Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Nicholas Geti wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ProFox Email List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> 
> Nicholas Geti wrote:
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "ProFox Email List" 
>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
>>> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
>>> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
>>> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).
>> Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a 
>> fictitious
>> example?
>>
> 
> Same thing thought the GI till they got him and women cut his balls.
> 
> What!!???
> 

You know, those soldiers that got caught by Iraqis. Do you really think
they kept their marbles?



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Nicholas Geti]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ProFox Email List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll


Nicholas Geti wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ProFox Email List" 
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

>> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
>> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
>> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).
>
> Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a 
> fictitious
> example?
>

Same thing thought the GI till they got him and women cut his balls.

What!!???




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Nicholas Geti wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ProFox Email List" 
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> 
>> Hi Petey,
>>
>> Can't you get it through your thick head? You are in THEIR country, and
>> they want you OUT (does "yankee go home" ring a bell?)
>>
>> Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
>> stretch you imagination, but give it a try.
>>
>> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
>> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
>> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).
> 
> Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a fictitious 
> example?
> 

Same thing thought the GI till they got him and women cut his balls.


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 8:23 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Now this is where I disagree.
>
> We do not have to force our democracy on anybody

Hi Virgil!

We take democracy with us wherever we go. We don't have to impose democracy, 
however, just order.

> But since Iraq controls so much oil they are like a public utility to the
> world so the world's governments, including ours, have to restore and
> maintain order in Iraq, however loudly the Ds and libs cry for anarchy.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 8:26 am, Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:42 am, Ed Leafe wrote:
> > To Americans looking at Iraq, these
> > people are "insurgents" who need to be destroyed. To the occupied
> > Iraqis, though, these people are heroes fighting against the foreign
> > invaders.
>
> Hi Ed!
>
> It's not that simple. Iraqis have been killing each other for some time, we
> are over there getting the way with our democracy, true enough.
>
> But since Iraq controls so much oil they are like a public utility to the
> world so the world's governments, including ours, have to restore and
> maintain order in Iraq, however loudly the Ds and libs cry for anarchy.

Make that "getting *in* the way".

-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Now this is where I disagree.

We do not have to force our democracy on anybody and I'm against that.
If they want us there, we will be there, but if they don't want us there, we
shouldn't be there.

As for the oil.
We're supposed to be the good guy's.
If we don't have the oil that we need, then we should do without until we
can invent something better even if it means shutting all our vehicles down.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:27 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:42 am, Ed Leafe wrote:
> To Americans looking at Iraq, these
> people are "insurgents" who need to be destroyed. To the occupied
> Iraqis, though, these people are heroes fighting against the foreign
> invaders.

Hi Ed!

It's not that simple. Iraqis have been killing each other for some time, we 
are over there getting the way with our democracy, true enough.

But since Iraq controls so much oil they are like a public utility to the 
world so the world's governments, including ours, have to restore and 
maintain order in Iraq, however loudly the Ds and libs cry for anarchy.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:42 am, Ed Leafe wrote:
> To Americans looking at Iraq, these
> people are "insurgents" who need to be destroyed. To the occupied
> Iraqis, though, these people are heroes fighting against the foreign
> invaders.

Hi Ed!

It's not that simple. Iraqis have been killing each other for some time, we 
are over there getting the way with our democracy, true enough.

But since Iraq controls so much oil they are like a public utility to the 
world so the world's governments, including ours, have to restore and 
maintain order in Iraq, however loudly the Ds and libs cry for anarchy.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ed Leafe]

On May 21, 2007, at 11:09 PM, Nicholas Geti wrote:

>> Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
>> stretch you imagination, but give it a try.
>>
>> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from  
>> this
>> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
>> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).
>
> Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a  
> fictitious
> example?

How else would one imagine an equivalent mindset? Yes, it's an  
imagined situation, but the point is to illustrate that the actions  
of the "insurgents" in Iraq are quite similar to what we "patriots"  
would be doing if some other country invaded us "for our own good".

The labels are meaningless. To Americans looking at Iraq, these  
people are "insurgents" who need to be destroyed. To the occupied  
Iraqis, though, these people are heroes fighting against the foreign  
invaders.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

I hope you're right, but I fear that you are wrong.

When you're king of the mountain, somebody is always trying to knock you off
and right now we're selling all our technology and giving away all of our
money which makes it a matter of time.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Geti
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll


- Original Message - 
From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ProFox Email List" 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll


> Hi Petey,
>
> Can't you get it through your thick head? You are in THEIR country, and
> they want you OUT (does "yankee go home" ring a bell?)
>
> Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
> stretch you imagination, but give it a try.
>
> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).

Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a fictitious

example?




[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Nicholas Geti]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ProFox Email List" 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll


> Hi Petey,
>
> Can't you get it through your thick head? You are in THEIR country, and
> they want you OUT (does "yankee go home" ring a bell?)
>
> Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
> stretch you imagination, but give it a try.
>
> We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
> terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
> Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?).

Pure meaningless speculation. Will never happen, so why cook up a fictitious 
example?




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Yes.  Below is an excerpt form the wiki under the section titled 
"Immediate responses to the Pearl Harbor attack".

#---
Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Presidential Proclamations 2525 
(Japanese), 2526 (German) and 2527 (Italian) were signed. Many homes 
were raided using information from the CDI, and hundreds of aliens were 
in custody by the end of the day, including Germans and Italians 
(although war was not declared on Germany or Italy until December 11).

Presidential Proclamation 2537 was issued on January 14, 1942, requiring 
aliens to report any change of address, employment or name to the FBI. 
Enemy aliens were not allowed to enter restricted areas. Violators of 
these regulations were subject to "arrest, detention and internment for 
the duration of the war."
#

Regards,

LelandJ

Ricardo Aráoz wrote:
> Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
>> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
>> civil rights were violated. 
>> 
>
> Did the same happen with USA citizens from German origin? And with Italians?
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 3:34 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>> Is the section below regarding "Legal Legacy" what you're talking about
>> regarding several law suits
> 
> Hi Leland!
> 
> Yes. The situation with the 'slims is far, far worse than the deal was with 
> the Japs. The Japs were wearing uniforms and were not targeting civilians, at 
> least not to any great extent.

I guess not, because the chinese they murdered in Shanghai (and in all
China) were not civilians, in your book they probably aren't human. Are
they?


> 
> If we don't inter the 'slims here because of some legal mumbo jumbo, we 
> should 
> at least detain them in various places around the world. We also should close 
> the Iraq borders until it all gets sorted out.



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
> civil rights were violated. 

Did the same happen with USA citizens from German origin? And with Italians?



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 3:34 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Is the section below regarding "Legal Legacy" what you're talking about
> regarding several law suits

Hi Leland!

Yes. The situation with the 'slims is far, far worse than the deal was with 
the Japs. The Japs were wearing uniforms and were not targeting civilians, at 
least not to any great extent.

If we don't inter the 'slims here because of some legal mumbo jumbo, we should 
at least detain them in various places around the world. We also should close 
the Iraq borders until it all gets sorted out.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Is the section below regarding "Legal Legacy" what you're talking about 
regarding several law suits:? If so, it should be noted key evidence was 
withheld or destroyed, and documents were intensionally aaltered that 
would have surely altered the decision of the Supreme Court regarding 
these cases if all the facts had been honestly presented.

Also, the Supreme court did finally rule the internment of Japanese 
Americans to be unconstitutional (eg see "The Internment ends" below.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states "The privilege of 
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases 
of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." but gives 
this authority to Congress, rather than the President.

Justice Tom C. Clark, who represented the US Department of Justice in 
the "relocation," writes in the Epilogue to the book Executive Order 
9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans (written by Maisie & 
Richard Conrat):

The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and 
laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language 
of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus 
shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that 
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due 
process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by 
military action under Executive Order 9066.[citation needed]

The internment of American citizen because of "FEAR" during WW II was 
one of the saddest episodes of American History, and it is quit painful 
to read the details of what transpired during the frenzy fear of war WWII.

