🚀 go-pugleaf

Kent Wills wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:22:14 GMT, samurai <sam@rai.ki> wrote:
> 
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:02:32 GMT, samurai <sam@rai.ki> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's see what that speech might include, shall we?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <%EJ0e.144$T95.929@news.uswest.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fuck *your* freedom, and fuck the war criminal US troops. They
>>>>>>>>> deserve to die for their war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <CKl4e.57$Sd3.880@news.uswest.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The US troops in Iraq DESERVE to DIE, they are terrorist war criminal
>>>>>>>>> scum, each and every one of them. 
>>>>>>> 	While I can not disagree with his views any more than I do, I
>>>>>>> do respect his right to express his views.
>>>>>> I don't - it's called TREASON!
>>>>> 	It's called free speech, and even Prof. Jonez has that right.
>>>> Nope - it's treason.
>>>>
>>> 	Please show how Prof. Jonez committed treason.   I know you
>> avoided answering that in misc.legal (and all cross-posted groups), so
>> there's no need to do that again.
>>
>>
>> FUCK YOU DIE SOON KENT YOU SCUMHOLE BASTARD!
> 
> 	Seems my comment hit very close to home.

Seems you side with traitors who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Looks like you're one immigrant who doesn't understand his loyalty oath.

>> http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm
>>
>> TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
>>
>> The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against 
>> the United States to consist only in levying war against them, 
> 
> 	Jonez never did this.

Did so, he comforted our enemies.

>> or in 
>> adhering to their enemies, 
> 
> 	Nor this.

He does that too, he sides with them.
>
>> giving them aid or comfort. 
> 
> 	Third strike.  You're out, Sam.

His comments do both.

Fuck you, you monumental piece of SHIT!

>> This offence is 
>> punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person 
>> shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses 
>> to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
>>
>>
>>>> Nice to see who YOU hang with  kent.
>>> 	I've never met the man.  And I haven't seen a post from him in
>>> months.  I've communicated with you far more than him.
>> SO FUCKING WHAT!!!
> 
> 	I "hang" with you, more than with Jonez. It's clear that I do 
> "hang" with a real degenerate.

You don't HANG with me asshole, you just play and get smacked down.
>
>> I presented the EVIDENCE!
> 
> 	And in doing so, proved yourself wrong.

You lying stupid piece of shit.

>> You made scumsucking APOLOGIES for him!
> 
> 	I respect his right to have and express his views. 

His "views" qualify as treason.

>>>>>> Giving "aid and comfort" tour our enemies at time of war.
>>>>> 	Which you have yet to prove anyone, including Prof. Jonez, has
>>>>> done.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You might research what that means .
>>>>> 	I have.  And, not surprisingly, you're wrong.
>>>> Nope, I'm right, as always.
>>> 	You have been proved wrong more times than anyone has cared to
>>> count.
>> Not by you, nutsucker!
> 
> 	Ken has proved you wrong many more times than I have, I'll
> grant you that.

Not by him either nutlicker.

>>>>>>>>>> So get your shrink wife to psychoanalyze you bud, you need HELP.
>>>>>>>>> 	Just because you are embarrassed to have your undying hate for
>>>>>>>>> the USA 
>>>>>>>> You're a nutcase.
>>>>>>> 	You hate the U.S.  It's well documented.
>>>>>> You're a fucking lying piece of shit with NO proof, NO corroborative 
>>>>>> cites, and NO credibility whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 	You've offered the proof and corroboration yourself. There's 
>>>>> no need for me to search Google when you've just proved my point.
>>>>> 	And by proving my point, you've increased my credibility.
>>>> Once again you flame out.
>>> 	How so?  You offered the link that proves very few posts are
>>> about Lar$on.  Your link proves that I don't behave as one would
>>> expect an obsessed person to behave.
>>> 	Again, you've been proved wrong.  The sole difference is that
>>> YOU proved you are wrong.
>> You provided no PROOF!
> 
> 	Please read above.  

Please go straight to HELL you piece of SHIT!