hope their fighting skills can back up their big mouths.
None of them exactly strike me as Knights Templar.
I say outlaw Islam, or change the constitution, or shut up.
Whatever they do, they'll have to deal with the likes of me posting on
usenet. So there.

Jim - Staking my ground in rec.boats. Seems safe enough.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:29:54 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:


I agree. The feds should have no involvement in what the Muslims build or don't
build, as long as the appropriate zoning laws, etc, are met. They should be
treated no differently, by the government, than any other religious organization
that wanted to build a structure on the site.

However, folks should also have the right to bitch and demonstrate about it,
which they are doing. Of course, we don't see much of that in the liberal media
which panders, along with our President, to the Muslims - radical or otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any mention of this demonstration.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010...-zero-part-ii/

Of course, it could have been on the news while I was boating. Who knows?


Anybody can bitch all they want.
I've seen them all over the news on all channels.
The libs are spouting the same nonsense about "feelings" that the cons
are.
Also seen many lying about the Imam head of the mosque.
The guy was picked by Bush to run around the world with Karen Hughes
telling ragheads that "America is Good" and has been working with the
FBI for years to track terrorists.
Common sense says he's an national security asset.
Looks to me like the protesters are plain anti-Muslim, libs and all.
That's their right. I just don't care much for liars.
If they want jihad or a new round of Crusades, they should advocate for
that.
Not whine about "feelings."
But maybe they want jihad or Crusades.
That's the natural outcome of telling American Muslims to take their
mosque to the back of the bus.
Hope their fighting skills can back up their big mouths.
None of them exactly strike me as Knights Templar.
I say outlaw Islam, or change the constitution, or shut up.
Whatever they do, they'll have to deal with the likes of me posting on
usenet. So there.

Jim - Staking my ground in rec.boats. Seems safe enough.


I agree again. People are allowed to bitch all they want. I personally don't
think the building of the mosque at that location is going to smooth the
feelings of the American people.

You seem to think the Imam head of the mosque is a great guy. What Bush did is
beside the point. I think he's an asshole, regardless of how well the FBI and he
get along.

But, that's just my opinion. Probably has as much or more foundation than yours.
I do like your idea of outlawing Islam, especially the 'outer edge' versions.
Sometimes we agree. Most of the time I just think you're somewhat verbose. But
that's OK. You've got the right.

John H - nothing cute to add.
--

John H

On 8/18/10 5:02 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:29:54 -0500, wrote:

John H wrote:


I agree. The feds should have no involvement in what the Muslims build or don't
build, as long as the appropriate zoning laws, etc, are met. They should be
treated no differently, by the government, than any other religious organization
that wanted to build a structure on the site.

However, folks should also have the right to bitch and demonstrate about it,
which they are doing. Of course, we don't see much of that in the liberal media
which panders, along with our President, to the Muslims - radical or otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any mention of this demonstration.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010...-zero-part-ii/

Of course, it could have been on the news while I was boating. Who knows?


Anybody can bitch all they want.
I've seen them all over the news on all channels.
The libs are spouting the same nonsense about "feelings" that the cons
are.
Also seen many lying about the Imam head of the mosque.
The guy was picked by Bush to run around the world with Karen Hughes
telling ragheads that "America is Good" and has been working with the
FBI for years to track terrorists.
Common sense says he's an national security asset.
Looks to me like the protesters are plain anti-Muslim, libs and all.
That's their right. I just don't care much for liars.
If they want jihad or a new round of Crusades, they should advocate for
that.
Not whine about "feelings."
But maybe they want jihad or Crusades.
That's the natural outcome of telling American Muslims to take their
mosque to the back of the bus.
Hope their fighting skills can back up their big mouths.
None of them exactly strike me as Knights Templar.
I say outlaw Islam, or change the constitution, or shut up.
Whatever they do, they'll have to deal with the likes of me posting on
usenet. So there.

Jim - Staking my ground in rec.boats. Seems safe enough.


