The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

A Muzi wrote:
"Keats" wrote:
Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?

"still me" wrote in message
Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and
unsafe toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly
polluted by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make
them breath the air that comes from factories without pollution
controls and vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive
cars with no safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their
conversations without warrant or court oversight and when we decide
it's right to arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send
them to Gutmo Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.
They'll all be gone in a generation.

Keats wrote:
So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is
your idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
with your family and friends, yes?


The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are
now getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a way
of ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.

Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.

Careful, Andrew, or Flogittodeathlinson and others will start assassinating
your character and run you out of here like they did Mark.

Ken the Troll wrote:
Unfortunately we have a President who rides a bicycle, but its a
mountain bike, which are ridden by people with a "macho" complex who
are more interested in tearing up the environment than protecting it.
He seems to prefer being hauled up to the top of a big hill and then
coasts his way down, much as he seems to have done in college and in
the university, and then calls that getting his exercise.

If you want a better President next time you have to 1) contribute to
those candidates that hold the same values as you do, 2) volunteer to
work on their local campaign staff and then try to influence you
neighbors, 3) vote in the primary or attend your caucus, 4) become a
delegate to the national convention of your party [I hope the hell it
isn't Republican - after 16 years of living under a Rethug government
in Michigan], 5) continue to campaign and contribute to the candidate
who is closest to your point of view, 6) vote early and then work with
your candidate's committee to get out the vote. If you don't do this
then don't complain about the people who get elected.

I only vote for candidates who have a record of supporting cycling
friendly bills and programs while they had office. We can bitch all we
want of newsgroups like this, but unless we get active and elect
people who support our causes we will continue to get "Bike Route"
signs instead of designated bike lanes, paths, etc. and we will
continue to see our brothers and sisters killed by "distracted" ( -
"sun blinded" or what ever other excuse used to excuse the drivers who
use their two to six ton gas pigs to kill us) drivers.

As Pogo used to say "We have met the enemy and it is us!"

Ken the Troll (living below - South - of the Mighty Mackinaw Bridge)


You missed your chance. John Kerry does ride a road bike. He rides it
well and on the roads. I know this first hand because he has ridden on
our weekly club rides many times. He rides the longer loop with the
faster riders. No fuss, no escorts, he just shows and rides, like any
other rider. I actually rode in a group with him without even knowing he
was in the group. Despite all the media BS, he seems very much like a
regular guy -- albeit a rather fit one.

I don't know his position on lanes & paths, I don't generally like them,
myself.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
(not Tom) Keats wrote:
...
And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
friends, yes?

Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.


Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain *mean*.
They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

"still me" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" wrote:


Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain
*mean*.
They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
charging them is against everything this country was founded on.


By far most of the Gutmo Bay (great name still me) enemy combatant detainees
have been released or sent back to their countries of origin. What's left
is about 200 of the worst of the worst.

Two hundred Moussaoui like farce trials would be a real hoot, but we hardly
have the time, money, or patience for it. So it seems to me the best
course would be to keep the detainee community together and resettle them in
the USA to start their new lives. We need to identify a nice liberal
community where the diversity the detainees bring to the community would be
celebrated by the residents. Where did you say you lived?

(not Tom) Keats

In article ,
still me wrote:

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" wrote:


Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
charging them is against everything this country was founded on.

If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
Constitution.

And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution.

On Aug 6, 5:16 pm, "Keats" wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message

ups.com...

And how would you about getting rid of the Republicans? That would
leave us with something like, what 70% of the population by current
approval rates, right?

Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?

Being the wimpy peace and lovenik that you are I'm sure you wouldn't have
the personal courage for shooting them or herding them into gas chambers.
But maybe you could convince your illegal alien kindred spirit brothers
toiling away in the kitchens of America's restaurants to poison them. Or
failing that you surely should be able to convince the 70% Good People to
pass laws for mass republican sterilization. It would take longer than the
gas chambers for sure, but you would have your final solution in good time.

I'd prefer a fate similar to that they subjected the Iraqi people
to...

Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis

Thursday December 7, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The surging violence in Iraq has created what is becoming the biggest
refugee crisis in the world, a humanitarian group said today.
A report (pdf) by Washington-based Refugees International said an
influx of Iraqis threatened to overwhelm other Middle Eastern
countries, particularly Syria, Jordon and Lebanon.

Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the
country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab
countries standing at 1.8 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html

At that rate Iraq would lose all of its population within a few years.
But, of course, you can always hire Hindus, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis
and some Chinese, elect an all-Iraqi Congress and declare
"democracy."

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...

Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the
country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab
countries standing at 1.8 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html

At that rate Iraq would lose all of its population within a few years.
But, of course, you can always hire Hindus, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis
and some Chinese, elect an all-Iraqi Congress and declare
"democracy."


Yes, that's exactly what we should do.

Then we could live happily in peace and harmony ever after on the oil
revenues. This is the finest plan I've heard so far. Let's do it! Do you
want to tell President Bush or do you want me to tell him?

(not Tom) Keats

"Keats" wrote: blah blah blah
"still me" wrote blah blah blah
A Muzi wrote: blah blah blah

Bill Sornson wrote:
Careful, Andrew, or Flogittodeathlinson and others will start assassinating
your character and run you out of here like they did Mark.

Yes, I have opinions
No, I cannot always resist the urge to OT comment. Sorry.
My intent is not to force anyone away and
No, I'm not sensitive and I'm not leaving
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" wrote:

Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

still me wrote:
If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
charging them is against everything this country was founded on.
If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
Constitution.

Tim McNamara wrote:
And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution.

No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??

I did see the 'oath' part, "I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sounds
good to me, glad he was sincere in it.

hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

Maybe call pilots of airplanes-into-buildings 'freedom fighters'??
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"A Muzi" wrote in message
...

No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??

hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should be
done by somebody with juristiction in the area.

If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the Americans
holding them?

clive