On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\



A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.

She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.

My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.

They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.

The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.

The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.

That's a good point.

Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.

Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?

Palin.

Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\


A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.

Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.

No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\


A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.

Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.

No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

You've never received briefings on classified material. You have no idea
what is said and how it is said. Any knowledge about classified
briefings on your part is hearsay.

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:06:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

You've never received briefings on classified material. You have no idea
what is said and how it is said. Any knowledge about classified
briefings on your part is hearsay.

And how would you know that?

Any attempt by you to make sense is hilarious.

On May 16, 2:29*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:06:56 -0400, BAR wrote:
jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys *have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. *She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. *Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. *It's
called a NDA. *When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. * She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. * She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. *It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. *As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. *Bush's time was
over. * *Both candidates .... Obama *and McCain *were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. * She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. *You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

You've never received briefings on classified material. You have no idea
what is said and how it is said. Any knowledge about classified
briefings on your part is hearsay.

And how would you know that?


You were too busy buying German screwdrivers to get any classified
briefings, idiot.

~snerk~

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

Is this what you consider dialogue?



--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:55:20 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:33:31 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:23:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4
Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\

A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.
She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.
My briefings on variously classified material and subjects while working
for the government and serving in the military did not have a clause
that stated I could talk about what I was told during the briefings if
the material was also disclosed in the public domain.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.
They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.
The framers came up with a system of government that worked. Smart guys.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.
That's a good point.
Its a very good point that is completely lost on the fourth estate.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.
Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?
Palin.
Lame answers. You weren't a US Senator hearing legal arguments
surrounding torture.
No, I was hearing about our military capabilities vs. the Soviets and
ChiComs.

Briefed by the CIA at the cutting edge of government policy and
constitutional/international law torture?

You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.

Is this what you consider dialogue?

WTF does it have to do with you? Can't you keep your nose out of
other folk's asses?

Was this a problem while growing up? Did your parents have to
discipline you and didn't they warn you that you could pick up
cooties?

jps wrote:


You weren't in the briefings and have no authority from which to
speak.
Is this what you consider dialogue?

WTF does it have to do with you? Can't you keep your nose out of
other folk's asses?

Was this a problem while growing up? Did your parents have to
discipline you and didn't they warn you that you could pick up
cooties?

I don't think you understand the concept of Usenet. This forum is set
up so anyone can comment in any thread. You were emphasizing the
importance of dialogue, yet when someone starts a dialogue, you say
"they have no authority from which to speak". Then you go and stick you
nose up my butt (as you so fondly like to say) because I was wondering
if that was your concept of a dialogue.

Now if you don't want people to comment on your illogical thought
processes, you need to take it to email. If your anger was only
directed at me, it might seem that I was the reason for your outburst,
but in reality, you have been on a soapbox for years. You never debate
any topic, you are just screaming so you can listen to yourself. I have
been around long enough to know I will not have any impact on your
lashing out at the world, so carry on.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects