|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife.
| Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife. [message #242185] |
Sa, 18 März 2006 23:48 |
|
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
What do you all think?
I sincerely hope Trek returns!
|
|
|
| Re: Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife. [message #242191 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 01:58 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242198 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 09:51 |
|
On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>
>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>
>What do you all think?
>
>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242199 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 12:13 |
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
nospam.net> wrote:
>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>
>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>
>>What do you all think?
>>
>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
There will never be another Star Trek series as long as trolls like
you continue to use failed liberal ideology in place of fact. Come to
think of it, there will never be a Star Trek in real life if people
like you ever take power.
And yes, we do know what needs to happen - trolls like you need to
experience the joys of Sharia Law and Dhimmitude - but you need to do
it over there, so that the rest of us don't have to put up with your
incessant whining.
John H. Schneider II
- almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
actions.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242201 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 15:22 |
|
> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
> actions.
Man Americans are DENSE :). Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever. Not
sure who his opponents are, in guessing they are just as bad. The problem
with the USA, it thinks it can police the world, give it 20 years - I think
us "westerners" are all in for a nasty surprise..."The yellow man will rule
the earth" etc etc.
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242202 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 18:30 |
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
nospam.net> wrote:
>they break it like Bush has destroyed
>the Constitution...
The constitution was broken by the ACLU long before W ever got hold of it ..
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242203 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 19:24 |
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:22:13 -0000, "Badass Scotsman"
<badass [at] ismygamertag.com> trolled:
>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>> actions.
>
>Man Americans are DENSE :).
If you're talking liberals, then I have to agree with you.
> Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever.
President GW Bush is more intelligent than you are, and undoubtedly
more clever as well. Have you ever piloted a combat jet?
I will also note that President GW Bush scored higher on tests than
people your side has called very intelligent - which only goes to show
the double standard that people like you have.
> Not
>sure who his opponents are, in guessing they are just as bad.
Judging from your post, you are one of his opponents. Again, have
you ever piloted a combat jet?
> The problem
>with the USA, it thinks it can police the world, give it 20 years - I think
>us "westerners" are all in for a nasty surprise..."The yellow man will rule
>the earth" etc etc.
I remember when people like you said that the Soviet Union was the
future of the world, and declared that the era of the United States
was over. Come to think of it, I remember when your side still called
Stalin "Uncle Joe".
It was a nasty surprise for you when it didn't happen, huh?
>
>Badass.
>
You can stop trolling any time now.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242204 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 19:50 |
|
> President GW Bush is more intelligent than you are, and undoubtedly
> more clever as well. Have you ever piloted a combat jet?
Im not the president of the USA :)
Hes a twat.
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242205 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 20:03 |
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:50:28 -0000, "Badass Scotsman"
<badass [at] ismygamertag.com> trolled:
>> President GW Bush is more intelligent than you are, and undoubtedly
>> more clever as well. Have you ever piloted a combat jet?
>
>
>Im not the president of the USA :)
I never said that you were.
>
>Hes a twat.
You're a troll.
>
>Badass.
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242206 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 20:32 |
|
|
Why are we arguing? Shouldn't this be about Star Trek and not politics?
|
|
|
| Re: Alice Krige says Star Trek has amazing afterlife. [message #242209 ] |
So, 19 März 2006 23:04 |
|
Let's put it this way:unless you're in your 70s or 80s (or they make it that
humans live to be a zillion years old), it'll definately be back within our
lifetimes. A lot of things will have to happen, like a certain person who
shall remain RICK BERMAN will have to go, but I think a new Star Trek a la
the new Battlestar Galactica will re-emerge.
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142722084.322170.167140 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>
> Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>
> What do you all think?
>
> I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242210 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 01:08 |
|
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>
>> Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>> Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
> There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
I voted for Reagan twice and Bush twice.
And I was a fan of Star Trek since it first premiered in 1966.
I don't think one has anything to do with the other.
If Star Trek is a show only for people of one political persuasion, then
it is automatically doomed to a low Nielsen rating. It's supposed to
reach a mass audience, remember?
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242213 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 02:44 |
|
in article 746q121nr7pg5pqq676ac1banje03ovd6s [at] 4ax.com, / Wally Brunner / at
pimpingdabear [at] nospam.net wrote on 3/19/06 1:51 AM:
> On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>
>> Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>> Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
> There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
yes. You need to be plonked.
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, 623-247-6142, 602
242-6839, 602 246-9186, 623 848-3568, 623-247-6376, also using the name
"Foundation For" are liars and scam artists. They make junk phone calls
often several times a day to the same number and refuse to remove you from
their calling list (they will give you a non working number to call to be
removed, and the contact address on their website is phony). This has been
going on for a decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242214 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 02:59 |
|
"Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> writes:
>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>> actions.
>
> Man Americans are DENSE :). Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever.
Well, he beat your boy, now, didn't he?
Are you saying that Kerry wasn't smart enough to figure out
how to appeal to the people that you think are morons?
That the Democrats can't even outsmart morons?
Maybe you need to think that all through a little more...
