"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

I can see you, but you cannot see me. Clear as Scotch tape!



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...aspx?GT1=43002


I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
that there are valid national security issues at stake.
We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
Freeze, why do you care?
The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
out..


Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of them
were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made a
mistake by stopping the investigations.


Anyone who thinks nobody ever listens to their phone conversations is
an idiot.
BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
Gingrich's cell phone?

Stuck in partisan politics and bought and paid for minority media...

--
Wafa free again.


The Republicans... definitely.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 11/3/09 7:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Keith wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

I can see you, but you cannot see me. Clear as Scotch tape!



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...aspx?GT1=43002

I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
that there are valid national security issues at stake.
We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
Freeze, why do you care?
The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
out..

Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of
them
were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made a
mistake by stopping the investigations.

Probably a matter of priority. If they stopped all investigations in
favor of focusing on putting Cheney away, that'd work for me.
You have misplaced priorities.

Cheney will only irritate you, terrorist will kill you.


Not really. Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.

Sure, Harry, along with almost all the Democrats in Congress.

lol lol


I posted it not Harry, as you know. Feel like attacking the messenger...
wonder where you got that from....




herring is an asshole. Once you accept that, nothing he posts matters.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:51:53 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't know what the best course is. I think we should concentrate more
on
drones and special operations, but I'm not an expert. Obama is listening
to
lots of folks and I'm willing to give him the benefit of my doubt about
the
best decision... at least for now.


We kill more innocent civilians than terrorists with those drones. It
is a flawed strategy


Like I said, I'm willing to let those with greater knowledge make the
decision. That's why I live in a representative democracy.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:45:50 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/3/09 4:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.

That would not ring so hollow if Obama would stop the wars


How's he supposed to do that? Snap his fingers? It takes a while. We're
certainly drawing down in Iraq. A decision is pending in Afg.



Considering what just happened in Afghanistan in regard to the election
re-run, I'm hoping Obama resists the pressure to send in 40,000 more
troops, or any number resembling 40,000. Afghanistan is not a nation, it
is a collection of territories run by warlords, with a central
government run by a crook. Pakistan is also a failed nation. The
geography in that part of the world is pretty impossible.


True

It's too bad Dubya blew our wad in Iraq. Had our military concentrated
on Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda these past eight years, we
might be in a much better position now.

Not so true. We would just have more body bags.

We had an early opportunity in Afg. We had world-wide support, and Bush
squandered it. It would have made a difference.

The SU had no such support, and we were actively working against them.


Wasn't anyone paying attention to what happened to the Soviets? They
spared no expense and gave no quarter, using the most ruthless
tactics, and still got their ass kicked.
All "Joe Wilson's war" did was make it a little more costly for them
and challenged their air superiority but they still never really held
much ground, even before we gave Bin Laden the stingers.
At the time, it was their Vietnam. Now it is ours.
Air power will not will a guerilla war.


Wilson's war made it much more costly for them.

It's nothing like VN. Iraq is more like that, but even that is a flawed
analogy.


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:42:12 -0800, jps wrote:

Cheney has already irritated me and I want him to pay.

Obama can chose. Pursue Cheney and spend the next 3 years having that
be the focus of his administration or do the other things he wants to
do.

I am old enough to remember a few of these witch hunts and I can say,
nothing else happened when they were going on.
With Nixon, the war dragged on 3 years longer than it needed to
With Clinton, the corporations and the bankers set up the apparatus to
loot the country.


Bush institutionalized the looting. Clinton didn't help the situation, but
he had limited control when the Rep. took over Congress. Reagan started it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:48:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

I can see you, but you cannot see me. Clear as Scotch tape!



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...aspx?GT1=43002

I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations is
that there are valid national security issues at stake.
We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and the
boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their job.
If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
Freeze, why do you care?
The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the official
line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that if
they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
out..

Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of
them
were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made a
mistake by stopping the investigations.

Probably a matter of priority. If they stopped all investigations in
favor of focusing on putting Cheney away, that'd work for me.
You have misplaced priorities.

Cheney will only irritate you, terrorist will kill you.


Not really. Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.

Sure, Harry, along with almost all the Democrats in Congress.

lol lol


I posted it not Harry, as you know. Feel like attacking the messenger...
wonder where you got that from....

You continue to show what you are, and who you sound like.

In this case, the messenger made up the message. You've nothing but
hot air from others to lend credence to what you said. It's called
'bull****'.

Enough of you.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:48:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:43:21 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:48:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 01:20:49 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog
wrote:

I can see you, but you cannot see me. Clear as Scotch tape!



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decla...aspx?GT1=43002

I think the reason Obama is stopping the "wiretap" investigations
is
that there are valid national security issues at stake.
We stand around and bitch that Bush should have stopped Atta and
the
boys and then criticize the way he could have stopped them.
NSA has always "wiretapped" and they always will. That is their
job.
If they are not busting you for your affair with the girl in the
office or that bag of grass you arranged to pick up at the Tastee
Freeze, why do you care?
The reality is they were only looking at international calls to
countries with terrorist ties anyway, if you can believe the
official
line. I have seen the bug Clinton put in every telephone office (at
least while it was in the box) and I bet they hear more than that
if
they want. It is capable of sniffing every packet that goes in or
out..

Actually, they were listening to far more conversations and many of
them
were inside the US. It's pretty well documented. I think Obama made
a
mistake by stopping the investigations.

Probably a matter of priority. If they stopped all investigations in
favor of focusing on putting Cheney away, that'd work for me.
You have misplaced priorities.

Cheney will only irritate you, terrorist will kill you.


Not really. Cheney has been responsible for the deaths of thousand upon
thousands of American, Iraqi, and Afgani lives.

Sure, Harry, along with almost all the Democrats in Congress.

lol lol


I posted it not Harry, as you know. Feel like attacking the messenger...
wonder where you got that from....

You continue to show what you are, and who you sound like.

In this case, the messenger made up the message. You've nothing but
hot air from others to lend credence to what you said. It's called
'bull****'.

Enough of you.


Then plonk me if that's what you like. I don't understand why you're unable
to have a rational discussion without attacking the messenger. I'm sorry if
you can't think logically (or won't).

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:22:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:42:12 -0800, jps wrote:

Cheney has already irritated me and I want him to pay.

Obama can chose. Pursue Cheney and spend the next 3 years having that
be the focus of his administration or do the other things he wants to
do.

I am old enough to remember a few of these witch hunts and I can say,
nothing else happened when they were going on.
With Nixon, the war dragged on 3 years longer than it needed to
With Clinton, the corporations and the bankers set up the apparatus to
loot the country.


Bush institutionalized the looting. Clinton didn't help the situation, but
he had limited control when the Rep. took over Congress. Reagan started
it.

You can demonize Bush all you want, I won't stop you but you have to
know the enabling legislation was passed while we were all wondering
about blue dresses, cigars and little white lies. Now that you brought
it up, some of the other legislation that set the stage for this
looting happened while we were worried about what Oliver North was up
to.

There is nothing like a good scandal to divert our attention from what
is really important and to stop any real business going on that
benefits the country.

If Obama gets bogged down in some Cheney investigation, that will be
the only thing he will be doing.


Certainly true... I don't think Obama will get bogged down if the AG decides
to proceed. We need to hold everyone accountable for their acts.

--
Nom=de=Plume

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800, Loogypicker wrote:


Anyone who thinks nobody ever listens to their phone conversations is
an idiot.
BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Cite?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...or_giving.html


Exactly!!! I was a CONFERENCE call......nothing was "bugged".

Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0800, Loogypicker wrote:


Anyone who thinks nobody ever listens to their phone conversations is
an idiot.
BTW where was the outrage when democratic operatives were bugging Newt
Gingrich's cell phone?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Cite?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...or_giving.html

Jesus Loogie. This is getting pretty bad. Almost everything you have
said today has been proven absolutely wrong, time to take off the
partisan blinders and admit it... Nothing wrong with learning you are
wrong, the problem comes when you are afraid to admit and accept it, and
move on...



Uh, if you were to read the article posted, there was NO BUGGING. It was
a friggin' CONFERENCE call. Yes, it IS getting bad.