Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Git a rope.
Horse is ready, picked out a tree limb?
I carry one of those as well.
And notice their lack of accountability? It's everyone else's fault they can't obey the law--never their own. They scream about free speech, yet it seems all the other groups can PEACEFULLY exercise their free speech AND get the proper permits, follow the law, not destroy stuff, not get arrested.
So much for Dr. Spock's method of rearing children so as not to damage their egos and self-esteem--liberal bullshit--and now we see the adults that spring from that idea.
Maybe the good guys need to bring goats with them to these rallys so the goats can eat the signs that are illegally posted--and the propaganda on the tables.
That's a great point about our ingrained respect for our laws. These idiots remind me of those inevitable violent worldwide protestors to the G8 conferences. I would truly love to know what these 18 year old kids really know about international economic policies!
And yes, this generation IS all about unearned self-esteem.
I'm so happy they were arrested. Keep arresting the little bastards. They won't learn anything, but it will make their miserable lives a little more miserable.
Miss Beth Stated, "Maybe the good guys need to bring goats with them to these rallys so the goats can eat the signs that are illegally posted--and the propaganda on the tables."
Naaah. The hippies look, smell and act like goats, which makes them what? Goats? LOL.
I'd much rather see them hippie goats eat their own propaganda turds than real goats, who may get sick and die. Why that woiuld be a travesty...
You wrote:
"They seem to think they don't have to obey the law. They seem to think they can get away with doing anything they want and do not have to follow the rules."
You're talking about the Bush administration's violation of the UN charter, right?
No, asshole, I'm talking about so-called peace protestors that vandalize national treasures, don't bother to get permits, and think they're the only ones that matter. And, what has the UN ever done for us except use us when they're in trouble and can't handle the countries they purport to represent?
FUCK the UN and get off the bush bashing until you can back up your shit with facts.
Amen Beth...they see the news today of Sunni's ending their boycott and rejoining parliament...yanno, the "political progress" and they see that their OWN politicians are returning from iraq and reporting progress, they see Harry Reid stinking with desperation and trying to come to compromise because of the success being seen on the ground in iraq, they see the media reporting all of this and they are scared that America might just WIN, so they slither out from under their rocks and try their old distraction techniques....
It shows how desperate THEY are now that the momentum is now on OUR troops side.
They are irrelevant now.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....nt-
boycott.html
GOOD NEWS FOR IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry to pollute your space, Spree--studying and no patience for idiots. Personal issues here at home kept me from class today and that's not helping my mood either.
Regardless, though, I'm tired of the nonsense of the trolls and I'm tired of being nice and polite--conservatives can get down in the mud when necessary and they're just not used to that.
And I still say the little bastards need to clean up their own house the way we do ours--had a client "joke" with me yesterday about the Craig issue and it threw him off guard when I said Craig needed to GO and so did any other politician that had betrayed the public trust--he wasn't expecting that answer.
Trouble is, we're only hearing about Craig, not the cadre of crooks on all our blogs--who, as speculated, will probably get chairman seats on committees as long as there's a D after they're name while we're getting rid of our crooks and liars. THAT ticks me off, too...talk about hypocrites!
No problem Beth, You are only stating the truth. We kick our crooks out, they excuse, explain or justify why THEIR crooks should stay...it is a joke and this is why their polls numbers are in the toilet and they arhe more unpopular than Bush or Cheney and they continue to drop.
You said it, Miss Beth.
IHHR
they all think is cool to break the law
Goodness, Miss Beth. Such language.
Here
’s the deal: the US, like it or not, is a signatory to the UN charter, which prohibits aggressive war. The US Constitution makes a provision for such international agreements in Article VI, which defines “Supremacy”:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
And what does the UN Charter, to which the US has acceded, thereby legally agreeing to act according to its provisions, say about the legality of launching a pre-emptive war if a country suspects another plans hostilities? It requires proof of hostile intentions must be made to the UN:
"Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
In other words, the UN charter prohibits war unless a nation is attacked, or if the UN authorizes force. Bush & Powell went to the UN and made their case to it, which was their acknowledgement of the UN
’s restrictions on the power of any country, including the US, to initiate force. Powell made his case, and was turned down. Rejected. That means: no authorization to attack Iraq.