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242215 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 05:25 |
|
George Peatty wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
> nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> they break it like Bush has destroyed
>> the Constitution...
>
> The constitution was broken by the ACLU long before W ever got hold of it ..
Historically, the Constitution was broken by Abraham Lincoln when he
suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and had a lot of
opposition antiwar Democrats arrested without trial.
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
See if this has a familiar ring to it:
On May 1, 1863, [former Congressman] Vallandigham spoke at a large
Democratic Party rally at Mount Vernon, Ohio. Aware that Burnsides men
were in the crowd, Vallandigham attacked both the general and Lincoln.
The former congressman....lashed out at the "wicked, cruel, and
unnecessary war." He spoke against the draft law, but did not go so far
as to encourage men to disobey it. He also charged that "the men in
power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more
cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before." A few days later,
Vallandigham was arrested in his bedroom by Burnsides soldiers. A
military trial quickly followed. The "copperhead" Democrat was charged
with "Publicly expressing, in violation of 'General Order, No. 38. . .
sympathies for those in arms against the Government of the United
States, declaring disloyal sentiments and opinions, with the object and
purpose of weakening the power of the Government in its effort to
suppress the unlawful rebellion."
http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/Lincoln.htm
Right there, that's worse than anything Bush has done.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242216 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 06:44 |
|
/ Wally Brunner / wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
> >
> >Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> >Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
> >
"I've been dead before." Spock
"Death isn't the career impediment it used to be!" David Lister
> >What do you all think?
> >
> >I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>
Mostly, I hope the killer Bs have both moved on to ther projects before
Paramutual decides to re-animate their favorite cash cow.
> There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
<Snip pointless political bullshit>
MOst of the crew didn't wear spandex. Granted, my suspension of
disbelief faltered at the idea of clothing with no pockets, but in the
end it'll be the stories that the next Trek series sinks or swims on.
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeeeeevil Cabal deck of cards.
"You're a figment of my imagination- the *least* you could do is take
your top off!!"
Rodney McKay to his hallucination of Samantha Carter
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242218 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 03:36 |
|
On 19 Mar 2006 11:32:08 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
<allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote, in part:
>Why are we arguing? Shouldn't this be about Star Trek and not politics?
And we have the word of Dr. Marcus that James T. Kirk kept trying to get
her into bed, and was thus lacking in at least some of the virtues that
Sir Baden-Powell tried to inculcate into his young charges.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space OT [message #242226 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 21:57 |
|
"/ Wally Brunner /" <pimpingdabear [at] nospam.net> wrote in message
news:746q121nr7pg5pqq676ac1banje03ovd6s [at] 4ax.com...
> There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
Oh get off your pompous high horse. You have no clue.
Congress destroyed the Constitution decades ago.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space OT [message #242227 ] |
Mo, 20 März 2006 22:01 |
|
"Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> wrote in message
news:dvjpel$82p$1$8302bc10 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
The problem
> with the USA, it thinks it can police the world, give it 20 years - I
> think us "westerners" are all in for a nasty surprise..."The yellow man
> will rule the earth" etc etc.
I'm with you. USA should come home a protect its own and leave ALL
the ungrateful foreigners to protect themselves.
How long would THAT last????
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242229 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 04:11 |
|
"Christopher C. Stacy" <cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
news:yzlfyldc1v0.fsf [at] OSX663.local...
> "Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> writes:
>
>>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>>> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>>> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>>> actions.
>>
>> Man Americans are DENSE :). Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever.
>
> Well, he beat your boy, now, didn't he?
>
> Are you saying that Kerry wasn't smart enough to figure out
> how to appeal to the people that you think are morons?
> That the Democrats can't even outsmart morons?
>
It's not possible to outsmart a moron. Morons refuse to believe they've been
beaten. You and GW are living proof.
> Maybe you need to think that all through a little more...
I did. We win.
Happy Iraqi Liberation Day,
Gordon
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242230 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 05:18 |
|
in article 441e14b7.2311780 [at] news.usenetzone.com, John Savard at
jsavard [at] excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid wrote on 3/19/06 7:36 PM:
> On 19 Mar 2006 11:32:08 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote, in part:
>
>> Why are we arguing? Shouldn't this be about Star Trek and not politics?
>
> And we have the word of Dr. Marcus that James T. Kirk kept trying to get
> her into bed
When exactly did she say that?
--
The "Upward Foundation" in Phoenix AZ, 623-848-9725, 623-247-6142, 602
242-6839, 602 246-9186, 623 848-3568, 623-247-6376, also using the name
"Foundation For" are liars and scam artists. They make junk phone calls
often several times a day to the same number and refuse to remove you from
their calling list (they will give you a non working number to call to be
removed, and the contact address on their website is phony). This has been
going on for a decade. Do not deal with them.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242231 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 08:28 |
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:13:00 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
>nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>>
>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>>
>>>What do you all think?
>>>
>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>
>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>
> There will never be another Star Trek series as long as trolls like
>you continue to use failed liberal ideology in place of fact. Come to
>think of it, there will never be a Star Trek in real life if people
>like you ever take power.
