Posted on 12/20/2005 6:58:23 PM PST by ncountylee
then remove your blinders that you might see
I'm in a very "agreeable mood". I just don't suffer fools lightly; as you know.
Dear nopardons,
since your name begins without capital...I figure so can a sentence posted to a name without capital.
Been looking in the mirror, have you? :-)
I want to believe that. Can you show us were it says all those conditions must apply? Just give us the section under 802 where this policy is explained. <
Here's the full context of Section 802 of the P.A.. You left off the part at the end.
Section 802 in its entirity;
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
I put in bold the part of Section 802 that you left out. It includes the word "and". It shows that all the conditions must apply.
"I just don't suffer fools lightly; as you know."
Then you must despise yourself. Thats's truly sad.
What a childish, silly, and peculiar thing for you to say! Is that also why your sentence had no beginning, no verbs, and no ending? LOL
Not really - only the "appear to be intended--" needs to be true.
No, not "not really". See the word "and" at the end of Section 802.
Much to the detriment of the nation.
I made a typo......you can't write a complete sentence. :-)
I agree with you completely.
You're correct!
Or wants to be bribed in the form of some choice pork for his state. Craig is apparently telling the folks back home that he's doing this to protect the 2nd Amendment. Maybe. Maybe not. But he's sided with Hagel and that's a big red flag as far as I'm concerned.
Nope, doesnt pass the smell test. We need clarity, and I don't want the SC to have to sort this out after an innocent american citizen has spent years in jail for street corner protesting.
Thanks! It's a truism, but those who can't see that, are the ones who also don't want President Bush, who would NEVER do something like the Clintons would, to have the PA, to keep America and Americans safe.
And the anthrax attacks which threatened Congress just as surely as the plane that civilians took down in Shanksville, PA, saving the arses of every senator who was in the building that day. They literally came within minutes of never being able to cast a vote again, and this is how they behave just four years later.
Huh?
A, B and C must be true. It's in plain, clear English.
Craig says that his stance concerns the Second Amendment? That makes less than NO sense at all. It must be about pork and/or something that he isn't getting, that he thought he was.
The folks back home should give him and earful, over the Christmas break!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.