The entire world knew that Bush had failed to gain UN approval for his war, as this article reports:
"Bush delivered the ultimatum [to Saddam] hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader."
Even notorious Neocon Richard Perle, one of the war
’s chief proponents, admitted Bush had violated the UN charter:
"In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.
...Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” …"
Bottom line: no weapons of mass destruction, no threat by Iraq, no authorization by the UN. That adds up to an illegal war.
You can see my original article with links at:
http://leagueofthesouth.net/rebe...aw_of_the_land/
Check out my facts. Think about my argument. And tell me this: if the US can break a non-agression treaty if it feels like it, what kind of example does that set for other nations? We're supposed to be a nation of laws, as well as a Christian nation that keeps its promises.
Mike Struggles...The UN approved of use of force when all else failed in regards to Iraq. What is going in Iraq is a direct consequence of the Persian Gulf CEASE FIRE agreement. That war was never over, moron.
Your article is full of holes, you shouldn't be using it for the toilet paper it is.
Your talking dulls will NOT work on this blog nor any other blog of Patriots that visit here.
Your kind is irrelevant and slipping into the Abyss of Obscurity.
Have fun moron.
Well, I'm sure you think, from the cherry picking you've done, that it is an illegal war. However, it was supported by Congress at the time (something else written, quoted and vodpodded here and on numerous sites). It has since been debunked on this and many other sites that there WERE AND ARE WMD's (as Spree always asks, did you read the entire resolution) and Iraq was hosting aq. Those talking dulls are gone and have been gone for a long, long time.
Further, while we may have signed the UN charter, we certainly did NOT supercede our Constitution in doing so. Had we done so, we would be members of the world court and would not have our own jurisprudence. The Constitution is still the law of the land, NOT the UN charter.
We did not act alone; we were joined by over 60 allies in initiating this war. If you're gonna paint with a broad brush, you better paint all of it, not cherry pick.
Now, tell me what other nations have done in obedience to UN charter? Bomb Israel and categorize them as a rogue nation with impunity, regardless of the facts? Put the main human rights violators in positions of power over other human rights violating nations? Support terrorists?
And you want to be associated with this shit? Get the hell off the blog, go pull your head out of your ass and do some real research into the real issues, second warning on the bush bashing and BDS and bring some current, relevant, non-refutable and non-refuted evidence to the table. Otherwise we simply do not have time to repeat what we've been repeating for years and you've been too busy playing with the KOSmonoffs to find out on your own. We're living in the here and now, not in the past and your talking dulls need updating.
Now we've got another one.
I for one completely agree with what "the notorious neocon Mr. Perle" said. We cannot wait for the insipid, conflicted and corrupted UN to protect us. And we certainly can't rely on deniers like you to ward off our enemies.
Why don't you just go tuggle yourself somewhere else Mr. Tuggle, where some poor people might actually listen to your flaming nonsense?
Beth, you have all the passwords needed. I have to run a few errands so if you need to ban for breaking the rules, please feel free.
Your judgment is also trusted here.
Go get'em, Snoop.
And Miss Beth, I love you more every day!
Why don't they move to friggin Cuba?
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
That is the EXACT wording of Article VI to which you refer and it clearly states that TREATIES shall be UNDER the jurisdiction of the Constitution--the US has not now nor has it EVER acceded, as you say, to an authority other than the Constitution, as its highest authority.
The way you appear to be interpreting the above passage, from your writing, is we gave up the sovereignty of the Constitution in favor of the UN charter and that shows in your use of the word acceded.
