| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It's great to no longer...
|
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote:
...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. |
It's great to no longer...
In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500
@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 24, 3:21�pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 24, 4:05�pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. I don't agree with you but in any case it's still better then it was. Just sayin... Mike |
It's great to no longer...
"H the K" wrote in message
m... ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. It is. That's for sharing them. -- Nom=de=Plume |
It's great to no longer...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
... On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. A moron who's a former Constitution prof, who has a better education than of the people here, and who's can form complete sentences without drooling and looking at Dick. -- Nom=de=Plume |
It's great to no longer...
"Mike" wrote in message
... On Oct 24, 3:21?pm, Frogwatch wrote: On Oct 24, 4:05?pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. I don't agree with you but in any case it's still better then it was. Just sayin... Mike Careful. Someone will make fun of how you look. lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
It's great to no longer...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Head of the Harvard Law Review, Professor of Constitutional Law, Senator, President of the United States. And you profess to have the qualifications to judge him as a moron. Are you taking your wife's painkillers again or drinking that Southern Alabama moonshine? |
It's great to no longer...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message m... ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. It is. That's for sharing them. Makes no sense atol lol |
It's great to no longer...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. {Reply to Plume. Our own little black head} The following must be embarrassing for you. lol lol A moron who's a former Constitution prof, who has a better education than of the people here, and who's can form complete sentences Here is an example of wonderfully constructed sentences by Plume. lol "It is. That's for sharing them." Nice choice of words. lol without drooling and looking at Dick. |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote:
In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? |
It's great to no longer...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker
wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 25, 9:20*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT),Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? No, but I don't go around accusing someone of commiting a crime without evidence of such. Harry does that, too you know. I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. But does that mean that you blame a specific person for those crimes without evidence of such? I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? Are you talking about Bush?: Imprisoning journalists Other than the fact that the President believes that he has the power to break the law and has been continuously exercising that power, the issue about which I've written most on this blog is the sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism. Those two issues are quite related, as the latter is intended to conceal and thus enable the former. The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 25, 7:55*pm, Tosk wrote:
In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? |
It's great to no longer...
In article fd64f073-8eb4-4d46-89c9-
, says... On Oct 25, 9:20*pm, John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT),Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? No, but I don't go around accusing someone of commiting a crime without evidence of such. Harry does that, too you know. I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. But does that mean that you blame a specific person for those crimes without evidence of such? I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? Are you talking about Bush?: Imprisoning journalists Other than the fact that the President believes that he has the power to break the law and has been continuously exercising that power, the issue about which I've written most on this blog is the sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism. Those two issues are quite related, as the latter is intended to conceal and thus enable the former. The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. I think it's always been illegal to leak or publish classified information, and a judge has the power to imprison any journalist who will not answer a subpoena inquiring where the classified information came from, what's the problem. With Obama, we are not talking about classified information, we are talking about violations of the first, fifth, and possibly the fourteenth amendment... |
It's great to no longer...
In article e353cb62-c9c6-4cad-9329-
, says... On Oct 25, 7:55*pm, Tosk wrote: In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? I was just making a point. If Obama can't be tarred with the brush of his friends just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, neither can Bush or Cheney... |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 26, 11:27*am, Tosk wrote:
In article e353cb62-c9c6-4cad-9329- , says... On Oct 25, 7:55*pm, Tosk wrote: In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? I was just making a point. If Obama can't be tarred with the brush of his friends just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, neither can Bush or Cheney...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bush HAS been convicted of crimes before. He was convicted of drunk driving and THEN lied repeatedly to cover it up. And Cheney has been convicted TWICE of drunk driving: Court and police records obtained by The Smoking Gun show that Cheney was convicted of drunk driving twice during an eight-month period in the early 1960s in his home state of Wyoming. The two convictions came when Cheney was 21 and 22 and resulted in fines and a brief suspension of his driver's license. On November 2, in the wake of the Bush DWI discovery, a Cheney spokesperson told reporters that the vice presidential candidate also had a rap sheet. But the Bush-Cheney campaign refused to provide any further details about the DWI busts. So TSG will now handle that chore. |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 26, 11:26*am, Tosk wrote:
