On 2/2/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/1/07, Denshtizzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm biased. I like it, 'specially with you, Sam! I especially like how > I'm > > not unpatriotic anymore when I bitch about the prez. That got to me > > I hear many people on the left crying about being called unpatriotic > if they don't support the war or the president yet I've never seen > these comments. I know when a politician goes to another country and
.... If you watch Fox News you saw it. The Right was quick to bash those who opposed, and you know it. And nobody said anything (how I felt). > too. You were never unpatriotic if you bitched about Clinton, neh? > > Why is that, Sambo? Why did his private life get pulled into the spot > > light? He must have been, like, the first president to pull a stunt... > bah. > > If anyone in a position of authority exposes him self and demands sex > form an underling I sure as hell want to know if it's true and whether > this person should be removed form that position And a sexual case was far more important than [fill in the blank]. Or at least interesting. Entertaining? eh. Y'all can do whatever you want, you know, that's fine, but at least try to have a sense of proportion. Usurping Liberty from the Masses rates some "investigation". Litigation. > But Bush Jr. does all this highly suspect stuff-- don't forget the whole > > energy commission thing, or whatever-- have they released who was > > on that board yet? Oh, was that Cheney? Whatever. They're all quite > > I don't see a problem with talking to industry insiders before forming > an opinion. I do. There's a reason we want things to be as "transparent" as possible, Sam, and a good republican should appreciate that. No offense. > oh. I didn't know you meant terrorists, and doing it on purpose, you > know. > > I was just saying that we are nice people who blow up kids and stuff. > > There's a big difference between collateral damage and intended target. Ah. At that "higher level"-- I git cha. > There's a funny saying in the scientific community about proof. =] > > A lot of people get caught red handed and can't dispute the guilt and > even confess. Then there's the ones that swear they're innocent and There was a nifty PBS show about memory on the other night. Did you know people can implant "false" memories into others? one guy says he's pretty sure they saw them, My Cousin Vinny type of > guilty. I love that movie. Positraction. Heh. gotta love it. > The other charts seemed to have more interesting data. Eh. > > Not sure what it all means :) Oh come now. =] > > What part of that is a lie? > > I don't remember. The number, I guess. That was from factcheck. > > The numbers are right on. Some nice reading here: > > http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=255139775271860 Dude, we radically shifted our power structure when Bush2 took office. All manner of things changed, the least of which was how close we were with China, etc. I wonder what it would've been like had Gore won. Anyways, that's an interesting article. And I just threw factcheck in there to be different. People usually focus on the "popular" lies. The job number one merely failed to add(or subtract) the jobs he'd lost, 2.5 mil or whatever. And I'm still a little suspicious about that "upward adjustment" from farm labor OWN ;] > > Actual Bush quote: "We do not monitor calls from America, we monitor > calls > > > > coming in from foreign countries and vice versa." > > > > ^--- not really a lie, I guess. This sentence is false. > > > Source please. > > What does it matter? I picked it because it was funny, and I'm biased, > > but the idea is what bugs me. He said he talked to his lawyer and since > > his lawyer said it was o.k. he is in the clear. Guess it's not a lie, > per > > se- > > he might not really know how it works, I guess. Skipped 5th grade > perhaps. > > Because he never said it. Those blogs aren't always correct :) I saw him say basically the same thing on live t.v.. My point is he thinks because his lawyer says it's ok, he's legal. It doesn't work like that. Perhaps I shouldn't call him a liar for that-- he could really not know! Sike. =] > > I guess you weren't following along. Did you ever wonder why the press > > > stopped talking about it? It's not because the NY Times loves Bush. > > > > > > What? The press talking about something makes it, what, true? Or not > > No, the NY Times wants to nail Bush and will run with it every day > until everyone else points out it's not a story. The real dirt doesn't seem to excite people. =-( ;] > talking, as the case may be. I mean, didn't I post a rant about Usama's > > family getting flown out, yet nobody covered it? I hear it from Moore > > first!?!? > > Perhaps we're alternating between claps and silence, as liberty flies... > > Because it wasn't true, at least not Moore's version. They flew out > three days later when the ban was lifted. Richard Clark said he > approved the flight and told Moore. He even called Moore a liar. Perhaps you can tell me if it was Saudi Arabia or Iraq that had the closer ties with the terrorists who actually attacked us? > We use computers, mostly, but yeah. Every phone call from everywhere. > > Everywhere we can get our hands on. Of course! You must know that. > > Justification is an interesting thing. Whoops. > > ??? The Government likes to listen to it's people. And I don't mean votes. har. har. > You have faith that gman is good? I think the whole reason we have > > checks and balances is because we acknowledged that we inherently > > don't know good from bad. Or power corrupts. Or with power comes > > responsibility, and it's sorta that "let's all three throw the switch at > > once > > so none of us actually knows who kilt 'em", hehe. > > I like the idea of more than a single point of failure, or whathaveyou. > :-/ > > The people that listen to your phone now through court ordered > wiretaps can blackmail your grandmother. What's different? It's easier. Too easy as it was. Now it's insane. > That, and spying on people used to be considered bad. > > Was ever a war won without spying? On it's own? I don't know, it seems to keep reoccurring. Let's hope we don't start throwing people in concentration camps. Seriously, you don't see what's "bad" about not having privacy? > I disagree. Of course, I've always been interested in the phone company, > > and communication, and whatnot. I bet you think ICKYLON is BS, neh? > > I don't know what that means. Just a reference to the government spying on everyone they can. > People don't need oversight because they're inherently good? I guess it > > makes sense from a certain viewpoint. I too think most people are > pretty > > darn good, ya know? Most the time. neh? Mommy can I trust the gub? > > Oversight hasn't gone away. That's almost precisely what HAS gone away, Sam. That's a pig part of what I'm bitching about. =-) > It's the same thing, neh? You're worried about the IRS calling you > because > > of your taxes, I'm worried about the FBI calling me because I bash the > prez. > > The IRS audited nearly every Clinton critic. Don't forget they had 900 > FBI files on republicans. FBI doesn't care if you bash the pres; half > the country is doing it. Just don't threaten him. See, I bet those were all "bad" republicans. Probably threatened him. > You do know that there are terrorists subscribed to a list, that is > > subscribed > > to a list, that has a member who's subscribed to this list, right? That > > alone > > justifies the tap, and luckily, they don't even have to ask anyone > anymore. > > This is public forum so everything you type is googlable. Which brings up an interesting point-- how many hops can they legally take? Is it spelled out anywhere? Where is the oversight? Got Data? My point being, I really don't want people (even decent, god fearing people) to be able to do a "google" through my personal stuff. And if someone who called someone who called someone makes me fair game... that's weak. If *I* put it out there, like with this list n' google, so be it. My problem is with the spying on ourselves and ease of it. When you need so many "taps" that even time travel isn't "good enough", there is a problem, Sam! > Woot woot! Heck, he was in Back to the Future, so I guess he's cool. > > A slave to Hollywood I see. Holly-wooood! Holly-wooood! Heh. That flick was the bomb! Ferris-wheel y todo > I guess I coulda swore we were in the black and bush2 messed it up > > so quick he made the Onion look prophetic. Bush2 dug into stuff pretty > > quick, IIRC. What does Clinton digging into SS have to do with bush2 > > increasing spending while cutting taxes? Imagine where we could be, > > compared to where we are. > > Raiding the SS fund is why we're in such a hole. You can shift paper I don't think so. And how do you cut taxes and increase spending? Well, I mean... I've seen how it's done. > Like the pharmasootical companies. And the energy stuff. Give me a > > break, I've never seen more "good old boy" type behavior in my life. > > 'cept that time with the aids and the hemophiliacs or whatever. > Dispicable! > > The GOP doesn't seem to have done too much for the little guy. Oh, > > wait, there was that tax cut! > > Clinton did more favors for Enron t hen this admin. > Sure. And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you kids. > Drugs save lives, > Doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to negotiate prices. > I know they're not perfect buy you're using a wide brush to claim > corruption. What about the lawyers and the unions on the other side of > I guess you don't see how this ties in with the "industry insiders". > the aisle? Most Dems get their money through corporations while most > GOPers get money from individuals. You need to re-evaluate that old > And the dems are almost as famous as the repubs for "kick backs". Almost. > stereotype. As for Aids research, who gave the most money? I don't know, who? > What's the deficit at again? It doesn't fit on that Death and Taxes > > poster so it's hard to really imagine it. > http://thebudgetgraph.com/view/ > > $200 billion. Blame it on Clinton. We were in the black till he messed with SS. Not! WASHINGTON: The U.S. Congressional Budget Office projects the national > budget deficit to shrink again this year and says it could actually > swing into a surplus by 2012 but only if President George W. Bush's > tax cuts expire in 2010. > http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/business/deficit.php > > > Anyways, Sam, these guys are knuckleheads. At a time when > > we really needed to be united, the Cheney&Co are duking it out > > with the CIA?!?! > > The CIA screwed up and tried to make the administration look bad. Nonsense. Patent nonsense. Documented Nonsense! It was the WH that kept fuxing up. Obviously. Thus, the "16 words" or whatnot. Load of bull, might I add. =] > And tell me again why, even if Saddam had been > > packing WMDs, he was an "immediate threat"? > > 13 years is not immediate. But when he started to comply, it wasn't good enough, fast enough, or whatever. In a 13 year span, how does that work? > Meanwhile, fishermen are selling nuckle-lear material... > > and that takes us back to global warming. Somehow. > > Global warming is a socialist scam. The UN is trying to control the > world and they found a way to influence the economies of > industrialized nations through the global warming hype. Now that's a > loaded answer:) We've been down this road, and while I agree with you about the earth being a pretty tough cookie, *we* aren't. And neither are the cute little aminimals. And plants. And stuff. As Cam (quite rightly points out) it's a symptom, of a cause we know DAMN WELL is our fault and "bad". That being crapping where we eat, or whatever. Pollution and such. We're the planeteers; you can be one too. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:227125 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