Fact of the matter is, the UN charter was overthrown in favor of the higher sovereignty of the Constitution and the protection and safety of the United States in a time of war, in a war declared upon US. It was backed by Congress when Congress gave its approval over and above the UN, and as for your question of other nations following our example in breaking a non-aggression treaty, go talk to your buddies in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, et al) about their guilt in this exact area with their continued aggression against their neighbors, particularly Israel, as well as their aggression against the United States. When the United States was attacked, that same charter was broken--PERIOD--and obviously we weren't the only ones thinking so as shown by the number of allies who joined us.
The Constitution is NOT silly putty to be interpreted as you wish, it IS the supreme law of the United States and as such TRUMPS any and all charters and treaties when it comes to the protection of its borders and citizens.
You have one more warning left before you're banned, so make your arguments relevant, current, and as previously stated, irrefutable against the evidence we've published over the last several months.
Otherwise, we just don't have time for you.
Funny how people will try to argue law. See, when it comes to law, we who know Beth understand that since she works WITH the law every day, you ain't gonna trip her up on law, NOR be able to misinterpret to match YOUR political ideology. The law IS the law and trying to distort it simply makes it obvious you do not know anything about it, you just copy and paste willy nilly, Mike.
Thanks Spree! And, speaking of law, we still need to find a way to initiate Title 18 measures on our seditionistic congress critters and the treasonistic entertainers that spout their crap, as well as initiate the Logan Act on puking pelosi!
These people that want to argue Constitution don't seem to understand that all the declarations they can claim don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the CIC and protection of the US's shores. PERIOD.
And I still say FUCK the UN...it's a corrupt, criminal organization that has strayed totally off course from its original intent and its own charter and needs to be abolished--as well as getting the hell out of our country--find its own island and get rid of it. Use the building for something else, completely gut it and turn it into a parking garage for all I care!
Watch what Cheney knew in 1994 about Iraq
You mean under CLINTON'S watch? Where's your link?
Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”
In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.
These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.
Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”
Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organisation, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.
Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980s — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilised primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.
Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
So...I guess WTC wasn't bombed in 1993 and he didn't take credit for it?
This is ALL old news...what on earth does it have to do with today? He declared himself an enemy of the US when he bombed WTC...the US has often armed people who we've later had to go after--what is the point you are trying to make? Get to the point, dammit!
Beth, we weren't in Iraq under Clintons watch! This was merely a Cheney remark. This isn't a matter of the "Hatfields against the "McCoys" or Democrats against republicans ...this is what people know , and if they knew why go to Iraq?
That's why I asked for the link--you forgot to include it in your post and I wanted to go see it....
Watch the whole movie on You Tube.....and you will see Osama didn't do it..click the url
our CIa and other peoples around the world are allies until we use them then they become our foes...Lee Harvey Oswald was found to be CIA who had worked in Russia and they used him as the lone gunman....now Osama...why...because they had to go to war to make money....notice the place we had to go...we aren't there anymore....we had to get closer to Iran.....so we went to the place with the oil and fto get more power controlling it. Bush's broither Marvin was head of security for weeks leading up to 9/11....but conveniently gone a few days before......
You know, I have now asked for that link twice--three times including this one--if y'all want me to watch the damn thing, then provide the damn link--got it?
As for Oswald, that's been debunked repeatedly and the only brothers of Bush I know about are Jeb, Prescott and Preston--never heard of Marvin.
So, are y'all gonna provide the link or keep dancing around it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...h?
v=nEgDIylwPlM
I used it as my homepage
Ah, I did find Marvin..and Prescott and Preston are antecedents of GWB, my mistake
Pleeease somebody shut the damn window, the flies are getting in again.
OK................so in talking about the 1991 Iraq war and what happened then, pre-9/11, that is supposed to be something to take into consideration post-9/11, after Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN y'all are so busy defending, and continuing to develop and deploy WMD's against his own people...that opinion of his (note, OPINION not fact) is supposed to mean something?
Y'all are saying you loved Saddam that much that something 9 years old and way outdated with at-the-time current information in 2003, should have been listened to? Is that what you're saying? And of course, it all goes to the oil bullshit--don't y'all realize if it was all about the oil we would have just seized it? Did that bit of common sense pass you by?
Snoop -- where's that GD flyswatter?
