|
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: You don't know how things work, Marky, the rest of the barracks would testify that you "slipped on a bar of soap." maybe but that does not alter the facts Dan and you advocate vilence against those that are different meaning they advocate criminal behavoir No No Markie.....only against YOU. which does not the change the fact you have called for Criminal activity that you advocate violence as a "solution" to those that don't conform to your standards You need your attitude adjustment......anyone disagree? now you go on to advocate mob action (or lynch mobs as theyd say in your neck of the woods) Of course they don't. Doesn't matter Now you are claiming that Minnoities don't have basic rights You see Markie you are a piece of garbage that needs flushed. Not just an opinion.....a pure and simple fact. nope just opinion from you facts form me not that you are man to face up to what you advocate Dan/W4NTI You are such a weenie Markie. You have NO IDEA who your coming up against, not just me BTW. You are LUCKY we ALL consider you a little baby in a grown mans body. Or I assure you that your attitude would change on a one and one encounter. The ONLY reason you are ACTING the tough guy, and I do mean ACTING, is you think you are out of reach. Well your not. Take that any way you want wannabe tough guy. You don't worry me one little bit. You are nothing but a big mouth, morally corrupt child trying to act like a grown up in the real world. You are not even close. Stay home with your parents. If you ever come out and play you will get your arse kicked just for breathing. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dr.Ace - WH2T" wrote in message ... "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: You don't know how things work, Marky, the rest of the barracks would testify that you "slipped on a bar of soap." maybe but that does not alter the facts Dan and you advocate vilence against those that are different meaning they advocate criminal behavoir No No Markie.....only against YOU. which does not the change the fact you have called for Criminal activity that you advocate violence as a "solution" to those that don't conform to your standards You need your attitude adjustment......anyone disagree? now you go on to advocate mob action (or lynch mobs as theyd say in your neck of the woods) Of course they don't. Doesn't matter Now you are claiming that Minnoities don't have basic rights You see Markie you are a piece of garbage that needs flushed. Not just an opinion.....a pure and simple fact. nope just opinion from you facts form me not that you are man to face up to what you advocate Dan/W4NTI What the hell are "Minnoities" ??? Dan, are you claiming that "Minnoities" don't have basic rights ? ROTFLMAO Ace - WH2T That's right ACE, I hate thase dang "Minnoities". Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dr.Ace - WH2T wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. Snipped A candidate for a barracks party if I ever saw one. again you so quickly go to suggesting violence Dan/W4NTI Markie, I think Dan was just saying that if you had been in the military you would have quickly received a much needed attitude adjustment. he was syaing I would have recieved one he considered neccassry but you, me and Dan also know that what is being bloodlessly described as an "attitude adjustment" is violent assault a Felony in the civilan world and a courtmarial offense in the military Ace - WH2T I would venture to bet, and I'm not a betting man..,.unless it is a sure thing (hi hi), that in ANY GROUP Markie came within ten feet of, and opened his mouth for only ten seconds. It would be a unanimous yes vote. then pay up That was your feeble attempt at Junior High School humor, right? Did you learn that in the line for home economics class? Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... BDK wrote: In article .com, says... cut The good old days is right! and people dare suggest that I can in any way be harmfull on such bands BDK Now who said that? All the "illegal jammers", etc, made the Liberty Net..FUN. Now it's just a bunch of old KKK and Nazi losers crying about the ...(insert race or jew here) picking on their poor old puckered up white cracker asses. Awwwwww. One night, I did actually hear them talking about ...radio! I about crapped my pants! who? well all these folks claiming No Code will be the "end of Ham radio" BDK A O F is a bit paranoid. He is under the impression that every discussion should include him. Sort of like a 3 year old. Hmm Paranoia according to you is beliving I have the same right to coment on the posts in here as everyone else Dan/W4NTI That's the point AOF, you don't. ah but I do I have the same rights as you do One day you might grow up and realize that fact, but I certainlly would not recomend anyone hold thier breath waiting for it You are one of those elist folks that can't accept that are ONLy equal of the rest of us Dan/W4NTI Your so-called rights STOP at my nose. agreed you got this part right I have the right not to be annoyed by the likes of you, child brain, ignorant of basic facts about ham radio. but you blow it here you do not have the right not to be annoyed you have the right not to read any I or anyone else writes but not to regulate what we write or wether we write something that annoys you And too stupid to learn. you are just being you ignorant self smething you have a right be, if you are fool enough to choose it Now go away and suck your thumb. they you are pusing it I have the same right to be here and post as you do Dan/W4NTI Hey group../././.Could someone translate this last attemp at communication from Markie? Especially the last part.....what the hell is "pussing" ??????? Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message gee asserting that one has equal rights in amercia make someone an idiot in your eyes No Markie...just YOU. You can't even write a sentence that makes sense. Thus you are impossible to argue with.....because...???.....That's right Markie because you can't be understood. But I'll keep trying...I like watching you jump up and down like a Mexican jumping bean... No rime, no reason...just jumping. shows you do not adhere to pricinples of the US Consitituion, or to the rule of law I fought for Constitution of this country. I fought for your RIGHT to show your IGNORANCE on a daily basis. What did you put your life on the line for Markey? Don't bother...I already know. those deny right to other tendto lose them themselves Boy are you out of touch...No surprise there, eh folks? Our so called rights have been going away for a long time now. But that's another subject which I dang sure don't want to get involved in with you. Your already too confused about a simple thing as your toe being on fire. you sound like a bigot and ahte monger a real asset to the ARS And what have YOU done for Amateur Radio Markie? Just a short list please, because we all know that is all you got.....Oh let me save you the trouble. 