David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p

David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.

The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.

Huh?

You and your ilk would scream bloody murder if those folks were put in 'the hot
seat'.

Damn you're a 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:56:03 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p


Again, you believe the party line, which is total misinformation. The
Bin Ladins, the Bushes and the Saudis are all working together to
****-over us little people. NWO.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...359690,00.html

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:27:48 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.

The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.

Huh?

You and your ilk would scream bloody murder if those folks were put in 'the hot
seat'.

Damn you're a 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

WTF is an ''ilk'' and why do you think I have one?

Some folks are smart enough to not have home internet access.I know
quite a few of them,and they all seem to be very happy without the
hassels and confusions of messing around with computers.
cuhulin

David wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:56:03 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:


David wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:10:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Huh!?

You said it was General Wes Clarke.



Yes, I did, and you corrected that. That was part of my point.




The point you neatly turned away from is that these people were
allowed to flee without being put in the hot seat.



No, in fact, I addressed that at the outset. I said, for those who
haven't been paying attention, that they had been fully vetted,
personally so, by Mr Clarke, within the established protocols. Which you
confirmed and underscored. Thank you.

The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


p



Again, you believe the party line, which is total misinformation. The
Bin Ladins, the Bushes and the Saudis are all working together to
****-over us little people. NWO.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...359690,00.html






Ah, yes. The gratuitous oversimplified accusation. Which, by the
rules of logic, may be gratuitously denied.


And so it has.


It's been fun, David. But since you not only know, and understand,
the truth, certainly enough to argue both sides as you have so far here
today, I'll take leave of you now, as my participation in the discussion
is clearly unnecessary.

Have a good day, David.

Look forward to conversing with you again, when the mood strikes.

D Peter Maus wrote:


The point that's never addressed in this matter, one that YOU
conveniently turn away from, is that the bin Ladens have openly and
sharply condemned Slammin' Sammy over the years, for his politics, the
corruption of his religion, and his activities. They had put as much
distance between themselves Osama as they could. They were not here in
secrecy. They were not here subversively. They were here openly and
legally, in peace. Even after Slammin' Sammy's previous attacks on US
property and citizenry, including the US Embassy's, the nightclub in
Germany, the Cole and the first Trade Center attack. Once vetted by the
Federal Authorities, there was little to keep them here, especially in
light of the white heat directed toward Muslims of Middle Eastern
descent at the time.

If there had been the slightest suspicion about the bin Ladens, they
wouldn't have been let on the plane.

So, no, I didn't turn away from that fact. It was part of my original
statement. But since you require...I hope spelling it out for you has
now made my position clear.

And thanks, again, for your help in making my point. That kind of
civility and assistance is rare in USENet dealings.


Oh, give *up*, Peter, you are arguing with a turnip.

....his plug should have been pulled before Terry Schiavo's... talk
about "fixed and unresponsive..."

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:20:40 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

It's been fun, David. But since you not only know, and understand,
the truth, certainly enough to argue both sides as you have so far here
today, I'll take leave of you now, as my participation in the discussion
is clearly unnecessary.

Have a good day, David.

Look forward to conversing with you again, when the mood strikes.


Not arguing anything. Just telling it as I see it. Later.

-=jd=- wrote:

On Mon 18 Jul 2005 09:03:12a, David wrote in message
:

On 18 Jul 2005 02:54:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Sun 17 Jul 2005 07:29:00p, D Peter Maus
wrote in message
:

David wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:01:05 -0500, "Brian Hill"
wrote:


lol! I really touched a nerve today. It sure feels good to give you
liberal wack jobs a taste of your own medicine. Now I can sleep well.
:)

P.S. Hey Greg! Don't forget to check my spelling and make sure Dave
clips his toe nails before you guys jump into bed together. LOL!!!!!

B.H.



Liberal? Bill Cooper was my hero.





Now, had you said Lt Col. Jeff Cooper, you'd have been on to
something.



rickets is incapable of appreciating the full meaning of "knee-deep-in-
brass-and-still-shooting-fast". Though, I imagine that right about the
time his beloved terrorists were drawing the knife across the first 1/4"
of his own throat, he might experience an epiphany (and some regret).
I'm pretty sure that's about what it would take. He's made it painfully
clear that he has no concern for anyone else's throat.

-=jd=-

**** you, Rambo.


I've got you pegged! LOL! The truth hurts, doesn't it? Not only do you
refuse to stand up for yourself, you can't tolerate the thought of anyone
else standing up for you either. You posture as if only you know true
liberty with your plagiarized rhetoric; yet you have proven that you would
be among the first to cut and run, or roll-over and submit. The only tough
talking you can muster is to spit at those who would fight on your behalf.
How utterly, nauseatingly, pathetic. When cornered and bereft of stolen
propaganda to banty about, the absolute best you can come up with is the
lame, tired, worn-out profanity preceding this paragraph? Oh, you can
always be counted on for a chuckle! It must absolutely *suck* for you to
have to wake up each morning and look at yourself in the mirror.

....and realise he's still retarded.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

m II wrote:


dxAce wrote:


LMAO at the drug addled 'tard boy!

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore, stayin' a bore.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a bore.


Still hung up on the Bee Gee's? OK:

Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, stayin a 'tard.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' a 'tard, M II's stayin a 'tard.



it's too hard to come up with your own stuff, isn't it?..yawnnnn..





mike