Thanks to the surprise victory of GEORGE "DUBYA" BUSH over that lame
democratic candidate, AMERICA THE BEAUTIFuL now has a chance to
further its great agenda of Americanizing the world.
Bush has a Republican Senate and House. He has a majority
vote. He has lots of money. He has ***** Cheney to do his
dirty work. He basically can retire now, and let the
defense and energy corporations get on with the business
of running the world.
So now what? Well, I'll tell ya. Look out Iran. We are coming
and the world can't stop us. Iran is next on the list.
We will crush you. We laugh at your puny attempts at terrorism.
You knock down a building; we knock down a country or three.
We can continue to allow our ally Israel to flagrantly
violate human rights and even kill non-violent American
protesters dumb enough to try to protect terrorists.
We can continue to turn our backs as our
tax dollars are used to do things that we would consider
human rights violations anywhere else in the world.
And you Palestinians who danced in the streets after 9/11?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Keep dancing. Your hatred only gives
us justification to continue to victimize and dominate you.
Al Jazeera is GW's most useful tool.
And the economy will recover. Bush will allow the oil
companies to assure that oil continues to dominate the
world economy. We can suck the Iraqi oil wells dry
at the expense of a few thousand cheap American lives and
pollute the environment to our hearts' content. And
the U.N. can't and won't do anything to stop us.
Four years from now, we will have the FIRST woman
president ever. I'm certain all the Arab nations will
look at us in shock and awe when she takes the helm.
Congratulations are in order for the United States of America.
We stood strong and supported a president who took
us to war on completely bogus evidence, who violated
badly needed treaties signed by other American Presidents,
and who still has yet to track down Osama Bin Laden.
Well, I better get back to watching Fox News. Hannity
and Colms is almost over. See you all when we start the
next war justifying huge defense spending when there really is no
enemy anywhere. Let the healing begin.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
S~
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
22 Nov 2004 07:41:01 PM |
|
|
In article <cnscvo$ei1$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041121082904.08086.00001009@mb-m05.aol.com...
You Liberals are the one's who are screwed up and backwards; if we were to
legalize drugs you would see the use of all drugs rise dramatically, crime
would rise along with it and the system would be overwhelmed.
But I think that's exactly what you wacky Liberals would like to see
happen to
our society.
Tony
Besides, if drugs were made legal, the street value of Tony's oxycodone
stash woudl plummet!
Bwahahaha! Which is exactly why legalizing them would *decrease* drug related
crimes, because there wouldn't be enough profit it drug dealing to bother with
it, let alone "protect their territory".
Some people didn't learn anything at all from the Prohibition ....
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tommy Atkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
24 Nov 2004 06:23:14 AM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nywod.11175$1u.11109@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <cnscvo$ei1$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com>
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041121082904.08086.00001009@mb-m05.aol.com...
You Liberals are the one's who are screwed up and backwards; if we were
to
legalize drugs you would see the use of all drugs rise dramatically,
crime
would rise along with it and the system would be overwhelmed.
But I think that's exactly what you wacky Liberals would like to see
happen to
our society.
Tony
Besides, if drugs were made legal, the street value of Tony's oxycodone
stash woudl plummet!
Bwahahaha! Which is exactly why legalizing them would *decrease* drug
related
crimes, because there wouldn't be enough profit it drug dealing to bother
with
it, let alone "protect their territory".
Some people didn't learn anything at all from the Prohibition ....
Indeed. I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, bbu the only
reasoning I can see is that certain influential people are making a lot of
money from it and it woudln't be in their interests to have it declared
legal.
For the record, I state again I believe peopel should be allwed to do
whatever they want to themselves, until they start endangering/bothering
other people - life, liberty and teh pursuit of happiness and all that. Of
course, if you KNOW doing something is illegal, you shouldn't really *****
about it if you get caught and end up with a criminal record either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
24 Nov 2004 09:53:39 AM |
|
|
"Tommy Atkins" <thin@redline.co.uk> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nywod.11175$1u.11109@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <cnscvo$ei1$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw" <no@no.com>
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041121082904.08086.00001009@mb-m05.aol.com...
You Liberals are the one's who are screwed up and backwards; if we were
to
legalize drugs you would see the use of all drugs rise dramatically,
crime
would rise along with it and the system would be overwhelmed.