>
> And yes, we do know what needs to happen - trolls like you need to
>experience the joys of Sharia Law and Dhimmitude - but you need to do
>it over there, so that the rest of us don't have to put up with your
>incessant whining.
>
>John H. Schneider II
>
> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>actions.
I know that idiots like you burn books, deny history, shred the
Constitution, and love torturing people in the sweet name of Jesus.
But despite getting high by licking the blood off your fingers from
your new Crusades, you act like two terms of a criminal Republican
administration (there seems to be no other, i.e. Nixon, Reagan,
Bushes) means there has never been any other political party in power.
You are truly stupid. When your Fuhrer is convicted and put up
against the wall, like the Germans, you will say you were duped and
only following orders. Yours is the arrogance of the ignorant.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242232 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 09:31 |
|
In article <dvjpel$82p$1$8302bc10 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, "Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> wrote:
>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>> actions.
>
>Man Americans are DENSE :). Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever. Not
>sure who his opponents are, in guessing they are just as bad. The problem
>with the USA, it thinks it can police the world, give it 20 years - I think
>us "westerners" are all in for a nasty surprise..."The yellow man will rule
>the earth" etc etc.
>
>Badass.
>
>
If all of you goddamn Europeans would quit putting us in a position where we
"Have to" police it, then we would be happy to stop.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242233 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 12:32 |
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:11:21 -0500, "Gordon M"
<gmclachlremovethispart [at] webtechnik.com> wrote:
>
>"Christopher C. Stacy" <cstacy [at] news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
>news:yzlfyldc1v0.fsf [at] OSX663.local...
>> "Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> writes:
>>
>>>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>>>> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>>>> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>>>> actions.
>>>
>>> Man Americans are DENSE :). Bush is clearly a moron, not very clever.
>>
>> Well, he beat your boy, now, didn't he?
>>
>> Are you saying that Kerry wasn't smart enough to figure out
>> how to appeal to the people that you think are morons?
>> That the Democrats can't even outsmart morons?
>>
>
>It's not possible to outsmart a moron. Morons refuse to believe they've been
>beaten. You and GW are living proof.
Please indicate exactly where we have been beaten.
And, for the record, we generally have no trouble admitting when we
have been beaten. It's not our side that looks at a 57%-43% loss and
says that we "won".
>
>> Maybe you need to think that all through a little more...
>
>I did. We win.
>
>Happy Iraqi Liberation Day,
>Gordon
>
I'm happy about it.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242234 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 12:53 |
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:28:29 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
nospam.net> trolled:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:13:00 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
>>nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
>>><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
>>>>
>>>>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
>>>>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
>>>>
>>>>What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
>>>
>>>There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
>>>be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
>>>fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
>>>the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>>
>> There will never be another Star Trek series as long as trolls like
>>you continue to use failed liberal ideology in place of fact. Come to
>>think of it, there will never be a Star Trek in real life if people
>>like you ever take power.
>>
>> And yes, we do know what needs to happen - trolls like you need to
>>experience the joys of Sharia Law and Dhimmitude - but you need to do
>>it over there, so that the rest of us don't have to put up with your
>>incessant whining.
>>
>>John H. Schneider II
>>
>> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
>>destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
>>that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
>>actions.
>
>I know that idiots like you burn books,
It's not my side that's burning books.
> deny history,
My side hasn't done that either.
> shred the
>Constitution,
Nor that.
> and love torturing people in the sweet name of Jesus.
Another missed target.
You really need to get away from the liberal handbook.
>But despite getting high by licking the blood off your fingers from
>your new Crusades,
No blood on the fingers of my side. Nor is my side getting high from
anything.
As far as a new Crusades, we actually need more of that. The
Crusades were an effort to free the Holy lands from Islamic tyranny.
Why is it that your side always seems to come down on the side of
tyranny?
>you act like two terms of a criminal Republican
>administration (there seems to be no other, i.e. Nixon, Reagan,
>Bushes)
No criminal administrations on my side- with the possible exception
of Nixon (who actually committed fewer crimes than Clinton).
Remember, just because someone has a policy different than yours
doesn't make it a crime.
> means there has never been any other political party in power.
Carter was never President? Clinton was never President? Democrats
have never held power in Congress?
>You are truly stupid.
I'm not the one saying that democrats have never been in power.
> When your Fuhrer
Ah, the nazi analogy. When you can't post facts...
I note that nazi stands for "national socialist" - and that is
exactly the opposite of what my side stands for.
Where does your stand stand?
>is convicted and put up
>against the wall, like the Germans, you will say you were duped and
>only following orders.
Convicted for freeing 50 million people from tyranny? Convicted for
saving the world from people like you?
Bring on the convictions!
The trouble is that your side won't be putting my side up against
any walls. Your side will be up against the wall, and not from my
side, rather from the terrorists. Or maybe they'll be sawing your
heads off on live tv.
Still, my side will be battling to save you, from your arrogance and
willful ignorance.
> Yours is the arrogance of the ignorant.
Mine is the knowledge of factual history, not the ignorant
revisionism that people like you preach.
Yours appears to be projection and trolling.
