[FairfieldLife] Re: a right to privacy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I suspect that your outrage, and that of Dan's is limited to your own sacred cows, and doesn't apply to leaks of other secret communications you feel should be revealed. Steve, to answer for myself only, your 'suspicion' is incorrect. Please try again. Just get over it, already. It's nothing! It's not even a tempest in a teapot. Okay, the fact Jerry Jarvis has some involvement, makes it sort of interesting. But still..let it go. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Rick Archer, maybe I missed it but you still just seem to be evading answering the question of how you had the right to violate someone's privacy but publishing this email, what was it about this email that compelled you to take such a step?
[FairfieldLife] Re: a right to privacy
Okay, for example, Carmen Segarra who recorded Fed meetings, in which she felt the Fed was too subservient to the Wall Street Banks in dealing with the financial crises, I suppose you feel those recordings should not have been revealed? There really were no great revelations in those recordings, but they offered insight into the crisis and how the Fed responded. You have said your son participates in demonstrations in the financial district against the power of big banks and financial institutions. I suppose if he came across a confidential document that shed insight into how these banks operate, you would recommend to him that he not reveal that information. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I suspect that your outrage, and that of Dan's is limited to your own sacred cows, and doesn't apply to leaks of other secret communications you feel should be revealed. Steve, to answer for myself only, your 'suspicion' is incorrect. Please try again. Just get over it, already. It's nothing! It's not even a tempest in a teapot. Okay, the fact Jerry Jarvis has some involvement, makes it sort of interesting. But still..let it go. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Rick Archer, maybe I missed it but you still just seem to be evading answering the question of how you had the right to violate someone's privacy but publishing this email, what was it about this email that compelled you to take such a step?
[FairfieldLife] Re: a right to privacy
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : Okay, for example, Carmen Segarra who recorded Fed meetings, in which she felt the Fed was too subservient to the Wall Street Banks in dealing with the financial crises, I suppose you feel those recordings should not have been revealed? There really were no great revelations in those recordings, but they offered insight into the crisis and how the Fed responded. You have said your son participates in demonstrations in the financial district against the power of big banks and financial institutions. I suppose if he came across a confidential document that shed insight into how these banks operate, you would recommend to him that he not reveal that information. He's a grown man. We're a 'mixed family' politically. Share similar values and hopes. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote : I suspect that your outrage, and that of Dan's is limited to your own sacred cows, and doesn't apply to leaks of other secret communications you feel should be revealed. Steve, to answer for myself only, your 'suspicion' is incorrect. Please try again. Just get over it, already. It's nothing! It's not even a tempest in a teapot. Okay, the fact Jerry Jarvis has some involvement, makes it sort of interesting. But still..let it go. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Rick Archer, maybe I missed it but you still just seem to be evading answering the question of how you had the right to violate someone's privacy but publishing this email, what was it about this email that compelled you to take such a step?
[FairfieldLife] Re: a right to privacy
I suspect that your outrage, and that of Dan's is limited to your own sacred cows, and doesn't apply to leaks of other secret communications you feel should be revealed. Just get over it, already. It's nothing! It's not even a tempest in a teapot. Okay, the fact Jerry Jarvis has some involvement, makes it sort of interesting. But still..let it go. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : Rick Archer, maybe I missed it but you still just seem to be evading answering the question of how you had the right to violate someone's privacy but publishing this email, what was it about this email that compelled you to take such a step?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Woman's right of privacy- Abortion'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another reason Hillary could never join with the Republicans, And the McCain campaign, is the 'right of privacy' for woman. McCain is against a woman's right to choose. These two principles don't go together. So, that would be another 'bottom line' that she would not cross. Also, on Saturday night, at the church conference, he clearly stated, that he would choose the most radical right-wing justices for the Supreme Court, and this will unify the Dems more than anything else. R.G. Yes, McCain is against abortion. But it would be more accurate to describe his position as being opposed to Roe v. Wade and legislating from the bench. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, this would NOT ban abortions in the United States; all it would do is return the decision to the individual states.
