Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
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
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
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
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
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
Nicholas Geti wrote: - Original Message - From: Ricardo Aráoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com 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
- Original Message - From: Ricardo Aráoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com 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 profox@leafe.com 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
Nicholas Geti wrote: - Original Message - From: Ricardo Aráoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com 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 profox@leafe.com 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
- Original Message - From: Ricardo Aráoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ProFox Email List profox@leafe.com 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
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 profox@leafe.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g Regards, LelandJ Pete Theisen wrote: On Friday 18 May 2007 11:40 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: snip 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
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
On Saturday 19 May 2007 10:32 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g Hi Leland~ g 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
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: snip Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g g 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
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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_roberts In 1944, the Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_majority Pete Theisen wrote: On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: snip Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g g 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
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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_roberts In 1944, the Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_majority Pete Theisen wrote: On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: snip Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g g 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
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
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
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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_roberts In 1944, the Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-korematsu_majority Pete Theisen wrote: On Saturday 19 May 2007 11:09 am, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: snip Your raving like a radical extremist yourself, Pete. g g 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
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
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
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. g Hi Leland! Twisting it again g! 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
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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasui_v._United_Statesaction=edit/ (1943), /Hirabayashi v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirabayashi_v._United_States/ (1943), /ex parte Endo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo/ (1944), and /Korematsu v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States's decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases.^[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#_note-hirabayashi ^[5]
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
Finally, a good explanation grin
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
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
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
On Friday 18 May 2007 11:15 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Finally, a good explanation grin Hi Virgil! I see the grin 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
On Friday 18 May 2007 11:40 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: snip 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 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
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 7:24 am, Virgil Bierschwale wrote: snip 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
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: snip 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
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
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
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
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
If Bill Clinton were president with the same exact scenario, his poll numbers would be in the high 50s. The fact that Bush can't speak very well is the whole problem in a nutshell. With record low unemployment, record high stock market, record high home ownership, and all this great economic news, it all comes down to the personality. --- Robert Calco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589 - - - Lord knows I'm no expert in polling, but I wonder where the Dems find the chutzpah to declare they've got some kind of plurality of public opinion in their favor over the President at the moment, as they boldly plot a political strategy to ensure our defeat and humiliation in Iraq, in order to win more seats and the Presidency in 2008? Somebody's reading, if not smoking, something other than tea leaves at the DNC. - Bob ___ 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
I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq has never been clearly defined by the GOP or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has never clearly defined the term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do with other countries around the world. The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even though the war was not necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. Ever since the US won victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American support government created in the image of US democracy, but that solution does not seem to make the Iraqi people happy, nor is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. The US mission to democratise the Iraqi people has destroyed the countries, caused many senseless and unnecessary deaths, and destory the Iraqi culture and way of life. It has made the life of the Iraq people miserable and bitter. Is the idea of forcing Democracy on the Iraqi people wrong. Probably yes. An insurrection of the Iraqi people against an occupation of their country by foreign force, couple with an internal civil struggle for power and control of the country, does not constitute war against the US, and where their is no war, there is no possibility of victory or defeat. The civil strife in Iraq has been going on for centuries, and is not something that America can fix in a few years. It is time for America to disengage from Iraq, because only the Iraqi people can decide what they want for a country so far as society, religion, and government is concerned. The American people, and all her armies cannot force the Iraqi people to love an imposed government fashioned after US Democracy, any more than the American people, and all her armies, can force the Iraqi people lover a US God as opposed to a God of the Iraqi people's own understanding. Regards, LelandJ Robert Calco wrote: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589 - - - Lord knows I'm no expert in polling, but I wonder where the Dems find the chutzpah to declare they've got some kind of plurality of public opinion in their favor over the President at the moment, as they boldly plot a political strategy to ensure our defeat and humiliation in Iraq, in order to win more seats and the Presidency in 2008? Somebody's reading, if not smoking, something other than tea leaves at the DNC. - Bob [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
Lord knows I'm no expert in polling, but I wonder where the Dems find the chutzpah to declare they've got some kind of plurality of public opinion in their favor over the President at the moment, as they boldly plot a political strategy to ensure our defeat and humiliation in Iraq, in order to win more seats and the Presidency in 2008? From the same place Republicans find the chutzpah to blame the Democrats for ensur[ing] our defeat and humiliation in Iraq? -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
