"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote If she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought to get the sentence that Kobe would have gotten.

Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama told him
how to get away with it.
If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" or blackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned by polite society.

Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is getting
plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood.
See? There's a silver lining in every cloud of adversity.

Chas

Chas wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wroteIf she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought to getthe sentence that Kobe would have gotten. Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama told him how to get away with it.

That would have what to do with her crime of filing false accusations?

Are you saying that because she's a woman you would let her walk away
without punishment for her crime?
If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" orblackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned bypolite society. Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is getting plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood. See? There's a silver lining in every cloud of adversity. Chas


Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain.


Bob

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:30:08 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Chas wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wroteIf she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought to getthe sentence that Kobe would have gotten. Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama told him how to get away with it.That would have what to do with her crime of filing false accusations?Are you saying that because she's a woman you would let her walk awaywithout punishment for her crime?If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" orblackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned bypolite society. Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is getting plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood. See? There's a silver lining in every cloud of adversity. ChasClassic: Woman=victim, man=villain.Bob

If she is telling the truth, then she is the victim.

A more accurate statement then the idiocy that you wrote would be

Raped woman=victim, man who raped=villain.

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote That's right, she's a poor innocent little woman who just happened to be walking up to a man's hotel room at midnight to have a few drinks. She had no idea what women do in men's hotel rooms at midnight. She's a "victim" after all.

Perhaps she believed all the hype about how moral he was and trusted that a
fine upstanding model for the community was not a threat to rape her.
After all, that *was* the public perception, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?

--
Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:05:10 +0000, stargazer wrote:

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F429D5A.6080900@hotmail.com... Marcus Kwan wrote: On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:30:08 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Chas wrote:>>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote>>>>>>>If she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought>>>to get>>>the sentence that Kobe would have gotten.>>>>>>Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama>>told him>>how to get away with it.>>That would have what to do with her crime of filing false>accusations?>>Are you saying that because she's a woman you would let her walk away>without punishment for her crime?>>>>>If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" or>>>blackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned by>>>polite society.>>>>>>Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is>>getting plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood. See? There's>>a silver lining in every cloud of adversity. Chas>>>Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain.>>>Bob>> If she is telling the truth, then she is the victim. A more accurate statement then the idiocy that you wrote would be Raped woman=victim, man who raped=villain. That's right, she's a poor innocent little woman who just happened to be walking up to a man's hotel room at midnight She was a hotel employee, giving a guest a tour of the facilities.

Bull****. The defense attorny has evidence that her shift was over and she
was clocked out.
I don't know about you, but the last time I stayed at an Inn, I was also given a tour of the facilities, directed to where the steam rooms and sauna were located, the work out rooms and gym, etc. And when we arrived at my room, the 'hotel employee' showed me inside, and pointed out certain things about the room, asked if there was anything else I'd like to have, extra toiletries, extra towels, etc. For all you know, she may have simply been doing the job she was hired to do. Show guests around the Inn.
So i guess while she was showing guests around the INN and giving this
"tour" she told the guests to wait a moment because she had to go into
Koby's room and get raped at midnight?

heh..

~wd

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.19.22.30.21.622532@localhost.loca ldomain... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:05:10 +0000, stargazer wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F429D5A.6080900@hotmail.com... Marcus Kwan wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:30:08 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >>Chas wrote: >> >>>"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote >>> >>> >>>>If she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought >>>>to get >>>>the sentence that Kobe would have gotten. >>> >>> >>>Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama >>>told him >>>how to get away with it. >> >>That would have what to do with her crime of filing false >>accusations? >> >>Are you saying that because she's a woman you would let her walk away >>without punishment for her crime? >> >> >>>>If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" or >>>>blackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned by >>>>polite society. >>> >>> >>>Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is >>>getting plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood. See? There's >>>a silver lining in every cloud of adversity. Chas >> >> >>Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain. >> >> >>Bob >> >> > > If she is telling the truth, then she is the victim. > > A more accurate statement then the idiocy that you wrote would be > > Raped woman=victim, man who raped=villain. > > That's right, she's a poor innocent little woman who just happened to be walking up to a man's hotel room at midnight She was a hotel employee, giving a guest a tour of the facilities. Bull****. The defense attorny has evidence that her shift was over and she was clocked out.


Cite?
I don't know about you, but the last time I stayed at an Inn, I was also given a tour of the facilities, directed to where the steam rooms and sauna were located, the work out rooms and gym, etc. And when we arrived at my room, the 'hotel employee' showed me inside, and pointed out certain things about the room, asked if there was anything else I'd like to have, extra toiletries, extra towels, etc. For all you know, she may have simply been doing the job she was hired to do. Show guests around the Inn. So i guess while she was showing guests around the INN and giving this "tour" she told the guests to wait a moment because she had to go into Koby's room and get raped at midnight? heh..


Cite? Everyone agrees she was home before midnight.

sg

~wd

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F4296E0.8020207@hotmail.com... Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain. Bob

Bob's classic: Man = victim, Woman = villain

You figure half one way & half the other way & you end up with an
equally balanced equation. Try to get that in your brain, Bob.
JJ

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:16:24 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote In the first reports, her last words before going upstairs was that she 'had one more errand to do'. No, the first reports said she was off duty and ran an errand for a co-worker. ok- still not unusual for a concierge.

Well, thats what i thought too. Until i found out that the errand was for
someone under her. Which is still no big deal. Until you realize that
status is very important to teens. So for her to be seen doing the job of
someone under her would have been taboo, because it is a status thing.

How did she go from a tour of the spa to inside his bedroom? The tour happened as he checked in- she went to his room some time later; more than an hour, ims.

Thats funny, the story i read said they had seen each other earlier during the
day. But even if you are correct, what is she doing going back to a
married mans bedroom more then an hour latter and suposedly when she was
off duty?

~wd

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:23:42 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote If she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought to get the sentence that Kobe would have gotten.Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama told himhow to get away with it. If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" or blackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned by polite society.Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is gettingplugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood.See? There's a silver lining in every cloud of adversity.Chas

Hey Bob! How about explaining to everyone that if Miss Faber is
telling the truth and was indeed raped by Mr. Bryant, how that makes
her
A) a tramp tease

B) a player

C) a blackmailer

Now, somehow I'm sure in that tiny malfunctioning defective organ you
proudly proclaim as your brain, you have applied what you consider
logic to come up with your opinion. Let's hear it.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:30:08 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Chas wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wroteIf she can't prove it she's guilty of false accusations and ought to getthe sentence that Kobe would have gotten. Nah; he should be happy to beat the rap, and proud that his mama told him how to get away with it.That would have what to do with her crime of filing false accusations?

Why would the fact that the State fails to get a conviction mean she
was lying or filed a false report?Are you saying that because she's a woman you would let her walk awaywithout punishment for her crime?

Prove there is was crime. Because a jury isn't convinced doesn't mean
it didn't happen as she said. And before you start stammering and over
taxing the little brain of yours I'll just say one last thing. O.J.
SIMPSON.If she's telling the truth then she's a tramp tease, "player" orblackmailer who ought to get a very hard spanking and be shunned bypolite society. Or a victim that will take solace in the fact that the guy is getting plugged at both ends by the Aryan Brotherhood. See? There's a silver lining in every cloud of adversity. ChasClassic: Woman=victim, man=villain.Bob

> > "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F4296E0.8020207@hotmail.com...Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain.Bob
JJ wrote: Bob's classic: Man = victim, Woman = villain You figure half one way & half the other way & you end up with an equally balanced equation. Try to get that in your brain, Bob.

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bhua5f$ghk$1@stan.redhat.com...
That's what we've always said. But show me a feminist who says
that.

Are you including Bob in your "we've"? I can't say I've heard those
words come from his mouth.
What's the word for the opposite of a feminist....Bob? heh
JJ

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.19.22.54.15.895496@localhost.loca ldomain... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:43:09 +0000, Chas wrote: "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote Bull****. The defense attorny has evidence that her shift was over and
she was clocked out. In the first reports, her last words before going upstairs was that she
'had one more errand to do'. Not at all unusual for a concierge in a good hotel, much less a spa
wherein the patron expects attentive service for $750 @ night. No, the first reports said she was off duty and ran an errand for a co-worker. So i guess while she was showing guests around the INN and giving this "tour" she told the guests to wait a moment because she had to go into Koby's room and get raped at midnight? It was a tour of the spa for a celebrity guest- who, if all accounts
were to be believed, was a model of moral rectitude and rigorous integrity. Perhaps she trusted his public image as a Family man with a religious orientation who could be trusted to act in an honorable manner. That *was* his image, wasn't it? Chas Perhaps? How did she go from a tour of the spa to inside his bedroom? And thats *IF* the tour ever happened at that time of night. ~wd


That's your speculation and nothing more. I'm guessing her asking him to
leave the room, promising to be back in 20 minutes, was to 'clock out'. Why
else would she ask to leave the room for 20 minutes, and he'd agree to it.
You know nothing more than speculation. Even the defense has agreed Bryant
checked into the Inn sometime between 10:15 and 10:40 and the girl was home
before midnight, so your schedule of events doesn't jibe.

sg

JJ wrote:"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:3F4296E0.8020207@hotmail.com...>Classic: Woman=victim, man=villain.>>>Bob JJ wrote:Bob's classic: Man = victim, Woman = villainYou figure half one way & half the other way & you end up with anequally balanced equation. Try to get that in your brain, Bob. "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message news:bhua5f$ghk$1@stan.redhat.com...That's what we've always said. But show me a feminist who says that. Are you including Bob in your "we've"?

Thanks for mentioning Bob. He is, of course, the person you are
trying to portray as the "norm" for soc.men. That's a crock.
Bob is a law unto himself, so far outside the norm he can't
even see it.

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote You keep saying "She could have been", or "She very well could have", or "she could have seen"

The accusations of her being a tramp groupie are rank speculation- the
questions raised about her intentions and motivations for her actions are
rank speculation.
There is enough rank speculation to go around.
Having worked hotel security around a lot of celebrities, I know there are
alternate explanations that non-service persons might not consider.
Celebrities expect full service, twenty-four hours a day; and they get it if
the General Manager has to grill cheese sandwiches at 3:15 in the morning.
You seem to want him to be guilty.

I'm not partisan for accused rapists, by and large.
If the stat for 'false accusations' is 10%, that's a 9 out of 10 probability
that she's telling the truth.
I don't care about his sports prowess, so there's little reason for me to
worry about whether he's going to play for the next decade or not.
I do have a certain bias, having known women raped by athletes in somewhat
comparable circumstances- it's just not an inconceivable scenario to me for
Bryant to be exactly as she complains in the charges (assaultive or
whatever).

Chas

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:03:56 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote You keep saying "She could have been", or "She very well could have", or "she could have seen" The accusations of her being a tramp groupie are rank speculation- the questions raised about her intentions and motivations for her actions are rank speculation.

Not so. Her own frinds have said she was braging at a party about sleeping
with him and the size of his manhood. Girls like that use to be calles
sluts, or easy and loose. So calling her a "groupie" is not put of line.

There is enough rank speculation to go around. Having worked hotel security around a lot of celebrities, I know there are alternate explanations that non-service persons might not consider. Celebrities expect full service, twenty-four hours a day; and they get it if the General Manager has to grill cheese sandwiches at 3:15 in the
morning.

Thats usenet for ya. Everyone has been an expert or worked in the field of
whatever subject is being discussed.

You seem to want him to be guilty. I'm not partisan for accused rapists, by and large. If the stat for 'false accusations' is 10%, that's a 9 out of 10 probability that she's telling the truth.

You have been conditioned to believe that 9/10 women tell the truth. There
have been states posted to the contrary.
I don't care about his sports prowess, so there's little reason for me to worry about whether he's going to play for the next decade or not.

I did not know who Koby was until this news story surfaced.
So what?

I do have a certain bias, having known women raped by athletes in somewhat comparable circumstances- it's just not an inconceivable scenario to me for Bryant to be exactly as she complains in the charges (assaultive or whatever).

Gee, i guess she never read or heard about those complaints like you have.

So her story just cant be made up right?

~wd

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:21:09 +0000, stargazer wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.19.22.54.15.895496@localhost.loca ldomain... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:43:09 +0000, Chas wrote: "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote> Bull****. The defense attorny has evidence that her shift was over and she> was clocked out. In the first reports, her last words before going upstairs was that she 'had one more errand to do'. Not at all unusual for a concierge in a good hotel, much less a spa wherein the patron expects attentive service for $750 @ night. No, the first reports said she was off duty and ran an errand for a co-worker.> So i guess while she was showing guests around the INN and giving this> "tour" she told the guests to wait a moment because she had to go into> Koby's room and get raped at midnight? It was a tour of the spa for a celebrity guest- who, if all accounts were to be believed, was a model of moral rectitude and rigorous integrity. Perhaps she trusted his public image as a Family man with a religious orientation who could be trusted to act in an honorable manner. That *was* his image, wasn't it? Chas Perhaps? How did she go from a tour of the spa to inside his bedroom? And thats *IF* the tour ever happened at that time of night. ~wd That's your speculation and nothing more. I'm guessing her asking him to leave the room, promising to be back in 20 minutes, was to 'clock out'. Why else would she ask to leave the room for 20 minutes, and he'd agree to it. You know nothing more than speculation. Even the defense has agreed Bryant checked into the Inn sometime between 10:15 and 10:40 and the girl was home before midnight, so your schedule of events doesn't jibe.

The only one doing speculation is you.

sg

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote The accusations of her being a tramp groupie are rank speculation- the questions raised about her intentions and motivations for her actions
are rank speculation. Not so. Her own frinds have said she was braging at a party about sleeping with him and the size of his manhood. Girls like that use to be calles sluts, or easy and loose. So calling her a "groupie" is not put of line.

On the one hand, she's bright and cunning enough to formulate a plan against
Bryant- in spite of his clean-cut image. On the other hand, she's dumb
enough to charge rape and then go tell another story?
Please.
Thats usenet for ya. Everyone has been an expert or worked in the field of whatever subject is being discussed.

Sure; think of the numbers of guys around here who *didn't* work in that
field.
But, it's worldwide- and I just happen to know more than somewhat about it.
You have been conditioned to believe that 9/10 women tell the truth. There have been states posted to the contrary.

Ok-
8 to 1?
5 to 1?
3 to 1?
Even money?
Gee, i guess she never read or heard about those complaints like you have.

Yeah; she's obviously a crafty oneduh.
So her story just cant be made up right?

Get somebody to hold your hand and dry your little tears; Buck up, Little
Buckaroo!
There is hope for the season; yeah, it is remotely possible as regarded
against the entire tapestry of the human condition in it's infinite
diversity and variety and the whole scope of history; yup, could be.
Sure, little buddy.

Uncle Chas

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:18:32 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:03:56 +0000, Chas wrote: "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote You keep saying "She could have been", or "She very well could have", or "she could have seen" The accusations of her being a tramp groupie are rank speculation- the questions raised about her intentions and motivations for her actions are rank speculation.Not so. Her own frinds have said she was braging at a party about sleepingwith him and the size of his manhood. Girls like that use to be callessluts, or easy and loose. So calling her a "groupie" is not put of line.

Wrong again moron, her own friends have not said that. In fact they've
disputed that since it was first said. There is enough rank speculation to go around. Having worked hotel security around a lot of celebrities, I know there are alternate explanations that non-service persons might not consider. Celebrities expect full service, twenty-four hours a day; and they get it if the General Manager has to grill cheese sandwiches at 3:15 in themorning.Thats usenet for ya. Everyone has been an expert or worked in the field ofwhatever subject is being discussed.

Then there are others like yourself, that have only excelled in being
stupid. You seem to want him to be guilty. I'm not partisan for accused rapists, by and large. If the stat for 'false accusations' is 10%, that's a 9 out of 10 probability that she's telling the truth.You have been conditioned to believe that 9/10 women tell the truth. Therehave been states posted to the contrary.

Really which states are those? Arizona, New Mexico, or in your case, a
massive state of confusion? I don't care about his sports prowess, so there's little reason for me to worry about whether he's going to play for the next decade or not.I did not know who Koby was until this news story surfaced.So what?

Wow, here he is one of the biggest sports icons in years, and you've
never heard of him? You have led a sheltered life in the hospital
haven't you. I do have a certain bias, having known women raped by athletes in somewhat comparable circumstances- it's just not an inconceivable scenario to me for Bryant to be exactly as she complains in the charges (assaultive or whatever).Gee, i guess she never read or heard about those complaints like you have.So her story just cant be made up right?

