«

richard wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:19:23 -0800, Blinky the Shark <>
> wrote:
>
>>richard wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:39:06 -0800, "The Real Truth MVP"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bush needs to fire all of them. He did do a good job at ducking. That
>>>>could have easily been a knife.
>>>>http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...hp?cl=11096193
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe the SS would be there. When the Pres. goes to a foreign
>>> country, he's guarded by military people.
>>
>>Cite?
>
> They may be there like in Iraq, but only as immediate protection. Not the
> entire part of the process. Like who else is gonna provide it in Iraq?
> And you can bet your ass that wasn't no unplanned trip either. It just
> wasn't announced.

So you were wrong. Works for me.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Leythos wrote:
> In article <>,
> says...
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:40:29 -0600, HEMI-Powered aided th' terraists with
>> the following claims :
>> [....]
>>> The exact opposite problem exists within the United States where
>>> the Posse Comitatis Act of 1978 specifically prohibits military
>>> forces taking part in ANY law enforcement activities.
>> You ****ing tool. Bush repealed Posse comitatus.
>
> You might want to stop being a tool yourself and learn a little more
> about it:
>
>
> Recent legislative events
>
> On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider
> revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control
> immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of
> Hurricane Katrina.
>
> These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense
> Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed
> into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.[2]
>
> Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public
> emergencies". It provided that:
>
> The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public
> order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a
> natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency,
> terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President
> determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that
> the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of
> maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any
> insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if
> such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any
> part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity,
> or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes
> or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes
> the course of justice under those laws.[3]
>
> The actual text is on pages 322?323 of the legislation.
>
> As of 2008, these changes have been repealed in their entirety,
> reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.
>

CITE, sLuRpEr-0f-h3m1.

>
> NOTE THE PART YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED: As of 2008, these changes have
> been repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of
> the Insurrection Act.
>
Funny how you FAIL to provide a link to the alleged document in
question, Captain Reacharound

HEMI-Powered wrote:

>>
> I've got to go to an appointment so I'll have to reserve longer
> comment for later but with the tens of thousands of pages of laws
> implementing every phase of the Constitution including those
> whose intent changes over time, it is ONLY the courts that can
> rule on whether a law is still in force or has been either
> actually or implicitely repealed. For example, there is NO
> language in either the USA PATRIOT ACT or FISA that specifically
> "repeals" key protections in the Bill of Rights

Idiot. The ACLU just won a court case concerning NSL's that were illegal
and in violation of the BOR & 1st Amendment...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_...down_1216.html
Do try and keep up.


> nor has any
> Federal court specifically and explicitly even ruled on the
> constitutionality of those two major acts limiting personal
> freedoms, thus this entire argument is pretty academic except for
> the churlish cormudgeons among us whose aim seems to be to pick
> out people they don't like here in this NG or the government and
> attack them at will, whether there are facts involved or just
> bilge.
>

Do you ever get tired of being WRONG?

On 2008-12-16, HEMI-Powered <> wrote:
> Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> The person could have just as easily thrown their camera or
>>> other reporter items - tape recorder, etc.....
>>
>> But to Arabs hurling a shoe was much more of an insult towards
>> Bush than almost any other object.
>>
> Hurling insults isn't in the same league as making a credible
> threat on a president nor an actual attack with weapons. I think
> that the president handled it very well, although the Loons out
> there are playing it as if Bush were some kinda imbecile for not
> perceiving it as an actual threat-based insult and demanding
> violent action. OTOH, what would have happened had President Bush
> ordered retaliation against the thrower, such as arrest, shipment
> to Gitmo, aggressive interrogation, maybe a little beating - or
> beat them to death right there? That's right, there'd have been a
> public outcry.

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5354278.ece>
Muntader al-Zaidi was arrested, and has appeared in court with a broken
arm and broken ribs and a cut face, and could face a gaol sentence. And
there has been (is being) a public outcry in his support.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article <Xns9B767F2C7B2D7ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>,
says...
> I've got to go to an appointment so I'll have to reserve longer
> comment for later
>