But I think that's exactly what you wacky Liberals would like to see
happen to
our society.
Tony
Besides, if drugs were made legal, the street value of Tony's oxycodone
stash woudl plummet!
Bwahahaha! Which is exactly why legalizing them would *decrease* drug
related
crimes, because there wouldn't be enough profit it drug dealing to bother
with
it, let alone "protect their territory".
Some people didn't learn anything at all from the Prohibition ....
Indeed. I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, bbu the only
reasoning I can see is that certain influential people are making a lot of
money from it and it woudln't be in their interests to have it declared
legal.
For the record, I state again I believe peopel should be allwed to do
whatever they want to themselves, until they start endangering/bothering
other people - life, liberty and teh pursuit of happiness and all that. Of
course, if you KNOW doing something is illegal, you shouldn't really *****
about it if you get caught and end up with a criminal record either.
***** you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
24 Nov 2004 09:57:11 AM |
|
|
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:41a4ae6d.61550635@ct-news.iafrica.com...
"Tommy Atkins" <thin@redline.co.uk> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nywod.11175$1u.11109@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <cnscvo$ei1$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>, "tw"
<no@no.com>
wrote:
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041121082904.08086.00001009@mb-m05.aol.com...
You Liberals are the one's who are screwed up and backwards; if we
were
to
legalize drugs you would see the use of all drugs rise dramatically,
crime
would rise along with it and the system would be overwhelmed.
But I think that's exactly what you wacky Liberals would like to see
happen to
our society.
Tony
Besides, if drugs were made legal, the street value of Tony's
oxycodone
stash woudl plummet!
Bwahahaha! Which is exactly why legalizing them would *decrease* drug
related
crimes, because there wouldn't be enough profit it drug dealing to
bother
with
it, let alone "protect their territory".
Some people didn't learn anything at all from the Prohibition ....
Indeed. I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, bbu the only
reasoning I can see is that certain influential people are making a lot
of
money from it and it woudln't be in their interests to have it declared
legal.
For the record, I state again I believe peopel should be allwed to do
whatever they want to themselves, until they start endangering/bothering
other people - life, liberty and teh pursuit of happiness and all that.
Of
course, if you KNOW doing something is illegal, you shouldn't really
*****
about it if you get caught and end up with a criminal record either.
***** you.
In your dreams, sweetie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: tw 'In your dreams, sweetie' |
24 Nov 2004 05:25:54 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:<co2apm$in2$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:41a4ae6d.61550635@ct-news.iafrica.com...
"Tommy Atkins" <thin@redline.co.uk> wrote:
***** you.
In your dreams, sweetie.
Actually Kook you should hook up with Tommy Atkins, then you can
legitimately claim that you are fucking yourself, eh terrorist
supporting dipshit ;) In which I have no evidence that you are not
already doing this to yourself at this moment, eh Kook?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: tw 'In your dreams, sweetie' |
25 Nov 2004 01:49:16 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd3256f0.0411241525.29433776@posting.google.com...
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:<co2apm$in2$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se>...
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:41a4ae6d.61550635@ct-news.iafrica.com...
"Tommy Atkins" <thin@redline.co.uk> wrote:
***** you.
In your dreams, sweetie.
which I have no evidence that you are not
already doing this to yourself at this moment, eh Kook?
Dance, you incoherent *****!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: Thenext four years |
20 Nov 2004 01:41:21 AM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <Rhfnd.3236663$yk.504699@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <86Umd.5280375$6p.853216@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
It is a crime to possess pot in many parts of the States, Jean, even in small
amounts. In some states it's been decriminalized, so it's similar to a
speeding
ticket.
Woods
Bah, it is an infraction. The question is, would that act make you
criminal. Answer truthfully Woods.
Are you asking me technically/legally, or do I think it *ought* to make you a
criminal? (And I only thought to ask that because I read another post of
yours).
Yes, in some places, possession of pot is a misdemeanor, which technically makes
you a criminal if you are caught and convicted.
No, I do not think possession of any kind of drug should be a criminal offense,
Even hard drug?
any more than I think possession of a gun should be a criminal offense.
Even without a permit?
I think
the government should keep it's nose out of people's private business and let
them live or screw up their lives any way they want. A different matter if
someone is messing with someone *else's* life, but that's not what we're talking
about here.
Woods
The question is, the fact that having pot is considered a criminal
offense, does that make anyone who has had pot a real criminal?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: Thenext four years |
20 Nov 2004 10:32:42 AM |
|
|
In article <ByCnd.4803194$ic1.455531@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <Rhfnd.3236663$yk.504699@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <86Umd.5280375$6p.853216@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
It is a crime to possess pot in many parts of the States, Jean, even in
small
amounts. In some states it's been decriminalized, so it's similar to a
speeding
ticket.
Woods
Bah, it is an infraction. The question is, would that act make you
criminal. Answer truthfully Woods.
Are you asking me technically/legally, or do I think it *ought* to make you a
criminal? (And I only thought to ask that because I read another post of
yours).
Yes, in some places, possession of pot is a misdemeanor, which technically
makes
you a criminal if you are caught and convicted.
No, I do not think possession of any kind of drug should be a criminal
offense,
Even hard drug?
Nope. If someone wants to be stupid, let 'em. I see no point in wasting
taxpayers' money to charge, convict or incarcerate someone who's toying with
eliminating his/her genes from the gene pool.
any more than I think possession of a gun should be a criminal offense.
Even without a permit?
What permit? :-)
I think
the government should keep it's nose out of people's private business and let
them live or screw up their lives any way they want. A different matter if
someone is messing with someone *else's* life, but that's not what we're
talking
about here.
Woods
The question is, the fact that having pot is considered a criminal
offense, does that make anyone who has had pot a real criminal?
Would I be afraid of them? Nah. Are they legally a criminal - yes, they have a
conviction. That stays on your record, you know.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The |
21 Nov 2004 07:36:25 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
Nope. If someone wants to be stupid, let >'em. I see no point in wasting
taxpayers' money to charge, convict or incarcerate someone who's toying with
eliminating his/her genes from the gene >pool.
So it would be ok with you if someone turned on your 13 yr old grandchild to
drugs?
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: Thenext four years |
21 Nov 2004 05:08:16 AM |
|
|
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ByCnd.4803194$ic1.455531@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <Rhfnd.3236663$yk.504699@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <86Umd.5280375$6p.853216@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
It is a crime to possess pot in many parts of the States, Jean, even in
small
amounts. In some states it's been decriminalized, so it's similar to a
speeding
ticket.
Woods
Bah, it is an infraction. The question is, would that act make you
criminal. Answer truthfully Woods.
Are you asking me technically/legally, or do I think it *ought* to make you a
criminal? (And I only thought to ask that because I read another post of
yours).
Yes, in some places, possession of pot is a misdemeanor, which technically
makes
you a criminal if you are caught and convicted.
No, I do not think possession of any kind of drug should be a criminal
offense,
Even hard drug?
Nope. If someone wants to be stupid, let 'em. I see no point in wasting
taxpayers' money to charge, convict or incarcerate someone who's toying with
eliminating his/her genes from the gene pool.
any more than I think possession of a gun should be a criminal offense.
Even without a permit?
What permit? :-)
I think
the government should keep it's nose out of people's private business and let
them live or screw up their lives any way they want. A different matter if
someone is messing with someone *else's* life, but that's not what we're
talking
about here.
Woods
The question is, the fact that having pot is considered a criminal
offense, does that make anyone who has had pot a real criminal?
Would I be afraid of them? Nah. Are they legally a criminal - yes, they have a
conviction. That stays on your record, you know.
Woods
The question is not the conviction, the question is what you call the
crime, conviction or not, is it a crime to use pot period. If so would
YOU. or anyone in his right mind, call anyone who smoked pot a criminal.
If you can't then it isn't a crime, period.
Even discussing this is already giving too much importance to the little
***** tw.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
22 Nov 2004 08:31:14 AM |
|
|
4 year olds, dude...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:AG_nd.5468069$6p.882795@news.easynews.com...
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <ByCnd.4803194$ic1.455531@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <Rhfnd.3236663$yk.504699@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Woodswun a écrit:
In article <86Umd.5280375$6p.853216@news.easynews.com>, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on
this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the
people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is
nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you
get
caught or not?
It is a crime to possess pot in many parts of the States, Jean, even
in
small
amounts. In some states it's been decriminalized, so it's similar to
a
speeding
ticket.
Woods
Bah, it is an infraction. The question is, would that act make you
criminal. Answer truthfully Woods.
Are you asking me technically/legally, or do I think it *ought* to make
you a
criminal? (And I only thought to ask that because I read another post
of
yours).
Yes, in some places, possession of pot is a misdemeanor, which
technically
makes
you a criminal if you are caught and convicted.
No, I do not think possession of any kind of drug should be a criminal
offense,
Even hard drug?
Nope. If someone wants to be stupid, let 'em. I see no point in
wasting
taxpayers' money to charge, convict or incarcerate someone who's toying
with
eliminating his/her genes from the gene pool.
any more than I think possession of a gun should be a criminal offense.
Even without a permit?
What permit? :-)
I think
the government should keep it's nose out of people's private business
and let
them live or screw up their lives any way they want. A different
matter if
someone is messing with someone *else's* life, but that's not what
we're
talking
about here.
Woods
The question is, the fact that having pot is considered a criminal
offense, does that make anyone who has had pot a real criminal?
Would I be afraid of them? Nah. Are they legally a criminal - yes,
they have a
conviction. That stays on your record, you know.
Woods
The question is not the conviction, the question is what you call the
crime, conviction or not, is it a crime to use pot period. If so would
YOU. or anyone in his right mind, call anyone who smoked pot a criminal.
If you can't then it isn't a crime, period.
Even discussing this is already giving too much importance to the little
***** tw.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
17 Nov 2004 11:43:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:50:44 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
Possesion is a crime in the states - whether it's for personal use, or
the intent to sell.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: Thenext four years |
18 Nov 2004 12:07:36 AM |
|
|
Dani a écrit:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:50:44 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
Possesion is a crime in the states - whether it's for personal use, or
the intent to sell.
Dani
So you buy the ***** of tw, and thus you admit committing a crime. You
admit thus you are a criminal that simply wasn't caught.
And me who thought you would defend yourself about this.
So you are saying it is hypocritical for tw not to call you a criminal
just because you weren't caught, or are you saying it is a crime only if
you get caught? And if the latter, how do you rationalize that?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
18 Nov 2004 12:26:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:07:36 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:50:44 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
Possesion is a crime in the states - whether it's for personal use, or
the intent to sell.
Dani
So you buy the ***** of tw, and thus you admit committing a crime. You
admit thus you are a criminal that simply wasn't caught.
Jean: I was a wild teenager.. the thought of "crime" didn't even
cross my mind then. I wouldn't even have been arrested if caught back
then...I would've been PC'd (protective custody) until my parents came
and picked me up. Or at worst - sent to a juvi center for a week or
two. The only time I would've been considered a "criminal" would be
at 18 (which is when I stopped) - because I was an adult then.
And me who thought you would defend yourself about this.
I admit what I did as a wild teen.. I'm not ashamed. What's there to
defend? I wasn't a "criminal" because I was underage and really
didn't know any better.
So you are saying it is hypocritical for tw not to call you a criminal
just because you weren't caught,
Tom can call my a wild teen who made dumb choices if he pleases, but
not a criminal. I think his point is that you were a grown adult when
caught. But I did defend you and say it was 37 years ago when the
incident with you happened (long before he or I were even alive!)
Do you smoke now? No. So what are you worried about? This was 37
years ago.
or are you saying it is a crime only if
you get caught? And if the latter, how do you rationalize that?
No it's still a crime.. but the difference is I was a kid; I wouldn't
have gotten charged with a criminal act. I think that's what Tom
is saying - that I was never convicted - so therefore under technical
terms, I'm not a criminal in the eyes of society.
Dani
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: Thenext four years |
18 Nov 2004 12:42:27 AM |
|
|
Dani a écrit:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 06:07:36 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:50:44 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Dani a écrit:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Dani
Sure, I don't know any who said it here, but no doubt most of the people
here smoked pot in the past, and it is not a crime. But there is nothing
one can convey to this little ***** tw.
Can't you explain to him that having pot is not a crime whether you get
caught or not?