Did she make of the injuries too?~wd

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:19:55 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:21:09 +0000, stargazer wrote: "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.19.22.54.15.895496@localhost.loca ldomain... On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:43:09 +0000, Chas wrote: > "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote >> Bull****. The defense attorny has evidence that her shift was over and she >> was clocked out. > > In the first reports, her last words before going upstairs was that she 'had > one more errand to do'. > Not at all unusual for a concierge in a good hotel, much less a spa wherein > the patron expects attentive service for $750 @ night. No, the first reports said she was off duty and ran an errand for a co-worker. > >> So i guess while she was showing guests around the INN and giving this >> "tour" she told the guests to wait a moment because she had to go into >> Koby's room and get raped at midnight? > > It was a tour of the spa for a celebrity guest- who, if all accounts were to > be believed, was a model of moral rectitude and rigorous integrity. > Perhaps she trusted his public image as a Family man with a religious > orientation who could be trusted to act in an honorable manner. > That *was* his image, wasn't it? > > Chas Perhaps? How did she go from a tour of the spa to inside his bedroom? And thats *IF* the tour ever happened at that time of night. ~wd That's your speculation and nothing more. I'm guessing her asking him to leave the room, promising to be back in 20 minutes, was to 'clock out'. Why else would she ask to leave the room for 20 minutes, and he'd agree to it. You know nothing more than speculation. Even the defense has agreed Bryant checked into the Inn sometime between 10:15 and 10:40 and the girl was home before midnight, so your schedule of events doesn't jibe.The only one doing speculation is you.

That's right, you don't speculate, you just outright lie. sg

In article <f1x0b.36$Hf.17@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>, "stargazer"
<stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's right, she's a poor innocent little woman who just happened to be walking up to a man's hotel room at midnight She was a hotel employee, giving a guest a tour of the facilities. I don't know about you, but the last time I stayed at an Inn, I was also given a tour of the facilities, directed to where the steam rooms and sauna were located, the work out rooms and gym, etc. And when we arrived at my room, the 'hotel employee' showed me inside, and pointed out certain things about the room, asked if there was anything else I'd like to have, extra toiletries, extra towels, etc. For all you know, she may have simply been doing the job she was hired to do. Show guests around the Inn. sg


Did she come up off duty later to give you a tour of her crotch?

In article <rfGdnUlE7OHfNd-iXTWJgA@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:

It was a tour of the spa for a celebrity guest- who, if all accounts were to be believed, was a model of moral rectitude and rigorous integrity. Perhaps she trusted his public image as a Family man with a religious orientation who could be trusted to act in an honorable manner. That *was* his image, wasn't it? Chas

She was right. And then she started a-grindin'.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:50:12 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote The accusations of her being a tramp groupie are rank speculation- the questions raised about her intentions and motivations for her actions are rank speculation. Not so. Her own frinds have said she was braging at a party about sleeping with him and the size of his manhood. Girls like that use to be calles sluts, or easy and loose. So calling her a "groupie" is not put of line. On the one hand, she's bright and cunning enough to formulate a plan against Bryant- in spite of his clean-cut image. On the other hand, she's dumb enough to charge rape and then go tell another story? Please.

Obviously, because that is exactly what she did.
Thats usenet for ya. Everyone has been an expert or worked in the field of whatever subject is being discussed. Sure; think of the numbers of guys around here who *didn't* work in that field. But, it's worldwide- and I just happen to know more than somewhat about it. You have been conditioned to believe that 9/10 women tell the truth. There have been states posted to the contrary. Ok- 8 to 1? 5 to 1? 3 to 1? Even money? Gee, i guess she never read or heard about those complaints like you have. Yeah; she's obviously a crafty oneduh. So her story just cant be made up right? Get somebody to hold your hand and dry your little tears; Buck up, Little Buckaroo! There is hope for the season; yeah, it is remotely possible as regarded against the entire tapestry of the human condition in it's infinite diversity and variety and the whole scope of history; yup, could be. Sure, little buddy.

You have a child like mind.

Uncle Chas

JJ wrote:
Are you including Bob in your "we've"?

"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bhulht$gtg$1@stan.redhat.com...
Thanks for mentioning Bob. He is, of course, the person you are trying to portray as the "norm" for soc.men. That's a crock. Bob is a law unto himself, so far outside the norm he can't even see it.

Well, I was responding to Bob about what he had said when you popped
in. I was associating his thoughts with no other in asbbnll,
misc.legal, true-crime, soc.men, nor rec.sport.bbp.
It is good to hear that you don't include yourself in his norm.
JJ

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:02:23 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:
The only one doing speculation is you. That's right, you don't speculate, you just outright lie.

We know who the lier is. You have claimed to be everything from a cop to a
fireman to a day care worker.

wd wrote:
How did he pierce that inage in 10 minutes- *and* formulate a plan to rape a hotel worker


_______when he could have any woman on the planet he wants?


BZZZZZZT! No way in Hadesville!

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:00:54 +0000, Jen Larson wrote:
wd wrote: How did he pierce that image in 10 minutes- *and* formulate a plan to rape a hotel worker _______when he could have any woman on the planet he wants? BZZZZZZT! No way in Hadesville!

Well, almost every women .. lol

~wd

"Chris Smith" <chriso1976@earthlink.net> wrote
......> > It was a tour of the spa for a celebrity guest- who, if all
accounts were to be believed, was a model of moral rectitude and rigorous integrity. Perhaps she trusted his public image as a Family man with a religious orientation who could be trusted to act in an honorable manner. That *was* his image, wasn't it? She was right. And then she started a-grindin'.

So he's just stupid, or what?
Any white girl is worth risking his marriage?
He's been doing this all along and his image is a fraud?
His religion is a sham?
His family commitment is a sham?
What are you saying here?

Chas

Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me. Chas


But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.

Bob

howldog wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:00:54 -0400, Jen Larson <straycat@udel.edu> wrote:
wd wrote:
How did he pierce that inage in 10 minutes- *and* formulate a plan to rape a hotel worker
_______when he could have any woman on the planet he wants?
including you?

No chance in Hadesville.

"no" <no@no.com> wrote Actually I am sure Miss Fabert is a much more decent human being than the pond scum you are, and would not find Kobe's rape satisfying.

Well see; it wasn't all that hard to say something nice about her, for a
change, was it?

Chas

In article <wWWdnUG39PC3f9-iXTWJhw@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
So her story just cant be made up right? Get somebody to hold your hand and dry your little tears; Buck up, Little Buckaroo! There is hope for the season;

I do not think Kobe is going to have a very good season. Having to
worry about spending 20 years in prison has got to screw with him big
time.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:41:38 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.Aw- go lay down and lick your nuts.Chas
That's assuming some woman hasn't already kicked them down his throat.
The way this guy despises women, it's probably happened several times.

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
news:hij7kv4p93ranmj8ktifl81a87frmsd2d3@4ax.com... On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:41:38 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from
you.Aw- go lay down and lick your nuts.Chas That's assuming some woman hasn't already kicked them down his throat. The way this guy despises women, it's probably happened several times.


Actually, I'm thinkin more 'up his ***' ;)

sg

no wrote: In article <nN-dnf0UOp6AAN-iXTWJhA@comcast.com>, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:Oh no; if she's proven in a court of law to have made a malicious fraud uponthe court, flay the *****. Send her to do time where Kobe would have been-underneath all those Aryan Nation guys. If she is lying she still does not deserve to be raped. Damn you are a scumbag.

If she is lying, then she WASN'T raped. But she deserves the same
CHANCE to be raped that she was gonna doom Kobe to.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:
Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me. Chas But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.

And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.

But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets
with a loaded gun? wow! lol
Bob

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:48:45 -0400, "stargazer"
<stargazer@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in messagenews:hij7kv4p93ranmj8ktifl81a87frmsd2d3@4ax .com... On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:41:38 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote> But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict fromyou.Aw- go lay down and lick your nuts.Chas That's assuming some woman hasn't already kicked them down his throat. The way this guy despises women, it's probably happened several times.Actually, I'm thinkin more 'up his ***' ;)sg
Sounds about right.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:31:58 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote: Chas wrote: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me. Chas But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streetswith a loaded gun? wow! lol Bob

No asshole, I'm just a man that respects women. That is something you
obviously never learned.

"Two things only it [the public] desires - bread and circus games."
Juvenal, "Satires"

wd wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:Chas wrote:"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wroteBryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.ChasBut then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you. And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist. But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets with a loaded gun? wow! lol

Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in
the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to
Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.

Bob

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:31:58 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:Chas wrote:>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>ChasBut then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streetswith a loaded gun? wow! lolBob No asshole, I'm just a man that respects women. That is something you obviously never learned.

No. A man who really respects women would treat them with the same level
of maturity, responsibility and ability that men exhibit. You are a
patronizing clown who has no respect for women at all.

Bob

In article <itc7kvoqc6oiqgo1jhe9up2s6rln0n0fkb@4ax.com>, igor eduardo k¸pfer
<strudel@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:08:42 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in <3F439D0A.9000100@hotmail.com>: <snip>In modern feminist law you are right. In Celtic law for many centuriesit was. Sometimes progress is backwards. Modern feminist law isdesigned to persecute and destroy men. Yeah, they sure got us on the run now, eh? I can't even call my secretary a "****" anymore, without some whiny pissant making a fuss.


I bet you did call her a ****, you man, you.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
wd wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:Chas wrote:>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>ChasBut then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you. And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist. But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets with a loaded gun? wow! lolNot surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads inthe feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off toAuchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.Bob
Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug
cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the
IRS can steal you money instead.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:45:49 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:31:58 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>Chas wrote:>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>Chas>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streetswith a loaded gun? wow! lol>Bob No asshole, I'm just a man that respects women. That is something you obviously never learned.No. A man who really respects women would treat them with the same levelof maturity, responsibility and ability that men exhibit. You are apatronizing clown who has no respect for women at all.Bob

If you consider how you and wd act as mature, then you really have a
problem. You both sound like the typical Leykis listener. Total
assholes at best.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:wd wrote:> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads inthe feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off toAuchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.Bob Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the IRS can steal you money instead.In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the sameway prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.
Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.

Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:34:35 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:wd wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>with a loaded gun? wow! lol>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads inthe feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off toAuchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.Bob Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the IRS can steal you money instead.Another goon squad SS trooper on our newsgroup. They have a thousandexcuses for arresting men and sending us off to prison, Auschwitz by anyother name. They are the front line troops who come to a man's door totake his children, to enforce armed robbery, and then they lie that theyare "protecting" us. The most cruel lie of the bunch is "we put ourlives on the line ever day" when their jobs are a lot safer than themunicipal road maintenance crew or any real man's job. A bunch ofwhining feminazi goon squad SS troopers. Pathetic.BTW: The "war on drugs" is another lie of oppression.Bob
Asswipe, there is only reason I need to arrest someone. They're
breaking the law. It's really just that simple, don't break the law
and you have no problem. But I can see from both of your attitudes
that you're the types that will end up in jail just because you need
attitude adjustments. You'll argue over your speed, refuse to the sign
the citation then whine like a baby when you're hooked up and hauled
off to county for the night. I'll bet you're on a first name basis
with the jailers in your town.

Laughing at Bush wrote: KMA you racist bastard.

Is that how they teach you to talk at SS headquarters?

Is that what you're supposed to tell a man before you blow him away?

Bob

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:34:35 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Another goon squad SS trooper on our newsgroup. They have a thousandexcuses for arresting men and sending us off to prison, Auschwitz by anyother name. They are the front line troops who come to a man's door totake his children, to enforce armed robbery, and then they lie that theyare "protecting" us. The most cruel lie of the bunch is "we put ourlives on the line ever day" when their jobs are a lot safer than themunicipal road maintenance crew or any real man's job. A bunch ofwhining feminazi goon squad SS troopers. Pathetic.BTW: The "war on drugs" is another lie of oppression.

Asswipe,

Hey, he knows the SS hate speech. They like to "talk tough" to us
"civilians." I bet you would love to send me off to Auschwitz too
wouldn't you.

there is only reason I need to arrest someone. They're breaking the law. It's really just that simple, don't break the law and you have no problem. But I can see from both of your attitudes that you're the types that will end up in jail just because you need attitude adjustments.

Yep, frame men for "bad attitude." It serves the feminazi goal of
eliminating men. You sorry son of a *****es even believe you're
"protecting" women. Pathetic.
You'll argue over your speed, refuse to the sign the citation then whine like a baby when you're hooked up and hauled off to county for the night.

Armed highway robbery is a stock in trade. Time was when highwaymen
were hanged. Now they split half the stolen loot with the politicians.
Hanging is what they deserve.

I'll bet you're on a first name basis with the jailers in your town.

Whine, whine, while. You SS goon squads are all alike. Your job is to
enforce feminist domination over men. All your stupid lies that you
tell each other don't fly buster.

You need to get a real man's job and get out of the organized crime
business.

Bob

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:00:16 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Laughing at Bush wrote: KMA you racist bastard.Is that how they teach you to talk at SS headquarters?

Having never been there, I wouldn't know. You seem to be the authority
of that white supremacist bull****.Is that what you're supposed to tell a man before you blow him away?

I'll have to check the manual, but I don't think that one made it.Bob

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:36:47 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:25:47 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:57:45 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:45:49 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>Laughing at Bush wrote:>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:31:58 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>> wrote:>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote Bryant's case sounds>>>>>pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from>>>>you.>>>>>>And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the>>>streets with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>> No asshole, I'm just a man that respects women. That is something you>> obviously never learned.>>No. A man who really respects women would treat them with the same level>of maturity, responsibility and ability that men exhibit. You are a>patronizing clown who has no respect for women at all.>>Bob If you consider how you and wd act as mature, then you really have a problem. You both sound like the typical Leykis listener. Total assholes at best.You seem confused. Women want men. Real men. They dont want thesedisposable husbands that can be walked on and, that drool or do dog tricksover their every word. They also don't want tasteless, classless, racist son of a *****es either.If you treat a woman with the respect "she deserves" then you will get thesame respect back (most if not all) of the time. If she dont deserve therespect, find another one that does. If you truly treat her equal, thenshe will become your equal. I can only imagine the women that are attracted to you.You seem to give respect when none has been earned. And you know this how?So, you will be walked on by women your entire life. So when can I expect this to happen. I'm 54 and it's yet to happen to me. Maybe that's because I know how to treat women.HTH young man. KMA you racist bastard.

ha!! I'm the one taking up for the BLACK GUY!!

rofling!!

~wd

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>wd wrote:>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>Bob>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the IRS can steal you money instead.In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the sameway prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's. Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case. Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.

And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will see
a repeal on the war on drugs.

When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote.....There was no excuse at all for a young lady her age to be in a strange black mans bedroom at night.

Are you saying she should have expected to be raped?
Do you mean Bryant is a strange black man; or just a black man who was
strange to her, or just unknown/strange to her?
Are all black men strange- and does that make them someone to be leery of-
for young ladies?
What is it you're saying here?

Chas

"Chris Smith" <chriso1976@earthlink.net> wrote Lol. Rumor has it that his sink had backed up and she offered to come up there to "clean his pipes".

No; rumor has it that she went up there to do her job and he raped her like
an arrogant degenerate.

Chas

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote ha!! I'm the one taking up for the BLACK GUY!!

By saying that any white woman would be in some sort of hazard by going to a
black man's room at night?
That doesn't seem like a defense of the black guy. It seems like an
indictment of the black guy and poking fun at a non-racist white girl for
having anything to do with one.
And it isn't a racist town, because all the townie girls said they'd go to a
strange black man's room at night- no sweat.
You're the racist- and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Your hatred for
women and love for men who play basketball has skewed your thinking, if
that's what you call what you do.

Chas

"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote
......> >>BYW, what is a 19 year old white girl doing going into the bedroom
of amarried black man at night? btw, have you always been a racist son of a *****? Humm , Koby is black. WD is taking up for Koby. You take up for the white girl.. What were you saying about Racist?

no ****.
Well, the white girl can't be racist or she wouldn't have been doing
anything with Bryant except as her job dictated.
Bryant can't be racist because even though he has an international
reputation as a model for the black community for family values and moral
rectitude, he was tricking with a white girl, at the very very very least.
The town isn't racist because all their daughters said that they'd'a gone to
Bryants room willingly.
There's no doubt that he'll get a fair trial in a non-racist environment by
all indications so far.
Colorado prosecutes 'hate' crimes very vigorously, so any active racists are
subject to be in the prison already.
I, for one, am very comforted that they're locked away.

Chas

wd wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:28:06 +0000, Bob wrote:wd wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>wrote:>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>>>>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>wd wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote Bryant's case sounds>>>>>>>pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict>>>>>>>>>>>from you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>>>>But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the>>>>>streets with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon>>>>squads in the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send>>>>them off to Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders>>>>>>>from feminazis.>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>>>cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so>>>the IRS can steal you money instead.>>>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the>>same way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>>>>>>>>Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.>>Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you willsee a repeal on the war on drugs.When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.More than half of so called "crime" in the US is the phony "war ondrugs." Half of these over bloated cop shops depend on drug oppressionfor their jobs. They have to keep it going no matter how offensive itis to decent people.Bob I saw an episode of "cops" a couple of nights ago. There was 2 undecover cops and several black and whites doing a sting operation. They were setting up people to see if they would steel. Guess what the item was... A bicycle. Thats right, a bike. They were putting a bicycle up against the wall outside a convience store to see if people would steel it; and when they did, it looked like a major drug bust going down with several black and whites screeching to a halt with lights flashing as the undercover cops ran and converged on some poor scared out of his mind kid. And they set this up and did it over and over. That use to be called entrapment. It show was a amusing to say the least.

I watched one where they would spot a couple of teens loitering around a
neighborhood and then arrange to leave a hot car with the engine running
in front of the teens. The driver would get in a fake "fight" with the
driver of another car and go off leaving the bait car running with the
door open. As soon as the teens got a block or so the hidden cops would
flip a switch and the remote control engine kill would stop the bait car.