In article fd64f073-8eb4-4d46-89c9- , says... On Oct 25, 9:20*pm, John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT),Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? No, but I don't go around accusing someone of commiting a crime without evidence of such. Harry does that, too you know. I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. But does that mean that you blame a specific person for those crimes without evidence of such? I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? Are you talking about Bush?: Imprisoning journalists Other than the fact that the President believes that he has the power to break the law and has been continuously exercising that power, the issue about which I've written most on this blog is the sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism. Those two issues are quite related, as the latter is intended to conceal and thus enable the former. The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. I think it's always been illegal to leak or publish classified information, and a judge has the power to imprison any journalist who will not answer a subpoena inquiring where the classified information came from, what's the problem. With Obama, we are not talking about classified information, we are talking about violations of the first, fifth, and possibly the fourteenth amendment...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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 works to silence his critics using his money and power, including state police and expensive lawyers. Not since Richard Nixon has a major presidential candidate been so quick to prevent his opponents from free speech. At the very least, this shows he doesn't understand big-league politics and may not be tough enough to handle more serious opponents, such as hostile foreign countries and terrorists. At worst, it may be a sign of Nixon-like paranoia; that president's thin-skin started out with similar small potatos and grew to bring down his presidency amid enemies' lists, illegal break-ins of his opponent's offices, and forcing the IRS to audit his enemies. Bush can't blame this on his staff, either; it comes from the top. When asked about one critical web site, he told the press "There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." As governor of Texas, for example, Bush Junior has sent the state police to arrest peaceful demonstrators outside the governors mansion. While previous governors allowed peaceful pickets on the public sidewalk outside the mansion, Bush has claimed that they are blocking public access, and had them arrested. Not all protestors, either -- just the ones he doesn't want the press to see. In the 2000 primaries, Bush supporters including NY Governor Pataki sued to keep John McCain and Steve Forbes off the New York primary ballot in several congressional districts. Bush denied any involvement, fooling no one, but after McCain's decisive New Hampshire victory made the move look ridiculous, Bush and his top strategist Karl Rove called up his establishment minions, after which they instantly announced that they were stopping their efforts to keep McCain off the ballot. Ironically, all of the attention to ballot rules revealed that a number of Bush delegates and alternates used fraudulent signatures to qualify for the ballot. As a result, it appears that McCain and Forbes will be on the ballot statewise, but George Bush Jr. won't be in one Bronx congressional district. Bush also can't stand criticism on the Internet. His campaign quietly -- and probably illegally -- bought up over 200 anti-Bush domain names including "bushsucks.com", "bushbites.com", and "bushblows.com" over a year ago. (Illegally because he had refused to register as a candidate, as part of his effort to make it look like people were begging him to run, so spending money for his campaign was not allowed.) If you type in any of these URLs, you end up at Bush's official web site. His campaign refuses to say whether this means that they admit that he bites, blows and sucks. (Maybe he used to be a White House intern?) If you wanted to set up one of those sites, breathe easy because many good names are still available. The Bush camp somehow neglected to purchase "bushisaprick.com", "bushisweak.com", or "bushsucksdonkeydicks.com", so $70 makes them yours. Even worse, Bush and his high-priced lawyers have tried twice to shut down a web site -- www.gwbush.com -- that parodies the Bush campaign, in particular his "no comment" answers on drug use in his past. You will recall that Bush has said it doesn't matter what he did "in his youth," because the question is "have you grown up" and "have you learned from your mistakes." The parody site presents a new program called "Amnesty 2000", in which Bush "proposes" pardoning all drug convicts who have "grown up." The Bush campaign filed one complaint about the site in April 1999, after which the parody site's owners changed it to look less like the real Bush site. That wasn't good enough though, and Bush lawyers filed against the site again in May 1999. So far, it remains in business But I know, he's a conservative, so he gets a free pass. |
It's great to no longer...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:27 am, Tosk wrote: In article e353cb62-c9c6-4cad-9329- , says... On Oct 25, 7:55 pm, Tosk wrote: In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29 pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? I was just making a point. If Obama can't be tarred with the brush of his friends just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, neither can Bush or Cheney...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bush HAS been convicted of crimes before. He was convicted of drunk driving and THEN lied repeatedly to cover it up. And Cheney has been convicted TWICE of drunk driving: Court and police records obtained by The Smoking Gun show that Cheney was convicted of drunk driving twice during an eight-month period in the early 1960s in his home state of Wyoming. The two convictions came when Cheney was 21 and 22 and resulted in fines and a brief suspension of his driver's license. On November 2, in the wake of the Bush DWI discovery, a Cheney spokesperson told reporters that the vice presidential candidate also had a rap sheet. But the Bush-Cheney campaign refused to provide any further details about the DWI busts. So TSG will now handle that chore. Have you checked out Krause's rap sheet? |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 26, 11:55*am, Jim wrote:
Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 26, 11:27 am, Tosk wrote: In article e353cb62-c9c6-4cad-9329- , says... On Oct 25, 7:55 pm, Tosk wrote: In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29 pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? I was just making a point. If Obama can't be tarred with the brush of his friends just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, neither can Bush or Cheney...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bush HAS been convicted of crimes before. He was convicted of drunk driving and THEN lied repeatedly to cover it up. And Cheney has been convicted TWICE of drunk driving: Court and police records obtained by The Smoking Gun show that Cheney was convicted of drunk driving twice during an eight-month period in the early 1960s in his home state of Wyoming. The two convictions came when Cheney was 21 and 22 and resulted in fines and a brief suspension of his driver's license. On November 2, in the wake of the Bush DWI discovery, a Cheney spokesperson told reporters that the vice presidential candidate also had a rap sheet. But the Bush-Cheney campaign refused to provide any further details about the DWI busts. So TSG will now handle that chore. Have you checked out Krause's rap sheet?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I know that he's a convicted sexual predator and pedophile, if that's what you mean! |
It's great to no longer...
