"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
NOYB,
Definitely not too shabby for someone who graduated from a tech school.
; )

I would have expected someone with a Liberal Arts degree from a Ivy League
School to out debate you in a second. Now if we could only find someone
with a Liberal Arts Degree from an Ivy League school who wants to debate
you. ; )

Since we agree more than disagree, I will refrain from your debates. ; )


People from science-based backgrounds tend to use facts in their arguments.
Liberal Arts folks use emotion. BS beats BA any day. ;-)

Harry,
Why do you insist on responding to every one of my posts?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our
civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at best,
it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either
entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he
consistently out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?



First, I have no idea why the Smithers piece of crap addresses me, since I
don't read his posts until someone else regurgitates them, and even if
that happens, he isn't going to get a response from me.

As to your claiming to be not too shabby, I posit once again that you have
no understanding of our Constitution or the rule of law.



--
- - -
George W. Bush, our hero!

"After all, Europe is America's closest ally."—Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb.
23, 2005
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

NOYB,
If Harry had attended a decent college, he might be able to provide an
acceptable debate. Unfortunately, the U of Kansas did not provide him with
the tools your scientific education provided you.

It is amusing to see him resort to calling you names anytime you win an
argument.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a
terrorist hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to
protect our civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at
best, it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to
either entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he
consistently out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?



First, I have no idea why the Smithers piece of crap addresses me, since
I don't read his posts until someone else regurgitates them, and even if
that happens, he isn't going to get a response from me.

As to your claiming to be not too shabby, I posit once again that you
have no understanding of our Constitution or the rule of law.


Then at least make an effort to support your argument. Simply stating
that you're right and everybody else is wrong convinces nobody.

Harry,
If you are not here to debate anything with any "righties", does that mean
you are here to "high 5" the lefties everytime you call someone a name?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a
terrorist hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to
protect our civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at
best, it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to
either entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he
consistently out debates you on every issue.

Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?


First, I have no idea why the Smithers piece of crap addresses me, since
I don't read his posts until someone else regurgitates them, and even if
that happens, he isn't going to get a response from me.

As to your claiming to be not too shabby, I posit once again that you
have no understanding of our Constitution or the rule of law.


Then at least make an effort to support your argument. Simply stating
that you're right and everybody else is wrong convinces nobody.


I have stated here many times I have no interest in convincing righties of
anything.

As to Kent State, you know nothing of it. Some of us lived through it, and
circumstances similar to it, sans the actual shootings. The Guard had no
business opening fire on the students, period.




- - -
George W. Bush, our hero!

In his finest hour, the Commander In Chief boldly addresses America in her
time of crisis:
Send cash.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:04:09 -0400, "Starbuck's"
wrote:

Harry,
If you are not here to debate anything with any "righties", does that mean
you are here to "high 5" the lefties everytime you call someone a name?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

As to Kent State, you know nothing of it. Some of us lived through it, and
circumstances similar to it, sans the actual shootings. The Guard had no
business opening fire on the students, period.

Gosh, Harry was there also. I wonder if this was before or after his heroic
service in Vietnam.

What a guy!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

JohnH,
I am sure in a few months we will hear about Harry wonderful endeavors to
protect the students during while the National Guard were indiscriminately
shooting students. If it wasn't for Harry there would have been dozen's
killed.


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:04:09 -0400, "Starbuck's"

wrote:

Harry,
If you are not here to debate anything with any "righties", does that mean
you are here to "high 5" the lefties everytime you call someone a name?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

As to Kent State, you know nothing of it. Some of us lived through it,
and
circumstances similar to it, sans the actual shootings. The Guard had no
business opening fire on the students, period.

Gosh, Harry was there also. I wonder if this was before or after his
heroic
service in Vietnam.

What a guy!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It
is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our
civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at
best,
it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to either
entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances
of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he consistently
out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?

Probably not a bad idea NYOB.......a uniform would be deductible ;-)

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Starbuck's" wrote in message
...
Harry,
Your thought process seems to off, this is not an either or situation.
It
is possible, (and probably recommended) that we don't use a terrorist
hell-bent on destroying America or an uniformed dentist to protect our
civil liberties.

If you want to refute NOYB premise that Padilla is a gangbanger at
best,
it would have made a much better argument that to say we have to
either
entrust a terrorist or an uninformed dentist.

Life is not black and white, but you do not seem to understand the
nuances
of the real world. I don't always agree with NYOB, but he
consistently
out debates you on every issue.


Not too shabby for an "uniformed" dentist, eh?

Probably not a bad idea NYOB.......a uniform would be deductible ;-)


Whoops. Funny how the omission one letter can completely change the meaning
of a word.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in
rthlink.net:


If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.

And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities
is
to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for
this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought
in the American dialogue.

If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and
you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to
classify you as an enemy combatant.





If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the protection
of the Geneva Convention.



Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant.


After you have had a hearing and due process to identify you as a
convict, of course.

Terry K

Terry Spragg wrote:
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Bert Robbins wrote:

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:


If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.


And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such
activities is
to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be
for
this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced
thought
in the American dialogue.


If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand
and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is
needed to classify you as an enemy combatant.





If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the
protection of the Geneva Convention.



Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant.



After you have had a hearing and due process to identify you as a
convict, of course.

Terry K

The geneva convention provides protection to Signatories of the
Convention who meet specific criteria. It provides no protection for
those who do not meet those criteria. Spies, for example, are not
protected.

del

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”