Maybe we have too many cops now if we have to make up crap like this for them to do. How many dollars in resourses does it take to put 2 undercover cops and 3 black and white patrol cars in one spot for 8 hours to catch BICYCLE THIEVES? Dont they have any real hardened criminals to catch? heh... ~wd

Nope. They are creating crime for the purpose of fighting it. It
raises their "solved" percentage because they can't solve real crime.

The cops are the real criminals in both programs.

The thugs in blue are also the front line troops in the feminazi war on men.

Bob

"wd" wrote
Maybe we have too many cops now if we have to make up crap like this for them to do. How many dollars in resourses does it take to put 2 undercover cops and 3 black and white patrol cars in one spot for 8 hours to catch
BICYCLE THIEVES? Dont they have any real hardened criminals to catch?

Yeah, like people accused of forcible rape. But then
some bleeding heart liberals will ***** about the alleged
rapist being arrested too quickly...

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>wd wrote:>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>Bob>>>>>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug> cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the> IRS can steal you money instead.In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the sameway prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's. Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case. Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will seea repeal on the war on drugs.When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.
America isn't quite as stupid as you are.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:41:24 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wolfie wrote: "wd" wroteMaybe we have too many cops now if we have to make up crap like this forthem to do. How many dollars in resourses does it take to put 2 undercovercops and 3 black and white patrol cars in one spot for 8 hours to catch BICYCLETHIEVES?Dont they have any real hardened criminals to catch? Yeah, like people accused of forcible rape. But then some bleeding heart liberals will ***** about the alleged rapist being arrested too quickly...Bleeding heart liberals are much more likely to ***** over black mengetting beaten up or gunned down in the streets.BOb

Nah, they're afraid to go over to South Central or the Florence area.
Truth is, they don't really give a **** what happens in those areas
unless they're grandstanding for a reporter or a news camera. That's
the funny thing about those bleeding heart liberals, when it comes
down to putting it on the line to create change, they leave it to
others to do. The live up very well to the saying, Money talks,
bull**** walks.

In article <_oWcnfnCPtMOvNmiXTWJhA@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"Chris Smith" <chriso1976@earthlink.net> wrote Lol. Rumor has it that his sink had backed up and she offered to come up there to "clean his pipes". No; rumor has it that she went up there to do her job and he raped her like an arrogant degenerate. Chas


I agree. Nothing but a BS rumor.

"no" <no@no.com> wrote The criminal justice system regularly sentences people to that
environment- nothing to do with me. You have not wished him to go to jail, you have specifically wished for him to be raped in jail by "aryans".

That's what happens to rapos from what's reported.
Why, do you think he'd be more likely raped by blacks- or hispanics?
I'm not sure there are enough Asians in Colorado prisons to form a homo-rape
mob, but I could be mistaken.

Chas

In article <no-E33038.12373620082003@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, no says...I do not think Kobe is going to have a very good season. Having toworry about spending 20 years in prison has got to screw with him bigtime.

And don't forget the heckling at other arenas. It will be particularly brutal
in Sacramento, Philly, and Boston.

Also, the NBA is notorious for trash-talking among the players. I can see a lot
of players "going there" with Kobe, and he won't be able to react, except with
his play. He's got to be a choir boy on (and off, obviously) the court this
season.

Frosty

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:49:43 +0000, Chas wrote:
"wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote ha!! I'm the one taking up for the BLACK GUY!! By saying that any white woman would be in some sort of hazard by going to a black man's room at night?

No, by saying Koby is innocent..

<snip drivel>

~wd

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:46:29 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>wd wrote:>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>> cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the>> IRS can steal you money instead.>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the same>way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>> Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case. Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will seea repeal on the war on drugs.When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line. America isn't quite as stupid as you are.

Then you know nothing at all about history or the prohabition.

Thanks for showing us how dumb you really are.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:25:19 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:46:29 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>> wrote:>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>wd wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>>>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>>> cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the>>> IRS can steal you money instead.>>>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the same>>way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>>>>> Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.>> Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will seea repeal on the war on drugs.When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line. America isn't quite as stupid as you are.Then you know nothing at all about history or the prohabition.Thanks for showing us how dumb you really are.
Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well
over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago.
Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few
crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:28:38 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:25:19 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:46:29 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>> wrote:>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>wd wrote:>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>>>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>>>>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>>>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>>>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>>>> cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the>>>> IRS can steal you money instead.>>>>>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the same>>>way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>>>>>>>> Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.>>>> Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.>>And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will see>a repeal on the war on drugs.>>When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.>> America isn't quite as stupid as you are.Then you know nothing at all about history or the prohabition.Thanks for showing us how dumb you really are. Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago.

The war on drugs has not been going on 80 years.
Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here.

No one said to legalized drug usage. But the war on drugs is not working.

You dont know the subject matter.

~wd

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:05:38 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:28:38 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:25:19 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:46:29 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>> wrote:>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>wd wrote:>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>>>>>> with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>>>>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>>>>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>>>>> cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the>>>>> IRS can steal you money instead.>>>>>>>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the same>>>>way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>>>>>>>>>>> Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.>>>>>> Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.>>>>And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will see>>a repeal on the war on drugs.>>>>When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.>>>>> America isn't quite as stupid as you are.Then you know nothing at all about history or the prohabition.Thanks for showing us how dumb you really are. Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago.The war on drugs has not been going on 80 years. Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here.No one said to legalized drug usage. But the war on drugs is not working.You dont know the subject matter.~wd

Show me where I mentioned the so called war on drugs. What? I didn't?
Imagine that, you're making false claims AGAIN!!!

"Lyle Jackson" <ljackson@yahoo.com> wrote What if she a lying ho' ?

It's not yer Mom again, is it?

Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago.

That's mostly because Prohibition was instituted by Constitutional
Amendment, and then repealed by another Constitutional Amendment.
Drug Prohibition has no such authorization- it isn't Constitutional. It's
much easier to keep an unConstitutional law by force than to get
authorization by legal means.
Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here.

Nah; it's a freedom.
There's nothing in the Constitution giving the gummit authorization to
'outlaw' drugs. It's never been voted on, most polls show that the
90,000,000 citizens that use drugs would prefer that the gummit do something
productive instead of trying to enforce thought crimes like drug use.

Chas

Chas wrote:Bleeding heart liberals are much more likely to ***** over black mengetting beaten up or gunned down in the streets. You mean *that's* why they want to take everybody's guns away? So they won't shoot black guys? Can I just sign a pledge? Really; I promise. Chas

Yep, liberals get upset when blue gun thugs shoot an unarmed black man
47 times in the back.

Bob

wd wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:28:38 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:25:19 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>wrote:On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:46:29 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:26:02 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>wrote:>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 17:38:11 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:27:39 -0500, "wd" <root@localhost.localdomain>>>>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:55:14 +0000, Laughing at Bush wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:43:52 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wd wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:55:31 +0000, Bob wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Michael Snyder" <msnyder@nospam.net> wrote>>>>>>>>>Bryant's case sounds pretty predictable to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But then you're a man hating feminist. That's what we predict from you.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And dont forget "Laughing at Bush", he sounds just like a feminist.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But he says he is a cop. Can you imaging him running around the streets>>>>>>>with a loaded gun? wow! lol>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not surprising for a cop either. Cops are the front line goon squads in>>>>>>the feminist army. Their job is to round up men and send them off to>>>>>>Auchwitz. The SS in blue takes their marching orders from feminazis.>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah Bob that's it. And we round up dope dealers so the big drug>>>>>cartels can have more of the drug market, and we arrest robbers so the>>>>>IRS can steal you money instead.>>>>>>>>In case you have not heard, the war on drugs is a failure in much the same>>>>way prohibition and the war on alcohol was a failure in the 20's.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ya think? Damn I should be out of a job in that case.>>>>>>Nope, still employed, guess that means the war is still on going.>>>>And as soon as america wakes up like it did during the 20's you will see>>a repeal on the war on drugs.>>>>When that happens, enjoy the unemployment line.>>>>>>America isn't quite as stupid as you are.Then you know nothing at all about history or the prohabition.Thanks for showing us how dumb you really are.Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted wellover 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago. The war on drugs has not been going on 80 years.

The war on drugs is the blue gun thugs replacement job security that
they began when the people took away their excuse of alcohol
prohibition. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it just hurts
"civilians" but it keeps the blue gun thugs in a job.

Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a fewcrackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here. No one said to legalized drug usage. But the war on drugs is not working. You dont know the subject matter. ~wd

The only solution is to give freedom back to the people. The government
has no business deciding if I or my neighbor want to use drugs. Like
alcohol, it ought not be illegal to drug yourself into a stupor. The
"crime" is created by blue gun thugs for the purpose of fighting it.

