Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Daniel Mandic on 7 Oct 2006 03:35 Your posting style shows your addiction to Right.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 04:44 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:4esdi2lpi9c8dvn3rdhmu14d4n7ur1j6tk(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:38:20 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave > us: > >>>we have situational rules which govern the behavior of our >>>country's national security agencies. >> >>Where in the constitution does it allow parts of itself to be ignored? > > > The parts governing wartime, and martial law. Wow. The US has martial law now. Great. You really do know a lot about your country don't you. It must be great to live in _your_ land of the free.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 04:44 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:ZeGVg.11931$6S3.3090(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:4esdi2lpi9c8dvn3rdhmu14d4n7ur1j6tk(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:38:20 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >> us: >> >>>>we have situational rules which govern the behavior of our >>>>country's national security agencies. >>> >>>Where in the constitution does it allow parts of itself to be ignored? >> >> >> The parts governing wartime, and martial law. > > Well, since neither war nor martial law has been declared, that would be > irrelevant, now wouldn't it? Do try to think things through before you > say them. > I am becoming to suspect that is not a possibility for him. I refuse to accept that someone can actually be that thick and still be able to turn their PC on.
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 04:57 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:ektdi2dc2einrnp4vb8lhcc3b81qhljmdq(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:46:19 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:kp8bi29dil5b9l2ib6oakv7sn227f8450o(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:49:33 -0500, John Fields >>> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:48:51 +0100, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush >>>>>> >>calling >>>>>> >>a criticism "unacceptable." >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Which criticism was unacceptable? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't >>>>>> > think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion >>>>>> > about >>>>>> > something. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > You can't have it both ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >>>>>> argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >>>>>> disagrees with you. >>>>> >>>>>Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. >>>> >>>>--- >>>>If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your >>>>door because of your antics here. >>> >>> Ooooooohhhh.... That would be so.... R I G H T E O U S !!! >>> >>> I'd love to see the video on Cops! >> >>Do you deliberately conform to stereotypes? Are you infact a plant for the >>left wingers to create ridicule? >> > You're a goddamned retard, boy. Oh, such hurtful remarks coming from a genius like yourself. Did you have to look "Goddamned" up before you used it?
From: T Wake on 7 Oct 2006 04:58
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:%eGVg.11933$6S3.5454(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:ektdi2dc2einrnp4vb8lhcc3b81qhljmdq(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:46:19 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>>Do you deliberately conform to stereotypes? Are you infact a plant for >>>the >>>left wingers to create ridicule? >>> >> You're a goddamned retard, boy. > > T Wake, I would say the answer to your first question is "invariably", and > the answer to your second is "of course not, he's dumber than a tree". > Oh, sorry, you didn't mean that type of plant. Never mind. > Initially I didn't mean that type of plant, however as I read more of his posts I may reconsider. |