Loogypicker wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:55 am, Jim wrote: Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 26, 11:27 am, Tosk wrote: In article e353cb62-c9c6-4cad-9329- , says... On Oct 25, 7:55 pm, Tosk wrote: In article aeaf68cb-b49a-4aa0-bbea-2cbff61c3a24 @l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 6:29 pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05 pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? It's the company you keep. I would ask you the same question about Bush... Then I would follow with which one has more friends that have been convicted, jailed, in respect to crimes...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So if someone knows someone who's committed a crime, they are automatically guilty of crimes themselves????? I was just making a point. If Obama can't be tarred with the brush of his friends just because he hasn't been convicted of a crime, neither can Bush or Cheney...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Bush HAS been convicted of crimes before. He was convicted of drunk driving and THEN lied repeatedly to cover it up. And Cheney has been convicted TWICE of drunk driving: Court and police records obtained by The Smoking Gun show that Cheney was convicted of drunk driving twice during an eight-month period in the early 1960s in his home state of Wyoming. The two convictions came when Cheney was 21 and 22 and resulted in fines and a brief suspension of his driver's license. On November 2, in the wake of the Bush DWI discovery, a Cheney spokesperson told reporters that the vice presidential candidate also had a rap sheet. But the Bush-Cheney campaign refused to provide any further details about the DWI busts. So TSG will now handle that chore. Have you checked out Krause's rap sheet?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I know that he's a convicted sexual predator and pedophile, if that's what you mean! Just want to make sure you know who you are dealing with here. |
It's great to no longer...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker
wrote: On Oct 25, 9:20*pm, John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT),Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? No, but I don't go around accusing someone of commiting a crime without evidence of such. Harry does that, too you know. I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. But does that mean that you blame a specific person for those crimes without evidence of such? I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? Are you talking about Bush?: Imprisoning journalists Other than the fact that the President believes that he has the power to break the law and has been continuously exercising that power, the issue about which I've written most on this blog is the sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism. Those two issues are quite related, as the latter is intended to conceal and thus enable the former. The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. Citing 'crimes' committed by Bush as justification for the criminal behavior of Obama is the 'Bush Rationale'. It doesn't make Obama innocent. |
It's great to no longer...
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. |
It's great to no longer...
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. Absolutly. O'Bama's transgressions stand on their own legs. Can we get an amen? |
It's great to no longer...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:58:02 -0400, Jim wrote:
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. Absolutly. O'Bama's transgressions stand on their own legs. Can we get an amen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JSqV...eature=related |
It's great to no longer...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote:
Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? |
It's great to no longer...
