On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:20*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker

wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:26*am, Tosk wrote:
In article fd64f073-8eb4-4d46-89c9-

There's more to Bush's efforts to gag the press:

Thin skinned: Bush tries to stifle his critics
One of the most disturbing things about Bush is that he consistently
snipped

Again, Bush's transgressions, real or imagined have NO FRIGGIN'
BEARING ON OBAMA'S.

Never heard of Case Law, huh?

Does case law permit criminal behavior because it was practiced
earlier? Wow. I didn't know that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No. I didn't say that. It's case law. Where when you are being blamed
for something, someone else's transgressions certainly DO have a
"friggin bearing on" whoever is being accused.

Does case law excuse the transgression because someone else committed
a like transgression?

If not, then get your damn head out of the sand, 'cause that's what
I'm talking about.