We've got some anti-American bugs slipping in here and nobody's got the GD flyswatter!
BTW, anyone remember what this thread was about? here's a reminder--Anti War Protestors Arrested Again--remember that?
So, let's get back to the thread--why IS it the anti-war crowd is always getting themselves arrested and they're the ones proclaiming how peaceful they are? Why is that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...h?
v=ZWCvRKW0Cuc
I put this link in as my homepage as well..thought that was what supposed to do. Take it easy Beth sit back and watch
Anyone here ever heard of "Operation Northwoods" it was a plan drawn up during Eisenhower's last term by one of his administration.....the plan is similar to what happened 9/11 hijacking planes killing americans and blaming on Castro....all because they needed american support to go to war with Cuba...and also they would blame Castro for american deaths....it is eerily similar and recently un-classified...you can google Operation Northwoods or find on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ope...hwoods.....Wake up indeed!
I love my country and I just want to do the right thing by her, that's why I'm trying so hard to prove that we are liars and cheats and bullies and murderers.
I love my country because it gives me the freedom to express my opinions, that's why I'm trying so hard to prove that we are liars and cheats and bullies and murderers.
I love my country and now that my country is at war, I'm going to do everything I can to help her, that's why I'm trying so hard to prove that we are liars and cheats and bullies and murderers.
I love my country and I support our troops -- I just hope that we lose this terrible war.
Operation Northwoods: The Counterfeit
by Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, October, 2001
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.
Ref: "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS"
http://www.Public-Action.com/
911...robotplane.html
January 24, 2002 -- In "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS" I referred to a plan allegedly hatched by Pentagon brass in the 1960s to commit terrorist acts and use them as a pretext for war with Cuba (see above URL). The plan was called "Operation Northwoods."
Operation Northwoods was unknown to the American public until May, 2001, when details were released in James Bamford's new book, "Body of Secrets" (Doubleday). Bamford summarizes:
. .. the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war. (pg. 82).
The mainstream press gave the book, in particular its Operation Northwoods revelations, lots of publicity. For example, ABCNews.com published a lengthy review with the author.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/
secti...efs_010501.html
or:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911...911/
abcnorthwds
It seemed remarkable that ABC was willing to show the US military in such a bad light. Surely the Waco Holocaust was a more contemporaneous US military scandal, yet ABC continues to cover it up. I wondered at that.
The reviews were well in circulation, but still fresh when 9-11 hit. In retrospect, Northwoods seemed like an eery premonition. I thought the release of the Northwoods revelations were indeed a timely coincidence. Because the Northwoods scenario seemed to fit the facts of 9-11, many writers cited Bamford and Northwoods. I was one of them.
But there is just one problem with Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was not written by Americans. Put in other words, Operation Northwoods documents were not written by the Pentagon. They are counterfeits.
First, turn to pg. 85 of "Body of Secrets." Bamford says: "Among the most elaborate schemes was to ..."
And then he quotes a Northwoods document directly:
... create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
(You can download the Operation Northwoods documentation at the George Washington University's National Archive website. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/new.../news/20010430/
or view it here: http://www.Public-Action.com/911...11/
northwds.pdf . Look at paragraph 8 in "Annex to Appendix To Enclosure A" to see the words quoted above.)
Study the last sentence in that quote. "The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday ....." See anything wrong with here? Well, Americans don't use the expression "off on a holiday." That is a British expression. Americans say "on vacation."
That's all I'm going to paste from that site. But it is an interesting read.
Okay, Claire, I haven't googled operation northwoods yet, but I refuse to give any credence to any kind of 9/11 truther conspiracy nonsense. We deal in facts here, not conspiracy theory. Purdue University has the facts and if you go to either my homepage or Snooper's homepage, you will find vodpods with the Purdue investigation and findings--you will also find a link to the entire Popular Mechanics absolute shredding of the conspiracy nonsense.
It has absolutely NO PLACE on this blog, none of us here give it any credence at all--and that goes for the oil conspiracy crap as well.
