OT- Election time!

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:32:53 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them. They could torture your wife until
she rats out your daughter then use your wife's testimony to
convict your daughter in a kangaroo court whereupon they could
execute your daughter all without ever telling you a damn
thing about where or why.

The "government" could do all that?

Exactly right. It is a travesty bordering on, if not actual,
high treason.

Ah, so it'd be like what Bush and Gonzales did at Ruby Ridge or in
Wac...oh, wait...that was Clinton and Reno...OK, so I'd be like when
Bush acted in Merryma...no, wait...that was Abraham Lincoln...AHA!!
He was a Republican!!

Any chance of providing a cite to one of one of these
governmentally-kidnapped wife/executed daughter thingies? No? OK, how
about an governmentally-executed terrorist? No? OK, how about one of
these "kangaroo courts?" (the 9th Circuit COA excepted). OK, howsabout
an example of when "the government" improperly popped a puppy on the ass
with a rolled-up newspaper?

HTH,
R
....maybe you and Joe could share a nice roll of Reynolds Wrap?

wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:32:53 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them. They could torture your wife until
she rats out your daughter then use your wife's testimony to
convict your daughter in a kangaroo court whereupon they could
execute your daughter all without ever telling you a damn
thing about where or why.
The "government" could do all that?
Exactly right. It is a travesty bordering on, if not actual,
high treason.

snip
Any chance of providing a cite ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109pNn61q::

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 7 Nov 2006 12:16:35 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
The "government" could do all that?

In a word, yes.

Levity aside, that particular piece of legislation changed my
government from the protector of my security to a threat against it.
Hahahaha. What a riot, eh?

Members of my family who are familiar with my outspokenness have often
joked about the black helicopters coming for me.

"Black helicopters?" Is that some guilty white liberal code for "guys
in white coats and a rubber truck?"

It was funny because it was unthinkable in America. Now it's possible.

Uh, yeah...oh, wait...do you mean ACTUAL "black helicopters" or the,
ahem, nice men in clean, bright coats? Actually, either way, it IS
pretty flockin' funny.

All that lofty baloney about safety in my home from searches and
seizures, the right to a fair trial, the right to speak out against the
President can ow disappear along with me if the President simply
decides I'm an enemy combatant. Hahahaha. I'm gonna die laughing.

Do you really, honestly think that anyone in Washington _actually_ gives
a **** about you or Ken and your politics? If all this "the
government's gonna get me!!" BS had the slightest merit, they'd have
reopened Alcatraz for ROFF's own lil' leftwing Jack Nicholas long ago.

HTH,
R
Joe F.

Ken Fortenberry typed:
snip

Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them.

Is this a paid service or will they do this for free? ;-)

BTW, tighten up your tinfoil, lib-boy, it's getting a bit loose around the
edges. double- ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:00:28 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:32:53 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them. They could torture your wife until
she rats out your daughter then use your wife's testimony to
convict your daughter in a kangaroo court whereupon they could
execute your daughter all without ever telling you a damn
thing about where or why.
The "government" could do all that?
Exactly right. It is a travesty bordering on, if not actual,
high treason.

snip
Any chance of providing a cite ...

As I said, any chance of providing a cite to one of one of these
governmentally-kidnapped wife/executed daughter thingies? No? OK, how
about an governmentally-executed terrorist? No? OK, how about one of
these "kangaroo courts?" (the 9th Circuit COA excepted). OK, howsabout
an example of when "the government" improperly popped a puppy on the ass
with a rolled-up newspaper?


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109pNn61q::

Um, Janik's wife and kid are aliens who were captured outside the US
while engaged in actions against the US as part of a unlawful force? Ken
(Janik), you shoulda taught your kid better manners...

IAC, any chance of providing a cite to one of one of these
governmentally-kidnapped wife/executed daughter thingies? No? OK, how
about an governmentally-executed terrorist? No? OK, how about one of
these "kangaroo courts?" (the 9th Circuit COA excepted). OK, howsabout
an example of when "the government" improperly popped a puppy on the ass
with a rolled-up newspaper?

H _T_ H,
R

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
snip
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them.

Is this a paid service or will they do this for free? ;-)

BTW, tighten up your tinfoil, lib-boy, it's getting a bit loose around the
edges. double- ;-)

So you would argue that just because the government *can* do
these things to terrorists only a tin-foil conspiracy theorist
should worry that the government actually *would* do it by
mistake to someone who isn't a terrorist ?

Whew, that's a relief. Thank you, Timmmmmmay, you've reaffirmed
my confidence in our government and our amended Constitution.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
"Black helicopters?" Is that some guilty white liberal code for "guys
in white coats and a rubber truck?"

Did you miss the part where that was a joke? Are you unfamiliar with
the concept of a metaphor? Are you only literal when it suits you?

Do you really, honestly think that anyone in Washington _actually_ gives
a **** about you or Ken and your politics?

The point you seem intent on dismissing is that prior to this
administration's War on Freedom, my rights were not dependent upon
whether they gave a **** or not.

Joe F.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109pNn61q::
...
IAC, any chance of providing a cite to one of one of these
governmentally-kidnapped wife/executed daughter thingies?

You want a cite to secret proceedings and if I can't provide
one then it didn't happen ? LOL !! Good thinking !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:19:59 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
snip
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them.

Is this a paid service or will they do this for free? ;-)

BTW, tighten up your tinfoil, lib-boy, it's getting a bit loose around the
edges. double- ;-)

So you would argue that just because the government *can* do
these things to terrorists only a tin-foil conspiracy theorist
should worry that the government actually *would* do it by
mistake to someone who isn't a terrorist ?

I hate to break it to ya, o' fan of foil, but "the Government" has
always been able to do pretty much whatever it pleases. Sometimes,
whatever part did it gets a hand slapped, sometimes not, but the party
in power really doesn't have a whole to do with it anyway. You don't
think politicians would actually get their own hands dirty, do you?

Whew, that's a relief. Thank you, Timmmmmmay, you've reaffirmed
my confidence in our government and our amended Constitution.

Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
snip
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them.

Is this a paid service or will they do this for free? ;-)

BTW, tighten up your tinfoil, lib-boy, it's getting a bit loose
around the edges. double- ;-)

So you would argue that just because the government *can* do
these things to terrorists only a tin-foil conspiracy theorist
should worry that the government actually *would* do it by
mistake to someone who isn't a terrorist ?

Whew, that's a relief. Thank you, Timmmmmmay, you've reaffirmed
my confidence in our government and our amended Constitution.

Then my job here is done. Be sure to sleep with one eye open tonight. . .
--
Boo!,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj