Of course you won't respond because your tiny little brain cannot figure out anything to defend your tripe.
Other than my comparisson between your mommy and the Internet I made some pretty good arguments that you obviously have no reponse to. Figures.. Oh and I just did your little google search... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa.ap/ Is the first link and the only legitimate link (if you believe CNN that is) on the first page. So again, I find you exagerating things to make your point. Don't get me wrong, I do not support Bush in the least but your argument is boyond weak... On 12/18/05, Andrew A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to apologize for throwing the term fascist around so lightly, > but I do not know many labels to apply to someone who does not feel that > freedom of political expression is not an inalienable right. Nevertheless, > consider this my retraction of that part of my post. > > I had hoped for a mature discussion of the various philosophical and > epitemeological issues on the table without it becoming tainted by posts > like these. > > Regarding your comments on the fourth amendment point: I am guessing you do > not pay attention to what goes on in the world. Just to let you know, a > simple search on Google News for "bush fourth amendment" will bring up > countless articles detailing Bush's flagrant, intentional violation of the > United States Constitution. I will not respond to the rest of your post as > it is ridden with personal attacks, logical fallacies, and factual > innaccuracies, but if anyone else would like to bring up similar points in a > mature manner I would be happy to respond to them. > > On 12/18/05, InfoSecBOFH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So as much as you hate it, the internet calls the DoD daddy just like > > you as a small child, created by that drunken night an Amsterdam whore > > was raped, called a woman that everyone uses mommy. Go figure, > > everyone uses mommy and everyone uses the Internet yet they both still > > had owners. The Internet owned by the US DoD. Your mommy owned by > > crack cocaine and a pimp hand. > > ... > > Sure there is. If that code is unauthorized or unwanted on the > > machine then there are ethical and moral violations if you introduce > > that code. To bring this back to something you understand. It was an > > ethical and moral violation for the owners of your mommy to introduce > > heroin into her system, but yet she executed the syringe willingly. > > > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
