From: Tom S 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:19:06 -0400, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:

>In news:1174875625.745582.213260{at}b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>Mark Sebree  typed:
>> On Mar 25, 9:28 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

>> wrote:



>>>
>>> They are in the FCC and other agencies.
>>> They are on local cop sqauds.
>>> They are tax leeches and threats upon the liberty of the USA.
>>> They are also in the U.S. military.
>>> They are in Planned Parenthood.
>>> You seem to be allied with them, you liar.
>>> They are also in MADD.
>>> They are in NOW.
>>> They are in the NAACP.
>>
>> None of these organizations are "disrespectful pro-choice tax leeches
>> in government".  Planned Parenthood, MADD, NOW, and the NAACP are all
>> private organizations and not part of the government at all.
>
>They are all affiliated with the government.

'Fraid not John Boy.  Never have been; never will be.
>
>> The US Military and the FCC and the local police departments are part of
>> the
>> government, but they are not disrespectful, pro-choice, or are they
>> tax leeches.
>
>Another lie, you lazy tax-leech pro-choice supporter.

Nope.  There is only one liar around here, and you see him in the mirror
every morning when you shave.

>
>>  And not a single one of these groups or organizations is
>> a threat to liberty.
>
>Ask any person on the face of the palnet other than Mark Sebree.
>They will agree with me and they will disagree with Mark Sebree.

Pssssssssssttt, John Boy.  Nobody agrees with you.  and they never have,
even when you were on your meds.  They only pretended to agree with you so
you would say something else stupid for them to laugh at.

>
>>>
>>>>> as evidenced by this
>>>>> story, are committing the crime of treason against the United
>>>>> States of America.
>>>
>>>> There was nothing treasonous in anything mentioned in this story.
>>>> Again, that is your imagination.  Anti-choice activists made
>>>> themselves a public nuisance and trespassed on a private
>>>> individual's home.
>>>
>>> How did they trespass against any private home if they were on the
>>> peoples' property?
>>
>> They weren't.  They were on private property.  Hers.
>
>Where did it say they were on her property?

It is implied in the trespassing charge.  Every one of even normal
intelligence knows that.  Why don't you?
>
>>> The government has no authority to silence speech on the peoples'
>>> property.
>>
>> But they do have the authority to arrest people that are picketing in
>> an unlawful manner, as well as making a public nuisance of
>> themselves.  And those are the charges against them.
>
>I did not see any mention of them being on someone's private property.
>Besides that, who cares anyway?

She does.  And everyone else who owns property.

>It was a group of persons all over 50 years of age.

Irrelevant and immaterial.

>The very type of people you hate.
>You lazy, disrespectful coward.
>Your days are numbered, and your allegiance to treason is doomed.
>
>>>
>>>>  And those things ARE against the law.
>>>
>>> Censoring the people on public property is treason.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>
>It sure is, traitor.

Sorry Charlie, your are wrong again

>
>> You obviously do not know what is and what is not
>> treason.
>
>Anything that goes against the Constitution is treason.
>

Nope.  Treason is a very specific crime.  And disagreeing with you doesn't
come close to qualifying.

>> Try doing some of your own research and find out what it
>> actually is.  And there was no censorship involved.
>
>Stop acting like the crybaby idiot you are.
>
John Boy!  The nice nurse says it is time for you to take your meds now.

Tom S.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag