Detained at the whim of the president

"Olivers" wrote in message
...
Rick muttered....

(Snip)

.....It's great to proipose that
democratic institutions be emplced tomorrow in every Mideastern capital,
but substantial social and cultural changes must inevitably preceded their
success. The Palestinians, perhaps aside from the Lebanese the most
"Westernized" and potentially "Democraticized" of Middle Easterners
regularly demonstrate their short comings when it comes to Democracy. As
misguided and paranoid as the Israelis may be, they can hardly match the
Palestinians in the level of obnoxious stupidity which causes them to
preserve that nasty little scrufty bearded cretin in a position of power,
propped up by terror groups whom Palestinian society remains unwilling to
confront and eliminate.

Have you ever noted the unfailing knack the Palestinians seem to have to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory at every opportunity? They don't seem to have a
clue as to what it takes to achieve success in the current world as it is,
rather than as they dream it to be.

George Z.

"Pan Ohco" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:30:28 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:


Pan Ohco wrote:

Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
this fight.

Rick

Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?

Saudis.
Duh

Oh terrorist didn't fly the planes?
Saddam didn't give aid to terrorist?

Duh! You should at least remember your own posting.
Pan Ohco

That wasn't the gist of the conversation as it was going. The conversation
was referring to the nationality of the "terrorists" which, in ALL but two
cases, were Saudi Arabian, born, raised and terrorist trained. The fact
that the U.S. Military, CIA and FBI have said that they had ties to, and
were directed by binLaden, and that binLaden was supported by Hussein with
money and use of Iraqi based training facilities has nothing to do with the
fact that those involved in the JetJacking were Saudi Arabian citizens, Not
Iraqi, Not Afghani, Not Iranian - they were Saudi Arabian. Since Saudi
Arabia is the source of the majority of the fossil fuels consumed by the
United States, the Shrub is content in ignoring that fact, blaming the
Saudi's competition, and overthrowing the governments of their competitors.

One might think, however, that now that the U.S. has it's hands on the Iraqi
oil fields, has handed their production over to Halliburton Industries, is
pumping their oil straight into Texas, and that said oil will continue to be
usurped until the cost of the American occupation of Iraq is recouped (see
the aforementioned reasonless overthrow) as well as the cost associated with
rebuilding the country we bombed the **** out of, Shrub may not need the
Saudis as much anymore, and we might actually look at the Saudis for what
they really are; American hating, women hating, loveless sonsofbitches who
can't make up their mind whether they want our revenues that come from our
purchase of oil, or if they want us all dead so they continue to support
terrorism against the United States and give the Saudi Prince and his band
of ****-ups diplomatic immunity to prosecution (I.E. the withholding of
evidence by the white house that Saudi Arabia had a LARGE hand in the twin
towers debacle) . . . . oh hell this whole mess with these rag heads has
caused me to loose my train of thought. . . .

Saudis are wholely the singlemost responsible party when it comes to
terrorist attacks against the united states, it's allies and other countries
around the world. The Saudis truly believe that their oil reserves are
going to give them control of the world and through terrorist attacks which
they blame on other nations and the oil buyers (read U.S.) buy their
bull****, they will, in short order, have more nations warring against one
another than we might imagine.

We don't want Iran to have the bomb, we don't want Iraq to have the bomb, we
don't want North Korea to have the bomb, yet we gave the bomb to India,
Pakistan AND Saudi Arabia, and say nothing. Three of the most unstable
minded governments in the world have been handed nukes from the U.S. and we
decide that Iraqis with rusty rifles and a few shoulder launch weapons are
more dangerous to the world.

The very fact that you seem to buy this binLaden/Hussein masterminded the
twin towers horse**** from Dubya and his band of liars, and the fact that
you seem to revel in his re-election tells me that you have jello for brains
and that you'll believe whatever makes you feel like waving a flag.

You're just a tragically misled republican. I wonder if we should feel
sorry for you, or advocate euthanasia of lost republican sheep and put you
all out of your misery!

Other groups snipped out because they are tired of your bull**** too! I
won't see your response, I don't read the groups you post to!

Oelewapper wrote:
How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
mislead?

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.

Clause 2: 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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

----------------

Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the 13th
amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation of
people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in American
history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?

I believe the only thing he studied seriously as a student at Yale was the
quantity of alcoholic beverage it would take to reduce him to a state of
unconsciousness. The only reason Yale saw fit to issue a degree in his name was
that his father and grandfather were alumni and, both having been or being in
public life, they were in a position to do the university irreparable harm if it
failed to award him the degree, albeit academically unearned.

That's a process known throughout academe as "legacy" enrollments carried to its
normal conclusions. Many universities subscribe to the practice, however
unattractive it may seem, including those at the upper tier, like Yale and
Harvard.

