(OT) Just a lot of misguided hick goobers!!
 

T. Early wrote:


Hey, forget the repartee.

I haven't even had a 'partee', so it's tough doing the 're'


We're all waiting for you to produce more
"authentic" pictures of this stuff. Surely one of your loony left
websites has been able to "discover" some by now.

I have no loony left websites. As far as I know, web sites are apolitical.

On a more serious note, I'd like your opinion. For the sake of argument,
say there ARE a lot more bits of evidence showing really horrible acts.
Do you fell it right or wrong *if* the evidence is covered up or slowed
down in release to limit damage to GW in an election year?



mike

= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:HAnKc.43158$2i3.6401@clgrps12...
T. Early wrote:

Hey, forget the repartee.

I haven't even had a 'partee', so it's tough doing the 're'

We're all waiting for you to produce more
"authentic" pictures of this stuff. Surely one of your loony left
websites has been able to "discover" some by now.

I have no loony left websites. As far as I know, web sites are apolitical.

On a more serious note, I'd like your opinion. For the sake of argument,
say there ARE a lot more bits of evidence showing really horrible acts.
Do you fell it right or wrong *if* the evidence is covered up or slowed
down in release to limit damage to GW in an election year?

mike

MII,

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

~ RHF

..

"m II" wrote in message
news:HAnKc.43158$2i3.6401@clgrps12...
As far as I know, web sites are apolitical.


When were you born? Yesterday?

''Liberal Media Elite''???

Where do you get this ****?

On 18 Jul 2004 02:56:38 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

~ RHF

.

CW wrote:
"m II" wrote in message
news:HAnKc.43158$2i3.6401@clgrps12...
As far as I know, web sites are apolitical.


When were you born? Yesterday?



I wish I had been.

Objects in and of themselves have no political leanings. Their
owners/authors may have, though. I should have been more precise, I'm sorry.


mike

RHF wrote:

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by
EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why
doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the
slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp?

News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may
well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with.
Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington
and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things
beyond belief.



mike

"David" wrote in message
...
''Liberal Media Elite''???

Where do you get this ****?

On 18 Jul 2004 02:56:38 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

~ RHF

.

You're right, David -- you're liberal (hell, you've even mentioned you're a
Marxist and an "anarchist" in this group), but you're far too big a dummy to
ever be considered elite.

-- Stinger

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:38:08 GMT, m II
wrote:
Did the pumping private have a picture of GW taped to the back of the
victim? Many of the US armed forces get erections when they see him.

It *is* an erections year.

dxAce wrote:

Did the pumping private have a picture of GW taped to the back of the
victim? Many of the US armed forces get erections when they see him.


Much to the chagrin of the Canadian Armed Forces who can't get erections
at all.


So true. They even had to get a 'lift' to Afghanistan. The Canadian
armed forces have been gutted over the years. The income taxes haven't
declined in proportion. I'd set the forces at 100,000 and return to a
strictly peacekeeping role. Being a running dog for the war mongering
Bu****es is no way to conduct one's external affairs.


mike

I don't know anything about Marx (unless you mean Julius Marx). I do
enjoy thinking like an anarchist libertarian from time to time; I was
fired from Pacifica for being too right wing.

I actually think I am opposed to the prevailing power structure.
Therefore, if the Nazis are in charge, I must be a liberal (subject to
change).

''1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM
the elite of the entertainment world b singular or plural in
construction : the best of a class superachievers who dominate the
computer elite -- Marilyn Chase c singular or plural in construction
: the socially superior part of society how the elite live -- A P
World how the F.-speaking elite ... was changing -- Economist d : a
group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much
power or influence members of the ruling elite the intellectual
elites of the country e : a member of such an elite -- usually used
in plural the elites ..., pursuing their studies in Europe -- Robert
Wernick''
--m-w dot com


On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:11:40 -0500, "Stinger"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
''Liberal Media Elite''???

Where do you get this ****?

On 18 Jul 2004 02:56:38 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

~ RHF

.

You're right, David -- you're liberal (hell, you've even mentioned you're a
Marxist and an "anarchist" in this group), but you're far too big a dummy to
ever be considered elite.