Get on track with FACTS--period. And, I brought us all back to what this thread is about--Anti War Protestors Getting Arrested and why is that a constant when they proclaim themselves to be so peace-loving?
Back on track....
Good point, Hawk. Very perceptive.
These nuts think Oliver Stone killed Kennedy.
It should be said this is a wonderful country! we all love our country and our troops ! It is the Greedy rich SOB's that run it that are corrupt and inhuman. Don't think for a minuyte Cheney isn't getting millions in kickbacks for his awarding Halliburton and KBR NO BID contracts...lots of old crony friends in big business.....They nne of them care about our wonderful troops some who have given their lives...you only get lip service from them.....but the actions don't back up their words
No bid contracts I disagree with as well.
But the Bush administration didn't invent them...
Claire, you will NOT be warned again to get back to topic, you want to discuss Cheney, go to the appropriate threads. THIS post is about peaceful preo-troop rallies where NO ONE gets arrested and everyone obeys the law compared to the anti-war protesters that deface the Capitol, deface public property and destroy our veterans memorials.
STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT from the issue of the post.
Warning two--back on track, Claire.
If you're going to bitch about cheney getting rich then you better bitch about diane feinstein and her kickbacks to her contractor husband as well--and about pelosi's son working for a lobbyist KNOWN to scam the elderly in this country..get off its just the republicans and get off it now
LOL Beth... fun day huh? Google screwed me again, this time our google AND the UK google.
bastards.
Gawd you and Snoop get some interesting visitors!
I'm in the middle of tort definitions--URGH...it's always fun to switch gears in mid-thought stream!
Miss Beth -- I didn't know you were cooking?
If you want to know how to make a tart I'll send you the recipe.
Beth, any comment on Cheneys 1994 speech on Iraq?.....probably not if it goes against your illusion of this administration..
BRAT--it's TORTS not TARTS...lol
Although a plate of lemon tarts would be wonderful right about now!
See above Susan and read it...I did comment on it
And again, get back on topic and quit trying to distract from the thread...
Retire the swatter, use a linked pair of 7: rubber bands, its much more effective and more fun, too.
As for the UN, never have illicit carnal intercourse with something you don't want more of! Just dissolve it and replace it with a council of free republics.
The war: we're the aggressors? In a pig's ass!!! Islam is the aggressor, self declared between 623 & 6:28. Refer to 8:39 & 9:29. See also Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387. Reference also UBL's fatwa of '96, '98 & '01.
In the matter of Iraq: Goddamn Hussein violated the terms of cease fire, subjecting himself to enforcement & retaliation. We had a UN resolution and a Congressional resolution.
As far as Bush, Clinton & Shrub are concerned, I ain't defending any of 'em. I am an equal opportunity basher. Contrary to Henry the Ass Kisser, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Nor did we create Usama. Laden made that mistake. And Usama did not have commerce with us in Afghanistan. He hated our existence then just as he does now.
All of that is irrelevant, meaningless. Likewise WMD. All that is relevant is the Goddamn war initiated and perpetuated by Islam. We were attacked with unconventional weapons. We should have responded with the best we have: Nukes. We should have presented the world with our digitus impudicus and declared: respect & peace are reciprocal; given where they are due. Afghanistan, Iraq & Pakistan got what they had coming; act like they did and you'll get it, too!!!
We did not; we'll be paying for that mistake for a very long term.
WHAT YOU SAID BEN! Keep Rockin'..and, btw, for all of you that think this is a religion of peace, head over to my and snooper's sites--three in all--and read and learn about this threat and what we're really facing, in their own words...the Know Thine Enemy and Myth vs. Fact series.
This Roger Gardner guy lose the war and anti-war american...........I just love this it sounds like Bioll O'Reilly......I guess if you are anti-war and anti death of th etroops you are anti american...where do you get your logic Roger? and lose the war....This was never our war to lose Roger...we are fighting insurgents...do you know what an insurgent is....a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government. We went into a country with 3 or 4 different parties said installed our own choice saying it was a free election.....and all parties are fighting for power of Baghdad......we are in the middle of their holy war......win the war??? That is stupidity
Strike two Susan--get off the conspiracy crap and back on topic
One Susan, this thread is about ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS, not who we are fighting and I am sure all the al-Qaeda leaders and the THOUSANDS of al-Qaeda killed in this last year is a figment of our troops imagination. The troops have more credibility on who they are fighting that YOU do Susan.
