Jim Burnes smoldered:
#Reese wrote:
# Reno burned little kids in their church, because of the FIREARMS held
# or believed to be held somewhere on or around the compound.
#
# You might want to reappraise.
#
#I've appraised the Waco scenario more than most. You might
--
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of
snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Because sometimes a show of force is
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:32:14AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of
snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
At 11:54 PM 1/19/2001
At 12:07 AM 1/21/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
It wasn't a right for the what, 40,000 in flint michigan, either, was it?
It's called at-will employment: You keep your employer happy, you get your
job. (I'm starting to think you're not only very educated, but not very
educable. I'd love for you to
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
You're thinking too literally. Show of force: When an employer reminds
a slacker that having a job is not a right.
That's just shit rolling downhill. How long is a manager going to have
his job if he *doesn't* fire slackers? Or how long can an
Reno probably didn't expect the situation to, um, blow up in her face.
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they
could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or
whatnot in the morning. Reese, you blather too much.
-Declan
At 09:19 PM
At 9:00 AM -0500 1/20/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Reno probably didn't expect the situation to, um, blow up in her face.
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force,
they could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property
line or whatnot in the morning. Reese,
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:
As for Ashcroft, we'll see. Bush won, so Bush gets to appoint his
staff. The whole "review by the Senate" thing is a relic of the
McCarthy era, actually, and should be done away with.
Advice and consent of the Senate as to federal officers has been in
At 10:52 AM 1/20/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
It is also undisputed that if they wanted to avoid a show of force, they
could have nabbed Koresh during his jogs around the property line or
whatnot in the morning.
I said something to that effect, yesterday. Missed it, did'ja?
Pardon me if I don't
William Jennings McCullagh wrote:
But I get paid by the word for mine, generally speaking.
Those are speaking words did you not say a few days ago,
now worth more than wired fool's nuggets. Who's your agent
for priceless yarp, and what's her cut? These questions are
aimed at learning how to
On Thursday 18 January 2001 23:00, Reese wrote:
At 11:56 AM 1/18/01 -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
On Thursday 18 January 2001 10:15, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Quite right. Ashcroft is objectionable, as is any candidate George W.
would propose, but he is arguably less objectionable than Reno.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:13:32PM -1000, Reese wrote:
Then why were the troops laying siege to the compound, instead of
snatching koresh when he made one of his frequent trips into town?
Because sometimes a show of force is perceved as necessary.
Heck, employers do it to employees all the
Quite right. Ashcroft is objectionable, as is any candidate George W.
would propose, but he is arguably less objectionable than Reno.
Here's what he said yesterday about Microsoft:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41264,00.html
-Declan
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:18:32PM -0800, Greg
I've written about Ashcroft's mixed records on tech issues:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=ashcroft
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 07:54:00PM -0800, Anonymous wrote:
"Me" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "sparky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 01:29:28PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Just heard Asskroft on the radio during the hearings affirming
his support for the assault weapon ban ( and Herr Busch's support of
same) and their intention to reimplement that ban when it sunsets. So
much for his being
If this is inappropriate for this list, I hope all participants will accept
my apologies in advance, and let me know, and I will not post this
sort of thing here again.
If any here are in opposition to the nomination of John Ashcroft to
Attorney General, the following website allows citizens
"Me" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "sparky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opposeashcroft.com
I'm not trying to get people into any arguments here.. I
thought this
might be appropriate since people here are concerned with civil
rights.
Quite right, I am
Oh, absolutely appropriate! It's quite obvious that Asskroft is simply
step II, following Reno's step I, of our rather rapid march into the fascist
future. Sieg Heil, Herr Busch, Sieg Heil Herr Asskroft!
sparky wrote:
If this is inappropriate for this list, I hope all participants will
18 matches
Mail list logo
