"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves, just
like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc .
etc.

Did you see Sen. Reid dodging Chris Wallace's direct question about whether
he was briefed on the this issue. Reid never did answer the question asked.
Reid was briefed but, he won't admit it.

Also, when Reid asked about disgorging contributions form Abramoff and
friends Reid said that he, Reid, didn't do anything wrong and wasn't going
to disgorge the contributions.

Reid should be brought up on ethics charges for failing to be honest with
his constituents and colleagues.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit
in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just
like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
..
etc.

Did you see Sen. Reid dodging Chris Wallace's direct question about
whether
he was briefed on the this issue. Reid never did answer the question
asked.
Reid was briefed but, he won't admit it.

Also, when Reid asked about disgorging contributions form Abramoff and
friends Reid said that he, Reid, didn't do anything wrong and wasn't
going
to disgorge the contributions.

Reid should be brought up on ethics charges for failing to be honest
with
his constituents and colleagues.

I stopped watching the politcal shows for the most part, got tired of
the inane questions, asking questions that were answered in the previous
question (don't they ever listen to the answers) and then the obvious
softball interviews...on both the left and right.

In the mean time, you don't see the liebrals whining about this
information being kept secret

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/120002.shtml

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
. etc.

Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of them.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit
in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied"
etc
. etc.

Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of
them.

Just watch the frenzy over the next few days between the talking heads of
the DNC and the MSM............wouldn't be surprised to see Dean Scream III

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

JohnH wrote:
He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:


And he admits violating the law


He did not.


and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JohnH wrote:
He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:


And he admits violating the law


He did not.


and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JohnH wrote:

He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:



And he admits violating the law


He did not.



and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****


Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment is the law violated, on orders of the president.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JohnH wrote:

He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:



And he admits violating the law


He did not.



and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****


Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment is the law violated, on orders of the president.

Tamaroak said that Bush admitted violating the law. I said that Bush made no such admission.

Your insertion of the 4th Amendment has no bearing on my statement.

Furthermore, you have no proof that a law was broken.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"Tamaroak" wrote in message

And he admits violating the law

He did not. Learn to read. Learn to listen. Words mean something.

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
. ..
And he admits violating the law and says he will do it again.

Good! And I'd vote for Bush again and again and again and...