Second: Roger HAS fought for our country which gives him more knowledge about war that YOU have.
Now, either follow the rules and stick to the topic or see ya.
ANTI-WAR protesters that cannot obey the laws and deface property and destroy veterans memorials.
See you try to distract because you have no valid argument about the topic at hand.
Well, distraction techniques are an old trick of your ilk and do not work here.
Got it?
Ben -- this is the Roger Gardner guy who sounds like Bioll O'Reilly -- THEY DON'T LISTEN, BEN. THEY DIDN'T READ ANYTHING YOU WROTE AND THEY NEVER WILL.
They don't listen to Miss Beth or Spree or any of the facts. They hate the facts.
They just keep spouting their ignorant misguided self-important rants.
And no matter what they say they hate America.
Somebody please just shut the goddamned window. I'm sick of them.
Miss Beth, dear -- that tart joke was a tort joke.
Nobody ever gets my godamn jokes around this place.
I know it was hon...and a "good" one too--I just happen to LOVE lemon tarts, made with my grandmother's recipe...I LOVE your jokes!
Somebody just pulled up my bio on my homepage. Now I wonder who that might have been?
They were probably looking for a Bioll O'Reilly commercial.
What about lemon torts?
ya'll need to join us here if you want some fun.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...66739017/
#85139
Are you and Roger cooking Hawk? I'm STARVING from all this brain work! And now I'm fixated on lemon torts! lol
Thank you, Miss Beth. I'd rather have you like my jokes than to win an argument with some anti-American pea-brains.
Food, eh?
I know I'm going to set SOMEONE'S mouth to watering when I say this...I'm making my homemade vegetable beef soup tomorrow...
She means legal tarts, Hawk. You've got to pay attention.
those aren't NEARLY as tasty...unless you use ample tobasco sauce
ya'll are killing me here....LOL
"This Roger Gardner guy lose the war and anti-war american..." Now how the hell do you respond to a sentence like that? I hate it when someone insults me but screws up the insult so badly that I can't respond to it.
Anyway, I think somebody must've shut the window --- I don't hear any buzzing.
I sprayed for bugs
But I made sure not to spray the tarts....or the torts...
You're all killing me too, Spree. I'm dying here.
And thanks again Spreezie for the good words. That's what we need to do to fight these crazy bastards -- just ignore them and start making jokes. It' much more fun anyway. Look -- they're gone. They can't stand us laughing.
I WANT SOME OF THAT SOUP!!! And the legal tarts---would that be disorder in the court? Some of those bailiffs look mighty tasty as tarts...lol
I'm looking for Saturday Night Live -- Is this Saturday Night Live? Or am I on the wrong channel?
I think you're on the wrong channel--we don't have traitors here like al frankenstein
Hawk -- that's some great spray you've got there. You should keep it right next to the computer from now on.
Send me a can Hawk--please?
I feel yer pain, Roger. I'm just tryin to make their 'rhoids explode. Too much thinking will do that to 'em, ya know.
Tarts are good, but fattening. I'm gonna make a pizza. Too bad I ran outta leftover baked beans last night. There'z nothing like a baked bean pizza!! Besides, puff pastry is too dam much work.
Tell'em, Miss Beth, to read my post cursing Usama bin Laden. It ain't gettin the hits it deserves! Thats a cross post, and I did not fix the links, so internal links will open Snooper's blog. That should keep the troll's asses spinning 
.
I haven't watched SNL since the seventies. I don't even know what it's about anymore.
Also, I think it might be nice if you people started calling me the "Roger Gardner guy", I'm starting to like the sound of it.
I'm gone folks. Gotta watch my UFC!
