Re: No subject
krp
"Dave U. Random" <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in message
news:d855de6264928aa2...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message (extraneous text removed for
> brevity. See previous post for entire text in context. I am addressing
> Pangborn's stupid next sentence:
>
> KRP: "No it is a LEGAL judgment that many legal scholars and Judges
> agree with if you have been following the news in the past couple days.
> Consensus is
> building that dismissal at some stage is a near 100% probability."
> Fucktard Pangborn's primary news source is FOX news, the "station for
> morons" that that broadcasts opinion journalism masquerading as news.
> Fox is an opposition opinion outlet. It is a money-making machine for
> Murdoch that feeds on uneducated people such as Ken Pangborn who live
> and breathe from one drama to the next. FOX has an ideology that it
> follows. Therefore, what they broadcast is not news. It is an outlet
> for opinion. Fox, as a network, represents themselves as a news outlet.
> But they aren't covering the news. They are expressing their opinion
> and their opinions are not objective. They are clearly right wing,
> anti-Obama administration and do not report anything that is not twisted
> toward this end. Other news stations report the news as it happens, not
> as their particular political party WANTS it to happen.
BULLSHIT. Fox has said nothing about the case being dismissed.
Greegor
A > You just proved that you do watch FOX news.
A > What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude.
A > I wouldn't know what FOX news said because
A > sane people who have brains don't watch the
A > stupidity that is emitted from their station
A > like you do. Only stupid people like you
A > watch FOX news and believe it, Ken, because
A > you really ARE stupid.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366582-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Remains_Dominant.php
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d40d3236-3a89-47b2...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366582-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Remains_Dominant.php
Greg, you need to understand, that people like "ANONYMOUS" like to think of
themselves as the "ELITE" in America. They see themselves as "intellectually
gifted" which they have been told all their lives especially within their
family of RETARDATES. To them Fox news is anathema because it speaks to the
great majority of Americans. People they regard as their inferiors. It
should be noted that this really isn't a partisan issue. The "ELITE" within
the right wing Republicans actually share this fundamental dislike for
people they consider inferior as well. (95% of the American population.)
Which explains why, even in the Republican party there is such dislike for
plain speaking "average Jane" Sarah Palin. She just doesn't have a Harvard,
Yale, or Princeton degree. HEAVENS! Of course people form U.Cal. Berkeley
think THEY are also "ELITE" however, The Yaleies think they are jackasses.
It's funny watching the elite trying to out-elite each other. The
Illuminati!
Actually I rotate my news viewing. I tend to hit them all. MSNBC, CNN
and Fox. Sometimes the BBC. (The British Bullshitting System) Anonymous said
"sane people with brains" (like him) don't watch it. Meaning that in his
view the vast majority of Americans are not sane (a logical extension of his
claim) and the vast majority of American people don't have brains (again
the logical terminus of his point) and therefore it is the ELITE who must
rule. We keep hearing that from those whose core beliefs are in
totalitarianism. They do the thinking and the rest of us are "worker bees"
who gather the honey FOR THEM. I must ask "Anonymous" who is the "not sane"
person in this room?
Greegor
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d40d3236-3a89-47b2...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote in invisible ink:
>
> A > You just proved that you do watch FOX news.
> A > What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude.
> A > I wouldn't know what FOX news said because
> A > sane people who have brains don't watch the
> A > stupidity that is emitted from their station
> A > like you do. Only stupid people like you
> A > watch FOX news and believe it, Ken, because
> A > you really ARE stupid.
>
>
> Greg, you need to understand, that people like "ANONYMOUS" like to think of
> themselves as the "ELITE" in America. They see themselves as "intellectually
> gifted" which they have been told all their lives especially within their
> family of RETARDATES. To them Fox news is anathema because it speaks to the
> great majority of Americans. People they regard as their inferiors. It
> should be noted that this really isn't a partisan issue. The "ELITE" within
> the right wing Republicans actually share this fundamental dislike for
> people they consider inferior as well. (95% of the American population.)
> Which explains why, even in the Republican party there is such dislike for
> plain speaking "average Jane" Sarah Palin. She just doesn't have a Harvard,
> Yale, or Princeton degree. HEAVENS! Of course people form U.Cal. Berkeley
> think THEY are also "ELITE" however, The Yaleies think they are jackasses.
> It's funny watching the elite trying to out-elite each other. The
> Illuminati!
>
> Actually I rotate my news viewing. I tend to hit them all. MSNBC, CNN
> and Fox. Sometimes the BBC. (The British Bullshitting System) Anonymous said
> "sane people with brains" (like him) don't watch it. Meaning that in his
> view the vast majority of Americans are not sane (a logical extension of his
> claim) and the vast majority of American people don't have brains (again
> the logical terminus of his point) and therefore it is the ELITE who must
> rule. We keep hearing that from those whose core beliefs are in
> totalitarianism. They do the thinking and the rest of us are "worker bees"
> who gather the honey FOR THEM. I must ask "Anonymous" who is the "not sane"
> person in this room?
I heard that when the Dems badmouthed Fox they alienated
more of the disgruntled mainstream Democrats and the
Independents who watch Fox News. The idea that only
Republicans watch Fox News is very wrong.
What do you think, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
>
> To them Fox news is anathema because it speaks to the
> great majority of Americans.
LOL!!!
�n�hw��f
news:056112d2-78f8-4b48...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 17, 3:47�am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d40d3236-3a89-47b2...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
>> om... "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" wrote in invisible ink:
>>
>> A > You just proved that you do watch FOX news.
>> A > What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude.
>> A > I wouldn't know what FOX news said because
>> A > sane people who have brains don't watch the
>> A > stupidity that is emitted from their station
>> A > like you do. Only stupid people like you
>> A > watch FOX news and believe it, Ken, because
>> A > you really ARE stupid.
>>
>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/366582-Cable_News_Ratings_F
>> o...
>>
>> Greg, you need to understand, that people like "ANONYMOUS" like to
>> think
> of
>> themselves as the "ELITE" in America. They see themselves as
>> "intellectua
> lly
>> gifted" which they have been told all their lives especially within
>> their family of RETARDATES. To them Fox news is anathema because it
>> speaks to t
> he
>> great majority of Americans. People they regard as their inferiors.
>> It should be noted that this really isn't a partisan issue. The
>> "ELITE" with
> in
Faux Noise panders to the lowest common denominator.
Its an echo chamber for repug talking points. They dont just "report",
they create news and movements.
The teabagger thing was a prome example of FN driven astroturf.
HTH
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Dan Sullivan
"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC662E7B11BAs...@216.196.97.142...
>
> Faux Noise panders to the lowest common denominator.
>
> Its an echo chamber for repug talking points. They dont just "report",
> they create news and movements.
> The teabagger thing was a prome example of FN driven astroturf.
>
> HTH
You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed to spew
insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall Street had
done. Or what the auto industry had done.
Better yet the health insurance industry.
In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled, while the
profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year to 12 billion a
year.
krp
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixm...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in
message news:0dceb6d358b38100...@remailer.privacy.at...
> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has said
> nothing about the case being dismissed."
>
> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that you do
> watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude. I wouldn't
> know what FOX news said because sane people who have brains don't watch
> the stupidity that is emitted from their station like you do. Only
> stupid people like you watch FOX news and believe it, Ken, because you
> really ARE stupid.
After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying that on
FOX. Ty again, jackass.
Deadrat
news:4b02f0ac$0$4961$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
course."
<quote>
CAVUTO: Could � could they also...
GIULIANI: That is their obligation.
CAVUTO: Could they also � they could also throw this out on a
technicality, right?
GIULIANI: Of course. They have...
CAVUTO: They have water boarding issues...
