Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Government > Guns > Re: Gray Ghost ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 153 of 939 Topic 53792 of 57937
Post > Topic >>

Re: Gray Ghost ****s himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barred from owning guns

by grey_ghost471-newsgroups@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gray Ghost) Jul 24, 2008 at 01:31 AM

"Reality_Check©" <Reality@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:6eqk7lF8f995U1
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> David Hartung <d_hartung@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> Reality_Check© wrote:
>>>> "David Hartung" <d_hartung@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> Reality_Check wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: <snip>
>>>>>>>>> How many Japanese and American lives do you believe would have
been
>>>>>>>>> lost in an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands?
>>>>>>>> Why would you need to invade them?
>>>>>>> The fanitical military had the guns and would have kept the food.
>>>>>>> They would have been the last to die, with the civilian population
>>>>>>> going first. Prove it. 
>>>>> Which is the whole point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are second guessing Truman 60 years after the event having no
idea
>>>>> of the extent of his knowledge at time. In other words, you do not
know
>>>>> the situation. 
>>>>
>>>> I do know the U$$A is the ONLY nation to have dropped NUCLEAR Weapons
>>>> of Mass Destruction upon CIVILIAN Population centers -- twice --
killing
>>>> over 100,000+ innocent men, women and children.
>>>
>>> Which means that you know nothing at all.
>>
>> Nobody who espouses those views has the first idea what they are 
>> discussing. 
> 
> "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
>    -- U$ Major Gen. Curtis LeMay, September 1945
> 
> Do you practice being a lying piece of crap, or does it come naturally
for 
> you?
> 
> 

No I practice stating historical fact. It doesn't trouble me. how about
you?

Exactly where are you from? Your email suggests Italy. Are you just bitter

because your gramps was fooled by Mussolini only to have your country
plowed 
under by the Allies. That would explain your bitterness.

Factions in the Imperial Japanese Army wanted to continue to fight 
using malnourished civilians with sharpened sticks for the Honor of the 
Emperor.

Do you have any idea how close the surrender came to being aborted? Do you

know that the failure of the coup turned on the actions of a single
general? 
That his motivation was his loyalty to the Emperor and not his concern for

lives of the Japanese civil population? Do you know his name? I do.

You have not researched this era at all. No rational person who has
studied 
the period and understands the cir***stances would say such things.

Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan
near 
the end of World War II. The operation was cancelled when Japan
surrendered 
following the atomic bombing of Hiro****ma and Nagasaki, and the Soviet 
Union's declaration of war against Japan.

Operation Downfall consisted of two parts — Operation Olympic and
Operation 
Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to 
capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island of 
Kyushu, with the recently captured island of Okinawa to be used as a
staging 
area. Later, in the spring of 1946, Operation Coronet was the planned 
invasion of the Kanto plain near Tokyo on the Japanese island of Honshu. 
Airbases on Kyushu captured in Operation Olympic would allow land-based
air 
sup****t for Operation Coronet.

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well;

they were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust 
their defensive plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense
of 
Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations.

Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides:

depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion,

estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties,[1] and tens of 
millions for Japanese casualties.

Assumptions
While the geography of Japan was fixed, the U.S. military planners could
only 
estimate the defending forces they would face. Based on intelligence 
available early in 1945, their assumptions included the following:

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available 
organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile

population." 
"That approximately three (3) hostile divisions will be disposed in
Southern 
KYUSHU and an additional three (3) in Northern KYUSHU at initiation of the

OLYMPIC operation." 
"That total hostile forces committed against KYUSHU operations will not 
exceed eight (8) to ten (10) divisions and that this level will be
speedily 
attained." 
"That approximately twenty-one (21) hostile divisions, including depot 
divisions, will be on HONSHU at initiation of [Coronet] and that fourteen 
(14) of these divisions may be employed in the KANTO PLAIN area." 
"That the enemy may withdraw his land-based air forces to the Asiatic 
Mainland for protection from our neutralizing attacks. That under such 
cir***stances he can possibly amass from 2,000 to 2,500 planes in that
area 
by exercise of rigid economy, and that this force can operate against
KYUSHU 
landings by staging through homeland fields." 