President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ David Crooks wrote: On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:22 PM Leland F. Jackson wrote: I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq has never been clearly defined by the GOP or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is. possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has never clearly defined the term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do with other countries around the world. The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even though the war was not necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. Ever since the US won victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American support government created in the image of US democracy, but that solution does not seem to make the Iraqi people happy, nor is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. The US mission to democratise the Iraqi people has destroyed the countries, caused many senseless and unnecessary deaths, and destory the Iraqi culture and way of life. It has made the life of the Iraq people miserable and bitter. Is the idea of forcing Democracy on the Iraqi people wrong. Probably yes. An insurrection of the Iraqi people against an occupation of their country by foreign force, couple with an internal civil struggle for power and control of the country, does not constitute war against the US, and where their is no war, there is no possibility of victory or defeat. The civil strife in Iraq has been going on for centuries, and is not something that America can fix in a few years. It is time for America to disengage from Iraq, because only the Iraqi people can decide what they want for a country so far as society, religion, and government is concerned. The American people, and all her armies cannot force the Iraqi people to love an imposed government fashioned after US Democracy, any more than the American people, and all her armies, can force the Iraqi people lover a US God as opposed to a God of the Iraqi people's own understanding. Here are some interesting quotes from Dubyaspeak.com about this issue: And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. -- Despite Dubya's puzzling comments, I'm pretty sure that the number of random executions and car bombings in Detroit (or Houston, or Seattle, or Washington, D.C.) is significantly lower than anywhere in Baghdad... Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 This is an interesting, different type of war. -- I'm astounded by the level of detachment that permits him to term a war of his making interesting, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 The Iraqis are fully staffed, and -- and they've got their team in there, but we don't. And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying -- some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work. -- Truer accidental words are seldom heard, Interview with PBS' Charlie
RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ David Crooks wrote: On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:22 PM Leland F. Jackson wrote: I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq has never been clearly defined by the GOP or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is. possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has never clearly defined the term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do with other countries around the world. The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even though the war was not necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. Ever since the US won victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American support government created in the image of US democracy, but that solution does not seem to make the Iraqi people happy, nor is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. The US mission to democratise the Iraqi people has destroyed the countries, caused many senseless and unnecessary deaths, and destory the Iraqi culture and way of life. It has made the life of the Iraq people miserable and bitter. Is the idea of forcing Democracy on the Iraqi people wrong. Probably yes. An insurrection of the Iraqi people against an occupation of their country by foreign force, couple with an internal civil struggle for power and control of the country, does not constitute war against the US, and where their is no war, there is no possibility of victory or defeat. The civil strife in Iraq has been going on for centuries, and is not something that America can fix in a few years. It is time for America to disengage from Iraq, because only the Iraqi people can decide what they want for a country so far as society, religion, and government is concerned. The American people, and all her armies cannot force the Iraqi people to love an imposed government fashioned after US Democracy, any more than the American people, and all her armies, can force the Iraqi people lover a US God as opposed to a God of the Iraqi people's own understanding. Here are some interesting quotes from Dubyaspeak.com about this issue: And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. There are parts of our
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
Jerry Wolper wrote: but I wonder where the Dems find the chutzpah to declare they've got some kind of plurality of public opinion in their favor over the President at the moment From the same place Republicans find the chutzpah to blame the Democrats for ensur[ing] our defeat and humiliation in Iraq? Well, now, WOAH, there! Surely you two gentlemen aren't suggesting that politicians might be pulling facts from where the sun don't shine, are you? Not OUR politicians! -- 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
The focus on crime, like the crime people commit when that commit act of terrorism, should be prevention; not a focus on buggymen in Iraq that distract from the job of fighting crime. I want to be safe as much as anybody, but I would prefer to do it in a smart way, using intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, police and boarder patrol, and an aware American people; rather than being put in greater danger because the power that be drop the ball, because they are more interested in their own agenda and manipulating the American people to achieve it, than they are on keeping America safe. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ David Crooks wrote: On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:22 PM Leland F. Jackson wrote: I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq has never been clearly defined by the GOP or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is. possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has never clearly defined the term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do with other countries around the world. The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even though the war was not necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. Ever since the US won victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American support government created in the image of US democracy, but that solution does not seem to make the Iraqi people happy, nor is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. The US mission to democratise the Iraqi people has destroyed the countries, caused many senseless and unnecessary deaths, and destory the Iraqi culture and way of life. It has made the life of the Iraq people miserable and bitter. Is the idea of forcing Democracy on the Iraqi people wrong. Probably yes. An insurrection of the Iraqi people against an occupation of their country by foreign force, couple with an internal civil struggle for power and control of the country, does not constitute war against the US, and where their is no war
RE: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
Leland, it is unsafe to go in neighborhoods here in the states where the gangs have taken over. Why ? Because of attorneys that let them go free even when the attorney knows beyond a doubt that they are guilty. Because of bleeding hearts that say their rights were violated. Sorry folks. If you are guilty beyond a doubt, you no longer have any rights. However that said, I do worry about people convicted by da's wanting to make a name for themselves and crooked cops wanting to do the same when in the long run, dna tests prove that the person was not even involved.. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:36 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll The focus on crime, like the crime people commit when that commit act of terrorism, should be prevention; not a focus on buggymen in Iraq that distract from the job of fighting crime. I want to be safe as much as anybody, but I would prefer to do it in a smart way, using intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, police and boarder patrol, and an aware American people; rather than being put in greater danger because the power that be drop the ball, because they are more interested in their own agenda and manipulating the American people to achieve it, than they are on keeping America safe. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ David Crooks wrote: On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:22 PM Leland F. Jackson wrote: I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq has never been clearly defined by the GOP or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is. possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has never clearly defined the term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do with other countries around the world. The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even though the war was not necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. Ever since the US won victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American support government created in the image of US