#-
The Internment ends

In December, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled the detainment of loyal 
citizens unconstitutional. In early 1945, the government began clearing 
individuals to return to the West Coast; on January 2, 1945, the 
exclusion order was rescinded entirely. The internees then began to 
leave the camps to rebuild their lives at home, although the relocation 
camps remained open for residents who were not ready to make the move 
back. The freed internees were given $25 and and a train ticket to their 
former home and sent on their way. Some of the Japanese Americans 
immigrated back to Japan, however the majority returned to their former 
lives, to the very place where they had been openly ostracized.[1] The 
fact that this occurred long before the Japanese surrender, while the 
war was arguably at its most vicious, weighs against the claim that the 
relocation was an essential security measure. However, it is also true 
that the Japanese were clearly losing the war by that time, and were not 
on the offensive. The last internment camp was not closed until 
1946,[20] although all Japanese were cleared from the camps sometime in 
1945.[citation needed]

One of the WRA camps, Manzanar, was designated a National Historic Site 
in 1992 to "provide for the protection and interpretation of historic, 
cultural, and natural resources associated with the relocation of 
Japanese Americans during World War II" (Public Law 102-248). In 2001, 
the site of the Minidoka War Relocation Center in Idaho was designated 
the Minidoka Internment National Monument.


#--


Legal legacy

Several significant legal decisions arose out of Japanese American 
internment, relating to the powers of the government to detain citizens 
in wartime. Among the cases which reached the Supreme Court were /Yasui 
v. United States 
/ 
(1943), /Hirabayashi v. United States 
/ (1943), /ex 
parte Endo / (1944), and 
/Korematsu v. United States 
/ (1944). In 
/Yasui/ and /Hirabayashi/ the court upheld the constitutionality of 
curfews based on Japanese ancestry; in /Korematsu/ the court upheld the 
constitutionality of the exclusion order. In /Endo/, the court accepted 
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
 and ruled that the 
WRA had no authority to subject a citizen whose loyalty was acknowledged 
to its procedures.

Korematsu's and Hirabayashi's convictions were vacated in a series of 
/coram nobis / cases in the 
early 1980s. In the /coram nobis/ cases, federal district and appellate 
courts ruled that newly uncovered evidence revealed the existence of a 
huge unfairness which, had it been known at the time, would likely have 
changed the Supreme Court 
's 
decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases.^[14] 
 
^[5

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:42 pm, Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:23 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> > Also, it should be noted that the Japanese Americas, who were placed
> > into internment, were not in a position where they could bring a law
> > suit aginst the US government for the reprehensible treatment that so
> > violated them as human being and violated their constitutional rights as
> > American Citizens, so there was no way where such a suit could have
> > found its way to the Supreme Court throught appeal for a ruling.
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake read the article. There were all kinds of suits,
> several of which made it to the Supreme Court, and this is how the
> internment was upheld by the Supreme Court.
>
> I remember one when time I was in some little truck stop or rest area in
> western Texas. Two California teenage girls were asking truck drivers how
> to get to some army base or another, where one of them wanted to visit a
> boyfriend.
>
> I told them it was two day's drive from where we were once I saw where it
> was. They thought since it was just 8 inches or so on the map . . . Build
> the camp out there.

Make that "one time when".
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:30 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> With the price of land per area these days, even out in the the nowhere
> of Texas, and property taxes due to the county in which the land
> resides, and the cowboys around the area that seem to know what going on
> around their land, a nest of terrorist wouldn't stand a chance of going
> unnoticed. 

Hi Leland!

Twisting it again ! These aren't terrorists, these are just 'slims who 
didn't enlist. If we know they are terrorists, they get sent to Gitmo.

> >> Not if the US establishes the proper system to prevent such terrorist
> >> acts.  I reintegrate that prevention of such act by use of the criminal
> >> justice system, law enforcement, boarder patrol, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is
> >> the key to success
> > If the nearest 'slim is 500 miles away in the middle of nowhere with all
> > the other 'slims, yeah, the terrorism is prevented. Good opportunity for
> > Texas. Miles and miles of nowhere in Texas.
> >
> >>> I think there is a gravest threat, they will re-run 9-11 as soon as
> >>> they can.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:23 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Also, it should be noted that the Japanese Americas, who were placed
> into internment, were not in a position where they could bring a law
> suit aginst the US government for the reprehensible treatment that so
> violated them as human being and violated their constitutional rights as
> American Citizens, so there was no way where such a suit could have
> found its way to the Supreme Court throught appeal for a ruling.

Hi Leland!

Oh, for heaven's sake read the article. There were all kinds of suits, several 
of which made it to the Supreme Court, and this is how the internment was 
upheld by the Supreme Court.

I remember one when time I was in some little truck stop or rest area in 
western Texas. Two California teenage girls were asking truck drivers how to 
get to some army base or another, where one of them wanted to visit a 
boyfriend.

I told them it was two day's drive from where we were once I saw where it was. 
They thought since it was just 8 inches or so on the map . . . Build the camp 
out there.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

With the price of land per area these days, even out in the the nowhere 
of Texas, and property taxes due to the county in which the land 
resides, and the cowboys around the area that seem to know what going on 
around their land, a nest of terrorist wouldn't stand a chance of going 
unnoticed. 

Regards,

LelandJ


Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:08 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> Not if the US establishes the proper system to prevent such terrorist
>> acts.  I reintegrate that prevention of such act by use of the criminal
>> justice system, law enforcement, boarder patrol, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is
>> the key to success
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> If the nearest 'slim is 500 miles away in the middle of nowhere with all the 
> other 'slims, yeah, the terrorism is prevented. Good opportunity for Texas. 
> Miles and miles of nowhere in Texas.
>   
>>> I think there is a gravest threat, they will re-run 9-11 as soon as they
>>> can.
>>>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Also, it should be noted that the Japanese Americas, who were placed 
into internment, were not in a position where they could bring a law 
suit aginst the US government for the reprehensible treatment that so 
violated them as human being and violated their constitutional rights as 
American Citizens, so there was no way where such a suit could have 
found its way to the Supreme Court throught appeal for a ruling.

Regards,

LelandJ

Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> The Supreme Court probably upheld President Roosevelt's Executive Order 
> 9066, because it was written such that all people could be excluded from 
> certain areas of the U.S., but then President Roosevelt used it 
> exclusively against Americans of Japanese ancestry.  The way President 
> Roosevelt went about this reminds me of the way the Bush Administration 
> has used and abused the Judicial system.
>
> Regards,
>
> LelandJ
>
>
> Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
>> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
>> civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen 
>> today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the 
>> American people.  I simply misread the below except thinking the Supreme 
>> Court ruled the treatment of Japanese American people as 
>> unconstitutional.  The Supreme Courts upholding of President Roosevelt's 
>> Executive Order 9066 is also one of the most shameful ruling ever handed 
>> down by the Surpeme Court in the history of the US.  These were 
>> decisions based on FEAR.  The Fear.
>>
>> #--
>> President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive 
>> Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate 
>> "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons 
>> may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of 
>> Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including 
>> all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in 
>> internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the 
>> constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that 
>> it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when 
>> there is a "pressing public necessity."
>>
>> #-
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> LelandJ
>>
>>
>> President Franklin Roosevelt 
>>  authorized the 
>> internment with Executive Order 9066 
>> , which allowed local 
>> military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", 
>> from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to 
>> declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the 
>> entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and 
>> Washington, except for those in internment camps.^[4] 
>> 
>>  
>> In 1944, the Supreme Court 
>>  upheld 
>> the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing 
>> that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group 
>> when there is a "pressing public necessity."^[5] 
>> 
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pete Theisen wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>  to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
> Ds would be favoring it now.
>   
> 
>   
 Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
 into US Gulags
 
   
 
>>> Hi Leland!
>>>
>>> You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say 
>>> Gulag. 
>>> What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's 
>>> executive 
>>> order.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
>>>
>>> Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
>>> exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.
>>>
>>> I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
>>> centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
>>> disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they 
>>> so 
>>> desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our 
>>> uniform.
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>
>> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscr

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:08 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Not if the US establishes the proper system to prevent such terrorist
> acts.  I reintegrate that prevention of such act by use of the criminal
> justice system, law enforcement, boarder patrol, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is
> the key to success

Hi Leland!