You GOT IT Ben...
Here's the link to Tell it as it Is:
http://missbethsvictorydance.blo...t-as-it-
is.html
Ben,what's the title to the other one? Is it the one you just published? If so, that one is here:
What good Muslims Know here:
http://missbethsvictorydance.blo...slims-
know.html
Before I watch Dan Henderson and Rampage Jackson tear into each other --
Ben, drop me an email sometime. You can get my email address from Spree or Miss Beth.
Enjoy Roger Gardner Guy!
One can of soup for a lemon tort and hold the legal tarts...we've had enough tarts with legal trouble these days...
Dang Hawk you take away all my fun! LOL!
Ok, we can allow a FEW tarts...but not the current ones, we need some new tarts if we're going to allow them...
Have you noticed the other thread has gone ominously quiet?
I sprayed earlier 
LOLOLOLOLOL...bring on those legal tarts then!
Pizza is best, then I'm hittin the sack.
Usama bin Laden: As-Samu-Alaichem is the one dealing with the latest vid.
My latest post is at Snooper's only. Its Jesus Christ??! It deals with an extremely obnoxious ahadith Abu Dawud 37.4310.
It is intended to smoke out ignorant Christians who fall for the ROP & multiculturalism excrement. It sends 'em directly to ayat denying Christ's divine paternity, crucifixion & resurrection.
Sounds like an excellent post, Ben. Enjoy your pizza--I'm done with torts for the moment and into stare decisis...ugh
Jeeez. Why would anyone want to stare at feces?
Sounds pretty weird to me.
Now THAT'S an interesting mnemonic device! LOL!
Miss Beth -- FYI: I'm saving this whole comments page and whenever I start ot feel a little low, I'm going to bring it up and start in reading just about where you bring up the subject of your torts.
These comments tonight have made me laugh so hard I've been crying.
Have a nice night's sleep. Talk to you all later.
RogerGuy
bugs are back on the other thread...
spraying!
It's not surprising that the antiwar protestors haven't any appreciation for the law. I would hazard to guess many of the same protestors can't grasp the illegality of of all of the crossing of the US southern border that occurs daily.
ekienitz, you are 100% right, they don't. They actually defend those that come here illegally.
BANNED, no mater how many times you bypass the ban, you will KEEP getting banned.---Spree
Edited By Siteowner
Spree -- did you zap the little bastard yet?!!
Are "Susan" and "Claire" really Susan and Claire? And if they are, you can always judge a person by the company they keep.
-- rogerguy
As usual, you're always two steps ahead of me, Spree.
As-Samu-Alaichem, Raoul; FOAD, troll!!
Another thought -- if Raoul ever agreed with anything I ever said I'd quit sending in my comments and fold up my tent.
Hey Roger Guy, morning to you. Susan Claire, who knows anymore who is who.
Raoul being the reported stalker of Beth, Pastor Ed, Snooper and at least half a dozen others IS banned and will remain banned for his games. Changing names, pretending to be a conservative that wants to bomb the world in one comment, then personally attacking Beth on another. Being completely disresepctful to the Pastor, which, even I, never having been religious have the class to understand you do NOT cuss at a man of religion. It is tacky.
That ass will never be welcome here.
Right on Spree. Luvya.
I stumbled upon this place and I think I might mark it in my favorites.
I do have to agree that for some reason anti war protestors seem to not be able to gather without breaking the law.
In much the same way the pro illegal immigration and legalization croud seems to not be able to gather without breaking laws.
That being said though, I am disturbed by one issue regarding the article and some comments here. I am a veteran, and in my personal opinion it is horrible to see people championing getting permits to gather.
To have to ask permission to gather for the purpose of agreeing or disagreeing was no where in our founders minds. Especially since they strictly protected it in the first amendment.
People have the right under our constitution to gather and protest or support or just sing coombya. The only stipulation is that it can not be violent.
I am sad to see so many jump at the "wheres your permit" line. You can comment on how they defaced monuments and public property and for that they should be held accountable, but please, to require them to have a permit?!
I gave of my own sweat and blood to ensure that they could indeed gather, and to prohibit that based on a permit is to me more offensive than someone defacing a monument, even if it is a veteran monument. I did not swear an oath to defend the monuments of the United States , but the Constitution of the United States, and if we stomp on that too hard, it will be gone before we know.
Joshua that is a good point, a very good point.
I do think there are exceptions, like this last gathering, when people that tend to break the law get together this close to the White House or any military installation base, or any critical place, I do think for the sake of traffic concerns, safety and security concerns and logistics (like diverting traffic so as to not have accidents with large gatherings), a permit allows the Government to make those adjustments.
For example: When I have a sale, it is lega, I have all the permits, but those permits are needed because of the traffic on that street, the police, because issuing me a permit also had them notified, first they come to help with security, then they also reroute traffic for the day.... it is one of the reasons a permit is needed in my line of work.
The same basis can be argued for a permit, they call it, wrongly so, a permit to gather, but it is really a permit to be able to maintain security and take safety measure because people when gathering, especially anti-war protesters (they have proven they deface monuments as well as have spray painted the capitol building) tend to get violent and break laws NOT pertaining to the permit.
I can see the case made for both sides of the permit debate.
I'll wager that Raoula will definately support on a positive way the " Aren't you happy that the war is Lost".. I'll bet that it'll post a facsimile of a positive Pro islamic post in true Pauliniac fashion>>> After all Raoul is another Self appointed Long range planner and clearvoyant in the mold of the Ultimate MORON .. BIDEN the near sighted MOLE!
I am a Viet Nam vet. I remember how we were treated when we came home. I remember all the self-important yuppie scum with their coke spoons around their necks judging me to be a murdering drug addict. I still rankle everytime I have to pee in a cup to prove to them that I am clean. They have defiled our monument to my fallen brothers. I will be there on 9/15 and THEY WILL NOT DO IT AGAIN. I know how to stop this foolishness and so do the rest of my fellow vets. We will not let these bastards (excuse me) treat our children when they come home from this war the way they treated us.
Dan, thanks for your service and your comments. The one thing the anti-war protesters didn't count on this time, is that we won't stand quietly as a country again and let them disparage our troops.
They especially didn't count on the fact that those that WERE disparged coming home from Vietnam, will also not let them do it again. Gathering of Eagles, Rolling Thunder, American Legion, Vets For freedom and that doesn't even include all of us, that support our troops and veterans and all of our families.
They want a toe to toe fight, they got it this time.
I have been ready to Roll.
I know you are.. so are we...
I hope everyone here will realize that personal bashing of one's opinions does not make anything a "fact", nor convince anyone of their own views. We are adults who SHOULD know how to have a reasonable disscussion without swearing when we do not have the facts or answers , as in speach.. talking lounder or with profanity does not make you right. If you do not have anything intellgent to say, stay off blogs as all anyone sees is how ignorant you possibly are. What is the reason one posts? Is it to help others to understand a point or is it to spout anger and insults to furtheer one's self esteem in an unproductive way? I would like to contribute here, but seems sensless as those on here would not listen to anything other than themselves here.
Ivy, considering you have not addressed one issue of the post it seems all you want to do is see your words published.
Either debate, or refute what is being show IN THE POST, or comment elsewhere.
The point of the post is that anti-war protesters get arrested for breaking the law because they are not capable of protesting in a legal manner.
Any comments ON TOPIC?
trolls
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
Is IVY ( poison Ivy that is) really so robotically programmed to sound as stupid as Ira Peliser from MORON.Org??
GOSHH BUT THEY ARE DUMB!!!
apparently losing at all levels is "gitting them" gassed up agin!!
.. and I forgot to ask. HAWK pass the the spray can... Why should you be the only one free of stinky flees??
Spree-- NUT tarts can be good for b'fast... legal NUT TARTS get elected to Congress by MORON.org!! Let's keep it straight!
LOL RedHawk
that's RIGHT!
Commenting by HaloScan