Olympic
 
Operation Olympic was to attack southern Japan.Operation Olympic, the 
invasion of Kyushu, was to begin on "X-Day", which was scheduled for
November 
1, 1945. The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever

assembled, including forty-two aircraft carriers, twenty-four battle****ps,

and four hundred destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen U.S. divisions

were scheduled to take part in the initial landings. Using Okinawa as a 
staging base, the objective would have been to seize the southern ****tion
of 
Kyushu. This area would then be used as a further staging point to attack 
Honshu in Operation Coronet.

The U.S. Twentieth Air Force was to have continued its role as the main 
Allied strategic bomber force used against the Japanese home islands. 
Tactical air sup****t was to be the responsibility of the U.S. Far East Air

Forces (FEAF) — a formation which comprised the Fifth, Thirteenth and
Seventh 
Air Forces — during the preparation for the invasion. FEAF was responsible

for attacking Japanese airfields and trans****tation arteries on Kyushu and

Southern Honshu (e.g. the Kanmon Tunnel) and for attaining and maintaining

air superiority over the beaches.

Kyushu was to be invaded by U.S. Sixth Army at three points — Miyazaki, 
Ariake, and Ku****kino. If a clock were drawn on a map of Kyushu, these
points 
would roughly correspond to 4, 5, and 7 o'clock, respectively. The 35
landing 
beaches were all named for automobiles: Austin, Buick, Cadillac through 
Stutz, Winton, and Zephyr.[10] With one corps assigned to each landing,
the 
invasion planners assumed that the Americans would outnumber the Japanese
by 
roughly three to one. In early 1945 Miyazaki was virtually undefended,
while 
Ariake with its nearby good harbor was heavily defended. Although
Ku****kino 
was weakly defended, its imposing terrain meant that the Marines who
landed 
there would probably have had the toughest time.

Coronet
Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu at the Kanto Plain south of the 
capital, was to begin on "Y-Day", which was scheduled for March 1, 1946. 
Coronet would have been the largest amphibious operation of all time, with
25 
divisions (including the floating reserve) earmarked for the initial 
operations. U.S. First Army would have invaded at Kujukuri Beach, on the
Boso 
Peninsula, while U.S. Eighth Army invaded at Hiratsuka, on Sagami Bay.
Both 
armies would then drive north and inland, meeting at Tokyo.

Operation Ketsugo
Meanwhile, the Japanese had their own plans. Initially, they were
concerned 
about an invasion during the summer of 1945. However, the Battle of
Okinawa 
went on so long that they concluded the Allies would not be able to launch

another operation before the typhoon season, during which the weather
would 
be too risky for amphibious operations. Japanese intelligence predicted 
fairly closely where the invasion would take place: southern Kyushu at 
Miyazaki, Ariake Bay, and/or the Satsuma Peninsula.[16]

While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, it
could 
perhaps raise the cost of conquering Japan too high for the Allies to
accept, 
leading to some sort of armistice. The Japanese plan for defeating the 
invasion was called Operation Ketsugo (????, ketsugo sakusen?) ("Operation

Codename Decision").


Kamikaze
Admiral Matome Ugaki was recalled to Japan in February 1945 and given
command 
of the Fifth Air Fleet on Kyushu. The Fifth Air Fleet was assigned the
task 
of kamikaze attacks against ****ps involved in the invasion of Okinawa, 
Operation Ten-Go and began training pilots and assembling aircraft for the

defense of Kyushu where the Allies were likely to invade next.

The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to 
fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the

mission, trying to make up in quantity what they lacked in quality. Their 
army and navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July (and
would 
have had somewhat more by October) and were planning to use almost all
that 
could reach the invasion fleets. Ugaki also oversaw building of hundreds
of 
small suicide boats that would also be used to attack any Allied ****ps
that 
came near the shores of Kyushu.

Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of 
Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Kyushu,
given 
the more favorable cir***stances, they hoped to get one for six by 
overwhelming the U.S. defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks in a

period of hours. The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more
than 
400 ****ps; since they were training the pilots to target trans****ts rather

than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be dispro****tionately 
greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes
could 
destroy a third to a half of the invasion force before its landings.[17]


Naval forces
By August 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had ceased to be an 
effective fighting force. The only Japanese major war****ps in fighting
order 
were six aircraft carriers, four cruisers, and one battle****p, none of
which 
could be adequately fueled. The navy still had quite a large number of
minor 
war****ps, but their use would also be limited by the lack of fuel. They
could 
"sustain a force of twenty operational destroyers and perhaps forty 
submarines for a few days at sea."[18]

The IJN also had about 100 Koryu-class midget submarines, 250 smaller
Kairyu-
class midget submarines, 1,000 Kaiten manned torpedoes, and 800 ****n'yo 
suicide boats.