Bob

Chas wrote: "Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wroteProhibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted wellover 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago. That's mostly because Prohibition was instituted by Constitutional Amendment, and then repealed by another Constitutional Amendment. Drug Prohibition has no such authorization- it isn't Constitutional. It's much easier to keep an unConstitutional law by force than to get authorization by legal means.Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a fewcrackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here. Nah; it's a freedom. There's nothing in the Constitution giving the gummit authorization to 'outlaw' drugs. It's never been voted on, most polls show that the 90,000,000 citizens that use drugs would prefer that the gummit do something productive instead of trying to enforce thought crimes like drug use. Chas

If criminal war on drugs laws were repealed tomorrow, drug crime would
vanish overnight.

Bob

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote I'm sure that most people feel that way towards marijuana, but it stops there. Few people want to see America adopt Englands drug policies of legalized heroin, which has failed miserably.

The government has no authority granted it to make such regulations in any
case.
England's people are subject to the will of the majesty- we are not.
It isn't an issue that our Constitution grants government any power over.
Our drug laws on the federal level are for the most part in unison with international drug laws.

We have written those 'drug laws' and enforced their adoption by other
countries. We've invaded them, we've financed their civil wars, we've
intruded upon the free travel from place to place, we incarcerate a million
people over it, we've mitigated and diluted the personal rights of every
citizen of the US, we've declared war on 90,000,000 of our own citizens-
much less the populations of other sovereign countries.
Over what?
Being lazy?
With few exceptions, most countries have far stiffer penalties for drug use and trafficking than the U.S. does.

In far more repressive regimes that see their population as suitable for
pulling a plow and little else.

Chas

Laughing at Bush wrote: I'm sure that most people feel that way towards marijuana, but it stops there. Few people want to see America adopt Englands drug policies of legalized heroin, which has failed miserably. Our drug laws on the federal level are for the most part in unison with international drug laws. With few exceptions, most countries have far stiffer penalties for drug use and trafficking than the U.S. does.


Just keep preaching that and you keep your job sending men off to Auschwitz.

The war on drugs is a war on men, and that's all that it is. It creates
massive crime for the purpose of fighting it and keeping gun thugs in
jobs. Meanwhile it hurts millions of men.

Legalization of drugs would harm far fewer people than the current war,
crime, drug cartels, and blue gun thugs do every week.

Bob

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:38:48 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:If criminal war on drugs laws were repealed tomorrow, drug crime wouldvanish overnight. And if we eliminated laws against murder, theft, assault, those crimes would vanish overnight too. Bob, you give a new meaning to moron.


LOL. Blue gun thug wants to keep his job sending MEN off to Auschwitz.

Unlike murder the "crime" of drugs has no victim. It's a crime against
personal freedom, and every American ought to oppose it.

And BTW, most murder in the US would end overnight if drugs were legal
as well, the criminal organizations that feed on providing illegal
products would have no reason to kill each other. And the blue gun
thugs would have no reason to shoot them.

Bob

"Frosty" <Frosty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bi1i8b06ap@drn.newsguy.com...
I do not think Kobe is going to have a very good season. Having toworry about spending 20 years in prison has got to screw with him bigtime.

His play will be affected negatively and his big ego will force him to
emotionally react, to take many stupid shots. Shots that big daddy Karl
won't like and that'll will create tension for the team. End result - an
imminent Lakers implosion.
Also, the NBA is notorious for trash-talking among the players. I can see
a lot of players "going there" with Kobe, and he won't be able to react, except
with his play. He's got to be a choir boy on (and off, obviously) the court
this season.

That's a good point.

Laughing at Bush wrote:Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a basscontest. and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.

Yes you blue gun thugs do that and worse every day. You protect your
own, kill innocent people, and send a million men off to Auschwitz.

Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a bass
contest.


Bob

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:24:56 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote I'm sure that most people feel that way towards marijuana, but it stops there. Few people want to see America adopt Englands drug policies of legalized heroin, which has failed miserably.The government has no authority granted it to make such regulations in anycase.England's people are subject to the will of the majesty- we are not.It isn't an issue that our Constitution grants government any power over. Our drug laws on the federal level are for the most part in unison with international drug laws.We have written those 'drug laws' and enforced their adoption by othercountries. We've invaded them, we've financed their civil wars, we'veintruded upon the free travel from place to place, we incarcerate a millionpeople over it, we've mitigated and diluted the personal rights of everycitizen of the US, we've declared war on 90,000,000 of our own citizens-much less the populations of other sovereign countries.Over what?Being lazy? With few exceptions, most countries have far stiffer penalties for drug use and trafficking than the U.S. does.In far more repressive regimes that see their population as suitable forpulling a plow and little else.Chas
To begin with, where in the hell did you get the idea that 90,000,000
americans use illegal drugs? As for laws, cops don't write them, they
just enforce them. The idea that if you legalized drugs tomorrow all
drug related crime would cease is ridiculous. Alcohol is a legal drug
and alcohol related crimes continue. Combine drug and alcohol and
you're going to have more crime. Do you think that legalizing heroin
is going to make it less likely a junky is going to steal to support
his/her habit? No, they'll still rob for money, steal property to
pawn, only they'll be able to buy their drugs at Sav-on Drugs instead
of their friendly corner dealer.

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.

Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove them
into ovens, doesn't it?
The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia.
Idi Amin ate them.
Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours.

Chas

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:34:43 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Laughing at Bush wrote:Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a basscontest. and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.Yes you blue gun thugs do that and worse every day. You protect yourown, kill innocent people, and send a million men off to Auschwitz.Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a basscontest.Bob
and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:42:53 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove theminto ovens, doesn't it?The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia.Idi Amin ate them.Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours.Chas

Personally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane until
it can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others. That
hardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sick
warped mind.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:58:17 -0700, Laughing at Bush
<BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:42:53 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>wrote:"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove theminto ovens, doesn't it?The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia.Idi Amin ate them.Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours.ChasPersonally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane untilit can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others. Thathardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sickwarped mind.

That should read compares, not companies.

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:34:43 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Laughing at Bush wrote:>Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a bass>contest.>and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.Yes you blue gun thugs do that and worse every day. You protect yourown, kill innocent people, and send a million men off to Auschwitz.Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a basscontest. and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.


Yes you blue gun thugs do that and worse every day. You protect your
own, kill innocent people, and send a million men off to Auschwitz.

Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a bass
contest.

Bob

Chas wrote: "Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wroteand around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations. Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove them into ovens, doesn't it? The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia. Idi Amin ate them. Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours. Chas


They never change. Robin Hood opposed the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Nothing changes much.

Bob

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:42:53 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wroteand around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove theminto ovens, doesn't it?The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia.Idi Amin ate them.Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours.Chas Personally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane until it can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others. That hardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sick warped mind.


Citizens demanding changes in government in America is not the
definition of "insane." It's the definition of "citizenship."

"Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


Only the blue gun thugs who's job it is to oppress and control political
opposition want to lock us up.

Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a bass
contest.

Bob

Laughing at Bush wrote: On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:38:24 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Laughing at Bush wrote:On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:42:53 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>wrote:>"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote>>>>and around here we lock your kind up for 72 hour mental evaluations.>>Makes you kind of long for the good old days when you could just shove them>into ovens, doesn't it?>The old SovUn used to send them to 'psychiatric' hospitals- in Siberia.>Idi Amin ate them.>Nice to know we've got rights; you know, after 72 hours.>>Chas>Personally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane untilit can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others. Thathardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sickwarped mind.Citizens demanding changes in government in America is not thedefinition of "insane." It's the definition of "citizenship." But citizens comparing police officers doing a job they're paid to do to nazi's is."Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceablyto assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." So where does it say the government can't pass laws against things that have proven to be harmful to societies for centuries?Only the blue gun thugs who's job it is to oppress and control politicalopposition want to lock us up. Nah, just nuts like you.


So are you going to shoot me in the back 47 times, or just give me the
"toilet plunger" treatment?

Maybe they'll just lay me out on the hood of the care and beat the crap
out of me and then send me off to Auschwitz.

What will it be this time goon?

Bob


Around here we give Golden Bull Awards for your kind. Kinda like a bass contest.Bob

Chas wrote: And at a cost of $2 @ day, as opposed to $150 @ day. It just removes one of the major impetus to robbing- robbery will no doubt continue, but without the additional driving force of the blackmarket. And, just to keep things straight; I don't drink or drug- coffee and cigarettes are my addictions. I'm just tired of the waste of resources, lives and treasure in an arrogant usurpation of power by my government. Chas

I agree with you completely on this. I'm very tired of millions of men
put into prison for "drug" crimes, crimes which are little more than
government oppression and destruction of individual freedom.