Care to prove me wrong?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242235 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 12:59 |
|
> If all of you goddamn Europeans would quit putting us in a position where
> we
> "Have to" police it, then we would be happy to stop.
Happy or not, I think in the not too distant future you will be *forced* to
stop.
You have already learned that your country can't cope in war - you have
spread yourself super thin, and that's only in Iraq!!! I can't imagine how
America would defend itself against any new "superpower".
China anyone? It's a scary prospect, and a day I don't look forward to. I
actually love your country very much, I just think Mr Bush is a little "dim"
when it comes to presidential qualities. I love the American way of life,
and being here in the UK, sort of feels like we are in a Mini USA. I think
our people have a lot in common - both with regards to attitude towards
freedom, and the things we ought to enjoy in life.
I do however think America acts bigger that it should from a military point
of view. I may be wrong, but I heard that *IF* the USA wanted to invade
Iran for example, it could not:
A: Afford to whilst the Iraq conflict rages on
B: Gather enough men due to the Iraq conflict.
Is this true?
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242236 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 13:17 |
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:59:36 -0000, "Badass Scotsman"
<badass [at] ismygamertag.com> wrote:
>> If all of you goddamn Europeans would quit putting us in a position where
>> we
>> "Have to" police it, then we would be happy to stop.
>
>Happy or not, I think in the not too distant future you will be *forced* to
>stop.
>You have already learned that your country can't cope in war - you have
>spread yourself super thin, and that's only in Iraq!!! I can't imagine how
>America would defend itself against any new "superpower".
>
>China anyone? It's a scary prospect, and a day I don't look forward to. I
>actually love your country very much, I just think Mr Bush is a little "dim"
>when it comes to presidential qualities.
I think that this comment is proof that you don't think.
Who exactly would you think did have good presidential qualities?
> I love the American way of life,
>and being here in the UK, sort of feels like we are in a Mini USA. I think
>our people have a lot in common - both with regards to attitude towards
>freedom, and the things we ought to enjoy in life.
>
>I do however think America acts bigger that it should from a military point
>of view.
How "big" should we act?
Should we just appease every tyranny that comes along?
I note that England did that (with Neville Chamberlain) and it got us
WWII. We here in the USA are trying to avoid that mistake.
> I may be wrong, but I heard that *IF* the USA wanted to invade
>Iran for example, it could not:
>
>A: Afford to whilst the Iraq conflict rages on
>B: Gather enough men due to the Iraq conflict.
>
>Is this true?
I heard that we've never been to the moon, and that the Earth is
flat. Doesn't mean that they are true.
Is the US stretched thinner than we like? Certainly. But that's
always been the case, in nearly every endeavor.
>
>Badass.
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242239 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 17:17 |
|
I have primarily Conservative views, and I like Star Trek. Trek is not
only for liberals, but everyone. The message of the show is a peaceful
and hopeful future, which everyone (not matter what their idealogy) can
share.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242241 ] |
Di, 21 März 2006 21:00 |
|
In article <1142957859.937497.181430 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "allemannster [at] gmail.com" <allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>I have primarily Conservative views, and I like Star Trek. Trek is not
>only for liberals, but everyone. The message of the show is a peaceful
>and hopeful future, which everyone (not matter what their idealogy) can
>share.
>
But even archer said in one of the final episodes that he feels that they would
have been better off served if they had went out into space better armed to deal
with those who dont share the ideals of peace.
That is what us on the conservative side of the fence say and feel. You dont
gain peace by acting weak and divided in your stance on these issues of the day.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242254 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 04:22 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:dmeq12djh5n7htjfqbahllo5lukfq5rrc1 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:51:51 -0600, / Wally Brunner / <pimpingdabear [at]
> nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Mar 2006 14:48:04 -0800, "allemannster [at] gmail.com"
> ><allemannster [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15580.htm l
> >>
> >>Does it seem that Star Trek will be dead for a long while. Or will
> >>Majel Roddenberry be right in saying "give it a couple years?"
> >>
> >>What do you all think?
> >>
> >>I sincerely hope Trek returns!
> >
> >There will never be another Star Trek TV series. People simply cannot
> >be amazed by the future if it involves a starship and spandex and a
> >fucking prime directive while they break it like Bush has destroyed
> >the Constitution...You know what needs to happen.
>
> There will never be another Star Trek series as long as trolls like
> you continue to use failed liberal ideology in place of fact. Come to
> think of it, there will never be a Star Trek in real life if people
> like you ever take power.
>
> And yes, we do know what needs to happen - trolls like you need to
> experience the joys of Sharia Law and Dhimmitude - but you need to do
> it over there, so that the rest of us don't have to put up with your
> incessant whining.
>
> John H. Schneider II
>
> - almost forgot - it is your side that has repeatedly tried to
> destroy the Constitution, not President GW Bush. It's people like him
> that protects you from the consequesces of your own hate-filled
> actions.
YES!
Well said, John. One thing I can't ever get over is how all the Bush haters
out there - who always hated him by the way, from the beginning, never
giving him a chance - claim how our free speech laws are being trampled.
