Something we can all agree on

Oh great, you read the The Arizona Republic, we should all shut up and pay heed, NOT.

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill
Loading thread data ...

--
Keep it up and you\'ll soon be a plonkee
Reply to
John Fields

Now, the fun thing was to listen to Terry Gross, of "Fresh Air" fame, interviewing O'Reilly. He walked off the set before the interview was complete, claiming he had been set up. That was after she asked him about his "Peabody" award, which he had lied about. He claimed to have gotten confused about which award he had won. Sadly, it turned out that his show had won a 'polk' award, but only after he had left. He was lying about his credentials, and when caught, walked out. What a coward... That is the way with bullies, eh? Overcompensation for their inadequacies.

Rummy instituted torture, probably at the behest of Cheney. They think they get to say that they "Don't torture" because they have redefined the word. However, torture is torture, and in my book, that makes them both war criminals. Also, his overruling of the military plans for Iraq was simply a blatant error. Error after error after error. He should have been fired long ago, but Bush doesn't fire imbeciles; he keeps them around so he has somebody to talk to.

Well, all in the name of good clean fun. We all know how it would go down in a world run by Mr Waterboard.

The spell checker liked Furor. I can't spell worth a damn anymore for some reason. Feel free to attack me for that, if it makes you feel better, since you obviously are unable to defend your views... ;)

Sure they do. They use Drudge as well. Once it gets on the air, they feel the need to 'balance' their reporting by giving equal time... look at the swift boat thing. You can't tell me the media frenzy wasn't started by Rush and his dittoheads. The ads were only run in a couple of states initially. Fox took it up with a passion, blasting away as if it were fact, despite the truth that the entire thing was a horrible, disgusting lie which was pretty much discredited from the beginning. The "liberal media" discredited it almost instantly, since it had really been discredited years before.

Well, we like actual facts "liberally added" to our biased reporting, unlike you wrong-wingers, who prefer to ignore any facts that don't suit your world view. Thankfully, FOX is there, providing a service for you: fact-free broadcasting... that way, you don't need to suffer the cognitive dissonance you would otherwise be subject to were you required to ignore the facts on your own... ;)

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Monsen

The President has no right to "interpret" any law, his only obligation is to obey it, and mucho taxpayer dollars pay for a fairly huge legal staff dedicated to telling the President just exactly what the law is. Bush and company *knew* they were in violation of the law and therefore classified their surveillance program to put it outside the reach of scrutiny and legal prosecution. Gonzales publicly stated that the administration's advice from partisan members of Congress was that the existing FISA could never be amended to the extent required to accommodate the ambitions of their surveillance program, so the administration decided to go around it. This makes the President's conduct a felony. The time for debates, of any kind, is during the debate phase of the legislative enactment ( surprise !) and *not* after it's signed into law. When the *discussion* moves into actual felony then the topic is specific factual acts of illegal conduct - not general principles. Geez- and who signed the latest amendments to FISA into law? When it gets into the courts, the President will lose, his administration is running a batting average of 0.000 arguing its oddball, ignorant, and flake misconstructions of the law to the judiciary.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

It's called a crutch. He needs it.

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

and

non sequitur

Reply to
Richard Henry

I guess that'll make you a *plonker* ! lol.

Happy New Year

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

Your posting histroy shows your lie.

--
   Keith
Reply to
Keith

Considering that both Clinton and Carter have *admitted* to the same, even without the war-powers resolution. Geez, the leftists can't even get their side of the story straight!

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith

You can't get a warrant for an unkown entity for unkown information. This sort of thing is common in the intelligence business though. The President is certainly within his rights to authorize the gathering of intelligence, which is exactly the issue here.

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please sue your civics teacher. You should have failed high school.

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith

You'd better withdraw that libel, or spell out your proof in detail. Let's see your proof, or shut up.

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

--
---

>Happy New Year
Reply to
John Fields

Gee, Keith, I'm waiting to see how you respond to this.

Reply to
Richard Henry

I have no trouble believing that hate can cloud the mind, but it's a concept I'd have to take on faith, because I have no personal experience to evaluate it. And, as I've said many times, I truly don't hate George W Bush, but I am eager to see him out of office.

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

I had been thinking that exposing illegal activity was covered under a variety of whistleblower protection statutes. Then I ran across the case of Bunny Greenhouse, formerly the top civilian procureement official at the Corps of Engineers. She lost her job after questioning some of the no-bid contracts awarded to Hallibuton companies (you remember Halliburton, right, VP Cheney's old company?).

Here's a link to an interesting article about her:

formatting link

And today's news gives broad hints that the NY Times sources were in the Department of Justice (that is to say, Republicans appointed to their offices by W).

formatting link

Reply to
Richard Henry

formatting link
(hate+OR+kill)+group%3Asci.electronics.design+author%3Awinfield+author%3Ahill&rnum=5&hl=en#fbbba2f08f198aa4

I believe the libel is where you called him a liar. I think your proper defense would be to show something from Win's "posting histroy" that proves your point.

Reply to
Richard Henry

Nice bit of Googling, finding a poor choice of words in the heat of a discussion, but I'll stick to my claim, simply because it's true: I don't feel any hatred towards Goerge W Bush. I know my own heart.

--
 Thanks,
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

papers,

Ah, the magic words, "the courts have agreed". What do you think the courts will say about the administration deliberately bypassing a court set up just for the purpose of giving them quick, secret warrants?

Reply to
Richard Henry

screech

to

formatting link
(hate+OR+kill)+group%3Asci.electronics.design+author%3Awinfield+author%3Ahill&rnum=5&hl=en#fbbba2f08f198aa4

Libel?

proves

"Nitwit"? So your response to comments about your potentially-libelous behavior is to make a potentially-lebelous statement? Or maybe I misunderstood. What definition of "nitwit" did you have in mind?

Another question: do you behave this badly in person, or do you put on a special persona when posting to usenet?

Reply to
Richard Henry

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.