[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25592197

No comment necessary.

BTW, did I tell you, 2pid, that I know a major who was assigned at the
Pentagon to sort this mess out over five years ago?

Most of the paperwork was lost for these detainees. Gone. Poof! We
don't even know why most of them were picked up.

Funny, huh?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless, if you continue being a bad doggie, you'll get no treats at all.

No comment necessary.

Yes

Scottie, are you afraid to answer my questions?


The Idiot yapped:

Why have you made dozens of posts to a person who calls you "2pid"?

Childish insults won't dissuade me from addressing issues of interest.

Out of curiosity, do you think there's any truth to the substance of the
"childish insults"? How about when JA observes that your reading comprehension
skills are subpar -- any factual basis? How about when Jenn and Stephen
observe that you seem to be carrying on both sides of a "discussion" inside
your own head -- any accuracy there?

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 9, 12:10*pm, ScottW wrote:
the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.

Let's look at a relevant legal reference:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
reference:

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

This refers to "person," not "US citizen."

Perhaps, ScottW, you can point to where it states that these
legal protections are limited to US citizens?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Iul, 20:40, "ScottW" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...
On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW wrote:

the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.

Let's look at a relevant legal reference:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
reference:

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So how do you see that as irrelevant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

This refers to "person," not "US citizen."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG...we should arrest every WWII vet.
So Mr. Atkinson.
If called upon per your oath
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States
when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed
Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my
signature.

would you actually defend this country?
We'll send you to the front, warrants in hand.


as required by law.
I think he would defend it as well as any other old coot.
Most immigrants are more atriotic than the average
born in the USA American. They usually worked hard just to get here
and
top staqy here. If they came from dire circumstances, they
are usually pretty grateful for the opportunity.

AS an example, Gov Schwartzenegger.
He gave up many millions for many films, at ht eheight
of his career, to serve the people of California.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 9, 8:24*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

...
On 9 Iul, 20:40, "ScottW" wrote:





"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...
On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW wrote:

the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.

Let's look at a relevant legal reference:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
reference:

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So how do you see that as irrelevant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

This refers to "person," not "US citizen."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG...we should arrest every WWII vet.
So Mr. Atkinson.
If called upon per your oath
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that
I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United
States
when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed
Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work
of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose
of
evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my
signature.

would you actually defend this country?
We'll send you to the front, warrants in hand.

as required by law.
I think he would defend it as well as any other old coot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most would prefer a gun to a warrant.

If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
I vote for Joe.

Then you are not for the rule of law, but for vigilante law.

I'm not surprised, BTW. That seems to fit in with your other warped
views perfectly.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 9, 8:28*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

...







"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
On Jul 9, 12:10 pm, ScottW wrote:
the judges who ordered these detainees be treated like
US citizens accused of a crime are treasonous, I agree.

Let's look at a relevant legal reference:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

Doesn't specifically state "US citizens." Okay, how about another
reference:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------------------
All true. But I have a personal confession.

*So you post it on usenet.......sigh.
I shall recommend it to insomniacs the world over.

Do you suppose that it's your posts that keep them awake at night? Lol

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back. Your
integrity would be better served by eschewing them.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Iul, 21:24, "ScottW" wrote:


If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
I vote for Joe.



If only our enemies would turn their backs!!!

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.

I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed. And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Stephen

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...-as-resurgent/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 10, 1:30*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*ScottW wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Stephen

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...as-resurgent/-

June 28 is sooooo a couple of weeks ago....

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 9, 10:51*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Iul, 21:24, "ScottW" wrote:

If the defense of our country is up to Atkinson or Joe Horn,
I vote for Joe.

If only our enemies would turn their backs!!!

LOL!

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

George is missing an opportunity?
Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault. And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Stephen

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008...-as-resurgent/

The "liberal media" at work!

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
So Mr. Atkinson. If called upon per your oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have
heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic;

I believe that I have been doing exactly what is required of
me with respect to this clause.

"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will
perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In
acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."

would you actually defend this country?

Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
do so? Surely not because I have repeatedly pointed
out to you that the US Constitution specifically
prohibits the actions you endorse? Remember, unlike
US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
"support and defend the Constitution...against all
enemies, foreign and domestic." There is no
exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 08:45, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

So Mr. Atkinson. If called upon per your oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have
heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic;

I believe that I have been doing exactly what is required of
me with respect to this clause.

"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will
perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
States when required by the law; that I will perform work of
national importance under civilian direction when required by the
law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In
acknowledgement whereof *I have hereunto affixed my signature."

would you actually defend this country?

Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
do so? Surely not because I have repeatedly pointed
out to you that the US Constitution specifically
prohibits the actions you endorse? Remember, unlike
US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
"support and defend the Constitution...against all
enemies, foreign and domestic." There is no
exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

you forget so easily.
Scott took the Hypocritic Oath.
never to examine for himself what he prescribes for others
to examine.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some time
back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

* George is missing an opportunity?
*Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

* The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault.

For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article

om,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
time
back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

* George is missing an opportunity?
*Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

*I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

Is it better to be known or leave doubt?

Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

* The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault.

*For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

*And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

* Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

He doesn't have a plan? How can that be?

Obama without a plan is just Bush III.

No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
down to, why do you invite it?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 5:45*am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
Remember, unlike
US-born citizens, I have actually sworn an oath to
"support and defend the Constitution...against all
enemies, foreign and domestic."

How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
all enemies, foreign and domestic,
is something only your limited intellect can fathom.

That's what makes the US so special: rights for everyone.

There is no
exception mentioned in that oath relieving me of
that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.

Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
wearing a uniform.
Brilliant!

Who says that?

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article

,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article

.c
om,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn
him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
time
back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

* George is missing an opportunity?
*Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

*I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

Is it better to be known or leave doubt?

Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.

*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view of
civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

* The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault.

*For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

*And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

* Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

He doesn't have a plan? How can that be?

Obama without a plan is just Bush III.

No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
down to, why do you invite it?

Stephen

For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
hurry up and start. The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
your limited intellect can fathom.

Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
gets decided by the courts. I assume, of course, that you
will now say that the lawyers representing the lost souls
in Gitmo are also guilty of treason. And the judges. And
the court reporters. And even the Supreme Court, with
their recent decision. :-)

There is no exception mentioned in that oath relieving
me of that obligation in times of criminal terrorist activity.

Anyone who wants to attack us without incurring
the wrath of our military can do so simply by not
wearing a uniform. Brilliant!

Your sarcasm seems misplaced, ScottW. You may
be impressed by the "wrath of our military" but Osama
bin Laden has not yet been brought to trial. By contrast
those boring functionaries in the Clinton Justice Dept.
and in the UK who have correctly treated terrorist activity
as a criminal matter to be dealt with by the police and
courts have scored much success in putting terrorists
behind bars while observing the Constitutional niceties
you scorn, ScottW.

Oh yes, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to
gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Do you really think you are wiser than Benjamin Franklin,
ScottW?

would you actually defend this country?

Of course. Why would you suggest that I would not
do so?

No answer from ScottW. Perhaps he missed the question?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jul 9, 9:04 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
These usenet arguments are boring to me, because they
always seem to be "out of history."

Study of history is he best guide to dealing with new
situations, Bob, a wisdom that has been sorely absent
in the Bush administration. Fred Kaplan's best-selling
book, for example, goes into some detail on the neocons'
collective ignorance of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz.

The Bomb...could be lurking anywhere, perhaps in a
basement in Queens or Brooklyn.

Then it would suicidal of us to vote for an administration
and its policies that have secured the ports, that have not
captured bin Laden, that would rather be politically correct
than pragmatically effective. Again, I recommend Fred
Kaplan's new book on the subject: "Daydream Believers."

JA: I have your recording. I am simply looking for a chance
to do it the honor. One doesn't uncork Napoleon for lunch

Ha! The Lee Hoiby work ("Last Letter Home") is the hard-core,
serious work, dealing as it does with the tragedy of the Iraq
conflict, Start with "Casey at the Bat" -- delightful stuff, or
Bill Joel's "Lullabye."

BTW, for everyone else, all the tracks on this new Cantus
album can be downloaded at
http://www.cantusonline.org/Store/mp...ategory=events

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

*The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.


His educational experiences, valid as
they are, consisted of formulas and tests.

Isn't music just another form of engineering?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

*The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.


His educational experiences, valid as
they are, consisted of formulas and tests.

Isn't music just another form of engineering?

No, not in the whole.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 22:34, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

*The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.

His educational experiences, valid as
they are, consisted of formulas and tests.

Isn't music just another form of engineering?

No, not in the whole.-

you don't need to convince me.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Iul, 22:34, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Iul, 21:36, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

*The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.

His educational experiences, valid as
they are, consisted of formulas and tests.

Isn't music just another form of engineering?

No, not in the whole.-

you don't need to convince me.

I know; just answering the question ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

Yep, and many more outside of class.

Poor Scottie. Left behind again.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Jul 10, 3:32*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article

m,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:27*pm, MiNe 109 *
wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,

*ScottW wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:32*pm, MiNe 109 *

wrote:
In article ,

*"ScottW" wrote:
Ok, John can go out to Afghanistan with his warrants.
After they slit his throat, hang his corpse and burn
him
*we'll send Joe.
Applying civilian law to terrorists and illegal
combatants is
nuts.

I called you on this kind of blood-thirsty fantasy some
time
back.

*I guess you haven't been following the war very close.
It started out in earnest with the throats of
stewardesses.
You can deny the brutality of the enemy at your
peril, not mine.

I don't fantasize about people I'm arguing with being
killed.

No bus jokes for you. George must be very disappointed.

An opportunity to take the high ground.

* George is missing an opportunity?
*Who knew?

Is it better to play stupid or be stupid?

*I don't think you will pass on either opportunity.

IKYABWAI.