1. You passed the simplest test in Amateur Radio, The Technician NO CODE. 2. You refuse to learn Morse Code to upgrade. 3. You have decided to spend most of your time on this group blaming everyone for your inadequencies. That about covers the basics. Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: KY4Z wrote: Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his rights'. not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act No its not I even defend the rights of you and Stevie even Dan when he is right, as vile as you are Anyone notice how he keeps ranting about alleged threats of violence? My opinion of him being a child needs modified. He is a MAMA's BOY. A wimp, A loser, a drop out of life BEFORE he even played the game. Maybe we should leave him alone. He might slap himself with a fly swatter or something. Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... I knew Stevie could not keep out something like this for long KY4Z wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: You would not believe your toe was on fire unless some one you "trust" told you. realy going off the deep end Danny boy "Really" In your case...that would be no one. And your foot would burn off. realy delusional Dan "Really" Don't you see how idiotic you sound Markie? gee asserting that one has equal rights in amercia make someone an idiot in your eyes A M E R I C A. shows you do not adhere to pricinples of the US Consitituion, or to the rule of law "principles" Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. wrong again but then you are almost always wrong it is a violation of a persons civil rights to advocate violence against them Dan has sai plainly that I see that I lack any rights at all, let alone the same as himself both are plainly at varriance with the Constitution of the US Perhaps it would be better if you actually had read the Constitution. It is available on line. Then go read the First ten Ammendments, usually refered to as the "Bill of Rights". After that you can come back and ammend your statement of what you understand. This could get interesting folks. snip Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut nope just opinion from you facts form me not that you are man to face up to what you advocate Dan/W4NTI You are such a weenie Markie. You have NO IDEA who your coming up against, not just me BTW. I know exactly what I am up against You are LUCKY we ALL consider you a little baby in a grown mans body. Or I assure you that your attitude would change on a one and one encounter. more threats of Violence little boy The ONLY reason you are ACTING the tough guy, and I do mean ACTING, is you think you are out of reach. Well your not. I know I am out the reach of anything you bring to bear, unless you choose to break the law, in which case I am prepared for you in the unlikely effect you are serious The only reason you dare to (try) such bulling is that you know you are basicaly out of My reach Take that any way you want wannabe tough guy. You don't worry me one little bit. and yet you make threats of violence. I simply don't believe you I worry quite bit on at least some level You are nothing but a big mouth, morally corrupt child trying to act like a grown up in the real world. You are not even close. Stay home with your parents. If you ever come out and play you will get your arse kicked just for breathing. more threats Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut Markie, I think Dan was just saying that if you had been in the military you would have quickly received a much needed attitude adjustment. he was syaing I would have recieved one he considered neccassry but you, me and Dan also know that what is being bloodlessly described as an "attitude adjustment" is violent assault a Felony in the civilan world and a courtmarial offense in the military Ace - WH2T I would venture to bet, and I'm not a betting man..,.unless it is a sure thing (hi hi), that in ANY GROUP Markie came within ten feet of, and opened his mouth for only ten seconds. It would be a unanimous yes vote. then pay up That was your feeble attempt at Junior High School humor, right? Did you learn that in the line for home economics class? nope It was pointing out the fact you are lying even here in RRAP this vote would not be unanimous vote you are blow hard very brave becuase you know you are basicaly out of reach Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: KY4Z wrote: Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his rights'. not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act No its not I even defend the rights of you and Stevie even Dan when he is right, as vile as you are Anyone notice how he keeps ranting about alleged threats of violence? My opinion of him being a child needs modified. well you have been making threats for days He is a MAMA's BOY. A wimp, A loser, a drop out of life BEFORE he even played the game. Maybe we should leave him alone. He might slap himself with a fly swatter or something. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message gee asserting that one has equal rights in amercia make someone an idiot in your eyes No Markie...just YOU. proving my point. you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal You can't even write a sentence that makes sense. Thus you are impossible to argue with.....because...???.....That's right Markie because you can't be understood. which even if true, doesn't affect the fact I have the same rights as you do But I'll keep trying...I like watching you jump up and down like a Mexican jumping bean... No rime, no reason...just jumping. shows you do not adhere to pricinples of the US Consitituion, or to the rule of law I fought for Constitution of this country. I fought for your RIGHT to show your IGNORANCE on a daily basis. What did you put your life on the line for Markey? Don't bother...I already know. no you don't know clearly. It is quite clear you don't know what the nation is or what it stands for those deny right to other tendto lose them themselves Boy are you out of touch...No surprise there, eh folks? Our so called rights have been going away for a long time now. in part becuase of folks exactly like yourself But that's another subject which I dang sure don't want to get involved in with you. then don't no one is making you Your already too confused about a simple thing as your toe being on fire. my toe is not on fire you sound like a bigot and ahte monger a real asset to the ARS And what have YOU done for Amateur Radio Markie? Just a short list please, because we all know that is all you got.....Oh let me save you the trouble. 