-- Stinger

= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13...
RHF wrote:

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by
EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why
doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the
slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp?

News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may
well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with.
Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington
and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things
beyond belief.

mike

MII,

The original reason for withholding the information (pictures
and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full
investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few
specific individual members of the military who committed
these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . .
BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion.

MII - You do believe in Due Process ?
US Constitution Amendments 5 & 14
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxiv.html
International Due Process and more...
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...ess%20of%20Law

~ RHF
..

"RHF" wrote in message
om...
= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13...
RHF wrote:

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by
EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why
doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the
slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp?

News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may
well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with.
Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington
and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things
beyond belief.

mike

MII,

The original reason for withholding the information (pictures
and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full
investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few
specific individual members of the military who committed
these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . .
BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion.

The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars...

= = = "Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
= = = ...
"RHF" wrote in message
om...
= = = m II wrote in message
= = = news:VNxKc.45988$iw3.36886@clgrps13...
RHF wrote:

Actually the 'logic' goes just the opposite. Instead of getting
all the Bad News out "Now" and putting it in the past. The Liberal
Media Elite are slowly letting it out a few photos at a time up
to the day of the election; in order to try and influence the
outcome of the election day-by-day; week-by-week; month-by-month
{against President George "W" Bush} for John 'ff' Kerry and the
Democrats.

How is it possible that news/information can be manipulated this way by
EITHER side? If it's there, it should be out in it's entirety. Why
doesn't the Bush side release everything in one go then, to stop the
slow 'leaks' by the opposing camp?

News is meant to be heard, not played with for political gain. That may
well be why a lot of folks started listening to shortwave to begin with.
Even as a kid I thought the truth lay somewhere between what Washington
and the Kremlin said...mind you, sometimes they BOTH stretched things
beyond belief.

mike

MII,

The original reason for withholding the information (pictures
and images) was to allow the US Military to conduct an full
investigation and charge and judge under the UCMJ. These few
specific individual members of the military who committed
these crimes do have the 'right' to due process . . .
BEFORE - They were Tried in the Court of Public Opinion.

The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be burglars...

BAD,

Oh Contraire... They Are Clearly Very Successful Burglars :o)

jftfoi ~ RHF

..

20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond.
That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name
before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty"
is just a saying, it has no basis in fact. If it were true, why is it that,
if a jury can't decide if you are guilty or not (hung jury), they can try
you again? If "innocent until proven guilty", their inability to prove your
guilt should default to a not guilty verdict, not the legal equivalent of a
"do over".

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...
The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go
together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you
on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as
one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a
high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive
bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be
burglars...

CW wrote:

20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond.
That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name
before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty"
is just a saying, it has no basis in fact.

(snipped)

I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of
Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest
you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence.

Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are
available under Napoleanic law.

I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE
jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in
communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis.

May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html

For the 'bent' URL crowd:

http://tinyurl.com/4zphx



mike

Idiot.
"m II" wrote in message
news:x%ELc.46612$2i3.38839@clgrps12...
(snipped)

I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of
Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest
you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence.

Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are
available under Napoleanic law.

I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE
jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in
communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis.

May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html

For the 'bent' URL crowd:

http://tinyurl.com/4zphx



mike

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Idiot.

Which one you refering to?

M II.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Idiot.

Which one you refering to?

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...


The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go
together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree.


Jurors come from the public and they come to court with their own opinions.
It's hoped that they will be able to take in the evidence and the opinions
of each other. The system works about as well as can be expected. However,
there might be some justice in banning known Usenet Loons from juries.


I will, however, agree with you on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as
one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law.

That wasn't considered a problem when the Federal and State Constitutions
were written. Communities were smaller and more tight knit back then. I'm
sure everyone had a pretty good idea who had been arrested, and for what.
And the juries came out of these local communities.


Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive
bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be
burglars...

Maybe he wasn't a burgler.. he hadn't been convicted of anything at the
time. Bail should be set in proportion to the chance of flight risk.

If the accused burgler couldn't put up the entire 20,000, he almost
certainly had the option of getting the money from a bail bondsman at 10%.

Frank Dresser