Ground forces
In any amphibious operation, the defender has two options for defensive 
strategy — strong defense of the beaches, or defense in depth. Early in
the 
war (such as at Tarawa) the Japanese employed strong defenses on the
beaches 
with little or no manpower in reserve. This tactic proved to be very 
vulnerable to pre-invasion shore bombardment. Later in the war, at
Peleliu, 
Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the Japanese switched strategy and dug in their
forces 
in the most defensible terrain. Fighting evolved into long battles of 
attrition, with very high American casualties, but no hope of victory for
the 
Japanese.

For the defense of Kyushu, the Japanese took an intermediate posture, with

the bulk of their defensive forces a few kilometres inland from the shore
— 
back far enough to avoid complete exposure to naval gunnery, but close
enough 
that the Americans could not establish a secure foothold before engaging 
them. The counteroffensive forces were still further back, prepared to
move 
against whichever landing seemed to be the main effort.

In March 1945, there was only one combat division in Kyushu. Over the next

four months the Japanese Army transferred forces from Manchuria, Korea,
and 
northern Japan, while raising other forces in place. By August, they had 
fourteen divisions and various smaller formations, including three tank 
brigades, for a total of 900,000 men.[19] Although the Japanese were able
to 
raise large numbers of new soldiers, equipping them was more difficult. By

August, the Japanese Army had the equivalent of 65 divisions in the
homeland 
but only enough equipment for 40 and only enough ammunition for 30.[20]

The Japanese did not formally decide to stake everything on the outcome of

the Battle of Kyushu, but they concentrated their assets to such a degree 
that there would be little left in reserve. By one estimate, the forces in

Kyushu had 40% of all the ammunition in the Home Islands.[21]
=======================================================================
In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting
Corps 
— which included all healthy men aged 15–60 and women 17–40 — to perform 
combat sup****t, and ultimately combat jobs. Weapons, training, and
uniforms 
were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than
muzzle-
loading muskets, longbows, or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were
expected 
to make do with what they had.[22]

One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl
and 
told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. … You must aim for the 
abdomen."[23] 
=======================================================================

Allied reevaluation of Olympic

Air threat
U.S. military intelligence initially estimated the number of Japanese 
aircraft to be around 2,500.[24] The Okinawa experience was bad — almost
two 
fatalities and a similar number wounded per sortie — and Kyushu was likely
to 
be worse. To attack the ****ps off Okinawa, planes had to fly long
distances 
over open water; to attack the ****ps off Kyushu, they could fly overland
and 
then short distances out to the landing fleets. Gradually, intelligence 
learned that the Japanese were devoting all their aircraft to the kamikaze

mission and taking effective measures to conserve them until the battle.
An 
Army estimate in May was 3,391 planes; in June, 4,862; in August, 5,911. A

Navy estimate, abandoning any distinction between training and combat 
aircraft, in July was 8,750; in August, 10,290.[25]

The Allies made counter-Kamikaze preparations, known as the Big Blue
Blanket. 
This involved adding more fighter squadrons to the carriers in place of 
torpedo- and dive-bombers, and converting B-17s into airborne radar
pickets — 
the ancestors of the AWACS. Nimitz came up with a plan for a pre-invasion 
feint, sending a fleet to the invasion beaches a couple of weeks before
the 
real invasion, to lure out the Japanese on their one-way flights, who
would 
then find — instead of the valuable, vulnerable trans****ts — ****ps loaded 
with anti-aircraft guns from stem to stern.

The main defense against Japanese air attacks would have come from the 
massive fighter forces that were being assembled in the Ryukyu Islands.
U.S. 
Army Fifth and Seventh Air Force and U.S. Marine air units had moved into
the 
islands immediately after the invasion, and air strength had been
increasing 
in preparation for the all-out assault on Japan. In preparation for the 
invasion, an air campaign against Japanese airfields and trans****tation 
arteries had commenced before the Japanese surrender.