To understand our President's true academic skills and aptitudes, one has merely
to look at the action taken by his home state university, the University of
Texas, who, upon receiving his application for entry into their law school,
politely declined the honor and suggested that his educational future undoubted
rested in some area other than the one in which he expressed interest.

I believe that was the event that prompted him to apply to Harvard University
for entry into their Masters program. His progress through that program was
completely undistinguished, as he candidly admits, and ended in its award of an
unearned degree to him that other students without influential parents or
grandparents would ever have received.

George Z.

Even if he were as undeserving as your subjective judgment deems, that was
some time ago. I would say that President Bush has demonstrated himself to
be a successful individual and a very competent leader (much to the dismay
of those who oppose him).

Jarg

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Oelewapper wrote:
How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is
vague,
but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a
self-evident
truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I
absolutely
mislead?

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars
for
each Person.

Clause 2: 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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate
legislation.

----------------

Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the
13th
amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation
of
people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in
American
history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?

I believe the only thing he studied seriously as a student at Yale was the
quantity of alcoholic beverage it would take to reduce him to a state of
unconsciousness. The only reason Yale saw fit to issue a degree in his
name was
that his father and grandfather were alumni and, both having been or being
in
public life, they were in a position to do the university irreparable harm
if it
failed to award him the degree, albeit academically unearned.

That's a process known throughout academe as "legacy" enrollments carried
to its
normal conclusions. Many universities subscribe to the practice, however
unattractive it may seem, including those at the upper tier, like Yale and
Harvard.

To understand our President's true academic skills and aptitudes, one has
merely
to look at the action taken by his home state university, the University
of
Texas, who, upon receiving his application for entry into their law
school,
politely declined the honor and suggested that his educational future
undoubted
rested in some area other than the one in which he expressed interest.

I believe that was the event that prompted him to apply to Harvard
University
for entry into their Masters program. His progress through that program
was
completely undistinguished, as he candidly admits, and ended in its award
of an
unearned degree to him that other students without influential parents or
grandparents would ever have received.

George Z.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:54:35 -0600, Olivers
wrote:

rec.aviation.military.

I read this response before seeing the ng line and TMO as your sig.
Thought I recognized your writing style.


Jarg muttered....

When I was growing up in Iran, the Shah was usually refered to
formally as Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Not sure why though.


Any pretense to royal lineage wasa modern illusion. The Shah's father had
been a sergeant in the army, a bit short of royal rank, long short of even
the aristocratic pretense of Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk" next door. I've seen
the name transliterated as both Pahlavi (seemingly the current popula
version) and Pahlevi, but like Baghdad/Bagdad, only the _New York Times- is
the arbiter for us 'Merkins.

I would be interested in that $3 per barrel oil price differential which
sent Saddam Hussein galloping into Kuwait. He may have wanted Kuwait's
oil, but the bottom line was that only outlaws were going to purchase it -
or Iraqi oil either - in the face of a boycott by the civilized nations
(less France where the veneer of civilization has never interfered with
self-interest).

Of course, those worried about the Coalition invasion of Iraq conveniently
ignore a dozen years (and 250,000 combat missions by coalition pilots)
waiting for Iraq to do what it swore it would do at the Gulf war "cease
fire" (no treaty, no end, just a temporary halt to allow Iraq to disarm,
quit murdering domestic opponents, Shia and Kurds and messing about with
WMD which, if you've used in the past and continue to tell the world you
have - as Saddam Hussein did, you might ought to count on portions of it
believing you).

TMO

As for the US invading Iraq for its oil, Mexico and Venezuala are closer
and easier, and Hell's Bells, a Canadian Invasion (with current Canadian
forces roughly equivalent to a fedayeen battalion with organic arms) would
provide vast natural gas, potential oil reserves, nice resorts, improved
hunting and fishing, and we could sell Quebec and the Kebekkers to France
on a long slow note, gift the UK with Newfoundland for a resettlement
scheme for the Prods of NIreland and allow walt Disney to develop the
Labrador.

TMO

From: john

Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following

coalition countries:


Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
of the troops in Iraq.

I suggest you check your figures. Spain, Italy and Poland have lost personnel
for example. How about you do some research before you spout off?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In rec.food.cooking Jarg wrote:
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
an insult, its a simple fact.

On 12/15/2003 5:48 AM, in article ,
" opined:

In rec.food.cooking Jarg wrote:
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
an insult, its a simple fact.


Come on! Even for you that's out in left field.

From:
Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In rec.food.cooking Jarg wrote:
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
an insult, its a simple fact.


Please cite a verifiable source.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:
From:
Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In rec.food.cooking Jarg wrote:
Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
an insult, its a simple fact.


Please cite a verifiable source.

Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:



Newsday
Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on
Capitol Hill
Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
UPDATED.

FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the day
the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the electors
will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.

He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.

CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George W.
Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election intending
to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership. But
he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings,
that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
campaign agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were
going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If
this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm
the dictator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

George Z.





Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired