 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2005Guy that torched Hummers gets 8 years in prison
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/ Updated: 9:45 p.m. ET April 18, 2005LOS ANGELES - An aspiring physicist was sentenced to more than eight years in prison on Monday and ordered to pay $3.5 million for his role in a spree of arson and vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility vehicles. Rejecting pleas for clemency from William Cottrell, a 24-year-old doctoral candidate in physics at the California Institute of Technology, U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner added more time to the sentence after finding that Cottrell was trying to sway consumers with his anti-SUV message. The slogans Cottrell spray-painted onto vehicles included Fat Lazy Americans, No Respect for Earth and SUV = Terrorism. Cottrell, who admitted only spray-painting and testified he did not know that two friends were bringing Molotov cocktails, promised he would never break the law again. The two friends have fled the country to avoid prosecution, authorities said. I want nothing more than to be a physicist, Cottrell said. I would do anything to earn any leniency the court could show in this matter. Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree that targeted about 125 large sports utility vehicles at four Southern California dealerships and a few homes. Lawyers mount autism defense Cottrells attorneys asked for the five-year mandatory minimum sentence saying that their client has Aspergers syndrome, a form of autism marked by impaired ability to understand social situations. They said it affected his judgment and kept him from backing out when his two friends started lighting Molotov cocktails. But Judge Klausner said high intelligence should work against a defendant, not in his favor. What a talent to have wasted, Klausner said. Theres only one person to blame for that, and Im sure Mr. Cottrell understands that its him. Attorneys estimated that Cottrell, who had faced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, could spend six years in jail, including credit for time served. The defendant engaged in conduct to send a political message, said federal prosecutor Beverly Reid OConnell. Hes a scheming, arrogant person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >“He’s a scheming, arrogant >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system.” So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. -- Buy my book here: http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts) wrote: > >“He’s a scheming, arrogant > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system.” > > So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). > On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of Bunker > Blasts) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). Bush lied us into a war that has killed 1600 americans, wounded 14,000, killed 100,000 iraqi civilians and costs us $50 billion a year. Next question. On 18-Apr-2005, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >"He's a scheming, arrogant > > > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > killed 100,000 iraqi civilians and costs us $50 billion a year. Next > question. You ACTUALLY expect me to believe your answers - amazing. > On 18-Apr-2005, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You ACTUALLY expect me to believe your answers - amazing. Funny, I'm not seing any refutation here. lol If you won't take his answers, don't ask him questions, moron. > > > > > >"He's a scheming, arrogant > > > > > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If you won't take his answers, don't ask him questions, moron. Like you asking me what time it is and I tell you it's "yellow". I said back up with "facts" not fancy. > > On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of > Bunker [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > killed 100,000 iraqi civilians and costs us $50 billion a year. Next > question. Lessee, you're stupid enough to believe that blocking the left lane and increasing traffic congestion *improves* road safety. No wonder you're stupid enough to believe the rest of your retarded screeds as well. No wonder you can't get a job, can't get laid, live in a trailer, and drive a beater; you're not smart enough to have anything other than a minimum wage job or live off of government handouts. Great job, loser! >Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke >this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). Another paid RNC troll speaks. -- Buy my book here: http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts) wrote: > >Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > >this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). > > Another paid RNC troll speaks. Where did you buy your crystal ball at? Wherever it was, you need to get your money back. RNC....my a.s. > On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of Bunker > Blasts) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Where did you buy your crystal ball at? Wherever it was, you > need to get your money back. RNC....my a.s. Are _you_ ever going to produce any facts, or just run your mouth? > > > >Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > > > >this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Are _you_ ever going to produce any facts, or just run your mouth? You want me to Google for you too idiot? >>Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke >>this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 Again, this has exactly what to do with the purpose of this newsgroup? No one here gives a rat's petute about any politician..left OR right! Go to alt.politics and take your OT posts with you! > >>Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > >>this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > one here gives a rat's petute about any politician..left OR right! Go to > alt.politics and take your OT posts with you! The subject line refers to an automobile. How could it not apply? If you don't drive, why are you posting in that newsgroup? >Again, this has exactly what to do with the purpose of this newsgroup? No >one here gives a rat's petute about any politician..left OR right! Go to >alt.politics and take your OT posts with you! Blame the OP, who crossposted this bitch to: alt.nuke.the.usa,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,misc.transport.road,rec.autos.driving > >Again, this has exactly what to do with the purpose of this newsgroup? No > >one here gives a rat's petute about any politician..left OR right! Go to > >alt.politics and take your OT posts with you! > > Blame the OP, who crossposted this bitch to: alt.nuke.the.usa,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,misc.transport.road,rec.autos.driving So what's the problem.? This is a general interest thread and belongs in any car or political NG. >> >"Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> >wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So what's the problem.? This is a general interest thread and belongs >in any car or political NG. Well, when you crosspost something to groups where discussion is generally not limited to extremist political rants as I imagine alt.nuke.the.usa,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh all are, you tend to end up very quickly in a "Bush sucks"/"No he doesn't" type of thread. In fact, the first reply to this thread was: "So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison." And you were more than content to jump into the fray by bringing up Iraq. It's not really relevant to the story about the criminal who torched the Hummers. No one has yet pointed out the hypocrisy of a man claiming to do something for the sake of the environment by burning vehicles and releasing all kinds of toxic vapors into the atmosphere. I now yield the floor to the trolls and troll-provokers. >No one has yet pointed out the hypocrisy of a man claiming to do >something for the sake of the environment by burning vehicles and >releasing all kinds of toxic vapors into the atmosphere. True - a more sensible form of protest would have been to steal them and recycle them. >I now yield the floor to the trolls and troll-provokers. > No one has yet pointed out the hypocrisy of a man claiming to do > something for the sake of the environment by burning vehicles and > releasing all kinds of toxic vapors into the atmosphere. I'm pretty sure that's a lot less than a hundred thousand mile life for each of them would be. >> No one has yet pointed out the hypocrisy of a man claiming to do >> something for the sake of the environment by burning vehicles and >> releasing all kinds of toxic vapors into the atmosphere. > > I'm pretty sure that's a lot less than a hundred thousand mile life for > each of them would be. Actually, according to New Scientist magazine (as left-leaning a publication as there is), by burning them this moron generated much more pollution than the vehicles would have over their projected life. The fact is that individual automobiles generate incredibly little pollution these days. - B Around 4/18/2005 9:16 PM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote: >>Blame the OP, who crossposted this bitch to: >> >> alt.nuke.the.usa,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.rush-limbaugh,misc.transport.road,rec.autos.driving > > So what's the problem.? This is a general interest thread It's a zero interest thread. > and belongs in any car or political NG. Definitely belongs in a political newsgroup, *maybe* in a Hummer newsgroup, but certainly not in a driving newsgroup. (Hey, at least we've trained you not to call a newsgroup a "board." Who says you can't teach an old troll new tricks, eh Judy?)  Signature~/Garth "I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell (Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure contact information) > > >Hes a scheming, arrogant > > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). His name is Tim Brown, and his cerebrum is in his rectum, but the main problem here is the person Judy who keeps starting these cross-posted flame-bait threads, and IMO it is time that some of us start sending abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. >> > >"He's a scheming, arrogant >> > >person who is disdainful of the law and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > His name is Tim Brown, and his cerebrum is in his rectum, sh.t for brains...that part I had already figured out! > but the main > problem here is the person Judy who keeps starting > these cross-posted > flame-bait threads, and IMO it is time that some of > us start sending > abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. Now THAT is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Let's do it! >>>>> "He's a scheming, arrogant >>>>> person who is disdainful of the law and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Now THAT is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Let's do it! Yeah, let's turn into a bunch of tattletales. Go back to third grade. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan >IMO it is time that some of us start sending >abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. Oh, I get it now: "Free speech for me, but not for thee." -- Buy my book here: http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 >>IMO it is time that some of us start sending >>abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. > >Oh, I get it now: "Free speech for me, but not for thee." You don't understand the difference between free speech and abiding by the terms of service of your ISP? If Judy loses one account, it will just get another but it could be a hassle. Why don't you think we should exercise OUR right to complain about someone who constantly crossposts and trolls? > >>IMO it is time that some of us start sending > >>abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why don't you think we should exercise OUR right to complain about > someone who constantly crossposts and trolls? It is easier to ignore, than to live with yourself as a NetNarc. > >>IMO it is time that some of us start sending > >>abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why don't you think we should exercise OUR right to complain about > someone who constantly crossposts and trolls? > >>IMO it is time that some of us start sending > >>abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If Judy loses one account, it will just get another but it could be a > hassle. Yeah - take a good 10 minutes. I've used a million ISPs over the years. > > > >"He's a scheming, arrogant > > > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > flame-bait threads, and IMO it is time that some of us start sending > abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. Bring-em-on, you idiot. This thread belongs in any NG concerned with politics or with cars or crime. > IMO it is time that some of us start sending > abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. Sign me up for some of that! Any suggestions/tips on how to do so? SignatureTim Exit 4, NH 101 > > IMO it is time that some of us start sending > > abuse complaints to Judy's ISP. > > Sign me up for some of that! Any suggestions/tips on how to do so? You were a hall monitor in elementary school, weren't you? Judy's posting from google. I'll bet if enough people complained about the exact same message Judy posted, claiming it's the spam it is, Google would yank it's ability to post. > On 18-Apr-2005, mister1900mister@hotmail.com (Random Waftings Of Bunker > Blasts) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would you like to back that up with some facts, or just puke > this crap out your head (which in your case is your a.s). lol Been avoiding the news for 5 years? > > > >"He's a scheming, arrogant > > > >person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > lol Been avoiding the news for 5 years? That's funny, I haven't heard anything about Bush and DeLay going to prison. What news are YOU watching? And this post pertains to "driving" exactly how? > >“He’s a scheming, arrogant >>person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system.” [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 >>> “He’s a scheming, arrogant >>> person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system.” >> >> So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. > And this post pertains to "driving" exactly how? 1) Top-posting is the devil's friend. 2) Ask the jackass who started the thread. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan >And this post pertains to "driving" exactly how? Because it bips. -- Buy my book here: http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559 > "Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote > > So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. Please don't feed the troll. On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:58:44 -0700, Paul DeRocco , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > > "Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. > > Please don't feed the troll. Methinks it is too late for that... :( > >"He's a scheming, arrogant >>person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." > > So are Bush and DeLay, yet they're not in prison. You can add that right-wing fundamentalist killer and bomber who was just sentenced, and described as triumphant and unrepentent. Republican have us wimpy Dems beat by a mile when it comes to viciousness. rms On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:16:09 GMT, Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts , said the following in rec.autos.driving... <snip> Troll - O - Meter: 10.0 (off scale) And I did not even need to see sh.t For Brains' original post to take this reading................ >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility >vehicles. Right on! He deserves it. I'm an environmentalist and I'm not particularly fond of SUVs, but his actions were clearly very wrong. <snip> >Lawyers mount autism defense >Cottrells attorneys asked for the five-year mandatory minimum >sentence saying that their client has Aspergers syndrome, a form of >autism marked by impaired ability to understand social situations. Geek syndrome doesn't cause you to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Besides, 8 years isn't a whole helluva lot more than 5. He's lucky he didn't get 10. > Right on! He deserves it. I'm an environmentalist and I'm not > particularly fond of SUVs, but his actions were clearly very wrong. But how wrong is GM (or whoever owns Hummer) for selling those piles of crap? These creeps have been mouthing and going through the motions for 10 years about fuel efficiency, but they have never delivered. Instead, them and their buddies took over a billion dollars in taxpayer money and blew it all on projects they were never serious about. Oh wait, this is Bushamerica, where we never hold corporate America responsable, even if they are criminals. As long as they are Republican backers, at least. If you are a Democrat/liberal like Martha Stewart, you are fair game. >> Right on! He deserves it. I'm an environmentalist and I'm not >> particularly fond of SUVs, but his actions were clearly very wrong. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >backers, at least. If you are a Democrat/liberal like Martha Stewart, you >are fair game. Oh, boo-f.cking-hoo for Martha. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. And now she's whining about her house arrest interfering in her ability to run her business. She can telecommute from her estate which is a helluva lot more freedom than most people under house arrest could ever hope for. Enron is not a simple case like Martha's was and Lay will see his day in court soon enough. They're working their way up to him. They're just starting the 3rd trial and have convicted 6 people so far. What party affiliation was Ebbers? What about all the other ones that didn't make become household names? > Oh, boo-f.cking-hoo for Martha. If you can't do the time don't do > the crime. And now she's whining about her house arrest interfering > in her ability to run her business. She can telecommute from her > estate which is a helluva lot more freedom than most people under > house arrest could ever hope for. Martha didn't do anything wrong, except having made the mistake of being successful. Isn't that what Republicans want? Oh wait, she chose the wrong political party, and Republicans know all about getting even with underhanded tactics (remember Watergate and Tricky Dick, remember Monica?). Really, the government couldn't peg her for insider trading, so they bring up some bogus crap about perjory, when really it was entrapment. > > Oh, boo-f.cking-hoo for Martha. If you can't do the time don't do > > the crime. And now she's whining about her house arrest interfering [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Really, the government couldn't peg her for insider trading, so they bring > up some bogus crap about perjory, when really it was entrapment The lesson of martha is DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE. You have the right to remain silent and you should always exercise that. You should exercise that right. >> Oh, boo-f.cking-hoo for Martha. If you can't do the time don't do >> the crime. And now she's whining about her house arrest interfering [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Martha didn't do anything wrong, except having made the mistake of being >successful. Oh? She was busted for being "successful"? I don't think you understand how things work. > Isn't that what Republicans want? Oh wait, she chose the wrong >political party, and Republicans know all about getting even with >underhanded tactics (remember Watergate and Tricky Dick, remember Monica?). You say that as if Democrats don't do the same sh.t. >Really, the government couldn't peg her for insider trading, so they bring >up some bogus crap about perjory, when really it was entrapment. How could it be entrapment when all she had to do was tell the truth? Do you understand that investor confidence is crucial to our economy? >> Oh, boo-f.cking-hoo for Martha. If you can't do the time don't do >> the crime. And now she's whining about her house arrest interfering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Martha didn't do anything wrong, You really think that? Have you written your congress-critters to tell them you think the law is wrong? > except having made the mistake of being >successful. Lots of successful Democrats don't go to prison. If this were simply a partisan thing, don't you think Michael Moore would be rotting in prison right now? Is he not as rich as Martha? Okay, what about George Soros? >Isn't that what Republicans want? I'd guess most Republicans just want to be rich themselves and wish anyone who's not a devout Christian would just stay the hell out of America. >Oh wait, she chose the wrong >political party, and Republicans know all about getting even with >underhanded tactics (remember Watergate and Tricky Dick, remember Monica?). Yeah, I remember Nixon and I also remember Clinton digging himself a deeper and deeper hole when he should have simply refused to answer. I'm surprised you're not suggesting that Monica was actually an operative working for Karl Rove. Everyone knew he would lie about stupid sh.t ("didn't inhale", yeah right). Everyone was also pretty sure he couldn't resist a piece of a.s. BTW, have you heard what Ken Starr is up to lately? He's trying to get a convicted murderer off of death row. Robin Lovitt admits that he was a crack head who had just sold his TV for $20 when he robbed a pool hall, but he swears he had nothing to do with stabbing an employee to death. >Really, the government couldn't peg her for insider trading, so they bring >up some bogus crap about perjory, when really it was entrapment. How was it entrapment? You do know what entrapment is, don't you? That's what they did to John DeLorean. > I'd guess most Republicans just want to be rich themselves and wish > anyone who's not a devout Christian would just stay the hell out of > America. And that's where they are 100 percent wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I must be a devout Christian. > Yeah, I remember Nixon and I also remember Clinton digging himself a > deeper and deeper hole when he should have simply refused to answer. Then he could have been in "contempt of Congress" for not answering. > I'm surprised you're not suggesting that Monica was actually an > operative working for Karl Rove. Not Karl Rove, a pawn of Ken Starr. > BTW, have you heard what Ken Starr is up to lately? He's trying to > get a convicted murderer off of death row. He's a lawyer, so you shouldn't expect much more. He also defended cigarette companies. The guy is not a knight in shining armor, just a right wing profiteer. > How was it entrapment? > > You do know what entrapment is, don't you? That's what they did to > John DeLorean. It was entrapment because they were digging around looking for some dirt on Martha Stewart. When they couldn't find what they wanted (insider trading), they went for a lesser charge. And then they got a very biased jury to hear her case (put lots of working class stiffs who will mouth "we did it for the little guy" ad nauseam). >> I'd guess most Republicans just want to be rich themselves and wish >> anyone who's not a devout Christian would just stay the hell out of >> America. > > And that's where they are 100 percent wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution >does it say I must be a devout Christian. It's not "wrong" (legally anyway) to want something. >> Yeah, I remember Nixon and I also remember Clinton digging himself a >> deeper and deeper hole when he should have simply refused to answer. > > Then he could have been in "contempt of Congress" for not answering. Nope - you're wrong about that. >> I'm surprised you're not suggesting that Monica was actually an >> operative working for Karl Rove. > > Not Karl Rove, a pawn of Ken Starr. But Rove is the puppetteer is he not? >> BTW, have you heard what Ken Starr is up to lately? He's trying to >> get a convicted murderer off of death row. > > He's a lawyer, so you shouldn't expect much more. He also defended >cigarette companies. And what is it that the "cigarette companies" did that was criminal? I'm a smoker and I don't blame RJR or Phillip Morris for my addiction and very bad habit. Just about everyone alive today has known smoking is *BAD* for their entire lives. I know it's *bad* for me, but I still smoke. That's my problem, not RJR's problem. It's RJR's profit too, BFD. If I want to fix that, I'll quit smoking. Cigarette companies are blameless. They simply provide a prodiuct for wjhich there is signifcant demand. >The guy is not a knight in shining armor, just a right >wing profiteer. or perhaps just a guy doing his job? >> How was it entrapment? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >jury to hear her case (put lots of working class stiffs who will mouth "we >did it for the little guy" ad nauseam). Entrapment is when the pigs give you an opportunity to commit a crime that you wouldn't have committed if they hadn't given you the opportunity to fcommit that crime. > "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote > > Oh wait, this is Bushamerica, where we never hold corporate America > responsable, even if they are criminals. As long as they are Republican > backers, at least. If you are a Democrat/liberal like Martha Stewart, you > are fair game. Why do jerks like you always have to bring politics into this newsgroup? This is about Hummers and one particular lunatic environmentalist, not about George Bush. The kid is a hero in my book. Gas guzzlers as vain and pointless as the Hummer deserve worse. Next time all those poor folks are out gassing up their Civics and Neons, trying to decide between food or fuel, they can have those Hummers to thank for the oil prices. Just remember, they hung John Brown after convicting him a court of law, but today nobody thinks slavery is defensible. In 100 years how are they going to remember the Hummer? At worst, it's going to be a bad joke ("Daddy, they actually drove cars like that?"). > The kid is a hero in my book. Gas guzzlers as vain and pointless as the >Hummer deserve worse. Next time all those poor folks are out gassing up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >going to remember the Hummer? At worst, it's going to be a bad joke >("Daddy, they actually drove cars like that?"). Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now > Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now Maybe Arson is not cool, but I could care less about the Hummers being burned and the property destroyed. I guess I should say arson of Hummer's is wrong, if only for the reason that somebody could have been hurt. > > Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now > > Maybe Arson is not cool, but I could care less about the Hummers being > burned and the property destroyed. I guess I should say arson of Hummer's > is wrong, if only for the reason that somebody could have been hurt. And you wonder why we put you in the same group and Laura Bush. You're both loons. > > > Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And you wonder why we put you in the same group and Laura Bush. You're > both loons. And calling them loons is being kind. Harry K >> Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now > > Maybe Arson is not cool, but I could care less about the Hummers being >burned and the property destroyed. I guess I should say arson of Hummer's >is wrong, if only for the reason that somebody could have been hurt. Wow, dude. Do you have a problem with property rights? How would you feel if your car were torched because someone didn't like what you drive? >> Arson will still be considered wrong 100 years from now > > Maybe Arson is not cool, Yeah, it's not cool. It's not cool when it's a Hummer dealership and it's not cool when it's an abortion clinic. > but I could care less about the Hummers being >burned and the property destroyed. I guess I should say arson of Hummer's >is wrong, if only for the reason that somebody could have been hurt. Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably could have contributed to research that could extend the life of existing power sources and finding new alternatives. He chose to not be a part of the solution, but make a statement by destroying personal property instead. I hope the authorities are able to retreive his buddies from wherever they are now hiding. > Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably could > have contributed to research that could extend the life of existing > power sources and finding new alternatives. He chose to not be a part > of the solution, but make a statement by destroying personal property > instead. Destroying personal property??? In the last 15 years america has obliterated iraq! > > Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably could > > have contributed to research that could extend the life of existing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Destroying personal property??? In the last 15 years america has > obliterated iraq! Iraq is still there, you head twisting tin foil hog. > > > Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably > could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Iraq is still there, you head twisting tin foil hog. If you psychopath repugs have your way, all 26 million iraqis will be murdered. You're gonna suffer in the fires of hell for all eternity. HAHA > > > > Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably > > could [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > murdered. You're gonna suffer in the fires of hell for all eternity. > HAHA If you retarded dims had your way, Saddam would still be a dictator. You're right, retard. Iraq is no longer on the map. >> Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably could >> have contributed to research that could extend the life of existing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Destroying personal property??? Yes, that's what he did. > In the last 15 years america has >obliterated iraq! Not really, but feel free to spew your bullshit. This is America and you are protected by the First Amendment. > Sounds appropriate to me. As a budding physicist he presumably could > have contributed to research that could extend the life of existing > power sources and finding new alternatives. He chose to not be a part > of the solution, but make a statement by destroying personal property > instead. Nobody listens to scientists anyways, anymore. Not in Bush's administration. And the Hummers weren't personal property, they were corporate property. It's not like he went to somebody's house, broke into their garage, and torched their Hummer (assuming it could fit in a garage, which I doubt). > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vandalism that targeted gas-guzzling Hummers and other sports utility > vehicles. If this guy gets 8 years for minor property damage, then what will dubya get for killing and raping over 100,000 people? > Rejecting pleas for clemency from William Cottrell, a 24-year-old > doctoral candidate in physics at the California Institute of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "I want nothing more than to be a physicist," Cottrell said. "I would > do anything to earn any leniency the court could show in this matter." > Cottrell was convicted last November on seven counts of arson and one > count of conspiracy related to a 2003 vandalism and firebombing spree [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cottrell's attorneys asked for the five-year mandatory minimum > sentence saying that their client has Asperger's syndrome, a form of > autism marked by impaired ability to understand social situations. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But Judge Klausner said high intelligence should work against a > defendant, not in his favor. "What a talent to have wasted," Klausner > said. "There's only one person to blame for that, and I'm sure Mr. > Cottrell understands that it's him." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "The defendant engaged in conduct to send a political message," said > federal prosecutor Beverly Reid O'Connell. "He's a scheming, arrogant > person who is disdainful of the law and the justice system." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7550964/ > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If this guy gets 8 years for minor property damage, then what will > dubya get for killing and raping over 100,000 people? I always find it interesting how the leftist guerillas bandy about conspiracy theories. So strange how these idiots run to defend scumbag terrorists who skin the innocents alive, yet support the mass murder of millions of 9th month term babies by sucking them out of the womb, or sticking a rod through their brains. You people suck the big one. > > If this guy gets 8 years for minor property damage, then what will > > dubya get for killing and raping over 100,000 people? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > millions of 9th month term babies by sucking them out of the womb, or > sticking a rod through their brains. You're a hypocrite too. You talk about law and order and then support a first lady who once committed vehicular manslaughter (if not murder) and was never held accountable. Hell - it wouldn't surprise me if a drunk driving speeder like you hasn't committed some VM yourelf. > > > If this guy gets 8 years for minor property damage, then what will > > > dubya get for killing and raping over 100,000 people? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and was never held accountable. Hell - it wouldn't surprise me if a > drunk driving speeder like you hasn't committed some VM yourelf. They were all leftist commie guerillas. In Texas, we call that - Taking Out The Trash. On 20 Apr 2005 09:01:52 -0700, Don't Mess With Texas , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > > You're a hypocrite too. You talk about law and order and then > > support a first lady who once committed vehicular manslaughter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They were all leftist commie guerillas. In Texas, we call that - > Taking Out The Trash. Do note how "Laura..." the prototypical hypocrite of usenet rants on about the spouse of the President who has no official or legislative power, but convienently ignores the elected lawmaker (who makes the same laws you and I have to obey) from MA who is guilty of DUI Manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident with injuries and depraved indifference to human life among others and used his family and political connections to get away with it... Can you say Chappaquiddick? > On 20 Apr 2005 09:01:52 -0700, Don't Mess With Texas , said the following > in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Can you say Chappaquiddick? Exactly. Not to mention the history of the rest of his mafia crime family. > > Do note how "Laura..." the prototypical hypocrite of usenet rants on > > about the spouse of the President who has no official or legislative [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Exactly. Not to mention the history of the rest of his mafia crime > family. Sung to the tune of "The Irish Washerwoman": Oh, your brother is dead And your brother is dead And your brother is dead And your sister's retarded. Your nephew's a rapist, Your ex-wife's a drunk, You killed a young girl And you cheated in school. SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------- "The primary purpose of any government entity is to employ the unemployable." >> > Do note how "Laura..." the prototypical hypocrite of usenet rants on >> > about the spouse of the President who has no official or legislative [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You killed a young girl > And you cheated in school. Which sister is this? I seem to recall one of the Kennedy sisters taking a dive in an airplane in the 40's I think. > >> > Do note how "Laura..." the prototypical hypocrite of usenet rants on > >> > about the spouse of the President who has no official or legislative [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Which sister is this? I seem to recall one of the Kennedy sisters taking a > dive in an airplane in the 40's I think. Rosemary. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6801152/ SignatureCheers, Bev =================================================== Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned. Now, now Paul, you know that "Laura's" life is so pathetic that's all it can do, and it's far too stupid to do anything other than harp on the Bush family. Of course, the Bush family is full of characteristics that "LBMHBF" will never possess: spouses, children, success, jobs, and friends. Of course poor little "LBMHBF" is going to ignore the glaring truth of Ted Kennedy and focus on the only thing it's tiny mind can almost comprehend. Let's see if we can push some more of LBMHBF's buttons. > On 20 Apr 2005 09:01:52 -0700, Don't Mess With Texas , said the following > in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Can you say Chappaquiddick? There is no evidence ted was drunk. You repugs have just been saying so for 35 years without proof. OTOH witnesses saw laura blow a stop sign and kill a guy. >>On 20 Apr 2005 09:01:52 -0700, Don't Mess With Texas , said the > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > so for 35 years without proof. OTOH witnesses saw laura blow a stop > sign and kill a guy. Does it really matter if he was drunk or not? But IIRC he did have a bit of an alcohol problem, and there were witnesses to Ted Kennedy drinking before the incident, so cicumstantial evidence is strong. Just typical of you to overlook someone's flaws because you agree with their political orientation... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > There is no evidence ted was drunk. You repugs have just been saying > > so for 35 years without proof. OTOH witnesses saw laura blow a stop > > sign and kill a guy. > > Does it really matter if he was drunk or not? But IIRC he did have a > bit of an alcohol problem, and there were witnesses to Ted Kennedy > drinking before the incident, so cicumstantial evidence is strong. Of course it matters, you idiot. There is no proof kennedy was drunk. All you have is gossip. > > > There is no evidence ted was drunk. You repugs have just been > saying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course it matters, you idiot. There is no proof kennedy was drunk. > All you have is gossip. No, it DOESN'T matter. He was involved in an accident where someone was killed. What matters is, could have he prevented the accident, and could he have prevented her death afterwards. His blood alcohol content is just an irrelevant detail. nate >There is no proof kennedy was drunk. All you have is gossip. The testimony at the inquest was that he had been drinking. The only reason a blood test would not have been valid was that he refused to report the problem and make himself available in time for testing. On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:07:49 -0400, Sancho Panza , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > >There is no proof kennedy was drunk. All you have is gossip. > > The testimony at the inquest was that he had been drinking. The only reason > a blood test would not have been valid was that he refused to report the > problem and make himself available in time for testing. Yep, he went home, sobered up, contacted his lawyers and his connections and got away with the crime... ...and the rest of the USA has suffered ever since... The sooner he goes to hell, the better. Seems like God is taking care of that, one Kennedy at a time. > >There is no proof kennedy was drunk. All you have is gossip. > > The testimony at the inquest was that he had been drinking. The only reason > a blood test would not have been valid was that he refused to report the > problem and make himself available in time for testing. Testimony??? You mean people at a party who say they saw him drinking something earlier in the day!! That is hardly proof of DUI. And i trust you know that the bridge involved was single lane and had no guard rail. Those witnesses saw him drinking up until the time Kennedy left the party. Oh wait, that's right, eyewitness accounts don't count if they are against sitting dimocratic politicians; eyewitness accounts only count if they involve a *future* republican first lady. You dims are so stupid. Hell, last time you guys couldn't find the right man to for the job, so next time you're going to try a woman. Weekend update on SNL said it best: the dimocrats want their a.s handed to them on a plate. Losers. > Those witnesses saw him drinking up until the time Kennedy left the > party. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Weekend update on SNL said it best: the dimocrats want their a.s handed > to them on a plate. Losers. That makes perfect sense. We caught and punished every terrorist that attacked the US during 1993-2000, and you guys have caught *nobody* responsible for 9/11. Including the two *republican* terrorists who attacked Oklahoma City in 95. We took out the only WMDs that Saddam had, back in 98, with zero American lives lost. You morons decided that they were still there, and have cost tens of thousands of lives. We had the stock market go up over 6,000 points; you have made it go *down* over four 1/2 years. We ran a government surplus; you guys are bankrupting the country. We averaged 240,000 new jobs per month over eight years; you have *never* had a month that good. And under you gas prices are up over 60%, so that Osama's family keeps getting richer. Yup, we're losers. Morons. Where were those jobs that the dims created? The industry I was in, and subsequently laid off in, started tanking in the mid 90's. Osama was responsible for the Cole incident; why didn't ya'll catch him? If the dims did such a wonderful job of removing the WMDs from Iraq, then why did the U.N. Inspectors state they were receiving no cooperation from the Iraqi government? What whas the government trying to hide? As for 9/11, the 9/11 commission report explicitely states that part of the intelligence problem that existed wasn't fixed in part due to the fact the government was spending so much time dealing with the Clinton/Lewinsky episode. Maybe if we had had a president who was more interested in keeping his head on the job instead of in a house staffer things wouldn't be so jacked up. >Where were those jobs that the dims created? The industry I was in, and >subsequently laid off in, started tanking in the mid 90's. A fair observation. >Osama was responsible for the Cole incident; why didn't ya'll catch >him? Well, I think Clinton deserves a break on not bringing the terrorists who attacked the Cole to justice. After all, it happened 3 weeks before the election. Now, if you want to blame him for allowing it to happen in the first place, go for it, but if you do that, you should also ask if Bush was at least negligent in his anti-terrorist policy before 9/11 too. >If the dims did such a wonderful job of removing the WMDs from Iraq, >then why did the U.N. Inspectors state they were receiving no >cooperation from the Iraqi government? They were starting to get cooperation when Bush kicked them out so he could invade. > What whas the government trying >to hide? The fact that it didn't have any WMD. >As for 9/11, the 9/11 commission report explicitely states that part of >the intelligence problem that existed wasn't fixed in part due to the >fact the government was spending so much time dealing with the >Clinton/Lewinsky episode. Interesting - those were Republicans who smelled blood in the water that led to that feeding frenzy. >Maybe if we had had a president who was more interested in keeping his >head on the job instead of in a house staffer things wouldn't be so >jacked up. One could argue that if we had had a Congress that was more interested in policy than whether Willie got his wick wet, then maybe things wouldn't have been so jacked up. Then again, the gov't that governs least governs best, or so it has been said anyway. I apologize for the lack of quoting, but Google unfortunately decided not to properly quote this article. Sucks to be blocked from NNTP during slow moments at work, but I digress. Foremost, I think the last statement offered in your post is right on the money. Unfortunately, though, there are segments of society that would run amok without a nanny-government. As for the issue of Congress and Clinton's, er, "situation", it's my point we should not have had a President in the Whitehouse that would have put his sexual satisfaction above the issues of the people. Regardless of the appropriateness of the impeachment proceedings, a President who was worth a damned would not have placed our nation in that position. What good would it serve Saddam to hide the fact that he didn't have WMD if he didn't in fact have them? Surely the individual who taunted that he had the greatest army on earth didn't need to rely on the threat of WMD to prevent Iraq from being invaded. >I apologize for the lack of quoting, but Google unfortunately decided >not to properly quote this article. Sucks to be blocked from NNTP [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >President who was worth a damned would not have placed our nation in >that position. One would like to think so, but presidents are human. I'd prefer a president who only lusted in his heart (and wasn't afraid to admit it), but I don't think the whole Monica thing revealed anything in general about Clinton we didn't already know. (Sure, we got some specific lurid details that I could have done without knowing, if that's of any benefit). We knew (or were pretty sure) he was a philanderer and that he would play fast and loose with personal questions he really didn't want to answer (e.g. "I didn't inhale"). I'm not an expert on the extra-marital affairs of presidents, but I understand that Clinton was certainly not the first one to do something like that. Kennedy comes to mind although I'm sure there must have been a Republican somewhere along the line that did something like that. If not, there have certainly been congressmen and governors (of both major parties) who have done so. But I do think Clinton was probably guilty of some corruption. Aside from Whitewater, there were allegations about Tyson Foods. I actually suspect that focus was placed on Whitewater because that was something they could actually get convictions on and even if they couldn't get Clinton directly, there was hope that the link to McDougal would be enough to derail him. The corruption allegations regarding Tyson might not have been pursued as rabidly because that may have been something that was more commonplace that Republicans wouldn't want to attract to much attention to lest they be found guilty of the same. But that's just conjecture and cynicism on my part - I cannot prove anything. Fortunately though, one of the biggest fears of a Clinton presidency never came to pass. That would be Hillary-Care. >What good would it serve Saddam to hide the fact that he didn't have >WMD if he didn't in fact have them? Surely the individual who taunted >that he had the greatest army on earth didn't need to rely on the >threat of WMD to prevent Iraq from being invaded. Was he still touting that he had the greatest army on earth after being driven out of Kuwait? Even if he did, anyone could see it was merely posturing. I grew up in Houston and remember some song about the Houston Oilers ("the greatest football team", "and when you say the Oilers, you're talkin' Super Bowl"), except I don't remember the Oilers ever making it to a Super Bowl. I do remember seeing them lose to Pittsburgh (several times) and Buffalo at least once. They were hardly the "greatest football team". (And I don't mind drawing a parallel between Bud Adams and Saddam Hussein either). Earl Campbell was supposed to be their WMD, but he couldn't do everything himself. Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: > As for the issue of Congress and Clinton's, er, "situation", it's my > point we should not have had a President in the Whitehouse that would > have put his sexual satisfaction above the issues of the people. > Regardless of the appropriateness of the impeachment proceedings, a > President who was worth a damned would not have placed our nation in > that position. Hey stupid. The monica scandal was clinton's idea to keep america from talking about the really horrible stuff he did like Waco and OKC and the bombing and sanctions of iraq which even madeliene albright admitted killed 500,000 iraqi children!!!!!!!!!!!!! >Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the bombing and sanctions of iraq which even madeliene albright >admitted killed 500,000 iraqi children!!!!!!!!!!!!! You mean which the UN acted as Saddam Hussein's mouthpiece and spread the lies and propaganda that US policy was killiong Iraqi children, when in fact it was Saddam who had destroyed his own nation's health care and was not using the aid he got properly. > >Hey stupid. The monica scandal was clinton's idea to keep america from > >talking about the really horrible stuff he did like Waco and OKC and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when in fact it was Saddam who had destroyed his own nation's health > care and was not using the aid he got properly. No - america did it. Check out this link. http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm > Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the bombing and sanctions of iraq which even madeliene albright > admitted killed 500,000 iraqi children!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clinton did Oklahoma City. OK . . . <plonk> > > Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > <plonk> What NG are you posting this in, Will? I'm on the Limbaugh NG. I come over here every now and then to remind the neocons that Rush is a drug-addict and a narc, just in case they forgot. You know them and memory problems. ;-) >> > Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >neocons that Rush is a drug-addict and a narc, just in case they forgot. You >know them and memory problems. ;-) Don't judge Limbaugh for being a "drug-addict". Criticize him for being a hypocrite. >>>Xeton2001IsAMoron.20.dwp...@spamgourmet.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > neocons that Rush is a drug-addict and a narc, jus |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message