This is complete utter bullshit, since obviously he, 90% of the mass media,
Hollywood, and the average loser liberal never have any difficulty spewing
their hatred in the first place. Think about it, you fucking morons. Your
argument is moot. You are the same losers who claim that Bush is racist
(though he holds the record for the most minorities appointed to any
presidential administration's cabinet), while labeling certain high
achievers like Colin Powell and Condi Rice as "sellouts". You all make me
sick. Fucking losers.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242255 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 04:28 |
|
"Badass Scotsman" <badass [at] ismygamertag.com> wrote in message
news:dvopr8$62v$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> > If all of you goddamn Europeans would quit putting us in a position
where
> > we
> > "Have to" police it, then we would be happy to stop.
>
> Happy or not, I think in the not too distant future you will be *forced*
to
> stop.
> You have already learned that your country can't cope in war - you have
> spread yourself super thin, and that's only in Iraq!!! I can't imagine
how
> America would defend itself against any new "superpower".
Well, we know that your sorry-ass country sure as hell won't.
>
> China anyone? It's a scary prospect, and a day I don't look forward to.
I
> actually love your country very much, I just think Mr Bush is a little
"dim"
> when it comes to presidential qualities. I love the American way of life,
> and being here in the UK, sort of feels like we are in a Mini USA. I
think
> our people have a lot in common - both with regards to attitude towards
> freedom, and the things we ought to enjoy in life.
>
> I do however think America acts bigger that it should from a military
point
> of view. I may be wrong, but I heard that *IF* the USA wanted to invade
> Iran for example, it could not:
>
> A: Afford to whilst the Iraq conflict rages on
> B: Gather enough men due to the Iraq conflict.
>
> Is this true?
>
> Badass.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242258 ] |
Fr, 24 März 2006 19:15 |
|
"CaptainPike" <CaptainPike [at] ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1226imus75jd933 [at] corp.supernews.com...
> YES!
> Well said, John. One thing I can't ever get over is how all the Bush
> haters
> out there - who always hated him by the way, from the beginning, never
> giving him a chance - claim how our free speech laws are being trampled.
> This is complete utter bullshit, since obviously he, 90% of the mass
> media,
> Hollywood, and the average loser liberal never have any difficulty spewing
> their hatred in the first place. Think about it, you fucking morons. Your
> argument is moot. You are the same losers who claim that Bush is racist
> (though he holds the record for the most minorities appointed to any
> presidential administration's cabinet), while labeling certain high
> achievers like Colin Powell and Condi Rice as "sellouts". You all make me
> sick. Fucking losers.
Yeah! Ignore all the negatives to focus on a few of the positives!
It works!!
After all, the Conservative party isn't currently inside some of the biggest
payola and power brokering scandals in recent history, are they??
Nah.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242265 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 00:01 |
|
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:15:24 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"CaptainPike" <CaptainPike [at] ev1.net> wrote in message
>news:1226imus75jd933 [at] corp.supernews.com...
>> YES!
>> Well said, John. One thing I can't ever get over is how all the Bush
>> haters
>> out there - who always hated him by the way, from the beginning, never
>> giving him a chance - claim how our free speech laws are being trampled.
>> This is complete utter bullshit, since obviously he, 90% of the mass
>> media,
>> Hollywood, and the average loser liberal never have any difficulty spewing
>> their hatred in the first place. Think about it, you fucking morons. Your
>> argument is moot. You are the same losers who claim that Bush is racist
>> (though he holds the record for the most minorities appointed to any
>> presidential administration's cabinet), while labeling certain high
>> achievers like Colin Powell and Condi Rice as "sellouts". You all make me
>> sick. Fucking losers.
>
>Yeah! Ignore all the negatives to focus on a few of the positives!
No, we're not ignoring your side to focus only on ours. Where'd you
get an idea like that?
>
>It works!!
I guess you speak from experience.
>
>After all, the Conservative party isn't currently inside some of the biggest
>payola and power brokering scandals in recent history, are they??
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Republican Party
isn't the Conservative Party. Come to think of it, I don't know of a
"Conservative Party".
>
>Nah.
>
Let's do a small comparison between my party (or at least the side I
tend to agree with) and your party (or at least the side you tend
agree with):
When Richard Nixon committed a cover-up and was to be impeached, it
was the Republicans that went to him and convinced him to resign for
the best of the country.
When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
I see a difference, do you?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242267 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 02:21 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>
> I see a difference, do you?
When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
of a supposedly *criminal* investigation - the 6th "investigation" so far as
it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a manner
to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
I see a difference, do you? Most Americans realized it was an infringement
into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview. And
after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
"issue" as yet another media ploy.
But what are you worried about my good man? Almost 2/3 of Americans - from
all aspects of life - currently believe that Mr. Bush and his administration
are doing a certain quality of work. Come elections Your Man Bush & Co.
will be able to reap the rewards that their efficiency, and quality of work,
as brought them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main 1350874.shtml
Patience, young grasshopper. See you in a few years come new elections!
^_^
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242268 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 02:33 |
|
"Snake" <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote
in message news:OW0Vf.170$Po1.13 [at] trndny01...
> illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
Rats. "Mind". Sorry.