Ground threat
Through April, May, and June, Allied intelligence followed the buildup of 
Japanese ground forces, including five divisions added to Kyushu, with
great 
interest but some complacency, still projecting that in November the total

for Kyushu would be about 350,000 servicemen. That changed in July, with
the 
discovery of four new divisions and indications of more to come. By
August, 
the count was up to 600,000, and Magic cryptanalysis had identified nine 
divisions in southern Kyushu — three times the expected number: in fact,
this 
was still a serious underestimate of Japanese strength; see above.
Estimated 
troop strength in early July was 350,000,[26] rising to 545,000 in early 
August.

The intelligence revelations about Japanese preparations on Kyushu
emerging 
in mid-July transmitted powerful shock waves both in the Pacific and in 
Wa****ngton. On 29 July, [MacArthur's intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Charles

A.] Willoughby … noted first that the April estimate allowed for the
Japanese 
capability to deploy six divisions on Kyushu, with the potential to deploy

ten. "These [six] divisions have since made their appearance, as
predicted," 
he observed, "and the end is not in sight." If not checked, this
threatened 
"to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) 
which is not the recipe for victory."[28] 
The buildup of Japanese troops on Kyushu led American war planners, most 
im****tantly General George Marshall, to consider drastic changes to
Olympic, 
or replacing it with a different plan for invasion.

Nuclear weapons
On Marshall's orders, Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical
use 
of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even
after 
dropping two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that
the 
Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman re****ted
that 
at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped
on 
defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area
hit 
by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well 
understood, and that short amount of time would have resulted in
substantial 
radiation exposure for the American troops.[31]

[edit] Prospects for Olympic
General Douglas MacArthur dismissed any need to change his plans. "I am 
certain that the Japanese air potential re****ted to you as ac***ulating to

counter our OLYMPIC operation is greatly exaggerated. … As to the movement
of 
ground forces… I do not credit… the heavy strengths re****ted to you in 
southern Kyushu. … In my opinion, there should not be the slightest
thought 
of changing the OLYMPIC operation."[33] However Admiral Ernest King, the
CNO, 
was prepared to officially oppose proceeding with the invasion, with
Admiral 
Nimitz's concurrence, which would have set off a major dispute within the 
United States government.

At this juncture, the key interaction would likely have been between
Marshall 
and Truman. There is strong evidence that Marshall remained committed to
an 
invasion as late as 15 August. … But tempering Marshall's personal
commitment 
to invasion would have been his comprehension that civilian sanction in 
general, and Truman's in particular, was unlikely for a costly invasion
that 
no longer enjoyed consensus sup****t from the armed services.[34] 
Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up
their 
invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly

defended island of Hokkaido by the end of August, which would have put 
pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November. On August 15,

the Japanese agreed to surrender, rendering the whole question of invasion

moot.


[edit] Estimated casualties
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area
will 
be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the
Empire, 
but also by a fanatically hostile population",[7] high casualties were 
thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several

people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and

purposes — which included advocating for and against the invasion — 
afterwards, they were reused to debate over the atomic bombings of
Hiro****ma 
and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding
campaigns, 
drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45

casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were
developed. 
This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties,

including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the 
combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[36] 
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in
the 
first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[37] A study done by General 
MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and
125,000 
after 120 days.[38] When these figures were questioned by General
Marshall, 
MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting 
wounded men able to return to duty.[39] 
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the
Battle 
of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer

31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese 
casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[40] Adm. Leahy,
more 
impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would
suffer 
a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[41] Admiral
King 
thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and 
Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[42] 
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, 
though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the 
Battle of Okinawa,[43] and troop trans****ts off Kyushu would have been
much 
more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William
Shockley 
estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American 
casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten
million 
Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by 
civilians in the defense of Japan.[1] 
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. 
Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a
million 
to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in

memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 
1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but
it 
is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings
with 
Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely
too 
high" under "our present plan of campaign."[44]

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the
first 
48 days; and the Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 casualties over about 82 
days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. Several thousand soldiers who

died indirectly whether from wounds or other causes at a later date are
not 
included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a 
million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of
the 
casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all
the 
American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World

War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that 
number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in 
stock.[45] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to 
wounded soldiers on the field.[45]

*******************************************************************
I am inclined to beleive those who were there at the time facing extremely

difficult choices that were going to affect the lives of millions of
people 
as opposed to the venomous pulp of a 63 year after the fact bozo with 
supposed 20/20 hindsight. Which in this case means you are looking up your

ass.