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
Virgil Bierschwale wrote: The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. I can see your point. It would be terrifying to see an army of twelve year old kids with swords parachute over a USA city. They would wreak havoc. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ ___ 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
You better put your bong up. You've been inhaling too much lately. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:44 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll Virgil Bierschwale wrote: The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. I can see your point. It would be terrifying to see an army of twelve year old kids with swords parachute over a USA city. They would wreak havoc. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world is in the early stages of WW III. Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from Muslims. He comment what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army of terrorist and let them into our country? He said its ridiculous. Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. Regards, LelandJ [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 wrote: When did you acquire the ability to known when anyone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? America is blessed because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedoms, due process, and privacy. Part of the Judicial system call for any accused to be put on trail before a jury of their peers. Sorry, but Virgil sent me a check and prays to me every night. I am god, and I KNOW when anyone is guilty. And considering Virgil's checks are up to date and his praying too, I tell him if someone is guilty. He only has to ask. An attorneys must be provided for the defendant, as the prosecutor is usually a very skilled attorney. Evidence must be presented from both side to the court and the jury. Then a jury decides guilt or innocent based on the rule of law. It's not a perfect system, but I'm so blessed to live in a country where a system exists that strives to serve justice. If you have a better system of justice, I'm all ears. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Leland, it is unsafe to go in neighborhoods here in the states where the gangs have taken over. Why ? Because of attorneys that let them go free even when the attorney knows beyond a doubt that they are guilty. Because of bleeding hearts that say their rights were violated. Sorry folks. If you are guilty beyond a doubt, you no longer have any rights. However that said, I do worry about people convicted by da's wanting to make a name for themselves and crooked cops wanting to do the same when in the long run, dna tests prove that the person was not even involved.. Virgil Bierschwale http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php ___ 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
If we removed the license from all prosecuting attorneys that knowingly convinced a man they new to be innocent beyond any doubt, their would be a human resource crises within DA offices across the country of the greatest magnitude. I believe it was the state of Illinois in which the governor commuted the sentences of all who were on death row; after, DNA evidence showed that more than 30 percent of execution carried out in the state were of men innocent beyond any doubt of the crime. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Actually I like this system except for one minor little detail. It should become immediately an offense where the attorney loses his license forever in the event that he/she knowingly defend somebody where he/she knows beyond a shadow of doubt that they are guilty as charged. Granted, they will not know when they first assume the case, but there comes a point where they do and at that point, they should recuse themselves or if they don't and it turns out in the future that they were guilty and the attorney knew about it, then the state licensing associations first task should be to forever remove their ability to operate. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:53 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll When did you acquire the ability to known when anyone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? America is blessed because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedoms, due process, and privacy. Part of the Judicial system call for any accused to be put on trail before a jury of their peers. An attorneys must be provided for the defendant, as the prosecutor is usually a very skilled attorney. Evidence must be presented from both side to the court and the jury. Then a jury decides guilt or innocent based on the rule of law. It's not a perfect system, but I'm so blessed to live in a country where a system exists that strives to serve justice. If you have a better system of justice, I'm all ears. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Leland, it is unsafe to go in neighborhoods here in the states where the gangs have taken over. Why ? Because of attorneys that let them go free even when the attorney knows beyond a doubt that they are guilty. Because of bleeding hearts that say their rights were violated. Sorry folks. If you are guilty beyond a doubt, you no longer have any rights. However that said, I do worry about people convicted by da's wanting to make a name for themselves and crooked cops wanting to do the same when in the long run, dna tests prove that the person was not even involved.. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:36 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll The focus on crime, like the crime people commit when that commit act of terrorism, should be prevention; not a focus on buggymen in Iraq that distract from the job of fighting crime. I want to be safe as much as anybody, but I would prefer to do it in a smart way, using intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, police and boarder patrol, and an aware American people; rather than being put in greater danger because the power that be drop the ball, because they are more interested in their own agenda and manipulating the American people to achieve it, than they are on keeping America safe. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a visa. They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. Lets say you are right and nothing happens. Hell, I'm all for that. Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. 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: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old
Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 6:01 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Actually I like this system except for one minor little detail. It should become immediately an offense where the attorney loses his license forever in the event that he/she knowingly defend somebody where he/she knows beyond a shadow of doubt that they are guilty as charged. Granted, they will not know when they first assume the case, but there comes a point where they do and at that point, they should recuse themselves Hi Virgil! You'd never get that past the Supreme Court even if it were enacted by congress and signed by the president. This little problem of the 6th amendment. -- 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
Two choices: 1. Fix the problem 2. bury your head in the sand and not fix the problem. 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 6:34 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll On Tuesday 15 May 2007 6:01 pm, Virgil Bierschwale wrote: Actually I like this system except for one minor little detail. It should become immediately an offense where the attorney loses his license forever in the event that he/she knowingly defend somebody where he/she knows beyond a shadow of doubt that they are guilty as charged. Granted, they will not know when they first assume the case, but there comes a point where they do and at that point, they should recuse themselves Hi Virgil! You'd never get that past the Supreme Court even if it were enacted by congress and signed by the president. This little problem of the 6th amendment. -- 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
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/ ___ 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.