Is it better to be known or leave doubt?

Mild props for a possible allusion, but you're chasing your tail again.





*And one
doesn't need follow the war "very close" to know your view
of
civilian
remedies is mistaken.

How'd the military effort in Afghanistan work out?

So far so good. *You'd prefer the Taliban were still in
charge?

Not so good. I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news.

* The media seems to have moved their negative light from
Iraq to Afghanistan. * But reality is the Taliban are routed
wherever they are opposed.
Now if all our nato "allies" would join the fight, more
rapid progress could be made.

Ah, it's the media's fault.

*For your negative perception.

My negative perception was formed from non-traditional media.

*And after five years, rapid progress is no
longer an option.

* Obama's plan to invade Pakistan may speed things up
a bit.

Still harping on that? He doesn't have one.

*He doesn't have a plan? *How can that be?

Obama without a plan is just Bush III.

No plan to invade Pakistan.

Really?

Really.

But he said, "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who
murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike
again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value
terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...AR200708010123
3.html

So given that any actionable intelligence has a rather short shelf
life, don't you think if he plans to invade when he gets some
actionable intelligence he should have some sort of plan now?
Or is he really that ill-prepared to carry out his campaign promises?

Act does not equal invade. Please cease repeating this canard.

Since you clearly don't like being talked
down to, why do you invite it?

I like to see you fail.

You do seem constantly disappointed.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

You'd be surprised.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 23:31, "ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

....





In article ,
MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*ScottW wrote:

No plan to invade Pakistan. Since you clearly don't like being talked
down to, why do you invite it?

Stephen

For the first time, I find myself in July wishing that school would
hurry up and start. *The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

Do you teach peanut gallery sniping in junior college?

If Obama plans to act on actionable intelligence, he'd better have some
form of a plan for action or that intelligence will go cold before he
can act.

You may now return to your delusional idol worship.

ScottW-
LOL!
you are assuming he knows what future intelligence will be.
If he knows, why wait, he should act right now!

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Iul, 23:37, "ScottW" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...

On Jul 10, 6:16 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:45 am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:40 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
Remember, unlike US-born citizens, I have actually
sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution...
against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

How that got turned into granting constitutional rights to
all enemies, foreign and domestic, is something only
your limited intellect can fathom.

Ah, what would a ScottW posting be without the inevitable
insult. :-) Putting that aside, ScottW, you are presupposing
that they are "enemies" in the first place. _That_ is what
gets decided by the courts.

Lol. *In a war?
Hello, Jenn...could you provide a Jr. College civics
student to explain this to Atkinson?


In a war, the enemy are those upon whom we declare war.
In the run-up, I had said many times that we should declare
this war. We woldn't be having this problem.
we could hold them until we declared peace.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
,
ScottW wrote:


Obama without a plan is just Bush III.

No plan to invade Pakistan.

Really?

Really.

But he said, "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who
murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike
again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value
terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...01/AR200708010
123
3.html

So given that any actionable intelligence has a rather short shelf
life, don't you think if he plans to invade when he gets some
actionable intelligence he should have some sort of plan now?
Or is he really that ill-prepared to carry out his campaign promises?

Act does not equal invade. Please cease repeating this canard.

Not my fault that Obama consistently lacks specificity in his campaign
pledges.
So if invasion is out...what does he plan to do? Solicit money for Hillary
from them?

What a wit. Do you think presidential candidates draw up military
contingency plans just in case they win? Are there no military options
short of invasion?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

You'd be surprised.

Are they about music or campus politics?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

So if invasion is out...what does he plan to do? Solicit money for Hillary
from them?

What a wit. Do you think presidential candidates draw up military
contingency plans just in case they win? Are there no military options
short of invasion?

Obama is too thoughtful and methodical for Yapper's taste. Scottie is right
beside his spiritual leader Dumbya on how to decide the important stuff.

After the Raptu

What could possibly be more terrifying than to suddenly realize
God has supernaturally removed his true believers from the
surface of the earth, and for whatever reason, he has found you
unprepared to enter into his Kingdom. The following letters were
written by Christians to help instruct, encourage, and guide you
through what will soon become some very difficult and dark
days. Before you do anything, you first need to fully turn your
life over to Jesus Christ. Because it's very doubtful this web site
will be around for any great length of time, I highly encourage
you to download and save any material you find helpful.


There's more, too:
http://www.raptureready.com/rap75.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Because it's very doubtful this web site
* * * * will be around for any great length of time, I

they must be following the pcabx business plan.
Now here is an interesting thought.
has anyone come up with a business plan for
a profitable post rapture enterprise?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

The average college student debates more logically
and intelligently than do so many in this group,

You have debates in music class?

You'd be surprised.

Are they about music or campus politics?

Music in class (including societal issues involving music), all sorts of
things outside. Most colleges encourage critical thinking at every
opportunity.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

On 11 Iul, 00:34, George M. Middius wrote:

Because

I didn't write that, you pointy-headed dork.