Frank
-- 
Title 18 > Chapter 115 > § 2381 Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or

adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United 
States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall
be 
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not
less 
than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the
United 
States
 




 939 Posts in Topic:
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cultural Supremacist <  2008-07-19 21:15:17 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Bill Bonde { ''Mr G  2008-07-20 02:20:02 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cultural Supremacist <  2008-07-19 21:33:06 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cultural Supremacist <  2008-07-19 21:37:51 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
nc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-07-19 21:28:48 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cultural Supremacist <  2008-07-20 10:24:17 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-19 22:37:43 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mr. Albritton <albritt  2008-07-19 21:43:32 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mahead the Mufti <mahe  2008-07-20 07:59:39 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RM V2.0" <B  2008-07-21 15:52:49 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-21 12:01:10 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mr. Albritton <albritt  2008-07-21 11:08:40 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RD (The Sandman)&qu  2008-07-21 16:58:18 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mr. Albritton <albritt  2008-07-21 15:56:09 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RM V2.0" <B  2008-07-22 14:10:24 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mike <spamdump@[EMAIL   2008-07-21 16:22:40 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"** NewsByte **"  2008-07-21 12:02:42 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mike <spamdump@[EMAIL   2008-07-22 00:22:38 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-21 18:55:17 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Mike <spamdump@[EMAIL   2008-07-22 15:10:29 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-22 09:51:10 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RM V2.0" <B  2008-07-22 14:10:05 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-22 09:54:16 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-22 11:40:01 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-22 10:47:04 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-22 14:58:54 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-22 18:01:02 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-22 20:55:09 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-22 20:34:04 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-07-30 14:10:56 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-30 15:19:05 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-07-31 06:18:38 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 10:30:09 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
44@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ha  2008-07-31 11:59:15 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 11:22:28 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 13:31:37 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 12:51:50 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 19:57:58 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-31 22:13:50 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 08:37:34 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-08-01 09:03:14 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 09:36:13 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-08-01 10:42:02 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 13:13:51 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 19:50:20 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-08-01 14:05:23 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 19:43:08 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 15:17:58 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-02 14:30:05 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-02 21:24:25 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-02 18:51:43 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-03 11:09:46 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-03 18:18:56 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-04 16:30:29 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-05 05:16:43 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-05 13:53:05 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-05 23:56:20 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
"** NewsByte **"  2008-08-05 23:07:01 
Re: => Gray Ghost (Frank) truly an amoral repugnant piece of shi
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-06 10:46:49 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 19:16:39 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= beca
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-08-01 12:59:22 
Re: Bama Brian says dropping NUKES on U$ Civilians is OK! <= bec
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-02 15:00:57 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 17:28:49 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 11:33:33 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:37:31 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 20:13:09 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 14:27:50 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 20:41:13 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:41:23 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 14:33:27 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 11:06:43 
Re: => Sociopath Gray Ghost (Frank) says Shintoism and Hinduism
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 10:52:50 
Prof Jonez refuses to answer moral questions. Continues insane r
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 12:19:13 
Re: Prof Jonez refuses to answer moral questions. Continues insa
"torresD" <t  2008-07-31 12:22:06 
Re: => Sociopath Gray Ghost (Frank) says Shintoism and Hinduism
Kerry Ladd <Gus@[EMAIL  2008-07-31 13:51:33 
Re: => Sociopath Gray Ghost (Frank) says Shintoism and Hinduism
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 19:10:55 
Re: => Sociopath Gray Ghost (Frank) says Shintoism and Hinduism
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:13:00 
Re: => Sociopath Gray Ghost (Frank) says Shintoism and Hinduism
Kerry Ladd <Gus@[EMAIL  2008-07-31 17:28:57 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:51:17 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 16:29:07 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"Felix D." <  2008-07-30 16:09:38 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"Billzz" <bi  2008-07-30 17:49:18 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-07-31 06:27:16 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-31 17:54:47 
Re: Chris Morton says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <= shou
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 14:14:51 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 16:31:54 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! <
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-31 21:59:32 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on CIVILIANS is OK! -