It won't matter, you're still wrong on your statement.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

richard <> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:34:27 +0100, "netjerykhet"
> <> wrote:
>
>> Glen Stephenson <> wrote:
>>> richard <> wrote in message
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:39:06 -0800, "The Real Truth MVP"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bush needs to fire all of them. He did do a good job at ducking.
>>>>> That could have easily been a knife.
>>>>> http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...hp?cl=11096193
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the SS would be there. When the Pres. goes to a
>>>> foreign country, he's guarded by military people.
>>>
>>> Why don't you believe it? I get the impression you know quite a bit
>>> about the 'SS'. Perhaps it's my wild imagination running riot.
>>>
>>> Do you have anything you can tell of your experiences which won't
>>> get you into trouble?
>>>
>>> It sounds exciting.
>>
>> If richard is or has been secret service and had been involved with
>> protection and Government secrets he would unlikely be in a position
>> to reveal any of it, so even asking him puts him in a difficult
>> position.
>>
>> He couldn't tell you anything even if he wanted to, unless he were
>> to make it up, but then how would you know he doesn't make up any of
>> what he says.
>>
>> The way he writes his posts would have you beleive he's importent
>> and knowas something.
>>
>> Stay clear of that guy, he seem dangerous, and by association, Glen
>> you might get involved.
>>
>
> Sorry but I have never been associated with the US SS in any way.

Which country's SS have you worked for then, if not the US.?

> However, I did apply with the whitehouse police once.

Didn't they accept you having an extra finger and big toe on the same hand?

> Yes doubting thomas there was/is such an animal.

To whom are you referring to there?

> Now I do have a cousin who works for the DOD. I've asked him what his
> job is even in a generic nature. He can't tell me.
> I have another cousin who flies for the border patrol.

Are you the drop-out of the family then?

> I'm no more important than you or anyone else here.
> If I were a "know it all" I'd be replying to every post.
> Do you see me doing that?
> I stay out of things I know nothing about. Unlike certain others
> around here.

Yet you feel you're important enough to 'strip' groups, blabber on about you
and your inbred cousins.

And as for the subject of this thread explain how exactly you're staying
"out of things I [you] know nothing about" - how is that working for you
exactly?

> I stripped your add on groups.

Lifting your slip like that exposes your vulnerabilities.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:20:33 +0000, Whiskers aided th' terraists with the
following claims :

> On 2008-12-16, HEMI-Powered <> wrote:
>> Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>> ...
>>
>>>> The person could have just as easily thrown their camera or
>>>> other reporter items - tape recorder, etc.....
>>>
>>> But to Arabs hurling a shoe was much more of an insult towards
>>> Bush than almost any other object.
>>>
>> Hurling insults isn't in the same league as making a credible
>> threat on a president nor an actual attack with weapons. I think
>> that the president handled it very well, although the Loons out
>> there are playing it as if Bush were some kinda imbecile for not
>> perceiving it as an actual threat-based insult and demanding
>> violent action. OTOH, what would have happened had President Bush
>> ordered retaliation against the thrower, such as arrest, shipment
>> to Gitmo, aggressive interrogation, maybe a little beating - or
>> beat them to death right there? That's right, there'd have been a
>> public outcry.
>
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5354278.ece>
> Muntader al-Zaidi was arrested, and has appeared in court with a broken
> arm and broken ribs and a cut face, and could face a gaol sentence. And
> there has been (is being) a public outcry in his support.

They'll probably transfer him via Air CIA to GITMO or some other "black
site" and break his other arm to make him "embrace freedums".



--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
http://www.alternet.org

Terry's Web Server wrote:
> §ñühwØ£f wrote:
>>
>> They'll probably transfer him via Air CIA to GITMO or some other "black
>> site" and break his other arm to make him "embrace freedums".
>>
>
> You shouldn't be so obvious with it K-Smirnoff.

Yaaaaaaaaaay! Iem Kman!!!!1111!!!!
THis means I can enjoy the warm weather outside

§ñühw¤£f <> wrote in message
news:gic1h8$fi1$:

> Terry's Web Server wrote:
>> §ñühwØ£f wrote:
>>>
>>> They'll probably transfer him via Air CIA to GITMO or some other
>>> "black site" and break his other arm to make him "embrace freedums".
>>>
>>
>> You shouldn't be so obvious with it K-Smirnoff.
>
> Yaaaaaaaaaay! Iem Kman!!!!1111!!!!
> THis means I can enjoy the warm weather outside

Get back Sandi your ego is getting in the way of the sun!

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:26:59 -0500, Keyser Söze aided th' terraists with
the following claims :

> §ñühw¤£f <> wrote in message
> news:gic1h8$fi1$:
>
>> Terry's Web Server wrote:
>>> §ñühwØ£f wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They'll probably transfer him via Air CIA to GITMO or some other
>>>> "black site" and break his other arm to make him "embrace freedums".
>>>>
>>>
>>> You shouldn't be so obvious with it K-Smirnoff.
>>
>> Yaaaaaaaaaay! Iem Kman!!!!1111!!!!
>> THis means I can enjoy the warm weather outside
>
> Get back Sandi your ego is getting in the way of the sun!

No, its "get back jo jo".

HTH

--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
http://www.alternet.org