I agree again. People are allowed to bitch all they want. I personally don't
think the building of the mosque at that location is going to smooth the
feelings of the American people.

You seem to think the Imam head of the mosque is a great guy. What Bush did is
beside the point. I think he's an asshole, regardless of how well the FBI and he
get along.

But, that's just my opinion. Probably has as much or more foundation than yours.
I do like your idea of outlawing Islam, especially the 'outer edge' versions.
Sometimes we agree. Most of the time I just think you're somewhat verbose. But
that's OK. You've got the right.

John H - nothing cute to add.


Herring wants to repeal the first amendment.
Is he also in favor of outlawing "outer edge" christianity?
Republicans...they work overtime to repeal the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.

John H wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:29:54 -0500, Jim wrote:



I agree again. People are allowed to bitch all they want. I personally don't
think the building of the mosque at that location is going to smooth the
feelings of the American people.

You seem to think the Imam head of the mosque is a great guy. What Bush did is
beside the point. I think he's an asshole, regardless of how well the FBI and he
get along.

I don't like Imams, Priests, Pastors or Rabbis as a general rule, so I
don't know where you got the idea I think he's a great guy.
GWB liked him and as far as I know the FBI *still* likes him.
Sort of runs counter to him being a terrorist in disguise.
That was my only point about him.

But, that's just my opinion. Probably has as much or more foundation than yours.
I do like your idea of outlawing Islam, especially the 'outer edge' versions.
Sometimes we agree. Most of the time I just think you're somewhat verbose. But
that's OK. You've got the right.


Outlawing Islam in the U.S. is an option for whoever wants to take it
up. Good luck.


John H - nothing cute to add.

Jim - Cute addition.

Harry  wrote:
On 8/16/10 11:55 PM, Jack wrote:
On Aug 16, 10:03 pm, Harry wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:49 PM, Jack wrote:





On Aug 16, 9:31 pm, Harry wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:07 PM, Jack wrote:

On Aug 16, 8:49 pm, wrote:

You notice that he refuses to actually answer my question? He
and Nuckles
and "Larry" claim they aren't reading my posts. They're liars of
course.

Liar!! I have never claimed that I'm not reading anything here.
It's
just pointless to argue with an idiot.

Which is why I simply dismiss the right-wing vomit you post here.

Liar!! You post replies to almost everything I write. It's your
narcissism.

Besides, she already said she didn't like old and fat, so you don't
have a chance, knight of the low transom.

Dismiss is not a synonym for ignore, braindead. The crap you post is
not
worthy of consideration, just derision.

Got it?

I got that you just had to respond to my post... again.

Got it? :-


I don't have to respond to all of your post, I choose to respond to
all of your posts.

GOT IT?

No, your narcissism controls you.

On Aug 18, 4:08*pm, Someone Else wrote:
On 8/18/10 5:02 PM, John H wrote:



On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:29:54 -0500, *wrote:

John H wrote:

I agree. The feds should have no involvement in what the Muslims build or don't
build, as long as the appropriate zoning laws, etc, are met. They should be
treated no differently, by the government, than any other religious organization
that wanted to build a structure on the site.

However, folks should also have the right to bitch and demonstrate about it,
which they are doing. Of course, we don't see much of that in the liberal media
which panders, along with our President, to the Muslims - radical or otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any mention of this demonstration.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010...-at-ground-zer....

Of course, it could have been on the news while I was boating. Who knows?

Anybody can bitch all they want.
I've seen them all over the news on all channels.
The libs are spouting the same nonsense about "feelings" that the cons
are.
Also seen many lying about the Imam head of the mosque.
The guy was picked by Bush to run around the world with Karen Hughes
telling ragheads that "America is Good" and has been working with the
FBI for years to track terrorists.
Common sense says he's an national security asset.
Looks to me like the protesters are plain anti-Muslim, libs and all.
That's their right. *I just don't care much for liars.
If they want jihad or a new round of Crusades, they should advocate for
that.
Not whine about "feelings."
But maybe they want jihad or Crusades.
That's the natural outcome of telling American Muslims to take their
mosque to the back of the bus.
Hope their fighting skills can back up their big mouths.
None of them exactly strike me as Knights Templar.
I say outlaw Islam, or change the constitution, or shut up.
Whatever they do, they'll have to deal with the likes of me posting on
usenet. *So there.