I don't even use tobacco. My worst "vice" is diet coke. But the blue
goon has me pegged as a "drug addict" for objecting to government
oppression.

Bob

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote So you think those are going to be over the counter drugs?

Why not?
Look at what happened when they *were* legal; nothing.
Opiates were legal for purchase anywhere, by anyone; look at the harm
caused- none.
Cocaine was legal in every Coca Cola; look at the harm- none.

What do you guys think you're saving us from?
as I said before, if you think they would over the counter drugs you're out of your mind.

They *were* over the counter drugs far longer than they've been outlawed.
The sum total of harm from anything to do with drug prohibition has been the
deaths, damage, and waste of the *war* on drugs, not the use of them.
legalize it and production costs rise. Instead of 3rd world countries with their slave labor you'll have union employee's making 20 dollars an hour, then you'll have marketing, packaging, etc. You have little or no business sense do you?

It's a plant, dude (actually several plants, but the point remains).
It grows like any other plant.
The only possible 'costs' are in the preparation, marketing and taxation. It
would be like trying to corner the Kentucky Blue Grass commodityduh.
Nope, but several competing companies could sell it for a few cents ahit, or #2 per 20 pack, like tobacco. You're definitely on drugs.

Hell; cigarettes would be $.20 a pack if the government didn't tax them so
heavily.
Packaging agricultural products is cheap; see 'potato'.
believe me, drugs represent an extremely small percentage of a cops day.

That's even less reassuring- considering the amount of time taken in the
judicial system for drug crimes.
So; we've got traffic patrol, enforcing the restrictions on the permission
from the State to drive on the public roads; donut time; and,..... what?

Chas

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote Hec, I even agree with Chas once in a while.

As long as getting high isn't a justification for rape, we're on the same
page.

Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote Personally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane until it can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others.

But it seems to be tied to their political/social views; much like other
repressive police states.
That hardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sick warped mind.

Well; just call it a slippery slope then.
I imagine if you asked a turn-of-the-century patriot, he wouldn't have
thought the present state of things was possible either.

Chas

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote They never change. Robin Hood opposed the Sheriff of Nottingham. Nothing changes much.

Google 'Runnymede', 'Magna Carta', 'King John'-

Chas

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:56:41 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote To begin with, where in the hell did you get the idea that 90,000,000 americans use illegal drugs?Actually, I had thought 70,000,000, but was corrected to the higher figureby someone who is more accurate and well read in the interest area.

cite. and NORML doesn't count. As for laws, cops don't write them, they just enforce them.Yes; a matter of personal integrity, but that's probably best addressed inanother thread.'I vas chust vollowing orderz' hasn't worked for sixty years or so.

Ok, so I see you're another cop hater, we're all nazis. The idea that if you legalized drugs tomorrow all drug related crime would cease is ridiculous.Only if you want to use 'all' as some sort of scientific absolute.Best to say that the 'vast preponderance of drug related crime would cease'would be sufficient.

prove it. England didn't find that to be the case. They regret the
hell out of their legalizing it. Alcohol is a legal drug and alcohol related crimes continue.Yes- and oddly enough, alcohol is one of the more destructive drugs in thatregard.The vast majority of people use the drug responsibly, and so we justcriminalize the behaviour of the individual- rather than exerting aProhibition on the entire populace.

Alcohol at least has social acceptance. So you're proposing everyone
sitting around the dinner table having their after dinner fix is going
to be socially acceptable. Not in this lifetime. Combine drug and alcohol and you're going to have more crime.Remove the blackmarket aspect, and the crimes would plummet like a stone.Look at the 'crime' of bootlegging and moonshining- it doesn't happen whenthe traffic in alcohol is open and free. Have it tested by the FDA orsomething, but there's no reason to stop anyone from making anything theycare to.

Sure, let's just let everyone grow their own poppies, and make their
own heroin and watch them od'ing all over town. You gonna pay the
burial fees?
Do you think that legalizing heroin is going to make it less likely a junky is going to steal to support his/her habit?Absolutely.Heroin is cheap to make- no need to fret about robbing to support a habit.Look at Great Britain in the late 50's; they found that a very highpercentage of their health care professionals were totally strung out. Theyate well, they had good medical care; they did their jobs with nodeleterious affect.The bad effects of 'heroin addiction' are almost completely personal- it ismore akin to being fat than being sinful.

and they've admitted it was a failure to ever legalize it. You seem to
ignore that. No, they'll still rob for money, steal property to pawn, only they'll be able to buy their drugs at Sav-on Drugs instead of their friendly corner dealer.And at a cost of $2 @ day, as opposed to $150 @ day.It just removes one of the major impetus to robbing- robbery will no doubtcontinue, but without the additional driving force of the blackmarket.And, just to keep things straight; I don't drink or drug- coffee andcigarettes are my addictions. I'm just tired of the waste of resources,lives and treasure in an arrogant usurpation of power by my government.Chas
You'll never see it mass produced to go at a rate of 2 bucks. As I
said, labor costs in the US will prohibit that from being the case.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:18:48 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote So you think those are going to be over the counter drugs?Why not?Look at what happened when they *were* legal; nothing.Opiates were legal for purchase anywhere, by anyone; look at the harmcaused- none.Cocaine was legal in every Coca Cola; look at the harm- none.What do you guys think you're saving us from? as I said before, if you think they would over the counter drugs you're out of your mind.They *were* over the counter drugs far longer than they've been outlawed.The sum total of harm from anything to do with drug prohibition has been thedeaths, damage, and waste of the *war* on drugs, not the use of them. legalize it and production costs rise. Instead of 3rd world countries with their slave labor you'll have union employee's making 20 dollars an hour, then you'll have marketing, packaging, etc. You have little or no business sense do you?It's a plant, dude (actually several plants, but the point remains).It grows like any other plant.The only possible 'costs' are in the preparation, marketing and taxation. Itwould be like trying to corner the Kentucky Blue Grass commodityduh.Nope, but several competing companies could sell it for a few cents ahit, or #2 per 20 pack, like tobacco. You're definitely on drugs.Hell; cigarettes would be $.20 a pack if the government didn't tax them soheavily.Packaging agricultural products is cheap; see 'potato'. believe me, drugs represent an extremely small percentage of a cops day.That's even less reassuring- considering the amount of time taken in thejudicial system for drug crimes.So; we've got traffic patrol, enforcing the restrictions on the permissionfrom the State to drive on the public roads; donut time; and,..... what?Chas

We just enjoy infringing on your constitutional rights and oppressing
you. It's a great job.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:25:51 -0600, "Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote Personally I like the idea of locking up people that act insane until it can be determined if they're a danger to themselves or others.But it seems to be tied to their political/social views; much like otherrepressive police states.

and you're full of **** too. It has nothing to do with either of those
unless as demonstrated here, people go off the deep end, making claims
that enforcing laws is the same as nazi's killing jews. That to me
demonstrates a person who isn't in full possession of their mental
faculties and needs to be checked out. That hardly companies to shoving people in ovens, unless you have sick warped mind.Well; just call it a slippery slope then.I imagine if you asked a turn-of-the-century patriot, he wouldn't havethought the present state of things was possible either.

You know, you may be right, I'm sure they'd be happy with how things
have progressed. See, as long as you can still whine and complain
about the government without fear of being killed, then that patriot's
mission was accomplished. But I doubt their vision was never for a
country full of junkies shooting up smack and crystal, snorting
cocaine and wasting their life away.Chas

Laughing at Bush wrote: WOW, earlier it would end all crime. Now it's only 50%. Your statistics are as flawed as your brain. Stop doing drugs, you're a good example of why the need to be illegal.

Dimbulb gun thug can't keep his messages straight even since this
morning. Legalizing drugs (and the free choice of American citizens)
would end all *** DRUG CRIMEA overnight. It would also significantly
reduce all other crime.

Your job depends on the "war on drugs" to keep you laboring under the
delusion that you are "protecting" citizens by sending millions of men
off to Auschwitz. For that kind of mental deficiency we expect to have
to repeat ourselves.

Bob

Chas wrote: "Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wroteSo you think those are going to be over the counter drugs? Why not? Look at what happened when they *were* legal; nothing. Opiates were legal for purchase anywhere, by anyone; look at the harm caused- none. Cocaine was legal in every Coca Cola; look at the harm- none. What do you guys think you're saving us from?


In order to "protect" you he has to send you off to Auschwitz for twenty
years. It's the gun thugs' motto. To protect and (let them) serve 20
years.