1. You passed the simplest test in Amateur Radio, The Technician NO CODE. wrong I did pass too test for it 2. You refuse to learn Morse Code to upgrade. wrong again 3. You have decided to spend most of your time on this group blaming everyone for your inadequencies. never ever done that That about covers the basics. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... I knew Stevie could not keep out something like this for long cut wrong again but then you are almost always wrong it is a violation of a persons civil rights to advocate violence against them Dan has sai plainly that I see that I lack any rights at all, let alone the same as himself both are plainly at varriance with the Constitution of the US Perhaps it would be better if you actually had read the Constitution. It is available on line. I have read it Then go read the First ten Ammendments, usually refered to as the "Bill of Rights". read them too After that you can come back and ammend your statement of what you understand. amend how? you are hate monger you refuse to reconize that I have the same rights as your yourself you advocate crime you threaten physcial violence because I dare disagree with you This could get interesting folks. nah more of the boring **** we see when the porcoders some out to play snip Dan/W4NTI |
Snipped
Now go away and suck your thumb. they you are pusing it I have the same right to be here and post as you do Dan/W4NTI WTF is A_O_F babbling about now? I have rights I have rights I have rights I have rights I have rights BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ace - WH2T |
"an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Snipped This could get interesting folks. nah more of the boring **** we see when the porcoders some out to play snip Dan/W4NTI Well, I guess I'm a "porcoder" and I've "some out to play" LOL Ace - WH2T |
Dr.Ace wrote: Snipped Now go away and suck your thumb. they you are pusing it I have the same right to be here and post as you do Dan/W4NTI WTF is A_O_F babbling about now? I have rights indeed you do have rights as do I I have rights I have rights I have rights I have rights BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Ace - WH2T |
"an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message gee asserting that one has equal rights in amercia make someone an idiot in your eyes No Markie...just YOU. proving my point. you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: KY4Z wrote: Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his rights'. not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. |
Jeff (nospam) wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: KY4Z wrote: Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his rights'. not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. not at all the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced doesn't change the law |
"Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? |
Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC |
an old friend wrote: Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC Wrong, stupid Marky, Thomas Jefferson, one of the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence, WAS a slave-owner. As were many others. It wasn't just written by one person, either, Marky. Rutledge needed the clause to be stricken for economic reasons. The agrarian economy at the time in the South depended upon slaves as a workforce. |
|
an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC Wrong, stupid Marky, Thomas Jefferson, one of the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence, WAS a slave-owner. Inded he was as I said without naming him but of course he was ONE person not "slaveholders" pural you realy should try learning english You are the one that said to this statement: Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? You replied: "no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC" YOU are the one who said the document wasn't written by slaveholders, when anybody with a modicum of education knows differently, Marky. You are the one in desperate need of learning English, child abuser. As were many others. It wasn't just written by one person, either, Marky. the other authors (whose roles were minor) Adams, Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman were not slave holders You are even more stupid then you show on here, Marky, if you think that... Adams and Franklin were not minor roleplayers, either, stupid. Rutledge needed the clause to be stricken for economic reasons. The agrarian economy at the time in the South depended upon slaves as a workforce yes of that was the reason advanced, beat then you are into beating dead horses Wrong stupid, as usual. |