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:13:42 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-22 21:27:55 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-22 20:52:04 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RSweeney" <  2008-07-22 23:46:33 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-22 22:22:29 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 03:12:29 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 09:16:54 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 12:37:42 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-23 19:00:12 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 14:26:23 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-23 17:48:14 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-24 00:38:39 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 00:50:04 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 20:26:51 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 00:59:56 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:34:24 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 20:33:12 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:01:15 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:50:41 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-24 06:14:56 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 09:55:09 
Re: Amoral Swine David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bomb
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-24 10:04:13 
Re: Amoral Swine David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bomb
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-24 15:25:08 
Re: Amoral Swine David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bomb
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 14:34:21 
Re: Amoral Swine David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bomb
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:40:44 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:39:39 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 21:17:25 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"RSweeney" <  2008-07-27 17:44:24 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-27 19:04:51 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
"RSweeney" <  2008-08-02 01:49:46 
Re: David Hartung can't find his Moral Compass -- Felons say Sup
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 20:23:43 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RSweeney" <  2008-07-23 19:48:42 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 21:21:53 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Michael Ejercito <meje  2008-08-06 08:20:21 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Michael Ejercito <meje  2008-08-14 09:24:20 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-08-14 11:57:29 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
"Morton Davis"   2008-08-15 03:48:51 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-08-15 06:57:57 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Klaus Schadenfreude <k  2008-08-15 07:21:44 
Re: David Hartung - Must be effective, he keeps getting attacked
Michael Ejercito <meje  2008-08-14 09:25:36 
Re: David Hartung - Must be effective, he keeps getting attacked
Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-08-14 11:54:22 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Mike Painter"   2008-07-22 21:25:37 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-22 22:26:38 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Mike Painter"   2008-07-22 22:35:50 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 09:13:22 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008-07-23 00:41:00 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-22 22:48:39 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008-07-23 01:03:36 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 09:15:13 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008-07-23 16:13:09 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 15:07:45 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"RSweeney" <  2008-07-23 21:04:48 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 00:00:17 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 03:11:03 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 15:09:42 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Mike Painter"   2008-07-23 14:27:07 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-23 16:24:11 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 17:39:12 
Re: David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs on Civilian
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-23 17:19:07 
Re: David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs on Civilian
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 19:33:10 
Re: David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs on Civilian
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 21:15:00 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 00:02:28 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 01:29:15 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:23:06 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:49:37 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 01:31:36 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:25:14 
Re: Gray Ghost fucks himself again -- Felons say Supreme Court'
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:50:44 
Re: Amoral shitbag David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bo
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-23 23:59:42 
Re: Amoral shitbag David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bo
"Mike Painter"   2008-07-24 10:23:31 
Re: Amoral shitbag David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bo
jerry warner <jwarner@  2008-07-24 22:47:55 
Re: Amoral shitbag David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bo
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:33:09 
Re: David Hartung says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs on Civilian
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 21:09:09 
Re: Gray Ghost says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs on Civilians!
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 00:04:34 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 21:08:37 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 17:00:19 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 21:07:07 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:28:19 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 09:59:33 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-08-01 10:14:01 
Re: => Max Muir says "I want to bomb the civilians" with Nuclear
Max Muir <orb_at_cts_d  2008-07-30 22:59:38 
Re: => Max Muir says "I want to bomb the civilians" with Nuclear
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 11:00:17 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-07-23 13:23:44 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-23 10:15:04 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 04:25:25 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-23 11:45:53 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 11:28:51 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
fburton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-07-23 09:44:03 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-23 11:47:09 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008-07-23 10:00:22 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
