Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011109.html

Try typing the words "Bush" and "Executive Order" and "secrecy" into
Google. Here, I've made it easy:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...+Order+secrecy

The results startled me. I knew of Pesident Bush's initial secrecy
order, the constitutionality of which has not yet been testes, but he's
done it 3 times!

Oh and one more thing... I believe the Bible has some words of wisdom on
the subject... something about who it is that "hateth the light"... let
me see, is it honorable upstanding Christians? No, that doesn't sound
right... hmmm who can help me out here...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:

You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument that the
only reason the case has teeth is because a liberal judge ruled that it
might? That's downright laughable. In case you haven't figured it out, I
don't have much respect for the opinions of attorneys and activist judges.

NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time... not a Democrat... ring any bells yet?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.

NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.


I had never heard of John Dean until I read that very same article at
FindLaw just yesterday (before you posted it).

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
news NOYB wrote:
You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument

Now you're really being funny. You don't know who John Dean is, do you?

Think: Watergate.... served time...

Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.


I had never heard of John Dean until I read that very same article at
FindLaw just yesterday (before you posted it).




Simply amazing, but not surprising. Read more. And read more often.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:19:58 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Admit it...you had no idea who John Dean is...none, zip. D'oh.

He can find out who he is by searching the web...just like you do for
every issue discussed here.

NOYB wrote:
Oh, this just gets better and better. You're citing the opinion of an
attorney ex-con? His opinion becomes more irrelevant by the minute.



The relevance of John Dean's opinion about the secrecy of the Bush White
House, relative to the Nixon White House, is that he was one of the
principal figures in the Watergate break-in and cover-up; along with all
the other malfeasances, high crimes, and treasons, that Nixon ordered.

But, it doesn't make sense to ask the man who knows the real facts, does
it? That might interfere with your preconceptions & prejudices.

FACT- President Bush and Vice President Cheney are dedicated to secrecy.
They have enforced secrecy ordered not backed by law, kept secrets
from Congress, from the military, from their own cabinet, and certainly
from the citizens of the U.S. Their is by far the most secretive of any
administration in American history.

Why? It is not a reaction to the Sept 11th attacks justified by the "war
on terror." The secrecy orders began practically the day after their
inauguration.

Why do they need to keep so much of what they do secret? What are they
afraid of?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:

You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument that the
only reason the case has teeth is because a liberal judge ruled that it
might? That's downright laughable. In case you haven't figured it out, I
don't have much respect for the opinions of attorneys and activist judges.

All right, NOYB FINALLY is admitting to his narrow mindedness!!!