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC Wrong, stupid Marky, Thomas Jefferson, one of the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence, WAS a slave-owner. Inded he was as I said without naming him but of course he was ONE person not "slaveholders" pural you realy should try learning english You are the one that said to this statement: Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? You replied: "no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC" YOU are the one who said the document wasn't written by slaveholders, when anybody with a modicum of education knows differently, Marky. anyone one with a real education knows that it was written by A slave Holder, not by a group of them, but I guess that lets you out You are the one in desperate need of learning English, child abuser. As were many others. It wasn't just written by one person, either, Marky. the other authors (whose roles were minor) Adams, Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman were not slave holders You are even more stupid then you show on here, Marky, if you think that... Adams and Franklin were not minor roleplayers, either, stupid. Minor in American indenpendance no in the writing of the document yes, at Adams is a minor player in that drama according to Adams, Franklin according to Adams and Jefferson, one the few things Adamas and jefferson agred on in later year and none of the other persona mention ( Adams, Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman) were slave holders at all therefore again the document was not written by slaveholders in the pural shocking the lack of education displayed Rutledge needed the clause to be stricken for economic reasons. The agrarian economy at the time in the South depended upon slaves as a workforce yes of that was the reason advanced, beat then you are into beating dead horses Wrong stupid, as usual. I am right on target |
"an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Jeff (nospam) wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Cmd Buzz Corey wrote: KY4Z wrote: Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end". There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution. Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his rights'. not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. not at all the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced doesn't change the law Dag Nab it Jeff...you wound up Markie again. Now he has switched to his lawyer robes and white wig. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dr.Ace" wrote in message ... "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Snipped This could get interesting folks. nah more of the boring **** we see when the porcoders some out to play snip Dan/W4NTI Well, I guess I'm a "porcoder" and I've "some out to play" LOL Ace - WH2T A "porcoder"......is that like a dish of porridge? Where Goldie Locks steals it from baby bear? Dan/W4NTI |
Gutless puke didn't even answer the question. Course I knew he wouldn't.
Dan/W4NTI "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message gee asserting that one has equal rights in amercia make someone an idiot in your eyes No Markie...just YOU. proving my point. you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal You dont seem to get it Markie.....Im not saying you have no rights because the Constitution says so (you claim). Actually it is the Bill of Rights. I object to you being equal in that you "claim" to be a man. Based on you actions here I despute you are indeed a man. You can't even write a sentence that makes sense. Thus you are impossible to argue with.....because...???.....That's right Markie because you can't be understood. which even if true, doesn't affect the fact I have the same rights as you do But I'll keep trying...I like watching you jump up and down like a Mexican jumping bean... No rime, no reason...just jumping. shows you do not adhere to pricinples of the US Consitituion, or to the rule of law I fought for Constitution of this country. I fought for your RIGHT to show your IGNORANCE on a daily basis. What did you put your life on the line for Markey? Don't bother...I already know. no you don't know clearly. It is quite clear you don't know what the nation is or what it stands for those deny right to other tendto lose them themselves Boy are you out of touch...No surprise there, eh folks? Our so called rights have been going away for a long time now. in part becuase of folks exactly like yourself But that's another subject which I dang sure don't want to get involved in with you. then don't no one is making you Your already too confused about a simple thing as your toe being on fire. my toe is not on fire you sound like a bigot and ahte monger a real asset to the ARS And what have YOU done for Amateur Radio Markie? Just a short list please, because we all know that is all you got.....Oh let me save you the trouble. 1. You passed the simplest test in Amateur Radio, The Technician NO CODE. wrong I did pass too test for it 2. You refuse to learn Morse Code to upgrade. wrong again 3. You have decided to spend most of your time on this group blaming everyone for your inadequencies. never ever done that That about covers the basics. Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... shocking the lack of education displayed And that lack wouldn't be so obvious if you had a spell-checker. |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA The premise is stated in the DoI, not the Constitution. But I can see all too clearly that this cause is lost. no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of Pedantic nonsense aside, my point, not that it's original with me, still stands. |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... you realy should try learning english Oh Lord. |
"Honus" wrote in message news:LQY2f.25226$3w.20208@trnddc07... "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... you realy should try learning english Oh Lord. Has any one else noticed that all Markie does is copy the opponents argument? Even to the exact words. Dan/W4NTI |
"an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. not at all the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced doesn't change the law ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened' to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could threaten people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of threat dont mean squat and never has. J |
"Jeff" wrote in message news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71... Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened' to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could threaten people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of threat dont mean squat and never has. Lord, I just can't help myself. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461 Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true threat". Therein lie your answers. ;) |
"Honus" wrote in message news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06... Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true threat". Therein lie your answers. ;) Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did you guys any favors. ;) http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556 |