Possesion is a crime in the states - whether it's for personal use, or
the intent to sell.
Dani
So you buy the ***** of tw, and thus you admit committing a crime. You
admit thus you are a criminal that simply wasn't caught.
Jean: I was a wild teenager.. the thought of "crime" didn't even
cross my mind then. I wouldn't even have been arrested if caught back
then...I would've been PC'd (protective custody) until my parents came
and picked me up. Or at worst - sent to a juvi center for a week or
two. The only time I would've been considered a "criminal" would be
at 18 (which is when I stopped) - because I was an adult then.
But didn't you come on this NG not so long ago saying you had gotten
stoned and bragging about it (my guess is that it was as much to tick
off tony as it was to express enthusiasm, but I don't know). This is the
post I remember about this. I found you very brave to be openly proud of
your actions then. That was a couple of months ago, no?
Imagine what the little scumbag tw would have said if I had been
bragging like you did.
And me who thought you would defend yourself about this.
I admit what I did as a wild teen.. I'm not ashamed. What's there to
defend? I wasn't a "criminal" because I was underage and really
didn't know any better.
So you are saying it is hypocritical for tw not to call you a criminal
just because you weren't caught,
Tom can call my a wild teen who made dumb choices if he pleases, but
not a criminal. I think his point is that you were a grown adult when
caught. But I did defend you and say it was 37 years ago when the
incident with you happened (long before he or I were even alive!)
I was 17. How old were you? Ah yes, until 18.
There is no difference.
Do you smoke now? No. So what are you worried about? This was 37
years ago.
or are you saying it is a crime only if
you get caught? And if the latter, how do you rationalize that?
No it's still a crime.. but the difference is I was a kid; I wouldn't
have gotten charged with a criminal act.
I disagree. It is not a crime. Someone who use pot is not a criminal,
that is why this law will change.
I think that's what Tom
is saying - that I was never convicted - so therefore under technical
terms, I'm not a criminal in the eyes of society.
Dani
But you would still have committed the criminal act. So you would be a
criminal that hasn't been caught, in HIS eyes that is.
Someone who commits a real crime, like, say, kill someone, is a criminal
whether he gets caught or not.
Someone who smokes pot isn't a criminal. Whether he gets caught or not.
This is my point.
Sorry that I have to mention you, I just want this little ***** to be
told the scumbag that he is, a fucking bug, and who else can tell him
his ***** is under his own nose, but it never happens, when I finally
expose the case unequivocally, you don't comment further.
Wouldn't it be great if he left this NG! But you willfully ignored this
possibility he brought upon himself, this is like saying Clinton is not
guilty by dems after he was proven to have lied under oath in front of
all the Americans without exception. It is partisan. Doesn't change the
bottom underlying truth. But in this case he hasn't promised to leave,
so you don't risk anything.
J.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
18 Nov 2004 02:21:10 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:nvXmd.4696505$ic1.447879@news.easynews.com...
But you would still have committed the criminal act. So you would be a
criminal that hasn't been caught, in HIS eyes that is.
Nope, not at all. Idon't give a ***** if peopel want to do drugs as long as
it doesn't hamr anyone else. however. you got caught comitting a crminal act
and have a criminal record for it. Hence you are a criminal, criminal.
Someone who smokes pot isn't a criminal. Whether he gets caught or not.
They are if its against the law, you silly old criminal fool.
Sorry that I have to mention you, I just want this little ***** to be
told the scumbag that he is, a fucking bug, and who else can tell him
his ***** is under his own nose, but it never happens, when I finally
expose the case unequivocally, you don't comment further.
You have never exposed anything old man (except maybe your shrunken peanut
to underage girls).
Wouldn't it be great if he left this NG!
you know how to make me leave Jean - find a post someone else finds
anti-semitic or apologise.. I 've only been making this offer for 3 years or
so..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
17 Nov 2004 06:11:20 PM |
|
|
In article <q4onp0d42nu165mf451ruu37n0navdckcm@4ax.com>, Dani <dani7200@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Oh, I dunno Dani, I never heard of anyone smoking pits ....
;-)
Woods
(sorry, that just cracked me up - I know it was just a typo on Jean's part).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: Jean has no decency. Period. J. Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
17 Nov 2004 08:04:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:11:20 GMT, (Woodswun)
wrote:
In article <q4onp0d42nu165mf451ruu37n0navdckcm@4ax.com>, Dani <dani7200@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
You mean my smoking pit in the 70s. Sure. And Dani smokes pot,.
Ah that would be smok(ed) - note the *past tense* why do you say
"smokes" as if I do it now?
And also - why only mention me? There's plenty of others here on this
group who have smoked in the past.
Oh, I dunno Dani, I never heard of anyone smoking pits ....
Hehe.. didn't even notice 'till you pointed it out .. ;)
;-)
Woods
(sorry, that just cracked me up - I know it was just a typo on Jean's part).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: I have no decency? Who was stalking a four year old girl?! |
16 Nov 2004 02:02:21 AM |
|
|
The header, Guernon!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Answer this Jean...Re: The next four years |
12 Nov 2004 03:02:01 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<kW%kd.4909026$6p.800980@news.easynews.com>...
Bah, it doesn't say that. So who were you there on that group?
J.
Oh yes it does you filthy scruffy hairy *****!
WH
================================================================================
Gerald D'Aoust a écrit :
From: Gerald D'Aoust <gdaoust@i...>
Dear Jean,
sorry about my late reply but just wanted to say that I did my best to
deliver your book to Elsa on Sunday afternoon... as you publically
undirectly asked me on this list and I held my promise and went... and
finally met with her later on in the afternoon. I have to say that I'm
still a little shaken up from that visit.
However, I drove by her father's (Leo) place and had a great time
discussing with him. Later, I had the pleasure to meet with Marie-Claire,
his wife who had been blueberry picking for a few hours. They told me lots
of things about you, who 23 years ago, madly fell in love for some bizarre
reason with their 4 years old oldest daughter. I have to tell you that
Marie-Claire had lots to say... a bit too much actually. She said that you
were very intelligent... but, she said other things too which were not sooo
pleasant.
A little while later, Elsa arrived with her hubby-boyfriend, Gaby, and
their 3 nice kids. Gaby is a nice, happy going, built like an ox,
lumberjack... and the 3 kids are really nice. Elsa looked pretty good, much
better than the last time when she saw me at her door around the First of
the Year, when she was awfully sick, she told me.
To be honest with you, Jean, none of them want to even hear about you...
and I had to come back with your book and only Leo took the time to look at
at it and verify your handwriting... None of them believefd that it was
normal for a full grown man to fall in love with a baby girl who had not
yet learnt how to express herself... and bother her for sooo long.
Honestly, they made a few jokes about the bio-chemistry which you were
delighting in studying... in those days???
None want to hear from you... and I could tell you the reasons in private
if you wish to review the past?
Take care, Bud... and let me know what I should do with the book?... and
sorry for the sad news that Elsa's love is definitely for someone else.
Gérald
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
ONElist: the best place to EXPLORE topics, SHARE ideas, and
CONNECT to people with the same interests.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm back from Montreal. I went there for a few days in order to give an
interview on "CKAC" (they even lodged me in the "Chateau Versailles"!). It went
ok. Anyway. I'm retrieving everything of the past three days, and this well,
you knew most of this Gerald. One thing is not exact though: I knew Elsa when
she was four but she was a bit older when I fell in love with her.
You knew how I feel about her parents and how they felt about me. Me I want her
to have the book, not them. Because of their attitude, and you know that, I
can't relate to them. I don't care about them, they are NOT human.
You knew I wanted her to have the book. But hey, if you won't, or can't,
deliver it, well, what can I say, send it back...
I'll see if I can find another way for her to have it.
So... thanks anyway.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kim M" |
|
| Title: Re: The next four years |
04 Nov 2004 03:31:00 AM |
|
|
You may be "Missing" the Big Picture according to Nostradamus:
It doesn't matter who is in 'charge' of what country ; 2007 is the year that the
(Muslim) / Christian War begins. - I put "Muslim" in brackets, because it does
not mean all of the "Muslim" faith will be involved (the majority of the Muslim
faith is as "passive" as the Christian community) and will 'renounce' this
debauchery .