fburton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-07-23 17:23:48 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008-07-23 16:44:44 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 11:25:22 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 14:39:54 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-07-23 13:36:49 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-23 19:00:56 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-07-24 11:08:46 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-24 17:23:46 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 21:46:51 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbri  2008-07-25 13:17:54 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-30 09:12:40 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-30 16:52:55 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-30 10:57:20 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-30 18:07:13 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-30 13:45:21 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-30 21:17:56 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Rodney Long <rdlong@[E  2008-07-30 15:47:28 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 10:53:29 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-31 13:16:18 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-31 19:59:15 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-03 12:56:49 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"SaPeIsMa" <  2008-08-14 23:28:21 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex W." <i  2008-07-23 12:43:43 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 11:31:25 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-23 19:21:53 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-23 18:42:40 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-23 20:35:34 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-23 23:57:00 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 01:21:49 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:31:24 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:44:38 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
Chris Morton <cmorton@  2008-08-01 10:18:34 
Re: David Hartung confirms it's OK to drop NUCLEAR bombs upon Ci
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 19:16:25 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-24 00:43:57 
Re: DeadRat says it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Civili
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 01:36:44 
Re: DeadRat confirms it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Ci
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 11:46:51 
Re: DeadRat confirms it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Ci
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 20:46:36 
Re: DeadRat confirms it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Ci
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 22:18:43 
Re: DeadRat confirms it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Ci
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-25 07:37:10 
Re: DeadRat confirms it's morally acceptable to NUKE 100,000+ Ci
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-25 11:08:26 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 22:24:52 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-25 07:39:58 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 06:07:30 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-25 11:09:34 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
John Wetton <Asia@[EMA  2008-07-25 13:54:58 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Mike Painter"   2008-07-25 12:33:34 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-25 13:55:32 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-25 16:50:45 
Re: Gray Ghost (Frank) says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon C
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-25 18:02:07 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 18:14:57 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-25 18:05:06 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 19:14:22 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-25 19:53:47 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 20:59:12 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-07-25 19:20:31 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-25 19:53:07 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 20:55:10 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-07-25 20:55:50 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-26 06:12:13 
Re: DeadRatzo blows a gasket -- says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bom
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-26 01:18:21 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-26 13:53:55 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Alex W." <i  2008-07-25 23:59:17 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-25 19:19:49 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
"Alex W." <i  2008-07-26 12:47:41 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
David Hartung <d_hartu  2008-07-26 07:36:30 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-25 08:27:30 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-26 20:57:14 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-27 05:07:06 
Re: DeadRatzo says it's OK to drop NUCLEAR Bombs upon Civilians
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-07-27 20:33:00 
Re: Max Muir "I want to bomb the civilians" with Nuclear Weapons
Max Muir <orb_at_cts_d  2008-07-30 23:18:52 
Re: Pig-Ignorant Deluded Amerikkkans --- Felons say Supreme Cou
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-24 10:47:42 
Re: Pig-Ignorant Deluded Amerikkkans --- Felons say Supreme Cou
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 22:28:36 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Hiroshima Facts <hiros  2008-07-31 15:30:55 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Hiroshima Facts <hiros  2008-08-07 12:42:37 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-07 16:21:47 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-07 22:57:01 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-08-08 00:27:57 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-08 11:20:14 
Re: Max Muir says the 9.11 WTC attacks were justified -- Felons
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-07-25 02:41:18 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Max Muir <orb_at_cts_d  2008-07-24 09:31:54 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
Max Muir <orb_at_cts_d  2008-07-24 10:05:18 
Re: David Hartung - amoral coward looking for any excuse to NUKE
"William Black"  2008-07-24 23:32:12 
Re: Max Muir says the 9.11 WTC attacks were justified -- Felons
Max Muir <orb_at_cts_d  2008-07-24 10:35:20 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
judith <judithsmith@[E  2008-07-30 15:42:51 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-07-30 13:01:13 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
Michael Ejercito <meje  2008-07-31 17:20:01 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 03:56:41 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 09:23:56 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 15:50:30 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 13:19:46 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-01 19:53:25 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-08-01 23:06:03 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-08-02 05:35:25 
Re: Violence Prone Gray Ghost (Frank) says dropping NUKES on Pro
"_ Prof. Jonez _&quo  2008-08-02 14:54:09 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Paul Hyett <pah@[EMAIL  2008-07-24 08:26:44 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Cynic <cynic_999@[EMAI  2008-07-24 10:52:23 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-24 21:46:23 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Reality_Check©"  2008-07-24 16:11:43 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROT  2008-07-25 01:28:43 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
grey_ghost471-newsgroups@  2008-07-24 21:35:11 
Re: Felons say Supreme Court's ruling means they cannot be barre
"Alex Cunningham&quo  2008