Jim - *Staking my ground in rec.boats. *Seems safe enough.

I agree again. People are allowed to bitch all they want. I personally don't
think the building of the mosque at that location is going to smooth the
feelings of the American people.

You seem to think the Imam head of the mosque is a great guy. What Bush did is
beside the point. I think he's an asshole, regardless of how well the FBI and he
get along.

But, that's just my opinion. Probably has as much or more foundation than yours.
I do like your idea of outlawing Islam, especially the 'outer edge' versions.
Sometimes we agree. Most of the time I just think you're somewhat verbose. But
that's OK. You've got the right.

John H - nothing cute to add.

Herring wants to repeal the first amendment.
Is he also in favor of outlawing "outer edge" christianity?
Republicans...they work overtime to repeal the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.

I can't see the conflict you have, Herr Krause. I believe you would
like to outlaw Christianity all together.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:08:31 -0400, Someone Else wrote:

On 8/18/10 5:02 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:29:54 -0500, wrote:

John H wrote:


I agree. The feds should have no involvement in what the Muslims build or don't
build, as long as the appropriate zoning laws, etc, are met. They should be
treated no differently, by the government, than any other religious organization
that wanted to build a structure on the site.

However, folks should also have the right to bitch and demonstrate about it,
which they are doing. Of course, we don't see much of that in the liberal media
which panders, along with our President, to the Muslims - radical or otherwise.
I don't recall seeing any mention of this demonstration.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2010...-zero-part-ii/

Of course, it could have been on the news while I was boating. Who knows?


Anybody can bitch all they want.
I've seen them all over the news on all channels.
The libs are spouting the same nonsense about "feelings" that the cons
are.
Also seen many lying about the Imam head of the mosque.
The guy was picked by Bush to run around the world with Karen Hughes
telling ragheads that "America is Good" and has been working with the
FBI for years to track terrorists.
Common sense says he's an national security asset.
Looks to me like the protesters are plain anti-Muslim, libs and all.
That's their right. I just don't care much for liars.
If they want jihad or a new round of Crusades, they should advocate for
that.
Not whine about "feelings."
But maybe they want jihad or Crusades.
That's the natural outcome of telling American Muslims to take their
mosque to the back of the bus.
Hope their fighting skills can back up their big mouths.
None of them exactly strike me as Knights Templar.
I say outlaw Islam, or change the constitution, or shut up.
Whatever they do, they'll have to deal with the likes of me posting on
usenet. So there.

Jim - Staking my ground in rec.boats. Seems safe enough.


I agree again. People are allowed to bitch all they want. I personally don't
think the building of the mosque at that location is going to smooth the
feelings of the American people.

You seem to think the Imam head of the mosque is a great guy. What Bush did is
beside the point. I think he's an asshole, regardless of how well the FBI and he
get along.

But, that's just my opinion. Probably has as much or more foundation than yours.
I do like your idea of outlawing Islam, especially the 'outer edge' versions.
Sometimes we agree. Most of the time I just think you're somewhat verbose. But
that's OK. You've got the right.

John H - nothing cute to add.


Herring wants to repeal the first amendment.
Is he also in favor of outlawing "outer edge" christianity?
Republicans...they work overtime to repeal the Constitution and Bill of
Rights.


Participants in any religion advocating and performing practices which violate
human rights, like hanging homosexuals or defacing (literally) women, should be
jailed - thus inhibiting the practice of their religion.

If you think that's asking for the repeal of the first amendment, then your head
is firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine.

That's twice in August. You should be very grateful, Harry.
--

John H