But War will begin "as predicted", between 'Fundamentalist' Muslims and the Self
"Professed" Free World (i.e.: America / Britian / Germany) in the year of 2007
(Psalm 107 backs this up).
--
Just A Thought !!!
Wait, I'm receiving another transmission from the great beyond.
Wouldn't you know it,
it was a 'Wrong Number' :-(
"Anon Ymous" <shastaman@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5c2e70b2.0411040004.51b0bb7@posting.google.com...
Thanks to the surprise victory of GEORGE "DUBYA" BUSH over that lame
democratic candidate, AMERICA THE BEAUTIFuL now has a chance to
further its great agenda of Americanizing the world.
Bush has a Republican Senate and House. He has a majority
vote. He has lots of money. He has ***** Cheney to do his
dirty work. He basically can retire now, and let the
defense and energy corporations get on with the business
of running the world.
So now what? Well, I'll tell ya. Look out Iran. We are coming
and the world can't stop us. Iran is next on the list.
We will crush you. We laugh at your puny attempts at terrorism.
You knock down a building; we knock down a country or three.
We can continue to allow our ally Israel to flagrantly
violate human rights and even kill non-violent American
protesters dumb enough to try to protect terrorists.
We can continue to turn our backs as our
tax dollars are used to do things that we would consider
human rights violations anywhere else in the world.
And you Palestinians who danced in the streets after 9/11?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Keep dancing. Your hatred only gives
us justification to continue to victimize and dominate you.
Al Jazeera is GW's most useful tool.
And the economy will recover. Bush will allow the oil
companies to assure that oil continues to dominate the
world economy. We can suck the Iraqi oil wells dry
at the expense of a few thousand cheap American lives and
pollute the environment to our hearts' content. And
the U.N. can't and won't do anything to stop us.
Four years from now, we will have the FIRST woman
president ever. I'm certain all the Arab nations will
look at us in shock and awe when she takes the helm.
Congratulations are in order for the United States of America.
We stood strong and supported a president who took
us to war on completely bogus evidence, who violated
badly needed treaties signed by other American Presidents,
and who still has yet to track down Osama Bin Laden.
Well, I better get back to watching Fox News. Hannity
and Colms is almost over. See you all when we start the
next war justifying huge defense spending when there really is no
enemy anywhere. Let the healing begin.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
S~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: The next four years |
04 Nov 2004 09:12:51 AM |
|
|
According to what quatrain(s)?
J.
Kim M a écrit:
You may be "Missing" the Big Picture according to Nostradamus:
It doesn't matter who is in 'charge' of what country ; 2007 is the year that the
(Muslim) / Christian War begins. - I put "Muslim" in brackets, because it does
not mean all of the "Muslim" faith will be involved (the majority of the Muslim
faith is as "passive" as the Christian community) and will 'renounce' this
debauchery .
But War will begin "as predicted", between 'Fundamentalist' Muslims and the Self
"Professed" Free World (i.e.: America / Britian / Germany) in the year of 2007
(Psalm 107 backs this up).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kim M" |
|
| Title: Re: The next four years |
11 Nov 2004 10:23:25 PM |
|
|
This is based on a multiple cross referencing of Centuries and Sixtains with
references to the '100' stars, 'the Father and the Son', the firebrand, the
crocodile, and references to the 60x Era (Sixtains); and predictions by Jean
Dixon, Mario De Sabato and (to a lesser extent) Edgar Cayce.
--
Just A Thought !!!
Wait, I'm receiving another transmission from the great beyond.
Wouldn't you know it,
it was a 'Wrong Number' :-(
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:TFrid.4475026$6p.736151@news.easynews.com...
According to what quatrain(s)?
J.
Kim M a écrit:
You may be "Missing" the Big Picture according to Nostradamus:
It doesn't matter who is in 'charge' of what country ; 2007 is the year that
the
(Muslim) / Christian War begins. - I put "Muslim" in brackets, because it
does
not mean all of the "Muslim" faith will be involved (the majority of the
Muslim
faith is as "passive" as the Christian community) and will 'renounce' this
debauchery .
But War will begin "as predicted", between 'Fundamentalist' Muslims and the
Self
"Professed" Free World (i.e.: America / Britian / Germany) in the year of
2007
(Psalm 107 backs this up).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|