Jeff (nospam) wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. not at all the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced doesn't change the law ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened' to do something and got charged. happens all the time mostly in mob cases and there are people still in jail for merely threatening reagan as a joke people were arested for threatening Mrs Bush on the campiagn trail The legal system hasnt gone to hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. guess you have never read the hate crimes laws in the nation I could threaten people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of threat dont mean squat and never has. J |
Honus wrote: "Honus" wrote in message news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06... Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true threat". Therein lie your answers. ;) Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did you guys any favors. ;) I can't promise to never say it (I can be forgetfull) but if I should do so in the future do remind me and I promise to apologize sir http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556 form the above link quote On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true threat. The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm." [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1074, 1088.] The test is an objective one; the defendant does not have to actually intend to, or be able to, carry out the threat. [Id. at 1076.] In the Planned Parenthood case, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable for ACLA members to foresee that the named abortion providers would interpret the posters and Web site postings as a serious expression of ACLA members' intent to harm them. unquote |
an old friend wrote: Jeff (nospam) wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message ups.com... not at all but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country would be locked up. not at all the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced doesn't change the law ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened' to do something and got charged. happens all the time mostly in mob cases You watch too much TV, Marky. and there are people still in jail for merely threatening reagan as a joke people were arested for threatening Mrs Bush on the campiagn trail Marky the imbecile always gets it wrong. The legal system hasnt gone to hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. guess you have never read the hate crimes laws in the nation It's obvious you can't read, period. |
an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: Honus wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message news:TyF2f.418739$x96.87311@attbi_s72... "an old friend" wrote in message you don't respect the constitution premise that All men are created equal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Only under the eyes of the law..... You're both wrong; shame on you. It's the Declaration of Independence, and it's predicated on the belief that government serves only to secure the rights that we're all born with. it is in the principle on which the constitution and its framer built the govt of the USA To whit: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- " Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC Wrong, stupid Marky, Thomas Jefferson, one of the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence, WAS a slave-owner. Inded he was as I said without naming him but of course he was ONE person not "slaveholders" pural you realy should try learning english You are the one that said to this statement: Of course, that document was written by slaveholders...so much for -that-, eh? You replied: "no it wasn't but slaveholders were included in the Contienal Congress It was written a by a Slave holder who did include an anti slavery clause, stricken at the last minute at the insistance of Mr Rutlegde of SC" YOU are the one who said the document wasn't written by slaveholders, when anybody with a modicum of education knows differently, Marky. anyone one with a real education knows that it was written by A slave Holder, not by a group of them, but I guess that lets you out Yet, YOU are the one who said it wasn't, not anybody else, Marky. And trying to use my exact same argument back to me is lame, but you are a world class fool. You are the one in desperate need of learning English, child abuser. As were many others. It wasn't just written by one person, either, Marky. the other authors (whose roles were minor) Adams, Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman were not slave holders You are even more stupid then you show on here, Marky, if you think that... Adams and Franklin were not minor roleplayers, either, stupid. Minor in American indenpendance no in the writing of the document yes, No, stupid. You are wrong, as usual. at Adams is a minor player in that drama according to Adams, Franklin according to Adams and Jefferson, one the few things Adamas and jefferson agred on in later year You are really ****ing stupid, Marky. You need to go back to school, also. and none of the other persona mention ( Adams, Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman) were slave holders at all therefore again the document was not written by slaveholders in the pural God are you stupid, Marky. What about the authors of the document from all the Southern Colonies which later became states? shocking the lack of education displayed Oh, the irony, Marky. Rutledge needed the clause to be stricken for economic reasons. The agrarian economy at the time in the South depended upon slaves as a workforce yes of that was the reason advanced, beat then you are into beating dead horses Wrong stupid, as usual. I am right on target No, stupid, you missed by a parsec. |
"Honus" wrote in message news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06... "Jeff" wrote in message news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71... Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened' to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could threaten people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of threat dont mean squat and never has. Lord, I just can't help myself. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes I should have prefaced my statement by "except" the president, etc. I was talking private citzen to private citizen. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com