If the nearest 'slim is 500 miles away in the middle of nowhere with all the 
other 'slims, yeah, the terrorism is prevented. Good opportunity for Texas. 
Miles and miles of nowhere in Texas.
> >
> > I think there is a gravest threat, they will re-run 9-11 as soon as they
> > can.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 2:03 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> The Supreme Court probably upheld President Roosevelt's Executive Order
> 9066, because it was written such that all people could be excluded from
> certain areas of the U.S., but then President Roosevelt used it
> exclusively against Americans of Japanese ancestry.

Hi Leland!

Actually, there were a few Italian and German internees. Lincoln did something 
similar during the civil war.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Not if the US establishes the proper system to prevent such terrorist 
acts.  I reintegrate that prevention of such act by use of the criminal 
justice system, law enforcement, boarder patrol, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc is 
the key to success, not preemptive war that only aggravate the terrorist 
threat.

Regards,

LelandJ


Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 1:54 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that
>> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's
>> civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen
>> today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the
>> American people.
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> I think there is a gravest threat, they will re-run 9-11 as soon as they can.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

The Supreme Court probably upheld President Roosevelt's Executive Order 
9066, because it was written such that all people could be excluded from 
certain areas of the U.S., but then President Roosevelt used it 
exclusively against Americans of Japanese ancestry.  The way President 
Roosevelt went about this reminds me of the way the Bush Administration 
has used and abused the Judicial system.

Regards,

LelandJ


Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
> civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen 
> today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the 
> American people.  I simply misread the below except thinking the Supreme 
> Court ruled the treatment of Japanese American people as 
> unconstitutional.  The Supreme Courts upholding of President Roosevelt's 
> Executive Order 9066 is also one of the most shameful ruling ever handed 
> down by the Surpeme Court in the history of the US.  These were 
> decisions based on FEAR.  The Fear.
>
> #--
> President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive 
> Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate 
> "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons 
> may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of 
> Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including 
> all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in 
> internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the 
> constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that 
> it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when 
> there is a "pressing public necessity."
>
> #-
>
> Regards,
>
> LelandJ
>
>
> President Franklin Roosevelt 
>  authorized the 
> internment with Executive Order 9066 
> , which allowed local 
> military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", 
> from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to 
> declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the 
> entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and 
> Washington, except for those in internment camps.^[4] 
> 
>  
> In 1944, the Supreme Court 
>  upheld 
> the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing 
> that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group 
> when there is a "pressing public necessity."^[5] 
> 
>  
>
>
>
>
> Pete Theisen wrote:
>   
>> On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
> 
>   
  to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
 Ds would be favoring it now.
   
 
>>> Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
>>> into US Gulags
>>> 
>>>   
>> Hi Leland!
>>
>> You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say 
>> Gulag. 
>> What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's 
>> executive 
>> order.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
>>
>> Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
>> exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.
>>
>> I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
>> centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
>> disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they 
>> so 
>> desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our uniform.
>>   
>> 
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 1:54 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that
> the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's
> civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen
> today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the
> American people.

Hi Leland!

I think there is a gravest threat, they will re-run 9-11 as soon as they can.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

I went back and  re-read that portion of the Wiki, and I'm shocked that 
the Supreme Court ruled Constitutional the way the Japanese American's 
civil rights were violated.  I certainly don't think this could happen 
today except in the undeniable presents of the gravest threat to the 
American people.  I simply misread the below except thinking the Supreme 
Court ruled the treatment of Japanese American people as 
unconstitutional.  The Supreme Courts upholding of President Roosevelt's 
Executive Order 9066 is also one of the most shameful ruling ever handed 
down by the Surpeme Court in the history of the US.  These were 
decisions based on FEAR.  The Fear.

#--
President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive 
Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate 
"military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons 
may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of 
Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including 
all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in 
internment camps. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the 
constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that 
it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when 
there is a "pressing public necessity."

#-

Regards,

LelandJ


President Franklin Roosevelt 
 authorized the 
internment with Executive Order 9066 
, which allowed local 
military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", 
from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to 
declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the 
entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and 
Washington, except for those in internment camps.^[4] 

 
In 1944, the Supreme Court 
 upheld 
the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing 
that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group 
when there is a "pressing public necessity."^[5] 

 




Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> 
>   
 Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
 
>>>  to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
>>> Ds would be favoring it now.
>>>   
>> Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
>> into US Gulags
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say Gulag. 
> What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's executive 
> order.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
>
> Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
> exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.
>
> I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
> centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
> disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they so 
> desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our uniform.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 1:09 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> The Internment Camps, Work Camps, Concentration Camps, Galags or
> whatever you chose to call them, were the most shameful acts commit
> against a harmless class of US citizen in American history.  The camps
> were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

Hi Leland!

If you had BOTHERED to read the article, you would have seen that in fact the 
Supreme Court ruled that it WAS constitutional. After it is all over years 
from now we can let them go, give them money, kiss and hug them, let the libs 
write hand-wringing opinion pieces about them, etc., etc.

Right now, the 'slims are far, far more dangerous than the Japs ever were.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

The Internment Camps, Work Camps, Concentration Camps, Galags or 
whatever you chose to call them, were the most shameful acts commit 
against a harmless class of US citizen in American history.  The camps 
were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and eventually lead to 
official apologies from the US government and compensation for those who 
survived the ordeal.

Regards,

LelandJ


Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> 
>   
 Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
 
>>>  to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
>>> Ds would be favoring it now.
>>>   
>> Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
>> into US Gulags
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say Gulag. 
> What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's executive 
> order.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
>
> Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
> exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.
>
> I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
> centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
> disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they so 
> desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our uniform.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:

> >> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
> >  to you as well! It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and 
>>Ds would be favoring it now.
>
> Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not surrender for placement 
>into US Gulags

Hi Leland!

You are starting to twist people's words the way Ed does. I didn't say Gulag. 
What I was talking about was this: Leftist darling F.D. Roosevelt's executive 
order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

Gulag indeed. Assigned to the discression of the military to determine 
exclusion zones. And only a few casualties.

I suppose today's commanders would keep the 'slims away from population 
centers, large highways, ports, rail, airports and the like. If so, the 
disloyal or cowardly 'slims could live free way out in the sticks, if they so 
desired. The brave, loyal 'slims would fight beside us, and wear our uniform.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 10:32 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 
>> 
>
> Hi Leland~
>
>  to you as well!
>
> It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and Ds would be favoring it 
> now.
>   

Well, if you had your way, you could have a real war, then couldn't 
you.  We could have Congress draw up the declaration of war which would 
give President Bush legitimate war powers.  The US could declare war on 
all Muslim men  who didn't join the US forces and wear the US uniform.  
Otherwise, all Muslim men could be shot on sight if they did not 
surrender for placement into US Gulags, which would force the Muslim men 
to form a opposing army for their own safety and protection.  I have a 
few problem with your idea.  Perhaps you should think about it a little 
longer, and you might see some problems with your idea also.  
HaHaaHaaHa  Your talking like a monster that makes the Neo-conservative 
seem tame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Regards,

LelandJ

>>> They aren't innocent. Just by being 'slims they are placed in the
>>> position of either actively opposing jihad or being part of it. They
>>> cannot abstain, they have to decide one way or the other.
>>>
>>> They decide to be on our side, they fight with us. They decide the other
>>> way, they are targeted as the enemy. They try to "abstain" they go to the
>>> internment camp.
>>>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 10:32 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 

Hi Leland~

 to you as well!

It worked in WW II. If it hadn't worked the libs and Ds would be favoring it 
now.

> > They aren't innocent. Just by being 'slims they are placed in the
> > position of either actively opposing jihad or being part of it. They
> > cannot abstain, they have to decide one way or the other.
> >
> > They decide to be on our side, they fight with us. They decide the other
> > way, they are targeted as the enemy. They try to "abstain" they go to the
> > internment camp.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Ricardo Aráoz wrote:
> Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> Pete Theisen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
 It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
 extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
 Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
 within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
 men
 
 
>>> Hi Leland!
>>>
>>> It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are 
>>> not 
>>> with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily about 
>>> men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the woman 
>>> also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be considered 
>>> an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.
>>>
>>> If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST 
>>> actively 
>>> oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill 
>>> them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in 
>>> the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.
>>>   
>>>   
>> This really creates a problem for most of the Iraq people that just want 
>> to be left alone.  The radical extremist Muslims are killing them 
>> because they are either Sunni or Shiite, or because they have become 
>> associated with the American occupation and the American supported 
>> government, or because they are not part of a particular warlord's 
>> family, and the American soldiers are killing them because they do want 
>> to take any chance of being blown away by some suicide bomber or IDE, or 
>> 
>
> Just a doubt. How can you be blown away by an Integrated Development
>   

Whoops, I should have said IED (eg improvised explosive device).

Regards,

LelandJ
> Environment???  ;c)
>
>   
>> because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
>> or because they aren't wearing a military uniform associated with the 
>> American forces.  What can these innocent people do to survive in a 
>> country that is so conflicted that anyone walking the streets after dark 
>> is considered a target.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> LelandJ
>>
>> 
>>> So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces - 
>>> put 
>>> on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
>>> back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
>>> seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.
>>>   
>>>   
>
> You are seriously a Nazi. The only difference is the target. Gonna give
> you a bright idea. If you make soap out of the "'slims" then the Jihad
> will stop.
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. 

Regards,

LelandJ

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 11:40 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> 
>   
>> This really creates a problem for most of the Iraq people that just want
>> to be left alone.  The radical extremist Muslims are killing them
>> because they are either Sunni or Shiite, or because they have become
>> associated with the American occupation and the American supported
>> government, or because they are not part of a particular warlord's
>> family, and the American soldiers are killing them because they do want
>> to take any chance of being blown away by some suicide bomber or IDE, or
>> because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time,
>> or because they aren't wearing a military uniform associated with the
>> American forces.  What can these innocent people
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> They aren't innocent. Just by being 'slims they are placed in the position of 
> either actively opposing jihad or being part of it. They cannot abstain, they 
> have to decide one way or the other.
>
> They decide to be on our side, they fight with us. They decide the other way, 
> they are targeted as the enemy. They try to "abstain" they go to the 
> internment camp.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Yep, like the ole country song.
"you have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything"

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 6:44 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Saturday 19 May 2007 7:17 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> The last one I worked with preferred to be here and he is just as American
> as you or I.
> Don't forget that all of us are descended from foreigners.
>
> He preferred to be here because of their caste system.
> If he had stayed over there, he would be forced to be one of their
> religious people (preachers, I'm not sure because I've never taken the
time
> to understand their caste system)

Hi Virgil!

I have not heard of a 'slim caste (maybe that is some kind of diet aid :-)) 
You do see where they have to decide, and not to decide is to decide.
(Harvey 
Cox)
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Saturday 19 May 2007 7:17 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> The last one I worked with preferred to be here and he is just as American
> as you or I.
> Don't forget that all of us are descended from foreigners.
>
> He preferred to be here because of their caste system.
> If he had stayed over there, he would be forced to be one of their
> religious people (preachers, I'm not sure because I've never taken the time
> to understand their caste system)

Hi Virgil!

I have not heard of a 'slim caste (maybe that is some kind of diet aid :-)) 
You do see where they have to decide, and not to decide is to decide. (Harvey 
Cox)
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

The last one I worked with preferred to be here and he is just as American
as you or I.
Don't forget that all of us are descended from foreigners.

He preferred to be here because of their caste system.
If he had stayed over there, he would be forced to be one of their religious
people (preachers, I'm not sure because I've never taken the time to
understand their caste system)


Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:51 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Friday 18 May 2007 11:09 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I've had the opportunity to work with many male muslims as a contractor.
> Excellent people and good people.

Hi Virgil!

But what are they doing now, sending money to Hamas?
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Bill Arnold]

> >> Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?
> > 
> > 
> > There will be no 'victory'. That was the wrong frame of reference
all 
> > along.
> > 
> > If you really want an answer, then change the frame of reference and

> > talk about pursuing justice, not victory, and then finally we can
make 
> > some progress.


> Justice is self determination. Or do you disagree with your 
> patriots who fought the Brits?


Ricardo, no offense intended, but I think that's more of a knee-jerk
response then you're capable of.

Here's a one page essay where "Plato is able to achieve an answer to the
question, what is justice" that I'd ask you to consider:
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/18/eft49.shtml



Bill







___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Pete Theisen wrote:
>> On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>>   
>>> It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
>>> extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
>>> Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
>>> within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
>>> men
>>> 
>> Hi Leland!
>>
>> It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are 
>> not 
>> with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily about 
>> men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the woman 
>> also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be considered 
>> an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.
>>
>> If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST 
>> actively 
>> oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill 
>> them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in 
>> the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.
>>   
> This really creates a problem for most of the Iraq people that just want 
> to be left alone.  The radical extremist Muslims are killing them 
> because they are either Sunni or Shiite, or because they have become 
> associated with the American occupation and the American supported 
> government, or because they are not part of a particular warlord's 
> family, and the American soldiers are killing them because they do want 
> to take any chance of being blown away by some suicide bomber or IDE, or 

Just a doubt. How can you be blown away by an Integrated Development
Environment???  ;c)

> because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
> or because they aren't wearing a military uniform associated with the 
> American forces.  What can these innocent people do to survive in a 
> country that is so conflicted that anyone walking the streets after dark 
> is considered a target.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> LelandJ
> 
>> So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces - put 
>> on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
>> back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
>> seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.
>>   

You are seriously a Nazi. The only difference is the target. Gonna give
you a bright idea. If you make soap out of the "'slims" then the Jihad
will stop.




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Bill Arnold wrote:
>> Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?
> 
> 
> There will be no 'victory'. That was the wrong frame of reference all
> along. 
> 
> If you really want an answer, then change the frame of reference and
> talk about pursuing justice, not victory, and then finally we can make
> some progress.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 

Justice is self determination. Or do you disagree with your patriots who
fought the Brits?


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Bill Arnold]

> Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?


There will be no 'victory'. That was the wrong frame of reference all
along. 

If you really want an answer, then change the frame of reference and
talk about pursuing justice, not victory, and then finally we can make
some progress.



Bill



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 11:40 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:

> This really creates a problem for most of the Iraq people that just want
> to be left alone.  The radical extremist Muslims are killing them
> because they are either Sunni or Shiite, or because they have become
> associated with the American occupation and the American supported
> government, or because they are not part of a particular warlord's
> family, and the American soldiers are killing them because they do want
> to take any chance of being blown away by some suicide bomber or IDE, or
> because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time,
> or because they aren't wearing a military uniform associated with the
> American forces.  What can these innocent people

Hi Leland!

They aren't innocent. Just by being 'slims they are placed in the position of 
either actively opposing jihad or being part of it. They cannot abstain, they 
have to decide one way or the other.

They decide to be on our side, they fight with us. They decide the other way, 
they are targeted as the enemy. They try to "abstain" they go to the 
internment camp.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 11:15 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Finally, a good explanation 

Hi Virgil!

I see the  and I know you remember that this is from the man who has 
declared himself to be God.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 11:09 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I've had the opportunity to work with many male muslims as a contractor.
> Excellent people and good people.

Hi Virgil!

But what are they doing now, sending money to Hamas?
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
>> extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
>> Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
>> within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
>> men
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are not 
> with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily about 
> men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the woman 
> also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be considered 
> an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.
>
> If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST 
> actively 
> oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill 
> them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in 
> the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.
>   
This really creates a problem for most of the Iraq people that just want 
to be left alone.  The radical extremist Muslims are killing them 
because they are either Sunni or Shiite, or because they have become 
associated with the American occupation and the American supported 
government, or because they are not part of a particular warlord's 
family, and the American soldiers are killing them because they do want 
to take any chance of being blown away by some suicide bomber or IDE, or 
because they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 
or because they aren't wearing a military uniform associated with the 
American forces.  What can these innocent people do to survive in a 
country that is so conflicted that anyone walking the streets after dark 
is considered a target.

Regards,

LelandJ

> So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces - put 
> on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
> back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
> seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Finally, a good explanation 

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ricardo Aráoz
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:14 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>> It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
>> extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
>> Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
>> within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
>> men
> 
> Hi Leland!
> 
> It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are
not 
> with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily
about 
> men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the
woman 
> also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be
considered 
> an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.
> 
> If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST
actively 
> oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill

> them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in

> the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.
> 
> So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces -
put 
> on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
> back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
> seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.

Hi Petey,

Can't you get it through your thick head? You are in THEIR country, and
they want you OUT (does "yankee go home" ring a bell?)

Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
stretch you imagination, but give it a try.

We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?). But I'll bet
you the Democrats will want us out of USA too, and will act accordingly
(actively or passively resisting). Just a few businessmen (Billy Gates
etc) are on our side (and they get good contracts) and the former Vice
President has formed a 'friendly' government which we support. Oh, I
almost forgot, all those sectarian extremist priests that used to go on
tv are calling for a religious war against us.

Now, what would you do in that position. Would you collaborate with our
occupation forces? Would you have approved of French collaborationists
in WWII?

And finally, what would you expect any patriotic Iraqi who loves his
country should do?

I know I've asked for you to stretch your imagination, and that's nearly
  impossible. But who knows
Say hi to boyfriend Mikey.




[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>> It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
>> extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
>> Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
>> within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
>> men
> 
> Hi Leland!
> 
> It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are not 
> with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily about 
> men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the woman 
> also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be considered 
> an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.
> 
> If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST 
> actively 
> oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill 
> them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in 
> the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.
> 
> So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces - put 
> on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
> back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
> seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.

Hi Petey,

Can't you get it through your thick head? You are in THEIR country, and
they want you OUT (does "yankee go home" ring a bell?)

Let's make it easier for you to understand, I know it will be hard to
stretch you imagination, but give it a try.

We (a very powerful country) have invaded USA to set you free from this
terrorist leader Sad... sorry, Dubya.
Now, for sure the Repubs will actively fight us (sunnis?). But I'll bet
you the Democrats will want us out of USA too, and will act accordingly
(actively or passively resisting). Just a few businessmen (Billy Gates
etc) are on our side (and they get good contracts) and the former Vice
President has formed a 'friendly' government which we support. Oh, I
almost forgot, all those sectarian extremist priests that used to go on
tv are calling for a religious war against us.

Now, what would you do in that position. Would you collaborate with our
occupation forces? Would you have approved of French collaborationists
in WWII?

And finally, what would you expect any patriotic Iraqi who loves his
country should do?

I know I've asked for you to stretch your imagination, and that's nearly
  impossible. But who knows
Say hi to boyfriend Mikey.




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

I've had the opportunity to work with many male muslims as a contractor.
Excellent people and good people.

We too have extremists, just as they do.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:40 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals 
extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the 
Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even 
within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless 
men, women, and children who just want the killing to stop so they can 
have their lives back.

Regards,

LelandJ


Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 7:59 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> Acts of Terror are really crimes and can originate from any of thousands
>> of radicals groups across a broad spectrum of ideologies, cultures,
>> customs, races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, etc.  The
>> thousands of terrorist groups have no common denominator under which
>> they can be organized or defined, like national origin, ideology,
>> allegiance to a particular flag, member of a uniformed army, etc.
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> Duh, being a MUSLIM male? Define it like THAT, act accordingly and watch
it 
> stop.
>   



[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 9:39 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals
> extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the
> Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even
> within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless
> men

Hi Leland!

It is a LOT simpler than the Ds want you to believe. If they ('slims) are not 
with us they are against us. Bear in mind that I am talking primarily about 
men, although in the light of woman's lib it could be argued that the woman 
also have an obligation to either join the anti-jihad side or be considered 
an active part of jihad. Children, of course, are children.

If the 'slims of whatever flavor are not radical extremists they MUST actively 
oppose radical extremism or they are also the enemy. We don't have to kill 
them, but I think the same treatment as was accorded the WW II Japanese in 
the US who didn't join the armed forces is warranted.

So it is just this for all adult male 'slims: Join the US armed forces - put 
on our uniform and fight WITH us, go to the internment camp, get-the-heck 
back to 'slimabia or wherever or be targeted as the enemy. Do this, as 
seriously as in WW II, and watch jihad suddenly stop.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

It's not that simple, Pete.  Most male Muslims are not radicals 
extremist.  Like Christianity, there are many denominations within the 
Muslim religion.  For example, consider Sunni and Shiite, and even 
within these groups their are many subgroups made up of mostly harmless 
men, women, and children who just want the killing to stop so they can 
have their lives back.

Regards,

LelandJ


Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Friday 18 May 2007 7:59 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>   
>> Acts of Terror are really crimes and can originate from any of thousands
>> of radicals groups across a broad spectrum of ideologies, cultures,
>> customs, races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, etc.  The
>> thousands of terrorist groups have no common denominator under which
>> they can be organized or defined, like national origin, ideology,
>> allegiance to a particular flag, member of a uniformed army, etc.
>> 
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> Duh, being a MUSLIM male? Define it like THAT, act accordingly and watch it 
> stop.
>   



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 7:59 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> Acts of Terror are really crimes and can originate from any of thousands
> of radicals groups across a broad spectrum of ideologies, cultures,
> customs, races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, etc.  The
> thousands of terrorist groups have no common denominator under which
> they can be organized or defined, like national origin, ideology,
> allegiance to a particular flag, member of a uniformed army, etc.

Hi Leland!

Duh, being a MUSLIM male? Define it like THAT, act accordingly and watch it 
stop.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Leland F. Jackson, CPA]

Acts of Terror are really crimes and can originate from any of thousands 
of radicals groups across a broad spectrum of ideologies, cultures, 
customs, races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, etc.  The 
thousands of terrorist groups have no common denominator under which 
they can be organized or defined, like national origin, ideology, 
allegiance to a particular flag, member of a uniformed army, etc.