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? |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 26, 3:18*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 25, 9:20*pm, John H. wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT),Loogypicker wrote: On Oct 24, 6:29*pm, Tosk wrote: In article 7aed2ec8-fffe-4050-b159-07417cc78500 @m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, says... On Oct 24, 4:05*pm, H the K wrote: ...have an idiot as president and a criminal as vice president: http://tinyurl.com/yhc57ex Photos. Yeah, now we have a moron for president and a clown for veep. Or an idiot for veep and a crim for pres.. What crime has Obama ever been convicted of in a court of law? For that matter, what has he ever been charged with? Loogy, is it your belief that no crime has ever been committed by one who wasn't charged or convicted? No, but I don't go around accusing someone of commiting a crime without evidence of such. Harry does that, too you know. I would bet there's been some crimes committed right there in Atlanta for which no one has been charged or convicted. But does that mean that you blame a specific person for those crimes without evidence of such? I personally think the attempts to stifle a free press are criminal activities, don't you? Are you talking about Bush?: Imprisoning journalists Other than the fact that the President believes that he has the power to break the law and has been continuously exercising that power, the issue about which I've written most on this blog is the sweeping and dangerous attacks by this administration on investigative journalism. Those two issues are quite related, as the latter is intended to conceal and thus enable the former. The administration's assault on a free and vital press took a huge leap forward this weekend, when Attorney General Alberto Gonazles announced on national television that the Bush administration has the power to imprison journalists who publish stories revealing conduct by the President which the administration wants to conceal (such as the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, which he specifically cited). Gonazles went further and made clear that the administration is actively considering prosecution against journalists who publish such stories. Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. Citing 'crimes' committed by Bush as justification for the criminal behavior of Obama is the 'Bush Rationale'. It doesn't make Obama innocent.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That's odd. It happens all of the time in courts of law. Case history. |
It's great to no longer...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:10:21 -0400, gfretwell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? Or UK? The commie *******s have an official secrets act. ;-) BTW before the Pentagon Papers case you could go to jail here for publishing secrets. Without that law we probably would have lost WWII, we really haven't won a war since. Coincidence? maybe. Leaking classified information is illegal. Publishing classified information hasn't been. http://www.acslaw.org/node/11305 |
It's great to no longer...
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. |
It's great to no longer...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama? Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. Amen. |
It's great to no longer...
|
It's great to no longer...
On 10/27/09 9:26 PM, Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama? Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. Amen. It isn't even because it makes a good story, they do it just to support a political agenda and hurt the opposition party. I was so proud of the Bush administration for sitting back and taking the **** leaks and lies based on classified info brought out by the likes of the New York Lies, that knew Bush couldn't fight it without hurting American interest... In the interest of our boys over there, Bush/Cheney just sat back and took the kicks in the balls... You dumb fool. Bush and Cheney didn't give a tinker's dam about "our boys over there." They lied us into two wars over there because on 9/11 they had their hands on each other's dicks and didn't have a clue about what to do next. Those wars were initiated to "show" the American people we were "tough" on the 9/11 terrorists. We got and will get nothing for our losses and efforts there. You probably think there was some sort of real justification for our war against Vietnam. That war was bull****, too. |
It's great to no longer...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama? Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. Amen. The great (new) canard of the right. Except, it didn't happen. Fox lied about it happening, but it didn't happen. -- Nom=de=Plume |
It's great to no longer...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:39:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. There's a reason for that. If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. China, perhaps? But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama? Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. Amen. The great (new) canard of the right. Except, it didn't happen. Fox lied about it happening, but it didn't happen. That doesn't matter because we all know that Liberal writers want to do it. They should all be shot and replaced with more strident, goosestepping corporate opinion journalists who will support our great regime (and arms manufacturers). |
It's great to no longer...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:20 -0400, John H.
wrote: Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. During WWII the Japanese were not setting the depth charges nearly deep enough. A congressman told that Top Secret info to the press, and whores that they are, the newspapers in Hawaii published it. Admiral Lockwood estimated that business cost the US Navy ten submarines. Casady |
It's great to no longer...
On 10/27/09 11:02 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:43:20 -0400, John H. wrote: Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. During WWII the Japanese were not setting the depth charges nearly deep enough. A congressman told that Top Secret info to the press, and whores that they are, the newspapers in Hawaii published it. Admiral Lockwood estimated that business cost the US Navy ten submarines. Casady I think vice presidents who lie this country into a war should be jailed. |
It's great to no longer...
On Oct 27, 7:43*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:27:34 -0500, thunder wrote: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:18:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. On what charge? *The First Amendment is very clear about freedom of the press. *Funny, in the entire Constitution I can't find anything in it about "classified" information. *There's a reason for that. * If you truly believe journalists should be jailed for publishing classified information, you really should consider a more appropriate country for your ideological bent. *China, perhaps? But it's OK to squelch Fox News for disagreeing with Obama? Yes, I think journalists who divulge classified information should be jailed. I should have said 'properly classified'. Information which, if in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to our national security should not be published just because it makes a 'good story'. Amen. John, you're listening to Rush too much. The administration has done NOTHING to "squelch" Fox. That's pure propaganda lying. |
It's great to no longer...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com