IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Beep, have you no shame?
Are you implying that the Murican Peepul would harass *unindicted* individuals merely because of their appearance? Despite their reverence for God (let him who is without sin cast..) and .. The Constitution ?

It's Pinko Librul carping like this, which feeds the scabrous claims of those who mean to tear down the Murican Dream, destroy our faith in Corporate Rule and otherwise make trouble at the Mall.

This is not the time to be asking questions which undermine our Resolve. Why can't you join the National Unity and support our President 100% - like a real Patriot?

I don't like to suggest such a thing but, duty and honor require that I see about having a suitable Authority er.. keep a bit of a watch on your activities. (No, I'll decline any reward .. well, unless it's pretty big - then I can donate it to those folks who make us more secure. And all.)



A Concerned Murican.
Acting on the Courage of my Convictions
(indictments will do)
This is your brain on bad interior design. Any questions?

IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Epenthetic Yammerers.
New None at all...
Are you implying that the Murican Peepul would harass *unindicted* individuals merely because of their appearance?


Why...if you add to the above..."because of their appearance on a list?"...why that would have indeed been my implication.

Of course...I would imply your statement as well...in context...which is another matter.

Aside from that...your "patriotic" diatribe has no place here.

What is at stake here is a battle between "rights". The right of the public to know the activities of law enforcment. In order for this "public" (you know...the ones calling him Asscroft..etc) to be satisified...they are demanding that Mr Ashcroft violate the detainees right to privacy...and quite possibly subject them to harm based on the "public"'s assumption of guilt.

So, while crying that these people's right to due process is being violated...they are slamming DOJ for at least protecting some of these detainee's rights and quite possibly keeping innocent people from harm.

<sarcasm>What an evil man</sarcasm>

I see the man in pretty much of a "double-damned" scenario...do or don't.



You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Umm OK. I forgot the :-\ufffd
'Twas just my orthogonal synonym for: Right on!

(Besides.. whatever it is that Ashcroft really *means* and will next try to do (?) I see him as being a worthwhile catalyst for reminding all those attention-span deprived Muricans of A Big Thing)








Eternal vigilance IS the price of (freedom, truth, Mom and all the rest). That is - if his wholesale repeal of so much we have taken for Granted to date, leads to no more than ovine acceptance *indefinitely* (??) then we shall have deserved Him.

(Well.. maybe not 'we' - but 'they'.. and not 'I'.)




A.
New Knew that...
and ranted anyway :)

Not at you particularly...just the more I think about "those who wanteth the list"...the more I wonder about motive...and thoughtfulness.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     Ashcroft wants to withhold names of detainees - (marlowe) - (16)
         Well, this is fscking ingenious! - (jb4) - (3)
             Agreed on habeus corpus. - (a6l6e6x)
             I was thinking of this the other day. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 (Nice sig...wish I knew for sure what the answer is...) -NT - (jb4)
         Just to play devil's advocate... - (bbronson) - (11)
             Nobody would >ever< resort to #5, right? - (bepatient) - (4)
                 Beep, have you no shame? - (Ashton) - (3)
                     None at all... - (bepatient) - (2)
                         Umm OK. I forgot the :-\ufffd - (Ashton) - (1)
                             Knew that... - (bepatient)
             Sure it's simple... - (jb4) - (4)
                 I disagree re: #3, but what about #5? - (bbronson) - (3)
                     And #5 is the problem. -NT - (bepatient)
                     Depends upon how they were "released". - (Brandioch) - (1)
                         That last antecedes the Ashcroft Covenant. - (Ashton)
             #5 may be a lesser evil... - (marlowe)

What? You're not me? I'm sorry, I can't talk to you. Put me on the phone instead.
78 ms