This is way it's so stupid to fight terrorism with a tool like war.  War 
just will not fit that role any more than war would be the right tool to 
fight crime.  The criminal element in society is just to fragmented, 
even in the more organized groups like the mafia.  There is no 
unification of criminals into armies,  and there is no supreme 
commander.  There is no single army that can be defeated to bring its 
supreme commander to the table to negotiate a surrender.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/8/newsid_3612000/3612037.stm

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germsurr.shtml

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm

Regards,

LelandJ

Michael Madigan wrote:
> What was the exit strategy from WWII?
>
>
>
>
> --- Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> On May 18, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Jerry Wolper wrote:
>>
>> 
 We still haven't pulled out from Germany
 
>>> Which gets back to my original question: How do
>>>   
>> you define victory?
>>
>>  You don't, because then you can be held to a
>> standard. Remember  
>> "Mission Accomplished"? They learned their lesson,
>> and have never  
>> defined what the mission is since then. That way
>> they can claim that  
>> they are only going to stay there until "the job is
>> complete", but  
>> will never, ever, define what "complete" means.
>>
>> -- Ed Leafe
>> -- http://leafe.com
>> -- http://dabodev.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
>> Subscription Maintenance:
>> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
>> OT-free version of this list:
>> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
>> Searchable Archive:
>> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
>> This message:
>>
>> 
> http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   
>> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
>> are the opinions of the author, and do not
>> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
>> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
>> too stupid to see the obvious.
>>
>> 
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Neither will the democrats.
They both should be fired.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ed Leafe
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:28 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On May 18, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Jerry Wolper wrote:

>> We still haven't pulled out from Germany
>
> Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?

You don't, because then you can be held to a standard. Remember  
"Mission Accomplished"? They learned their lesson, and have never  
defined what the mission is since then. That way they can claim that  
they are only going to stay there until "the job is complete", but  
will never, ever, define what "complete" means.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Friday 18 May 2007 5:27 pm, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Jerry Wolper wrote:
> >> We still haven't pulled out from Germany
> >
> > Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?
>
>   You don't, because then you can be held to a standard. Remember
> "Mission Accomplished"?

Hi Ed!

The libs sure think they have W on that one. Every war has thousands if not 
millions of missions.

Shock and Awe was a mission, the invasion was a mission, landing the pres on 
the ship was a mission, Some fliers fly fifty missions on a tour, The mission 
WAS accomplished, and then some.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

What was the exit strategy from WWII?




--- Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On May 18, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Jerry Wolper wrote:
> 
> >> We still haven't pulled out from Germany
> >
> > Which gets back to my original question: How do
> you define victory?
> 
>   You don't, because then you can be held to a
> standard. Remember  
> "Mission Accomplished"? They learned their lesson,
> and have never  
> defined what the mission is since then. That way
> they can claim that  
> they are only going to stay there until "the job is
> complete", but  
> will never, ever, define what "complete" means.
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> -- http://leafe.com
> -- http://dabodev.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ed Leafe]

On May 18, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Jerry Wolper wrote:

>> We still haven't pulled out from Germany
>
> Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?

You don't, because then you can be held to a standard. Remember  
"Mission Accomplished"? They learned their lesson, and have never  
defined what the mission is since then. That way they can claim that  
they are only going to stay there until "the job is complete", but  
will never, ever, define what "complete" means.

-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Jerry Wolper]

> Exactly.
> 
> We still haven't pulled out from Germany

Which gets back to my original question: How do you define victory?


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Hadnt heard about that.
> Been underneath this ole trailer replumbing it.
> 
> Do you have a link for that ?
> 

No, I read it in the newspaper.

> Virgil Bierschwale
> http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
> http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Ricardo Aráoz
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
>> Now how could the butcher of Iraq be considered a patriot ?
> 
> Nope, not him. But for example the ones who killed those soldiers this
> week in revenge for the raped girl.
> 
>> Virgil Bierschwale
>> http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
>> http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>> Of Ricardo Aráoz
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:15 PM
>> To: ProFox Email List
>> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
>>
>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
>>> count for anything?
>>>
>> LOL
>> Nope, nothing at all. But I guess you'll never understand patriots.
>>
>>
>>> --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>>>> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
>>>>> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
>>>> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
>>>> Iraq! hahaha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> >From the same place Republicans find the
>>>> chutzpah
>>>>>> to blame the 
>>>>>> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
>>>> humiliation
>>>>>> in Iraq"?
>>
> [e


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Hadnt heard about that.
Been underneath this ole trailer replumbing it.

Do you have a link for that ?

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ricardo Aráoz
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:37 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Now how could the butcher of Iraq be considered a patriot ?

Nope, not him. But for example the ones who killed those soldiers this
week in revenge for the raped girl.

> 
> Virgil Bierschwale
> http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
> http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Ricardo Aráoz
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Michael Madigan wrote:
>> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
>> count for anything?
>>
> 
> LOL
> Nope, nothing at all. But I guess you'll never understand patriots.
> 
> 
>>
>> --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>>> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
>>>> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
>>> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
>>> Iraq! hahaha
>>>
>>>
>>>>> >From the same place Republicans find the
>>> chutzpah
>>>>> to blame the 
>>>>> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
>>> humiliation
>>>>> in Iraq"?
> 
> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Now how could the butcher of Iraq be considered a patriot ?

Nope, not him. But for example the ones who killed those soldiers this
week in revenge for the raped girl.

> 
> Virgil Bierschwale
> http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
> http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Ricardo Aráoz
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:15 PM
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Michael Madigan wrote:
>> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
>> count for anything?
>>
> 
> LOL
> Nope, nothing at all. But I guess you'll never understand patriots.
> 
> 
>>
>> --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>>> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
>>>> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
>>> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
>>> Iraq! hahaha
>>>
>>>
>>>>> >From the same place Republicans find the
>>> chutzpah
>>>>> to blame the 
>>>>> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
>>> humiliation
>>>>> in Iraq"?
> 
> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Adam Buckland wrote:
> Stop being a knee jerk twat Michael, I said that with my US citizen hat
> on which is why I used the word we.
> 

He won't understand "twat". No more than a fish can perceive the water.



> DOH!
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 17 May 2007 08:02
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Shut up or we'll kill your queen too.  Elton John.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Did we, I thought that we just captured him and his
>> trial and execution
>> was down to the independent judicial process in
>> Iraq?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
>> Sent: 17 May 2007 07:09
>> To: ProFox Email List
>> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
>>
>> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't
>> that
>> count for anything?
>>
>>


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Now how could the butcher of Iraq be considered a patriot ?

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ricardo Aráoz
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:15 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Michael Madigan wrote:
> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
> count for anything?
> 

LOL
Nope, nothing at all. But I guess you'll never understand patriots.


> 
> 
> --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
>>> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
>> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
>> Iraq! hahaha
>>
>>
>>>> >From the same place Republicans find the
>> chutzpah
>>>> to blame the 
>>>> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
>> humiliation
>>>> in Iraq"?
>>>
>>


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Michael Madigan wrote:
> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
> count for anything?
> 

LOL
Nope, nothing at all. But I guess you'll never understand patriots.


> 
> 
> --- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Michael Madigan wrote:
>>> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
>>> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
>> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
>> Iraq! hahaha
>>
>>
 >From the same place Republicans find the
>> chutzpah
 to blame the 
 Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
>> humiliation
 in Iraq"?
>>>
>>


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

Exactly.

We still haven't pulled out from Germany



--- Jerry Wolper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > 2007.
> 
> Then ask me in 60 years.
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Jerry Wolper]

> 2007.

Then ask me in 60 years.


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

2007.


--- Jerry Wolper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >> First, you have to define what "winning in Iraq"
> is.
> >> 
> > The same as winning in Germany and winning in
> Japan.
> 
> At what point? 1945? 1953? 1991?
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Jerry Wolper]

>> First, you have to define what "winning in Iraq" is.
>> 
> The same as winning in Germany and winning in Japan.

At what point? 1945? 1953? 1991?


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

The same as winning in Germany and winning in Japan.



--- Jerry Wolper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> > Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
> 
> First, you have to define what "winning in Iraq" is.
> 
> -Jerry Wolper
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Jerry Wolper]

> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.

First, you have to define what "winning in Iraq" is.

-Jerry Wolper
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Vince Teachout]

Adam Buckland wrote:
> But I guess you won't complain about the tax return I file in each
> country and the cheque/check I send each year.

Depends.  Let's see the size of that check, please.  :-)


-- 
Vince Teachout
Caracal Software
www.caracal.net
518-733-9411


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

Why should I complain?  

--- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But I guess you won't complain about the tax return
> I file in each
> country and the cheque/check I send each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 17 May 2007 09:09
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> I keep forgetting we allowed you back in the
> country.
> 
> 
> --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Stop being a knee jerk twat Michael, I said that
> > with my US citizen hat
> > on which is why I used the word we.
> > 
> > DOH!
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Adam Buckland]

But I guess you won't complain about the tax return I file in each
country and the cheque/check I send each year.




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Madigan
Sent: 17 May 2007 09:09
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

I keep forgetting we allowed you back in the country.


--- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Stop being a knee jerk twat Michael, I said that
> with my US citizen hat
> on which is why I used the word we.
> 
> DOH!
> 
> 


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

I keep forgetting we allowed you back in the country.


--- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Stop being a knee jerk twat Michael, I said that
> with my US citizen hat
> on which is why I used the word we.
> 
> DOH!
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 17 May 2007 08:02
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Shut up or we'll kill your queen too.  Elton John.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Did we, I thought that we just captured him and
> his
> > trial and execution
> > was down to the independent judicial process in
> > Iraq?
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> > Sent: 17 May 2007 07:09
> > To: ProFox Email List
> > Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> > 
> > Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't
> > that
> > count for anything?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> > Subscription Maintenance:
> > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> > OT-free version of this list:
> > http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> > Searchable Archive:
> > http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> > This message:
> >
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1DBB1A8A053C9C428C990F4E53EEB6623
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated
> otherwise,
> > are the opinions of the author, and do not
> > constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> > is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> > too stupid to see the obvious.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Adam Buckland]

Stop being a knee jerk twat Michael, I said that with my US citizen hat
on which is why I used the word we.

DOH!



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Madigan
Sent: 17 May 2007 08:02
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Shut up or we'll kill your queen too.  Elton John.



--- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Did we, I thought that we just captured him and his
> trial and execution
> was down to the independent judicial process in
> Iraq?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 17 May 2007 07:09
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't
> that
> count for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1DBB1A8A053C9C428C990F4E53EEB6623
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

Shut up or we'll kill your queen too.  Elton John.



--- Adam Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Did we, I thought that we just captured him and his
> trial and execution
> was down to the independent judicial process in
> Iraq?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Michael Madigan
> Sent: 17 May 2007 07:09
> To: ProFox Email List
> Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
> 
> Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't
> that
> count for anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Adam Buckland]

Did we, I thought that we just captured him and his trial and execution
was down to the independent judicial process in Iraq?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Madigan
Sent: 17 May 2007 07:09
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
count for anything?




___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

Let's see, we killed the former leader.  Doesn't that
count for anything?



--- Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Michael Madigan wrote:
> > Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> > Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
> 
> Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in
> Iraq! hahaha
> 
> 
> > 
> >> >From the same place Republicans find the
> chutzpah
> >> to blame the 
> >> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and
> humiliation
> >> in Iraq"?
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Ricardo Aráoz]

Michael Madigan wrote:
> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.

Hahaha! You name a Repub who is actually winning in Iraq! hahaha


> 
>> >From the same place Republicans find the chutzpah
>> to blame the 
>> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and humiliation
>> in Iraq"?
> 
> 


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 8:42 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> If the dog was caught with a dead goat and blood all over him, yep, he's
> dead.
>
> Me a liberal ?
>
> On some points maybe, but not very many.
>
> I believe in an eye for an eye.
> I believe that all murderers (guilty without a doubt) should be executed.

Hi Virgil!

The goat was about to bite the dog. People have rights, dogs and goats don't.

Execution is too easy, if they are really guilty let them do life in the 
slammer with the jailhouse faggots. But you don't know that they are guilty 
until they are convicted in a fair trial, and sometimes even then they are 
not guilty. If they confess they might be crazy rather than guilty.
>
> The one exception is self defense
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

If the dog was caught with a dead goat and blood all over him, yep, he's
dead.

Me a liberal ?

On some points maybe, but not very many.

I believe in an eye for an eye.
I believe that all murderers (guilty without a doubt) should be executed.

The one exception is self defense, which goes back to our bully conversation

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:45 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 8:27 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Damn, no wonder we're out of control.
> Things are simple out here.
>
> Your neighbors dog gets into your livestock.
> You shoot it so that it can't do it again.
>
> The scum of the earth should be treated the same way.

Hi Virgil!

You were essentially arguing for a conviction without a fair trial. Now you 
are going further, to the point of "execute them now and ask questions, if
at 
all, later". I thought you were a liberal?
>
> > Do you want to see these types of people set free so that they can kill
> > again ?
>
> Hi Virgil!
>
> If they can't be convicted without changing the constitution, yes.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 8:27 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Damn, no wonder we're out of control.
> Things are simple out here.
>
> Your neighbors dog gets into your livestock.
> You shoot it so that it can't do it again.
>
> The scum of the earth should be treated the same way.

Hi Virgil!

You were essentially arguing for a conviction without a fair trial. Now you 
are going further, to the point of "execute them now and ask questions, if at 
all, later". I thought you were a liberal?
>
> > Do you want to see these types of people set free so that they can kill
> > again ?
>
> Hi Virgil!
>
> If they can't be convicted without changing the constitution, yes.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Damn, no wonder we're out of control.
Things are simple out here.

Your neighbors dog gets into your livestock.
You shoot it so that it can't do it again.

The scum of the earth should be treated the same way.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 7:21 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 7:24 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:

> Do you want to see these types of people set free so that they can kill
> again ?

Hi Virgil!

If they can't be convicted without changing the constitution, yes.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 7:24 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:

> Do you want to see these types of people set free so that they can kill
> again ?

Hi Virgil!

If they can't be convicted without changing the constitution, yes.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Pete, you're talking about crimes that are possibly nothing.

I'm talking about murders, drug dealers and others where somebody most
likely will be killed if they are set free.

Do you want to see these types of people set free so that they can kill
again ?


Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:30 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 5:54 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> You're missing the point pete. If the attorney recused himself because
their 
>client admitted to them that they did it, then they deserve to go to jail

Hi Virgil!

You are missing the point, the constitution allows a guilty person counsel. 
The counsel might advise a guilty plea, or if the government has a weak case

he/she may try to win it.

Being acquitted doesn't mean the guilty party hasn't been punished. The
legal 
fees are enormous, for one thing, and the victim may also sue and often
wins. 
Being acquitted just means the defendant doesn't go to prison. If the case
is 
so weak that the government can't prove it he/she should not go to prison.
>
> > I understand. BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they
can't 
>>afford the attorney, OR because they're guilty.
>
> I am not qualified to say whether or not they are guilty - that is
> determined at their trial
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 6:00 am, Adam Buckland wrote:
> Isn't it wonderful having the best legal system money can buy...

Hi Adam!

>From a distance it looks as though there is plenty of money spent on your 
legal system. Why those silly wigs alone . . .
>
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:43 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> > I understand.
> > BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Wednesday 16 May 2007 5:54 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> You're missing the point pete. If the attorney recused himself because their 
>client admitted to them that they did it, then they deserve to go to jail

Hi Virgil!

You are missing the point, the constitution allows a guilty person counsel. 
The counsel might advise a guilty plea, or if the government has a weak case 
he/she may try to win it.

Being acquitted doesn't mean the guilty party hasn't been punished. The legal 
fees are enormous, for one thing, and the victim may also sue and often wins. 
Being acquitted just means the defendant doesn't go to prison. If the case is 
so weak that the government can't prove it he/she should not go to prison.
>
> > I understand. BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't 
>>afford the attorney, OR because they're guilty.
>
> I am not qualified to say whether or not they are guilty - that is
> determined at their trial
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:56 pm, Michael Madigan wrote:
> They tried to remove Lieberman from the Democratic
> Party, so I guess technically he's still a Democrat.
>
> Zell Miller is no longer in the senate.
>
> It's hard to find some, isn't it.
>
> What happened to the Harry Truman Democrats?  Have
> they all become Republicans?

Hi Michael!

I guess. And the real republicans have gone ever further into the conservative 
philosophy.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

I'm all for making money, but there has to be a way to maintain the ethics

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Adam Buckland
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:01 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

Isn't it wonderful having the best legal system money can buy...



On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:43 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I understand.
> BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford
the
> attorney, OR because they're guilty.


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Adam Buckland]

Isn't it wonderful having the best legal system money can buy...



On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:43 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I understand.
> BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford
the
> attorney, OR because they're guilty.


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

You're missing the point pete.
If the attorney recused himself because their client admitted to them that
they did it, then they deserve to go to jail

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:52 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:43 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I understand.
> BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford the
> attorney, OR because they're guilty.

Hi Virgil!

I am not qualified to say whether or not they are guilty - that is
determined 
at their trial, what I observed was the lawyers' obscession with money. When

there is legal aid, something that would be impossible if your outrageous 
proposal were adopted, they get a different attorney when the first one 
bails.

Talk about prejudicing the case: "Your honor, I exercise my right to recuse 
myself from this case since the defendant is obviously s guilty". What
if 
the defendant were you?
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

They tried to remove Lieberman from the Democratic
Party, so I guess technically he's still a Democrat.

Zell Miller is no longer in the senate.

It's hard to find some, isn't it.

What happened to the Harry Truman Democrats?  Have
they all become Republicans?



--- Pete Theisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:37 pm, Michael Madigan
> wrote:
> > Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> > Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.
> 
> Hi Michael!
> 
> Does Lieberman count? What about that other guy,
> Zell Miller? Whatever 
> happened to him? So two out of a few hundred isn't
> that bad, eh?
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Pete
> http://www.pete-theisen.com/
> 
> 
> ___
> Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
> Subscription Maintenance:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
> OT-free version of this list:
> http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
> Searchable Archive:
> http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
> This message:
>
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> are the opinions of the author, and do not
> constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
> is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
> too stupid to see the obvious.
> 


Right Wing, Conservative and Republican Gear!
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike

Thoroughbred Horse Racing Group
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/mikes_horse_racing/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 11:37 pm, Michael Madigan wrote:
> Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
> Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.

Hi Michael!

Does Lieberman count? What about that other guy, Zell Miller? Whatever 
happened to him? So two out of a few hundred isn't that bad, eh?
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:43 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> I understand.
> BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford the
> attorney, OR because they're guilty.

Hi Virgil!

I am not qualified to say whether or not they are guilty - that is determined 
at their trial, what I observed was the lawyers' obscession with money. When 
there is legal aid, something that would be impossible if your outrageous 
proposal were adopted, they get a different attorney when the first one 
bails.

Talk about prejudicing the case: "Your honor, I exercise my right to recuse 
myself from this case since the defendant is obviously s guilty". What if 
the defendant were you?
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Michael Madigan]

Name a Democrat who wants to win in Iraq.  Name a
Democrat who doesn't want to surrender in Iraq.

> 
> >From the same place Republicans find the chutzpah
> to blame the 
> Democrats for "ensur[ing] our defeat and humiliation
> in Iraq"?



___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

I understand.
BUT, do you want to see people go to jail because they can't afford the
attorney, OR because they're guilty.

Like I said earlier, Lets fix the problem.
I believe my solution will do that.

Now I've been under the trailer all day fixing plumbing problems, so I'm
probably tired and stupid.
But I still believe my solution will do just that.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:48 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:10 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:

Hi Virgil!

Oh, I used to work with about 100 lawyers, I know them fairly well.

> I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
>
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 9:39 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> > Think about what you just said.
> > You're on trial
> > You're innocent.
> > Why would your lawyer believe that you were guilty.
>
> Because he found out I didn't have enough money for his fee? With the
> system we have there is legal aid, what you are proposing would send all
the
> charitable lawyers to jail.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:10 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:

Hi Virgil!

Oh, I used to work with about 100 lawyers, I know them fairly well.

> I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.
>
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 9:39 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> > Think about what you just said.
> > You're on trial
> > You're innocent.
> > Why would your lawyer believe that you were guilty.
>
> Because he found out I didn't have enough money for his fee? With the
> system we have there is legal aid, what you are proposing would send all the
> charitable lawyers to jail.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:58 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 9:39 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Think about what you just said.
> You're on trial
> You're innocent.
> Why would your lawyer believe that you were guilty.

Hi Virgil!

Because he found out I didn't have enough money for his fee? With the system

we have there is legal aid, what you are proposing would send all the 
charitable lawyers to jail.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 9:39 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Think about what you just said.
> You're on trial
> You're innocent.
> Why would your lawyer believe that you were guilty.

Hi Virgil!

Because he found out I didn't have enough money for his fee? With the system 
we have there is legal aid, what you are proposing would send all the 
charitable lawyers to jail.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Think about what you just said.
You're on trial
You're innocent.
Why would your lawyer believe that you were guilty.

Now look at the other side.
You're on trial
You're guilty
You brag to your attorney OR you offer to make him a wealthy man/woman

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:33 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 8:03 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Think about what you just said.
> If innocent people are getting convicted, don't you think that there is a
> chance it is because of these same unscrupulous lawyers ??
>
> If that were the case, then getting rid of unscrupulous attorneys would
fix
> both problems.

Hi Virgil!

Providing legal counsel to a guilty but presumed innocent person is a 
constitutionally protected activity, hardly unscrupulous. If the lawyer were

bringing the perp drugs in jail, that would be unscrupulous.

Now you think about what YOU just said. You are on trial, you are innocent
but 
your lawyer decides that you are guilty and dumps you. Wouldn't everyone
else 
ask "Why did his lawyer dump him?" What kind of a fair trial do you get
then? 
You are innocent, remember?

But cheer up, You might get a nice cell. Better than being homeless.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Pete Theisen]

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 8:03 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Think about what you just said.
> If innocent people are getting convicted, don't you think that there is a
> chance it is because of these same unscrupulous lawyers ??
>
> If that were the case, then getting rid of unscrupulous attorneys would fix
> both problems.

Hi Virgil!

Providing legal counsel to a guilty but presumed innocent person is a 
constitutionally protected activity, hardly unscrupulous. If the lawyer were 
bringing the perp drugs in jail, that would be unscrupulous.

Now you think about what YOU just said. You are on trial, you are innocent but 
your lawyer decides that you are guilty and dumps you. Wouldn't everyone else 
ask "Why did his lawyer dump him?" What kind of a fair trial do you get then? 
You are innocent, remember?

But cheer up, You might get a nice cell. Better than being homeless.
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

[Virgil Bierschwale]

Think about what you just said.
If innocent people are getting convicted, don't you think that there is a
chance it is because of these same unscrupulous lawyers ??

If that were the case, then getting rid of unscrupulous attorneys would fix
both problems.

Virgil Bierschwale
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:52 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 7:39 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote:
> Two choices:
> 1. Fix the problem
> 2. bury your head in the sand and not fix the problem.

Hi Virgil!

I think the problem is the opposite of what you stated. You think it is 
terrible that guilty people get to have lawyers, evidently forgetting that 
innocent people are convicted fairly often. The latter problem would only
get 
worse if they had no representation.

Why, Bill would have done twice as much time as he has!
-- 
Regards,

Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/


[excessive quoting removed by server]

___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.