Bob





as I said before, if you think they would over the counter drugsyou're out of your mind. They *were* over the counter drugs far longer than they've been outlawed. The sum total of harm from anything to do with drug prohibition has been the deaths, damage, and waste of the *war* on drugs, not the use of them.legalize it and production costs rise. Instead of 3rd world countrieswith their slave labor you'll have union employee's making 20 dollarsan hour, then you'll have marketing, packaging, etc. You have littleor no business sense do you? It's a plant, dude (actually several plants, but the point remains). It grows like any other plant. The only possible 'costs' are in the preparation, marketing and taxation. It would be like trying to corner the Kentucky Blue Grass commodityduh.Nope, but several competing companies could sell it for a few cents ahit, or #2 per 20 pack, like tobacco.You're definitely on drugs. Hell; cigarettes would be $.20 a pack if the government didn't tax them so heavily. Packaging agricultural products is cheap; see 'potato'.believe me, drugs represent an extremely small percentage of a copsday. That's even less reassuring- considering the amount of time taken in the judicial system for drug crimes. So; we've got traffic patrol, enforcing the restrictions on the permission from the State to drive on the public roads; donut time; and,..... what? Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote We just enjoy infringing on your constitutional rights and oppressing you. It's a great job.

I know.
The despot has never had any trouble finding people like you.
If you'll take the King's Shilling, you'll do the King's Work.

Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote
.....> >Actually, I had thought 70,000,000, but was corrected to the higher
figureby someone who is more accurate and well read in the interest area. cite. and NORML doesn't count.

Well; let's use your figures then.
What do you say? Half? 35,000,000 people?
Half of that? Nearly 20,000,000?
How do you justify a *War* on 20,000,000 of our own citizens- not even
counting the untold thousands they've killed and damaged in other countries?
Ok, so I see you're another cop hater, we're all nazis.

'Cop hater'?
Not at all. I want your return to integrity, to trustworthiness, to public
accountability and equal application of law.
prove it. England didn't find that to be the case. They regret the hell out of their legalizing it.

sez who?
Alcohol at least has social acceptance.

Not in a lot of cultures- it's considered anathema, and marijuana is the
drug of choice- Islamic culture as example; a lot of Asians, same thing.
It's only acceptable here by default.
Sure, let's just let everyone grow their own poppies, and make their own heroin and watch them od'ing all over town. You gonna pay the burial fees?

We did it all through the War Between States- didn't seem to cause a
problem. Opiates were grown in 'victory gardens' all over the country; no
problems, buddy. Same with 'hemp', cow-patty mushrooms, cacti; grows right
here, no problems at all for centuries.
Only problems now are the wars, invasions, bribes, testilying, theft under
color of authority- you know; you guys.
and they've admitted it was a failure to ever legalize it. You seem to ignore that.

I've never heard any such thing; cite a responsible position, and I'll go
have a look.
You'll never see it mass produced to go at a rate of 2 bucks. As I said, labor costs in the US will prohibit that from being the case.

****; WalMart will have it for $1.69 right next to the check-out stand;
NAFTA product of Mexico or something.

Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote
......> >But it seems to be tied to their political/social views; much like
otherrepressive police states. ........It has nothing to do with either of those unless as demonstrated here, people go off the deep end, making claims that enforcing laws is the same as nazi's killing jews.

Well; the druggies are being blamed much in the same way as the jews or
other enemies of the State in Nazi Germany/SovUn/Islamofascist states.
There are some uncomfortable parallels; the jews were subject to civil
forfeiture; so are druggies. The jews were used for slave labor; so are the
druggies. The jews were held for crimes that didn't apply to anyone else; so
are druggies. The jews could be subject to no-knock warrants supplied by
anonymous informants; so can druggies.
That to me demonstrates a person who isn't in full possession of their mental faculties and needs to be checked out.

Yeah; same position as Stalin, or any other despot with a mental institution
for political dissidents.
You know, you may be right, I'm sure they'd be happy with how things have progressed. See, as long as you can still whine and complain about the government without fear of being killed, then that patriot's mission was accomplished.

But that is exactly what's slipping away from us. It isn't much of a leap
from putting dissidents in psychiatric institutions to putting them in penal
institutions to making their crime a capital offense.
But I doubt their vision was never for a country full of junkies shooting up smack and crystal, snorting cocaine and wasting their life away.

George Washington grew marijuana for smoking- alludes to it in his diary.
Franklin was known for his debauchery, and there's little doubt he sampled
cocaine during it's first hey-day in France.
They would have thought it trivial that the gummit even involve itself in
such personal questions. Hell, they fought for the right to tax whiskey, so
they knew the marketplace for drugs, and gave gummit approval as long as
they made their money.

Chas

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wroteGoogle 'Runnymede', 'Magna Carta', 'King John'- Well Robin Hood was a criminal too.

Only to the conqueror Normans.
To the people, he was a noble of their own, rather than a usurper and
invading conqueror.
A lot like shooting 'revenooers' or hanging carpetbaggers; sure it's a
crime- who cares?

Chas

In article <V_ednT9FUoiPa9miU-KYgw@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
Hell, buddy; even in boxing they have weight divisions. He's a foot and a half taller and double her weight- he could have killed her and eaten her if he wanted to.

Well maybe he did eat her?

In article <3F44DBE2.6020303@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That 20 mil was probably what she wanted from the beginning, blackmail.Bob Really, then why hasn't Kobe come out and claimed she tried to blackmail him. Answer: Because it never happened. More blue gun thug nonsense. Pathetic.

What the hell does this even mean?

If she did blackmail him it would be huge for Kobe, it would give
reasonable doubt.

If she did blackmail him he would of immediately publicized it.

In article <HKednbmy8M_P19miU-KYvA@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"no" <no@no.com> wrote The criminal justice system regularly sentences people to that environment- nothing to do with me. You have not wished him to go to jail, you have specifically wished for him to be raped in jail by "aryans". That's what happens to rapos from what's reported.

Ok, but it doesnt change the fact that you specifically wished that that
happen to him.

Teenage girls are often date raped. If a enemy of yours specifically
stated that he hopes your daughter get raped, I think you would have no
problem seeing what a scumbag the person is.

In article <fie9kvs1slqlh9c1osemejm2sri0h4bvgr@4ax.com>,
Laughing at Bush <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote:
Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago.

The ban on illegal drugs? So they made something illegal (ban) that was
illegal?
Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here.

Drugs already are legal. And the public would not stand for said drugs
to become illegal. What you mean is the public would never stand for
CERTAIN drugs to be legal.

In article <652cnTB6drrKUtmiXTWJhQ@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <c.clements@comcast.net> wrote:
"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote Prohibition lasted 13 years, the ban on illegal drugs has lasted well over 80 years and is no closer to ending now than it was 80 years ago. That's mostly because Prohibition was instituted by Constitutional Amendment, and then repealed by another Constitutional Amendment. Drug Prohibition has no such authorization- it isn't Constitutional. It's much easier to keep an unConstitutional law by force than to get authorization by legal means. Americans will never stand for legalized drug usage. Only a few crackpots such as yourself would ever want that to happen here. Nah; it's a freedom. There's nothing in the Constitution giving the gummit authorization to 'outlaw' drugs. It's never been voted on, most polls show that the 90,000,000 citizens that use drugs would prefer that the gummit do something productive instead of trying to enforce thought crimes like drug use. Chas

Well the people could always do the same thing that they did about
alcohol prohibition, Change the constitution to allow it.

In article <3F44D91E.3000506@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The war on drugs is the blue gun thugs replacement job security that they began when the people took away their excuse of alcohol prohibition. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it just hurts "civilians" but it keeps the blue gun thugs in a job.

Personally I would like to see drugs that are illegal made illegal, and
taxed. I would rather have law abiding citizens making money selling
drugs from a pharmacy. I would rather our government be in the black
from taxes from it rather than in red due to its insane enforcement.

That said, if it was legalized you think Cops would lose their
jobs?!??!?? Their would be WAY more money, and cops could be
a) paid more
b) have a smaller area to patrol because of increased number of cops
hired.

Just like if it werent for the drug war those in the millitary would
probably be paid more. But the drug war costs so much money the
millitary's benefits are being slashed, even since they were sent to
danger in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"no" <no@no.com> wrote Hell, buddy; even in boxing they have weight divisions. He's a foot and a half taller and double her weight- he could have
killed her and eaten her if he wanted to. Well maybe he did eat her?

Then he should have been better at it- from what I hear, she's really mad.

Chas

"no" <no@no.com> wrote Ok, but it doesnt change the fact that you specifically wished that that happen to him.

Cite my 'wish'.
don't mistake the report for an endorsement.
Teenage girls are often date raped. If a enemy of yours specifically stated that he hopes your daughter get raped, I think you would have no problem seeing what a scumbag the person is.

Ok; you win-
I hope Kobe doesn't get date raped when he gets to prison; particularly by
anyone who's not black.
Is that plain enough for you?

Chas