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242269 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 02:54 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
<snip>
> >After all, the Conservative party isn't currently inside some of the
biggest
> >payola and power brokering scandals in recent history, are they??
>
> Hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Republican Party
> isn't the Conservative Party. Come to think of it, I don't know of a
> "Conservative Party".
Look north or east across the pond...
Canadian
http://www.conservative.ca/
British
http://www.conservatives.com/
oh here's one from New York State... http://www.cpnys.org/
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242272 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 04:29 |
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
>> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>
>> I see a difference, do you?
>
>When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
>of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
are in prison for it.
> - the 6th "investigation" so far as
>it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
>illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
>your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a manner
>to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
>
>I see a difference, do you?
The difference that you see is that one side (yours) should be
allowed to flout the law with no consequences, while the other side
should be criminalized for differences of opinion.
>Most Americans
You and a few liberal friends are not "most" Americans.
> realized it was an infringement
>into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
>"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview. And
>after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
>"issue" as yet another media ploy.
The "vast majority" of Americans still see perjury as a crime -
that's why there has been no interest in changing that particular law.
Perjury, by the way, is not "another media ploy".
>
>But what are you worried about my good man?
Why do you want claim that I'm worried?
> Almost 2/3 of Americans - from
>all aspects of life - currently believe that Mr. Bush and his administration
>are doing a certain quality of work. Come elections Your Man Bush & Co.
>will be able to reap the rewards that their efficiency, and quality of work,
>as brought them.
Brought to you by the same cBS news that brought us the Dan Rather
memo's. You know, the same memo's that they still keep defending as
being factual.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main 1350874.shtml
>
>Patience, young grasshopper. See you in a few years come new elections!
>^_^
>
Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
later this year.
BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242276 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 20:07 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:vld9221vqp42dp1127kvk37q9pu6ht1ggj [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> wrote:
>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
>>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>>
>>> I see a difference, do you?
>>
>>When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
>>of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
>
> Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
> shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
> are in prison for it.
I didn't know that Lewinsky filed sexual harrasment charges, even after all
the media coverage...
So I guess the proscecutor would do that for her.
Yup. She had an affair with the President - a consenting adult willingly
having a *continuous* affair with another consenting adult.
Certainly a criminal offense of Congressional interest, yes??
>> - the 6th "investigation" so far as
>>it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
>>illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
>>your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
>>manner
>>to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
>
> He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
The point is - in case you missed the 4th Amendment - was after *6*
investigations he shouldn't have been asked the question...AT ALL.
That is what the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect someone from. If you
would have been placed in exactly the same position your lawers would have
called for a stop to the police harrassment after the *third*
investigation - while not being found guilty - and the court would have
found in your favor. I think you should check court prescident.
But they blew it all away in a political headhunt - as almost every
historian now admittedly acknowledges this "investigation" as.
Blah.
>>I see a difference, do you?
>
> The difference that you see is that one side (yours) should be
> allowed to flout the law with no consequences, while the other side
> should be criminalized for differences of opinion.
>
>>Most Americans
>
> You and a few liberal friends are not "most" Americans.
>
>> realized it was an infringement
>>into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
>>"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview. And
>>after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
>>"issue" as yet another media ploy.
>
> The "vast majority" of Americans still see perjury as a crime -
> that's why there has been no interest in changing that particular law.
> Perjury, by the way, is not "another media ploy".
Yep yep. Which is why this is still an issue with the American public.
NOT.
Only with the holier-than-thou types, who are still in a fit that they have
having problems telling everybody *else* how to live.
You know - gays, lesbians, right to choose, birth control...
You know the type.
>>But what are you worried about my good man?
>
> Why do you want claim that I'm worried?
>
>> Almost 2/3 of Americans - from
>>all aspects of life - currently believe that Mr. Bush and his
>>administration
>>are doing a certain quality of work. Come elections Your Man Bush & Co.
>>will be able to reap the rewards that their efficiency, and quality of
>>work,
>>as brought them.
>
> Brought to you by the same cBS news that brought us the Dan Rather
> memo's. You know, the same memo's that they still keep defending as
> being factual.
Yup, I KNEW you'd complain.
When people vote for "your man" they are all right! When people don't vote
for "your man" they are liars and fools bringing him down.
But, of course, since a Conservative is always right everybody else must be
wrong...right??
But of course ^_^
> Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
> later this year.
Yup. And the current party in power is running scared from the public's
opinion of them. I didn't make the opinion, only reporting it.
I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.
> BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
Based upon polls he is quite fortunate, for he wouldn't stand a chance of
even getting his party's nomination. I think most of his party have begun
to realize how much damage he is doing to their credibility - both at home
and worldwide (we shouldn't even mention "worldwide", because it's an
embarrassment...)
I believe the next presidential election will prove that the Republicans
will try to - very carefully - distance themselves from the current
administration. The one where Collin Powell resigned in frustration...
They will call for "keeping the course" but also call for "new and
improved!" to address, what the public feels, are serious problems and
issues. I guess we'll have to see what the public thinks of all this stuff.
:)
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242278 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 20:46 |
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:07:17 GMT, "Snake"
<fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
trolled:
>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>news:vld9221vqp42dp1127kvk37q9pu6ht1ggj [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled:
>>
>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
>>>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>>>
>>>> I see a difference, do you?
>>>
>>>When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the middle
>>>of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
>>
>> Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
>> shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
>> are in prison for it.
>
>I didn't know that Lewinsky filed sexual harrasment charges, even after all
>the media coverage...
You make such an effort to get things wrong.
>
>So I guess the proscecutor would do that for her.
Maybe you should look at what actually happened.
>
>Yup. She had an affair with the President - a consenting adult willingly
>having a *continuous* affair with another consenting adult.
>
>Certainly a criminal offense of Congressional interest, yes??
Lewinsky was never the subject of the interest - perjury was.
I guess perjury in a court of law by the President of the United
States is ok with you. Given that attitude, why do you believe that we
should have any laws in the first place?
Unless the law only covers people who you disagree with.
>
>>> - the 6th "investigation" so far as
>>>it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
>>>illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
>>>your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
>>>manner
>>>to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
>>
>> He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
>
>The point is - in case you missed the 4th Amendment - was after *6*
>investigations he shouldn't have been asked the question...AT ALL.
So, because "you" don't like the question, it shouldn't be asked?
And yes, i've read the 4th Amendment. It says nothing about however
many investigations "you" think there should have been.
In fact, the 4th Amendment specifically uses the term "probable
cause" - under which the questions asked clearly fell.
>
>That is what the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect someone from. If you
>would have been placed in exactly the same position your lawers would have
>called for a stop to the police harrassment after the *third*
>investigation - while not being found guilty - and the court would have
>found in your favor. I think you should check court prescident.
I think you should check the 4th Amendment.
>
>But they blew it all away in a political headhunt - as almost every
>historian now admittedly acknowledges this "investigation" as.
>
>Blah.
I see your history revisionism is still in full swing.
>
>>>I see a difference, do you?
>>
>> The difference that you see is that one side (yours) should be
>> allowed to flout the law with no consequences, while the other side
>> should be criminalized for differences of opinion.
>>
>>>Most Americans
>>
>> You and a few liberal friends are not "most" Americans.
>>
>>> realized it was an infringement
>>>into the personal life of a public individual and that no matter how
>>>"public", an individual has rights to actions within private purview. And
>>>after a while the vast majority of Americans completely blew off your
>>>"issue" as yet another media ploy.
>>
>> The "vast majority" of Americans still see perjury as a crime -
>> that's why there has been no interest in changing that particular law.
>> Perjury, by the way, is not "another media ploy".
>
>Yep yep. Which is why this is still an issue with the American public.
>
>NOT.
I never said that it was still an issue with the American public. I
said that it WASN'T an issue, which is why perjury is still a crime.
>
>Only with the holier-than-thou types, who are still in a fit that they have
>having problems telling everybody *else* how to live.
Then why don't you stop?
>
>You know - gays, lesbians, right to choose, birth control...
>
>You know the type.
Yes, I've been reading your posts.
>
>>>But what are you worried about my good man?
>>
>> Why do you want claim that I'm worried?
>>
>>> Almost 2/3 of Americans - from
>>>all aspects of life - currently believe that Mr. Bush and his
>>>administration
>>>are doing a certain quality of work. Come elections Your Man Bush & Co.
>>>will be able to reap the rewards that their efficiency, and quality of
>>>work,
>>>as brought them.
>>
>> Brought to you by the same cBS news that brought us the Dan Rather
>> memo's. You know, the same memo's that they still keep defending as
>> being factual.
>
>Yup, I KNEW you'd complain.
No complaints from me, just pointing out the credibility chasm that
your side has.
>
>When people vote for "your man" they are all right! When people don't vote
>for "your man" they are liars and fools bringing him down.
Nice bit of projection.
>
>But, of course, since a Conservative is always right everybody else must be
>wrong...right??
I never said that. I never said that Conservatives were always
right. I never said that anyone else must always be wrong.
Why don't you respond to what I did say?
>
>But of course ^_^
>
>> Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there are elections
>> later this year.
>
>Yup. And the current party in power is running scared from the public's
>opinion of them. I didn't make the opinion, only reporting it.
Ok, you're reporting your own opinion. No problem there.
>
>I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.
I have no problem with your opinion.
I'll wait till you post some facts.
>
>> BTW, GW Bush can't run again.
>
>Based upon polls he is quite fortunate, for he wouldn't stand a chance of
>even getting his party's nomination. I think most of his party have begun
>to realize how much damage he is doing to their credibility - both at home
>and worldwide (we shouldn't even mention "worldwide", because it's an
>embarrassment...)
More "opinion".
Still waiting...
>
>I believe the next presidential election will prove that the Republicans
>will try to - very carefully - distance themselves from the current
>administration. The one where Collin Powell resigned in frustration...
>They will call for "keeping the course" but also call for "new and
>improved!" to address, what the public feels, are serious problems and
>issues. I guess we'll have to see what the public thinks of all this stuff.
>:)
"you believe"
"your opinion"
Given your demonstrated hatred for this administration, and the
facts, why should I believe anything you post?
Oh, I note that everything you've said was also said by your side
just prior to the 2002 and 2004 elections. If you're so right, and
everyone else so wrong, they why is there even still a single
Republican in office anywhere in the country?
>
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: Star Trek: Boy Scouts In Space [message #242279 ] |
Sa, 25 März 2006 21:00 |
|
"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
news:5h6b2252rfusl6fr5v5ojbumikqqhvdef2 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:07:17 GMT, "Snake"
> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com>
> trolled:
>
>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>news:vld9221vqp42dp1127kvk37q9pu6ht1ggj [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:21:50 GMT, "Snake"
>>> <fluidstates_NO+SPAM [at] REMOVE-ME.verizon.IHATESPAM.SPAM_VAC.com> trolled:
>>>
>>>>"John H. Schneider II" <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote in message
>>>>news:hvt8229bmn6gosltg9drmfb4lrk8vc21o5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> When Bill Clinton committed perjury in a federal court of law, your
>>>>> side held a pep rally for him in front of the White House.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see a difference, do you?
>>>>
>>>>When William Jefferson Clinton was asked a personal question in the
>>>>middle
>>>>of a supposedly *criminal* investigation
>>>
>>> Ok, so sexual harassment isn't a criminal offense? That'll come as a
>>> shock to all of those people who have had their careers wrecked, or
>>> are in prison for it.
>>
>>I didn't know that Lewinsky filed sexual harrasment charges, even after
>>all
>>the media coverage...
>
> You make such an effort to get things wrong.
>
>>
>>So I guess the proscecutor would do that for her.
>
> Maybe you should look at what actually happened.
>
>>
>>Yup. She had an affair with the President - a consenting adult willingly
>>having a *continuous* affair with another consenting adult.
>>
>>Certainly a criminal offense of Congressional interest, yes??
>
> Lewinsky was never the subject of the interest - perjury was.
Interesting skip-over of the actual "issue"
> I guess perjury in a court of law by the President of the United
> States is ok with you. Given that attitude, why do you believe that we
> should have any laws in the first place?
> Unless the law only covers people who you disagree with.
>
>>
>>>> - the 6th "investigation" so far as
>>>>it all started with "Travelgate" but when they couldn't find anything
>>>>illegal they moved (continuously) on - and instead of telling them "Mine
>>>>your own business and stay out of my personal life", he answered in a
>>>>manner
>>>>to save face for both himself and his *adult* sexual partner.
>>>
>>> He committed perjury. For the record, there was no "face" to save.
>>
>>The point is - in case you missed the 4th Amendment - was after *6*
>>investigations he shouldn't have been asked the question...AT ALL.
>
> So, because "you" don't like the question, it shouldn't be asked?
>
> And yes, i've read the 4th Amendment. It says nothing about however
> many investigations "you" think there should have been.
> In fact, the 4th Amendment specifically uses the term "probable
> cause" - under which the questions asked clearly fell.
>
>>
>>That is what the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect someone from. If
>>you
>>would have been placed in exactly the same position your lawers would have
>>called for a stop to the police harrassment after the *third*
>>investigation - while not being found guilty - and the court would have
>>found in your favor. I think you should check court prescident.
>
> I think you should check the 4th Amendment.
I did - apparently you haven't, nor have *any* clue to how your Constitution
is supposed to protect you.
Game over.
>>You know the type.
>
> Yes, I've been reading your posts.
Oh, a nice lying redirection. Very well done!!! ^_^
Next try, please.
A fool will keep making his own proofs...keep it up.
>>
>>Yup, I KNEW you'd complain.
>
> No complaints from me, just pointing out the credibility chasm that
> your side has.
But of course you would. Anybody who doesn't believe as your side believes
isn't "credible". We have 20 year's proof of this - my bad for thinking
otherwise!!
>>But, of course, since a Conservative is always right everybody else must
>>be
>>wrong...right??
>
> I never said that. I never said that Conservatives were always
> right. I never said that anyone else must always be wrong.
> Why don't you respond to what I did say?
I did. Read again. Your position is that nothing is "credible" when it
points against your position. When a public poll points to you being right
it is "proof" - or even worse, using modern euthanisms, a "mandate" ^_^
When against you it's not "credible".
Can you prove otherwise?
Next case.
>>Yup. And the current party in power is running scared from the public's
>>opinion of them. I didn't make the opinion, only reporting it.
>
> Ok, you're reporting your own opinion. No problem there.
Nice. Creating a fantasy revisionist reality to support your own
conclusions. The polls are documented, as the web link I supplied provides,
yet *I'm* reporting my "own opinion".
Oooh, self-deception and denial of reality, all in the same person!
>>I'm sorry if you can't deal with that.
>
> I have no problem with your opinion.
>
> I'll wait till you post some facts.
Apparently I am wasting my time. When you can learn how to *READ* - see:
link provided - we can talk.
Illiteracy is pretty ugly.
-end-
(snip)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mo Sep 6 12:23:11 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09345 Sekunden |