GIULIANI: They have � they have an obligation, an ethical obligation to
raise every issue that requires the United States government to prove the
case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's � if it's a 50-50 case, he's
supposed to get acquitted. If there are mistakes that have been made in
the processing of this case by the government, it is conceivable that
evidence will be suppressed. It's even � I don't believe it will happen,
but it's not inconceivable, the case could be thrown out for...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: What would you throw it � what would throw it out?
</quote>
Greegor
Don't you watch Fox news, Dan?
Deadrat
news:11288147-e6a7-4ecb...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 17, 1:55�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>> innews:4b02f0ac$0$4961$9a6e19ea@unlim
> ited.newshosting.com:
>> > "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at>
>> > wrote in message
>> >news:0dceb6d358b38100...@remailer.privacy.at...
>>
>> >> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: � � "BULLSHIT. Fox has
>> >> said nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>
>> >> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that
>> >> you do watch FOX news. �What a stupid blob of nothing you are,
>> >> dude. I wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who
>> >> have brains don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their
>> >> station like you do. �Only stupid people like you watch FOX news
>> >> and believe it, Ken, because you really ARE stupid.
>>
>> > � � After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying
>> > � � that on FOX. Try again, jackass.
>>
>> Wrong. �From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
>>
>> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. �Neil says, "[T]hey
>> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" �Rudy says "Of
>> course."
>>
>> <quote>
>> CAVUTO: Could � could they also...
>>
>> GIULIANI: That is their obligation.
>>
>> CAVUTO: Could they also � they could also throw this out on a
>> technicality, right?
>>
>> GIULIANI: Of course. They have...
>>
>> CAVUTO: They have water boarding issues...
>>
>> GIULIANI: They have � they have an obligation, an ethical obligation
>> to raise every issue that requires the United States government to
>> prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's � if it's a
>> 50-50 case, he's supposed to get acquitted. If there are mistakes
>> that have been made in the processing of this case by the government,
>> it is conceivable that evidence will be suppressed. It's even � I
>> don't believe it will happen,
>> but it's not inconceivable, the case could be thrown out for...
>>
>> (CROSSTALK)
>>
>> CAVUTO: What would you throw it � what would throw it out?
>> </quote>
>
> What's wrong with that?
There's nothing "wrong" with the discussion. The claim was that nobody
on Fox was saying that the case could get dismissed. And here we have a
Fox droid pimping the theory to Guilani.
Greegor
G > What's wrong with that?
DR > There's nothing "wrong" with the discussion.
And yet you go to a lot of trouble to vilify any opponent.
Except yourself.
DR > The claim was that nobody on Fox was
DR > saying that the case could get dismissed.
DR > And here we have a Fox droid pimping
DR > the theory to Guilani.
You don't think it's possible, do you?
krp
>>> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has said
>>> nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>
>>> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that you
>>> do watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude. I
>>> wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who have brains
>>> don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their station like you
>>> do. Only stupid people like you watch FOX news and believe it, Ken,
>>> because you really ARE stupid.
>>
>> After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying that
>> on FOX. Ty again, jackass.
>
> Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
> course."
#1 I never saw it. But nobody was saying what *I* said.
> <quote>
> CAVUTO: Could - could they also...
>
> GIULIANI: That is their obligation.
>
> CAVUTO: Could they also - they could also throw this out on a
> technicality, right?
>
> GIULIANI: Of course. They have...
> CAVUTO: They have water boarding issues...
> GIULIANI: They have - they have an obligation, an ethical obligation to
> raise every issue that requires the United States government to prove the
> case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's - if it's a 50-50 case, he's
> supposed to get acquitted. If there are mistakes that have been made in
> the processing of this case by the government, it is conceivable that
> evidence will be suppressed. It's even - I don't believe it will happen,
> but it's not inconceivable, the case could be thrown out for...
> (CROSSTALK)
>
> CAVUTO: What would you throw it - what would throw it out?
> </quote>
Okay where is the argument there about lack of jurisdiction? Where is
the issue of due process denial discussed? Lack of Miranda rights? Being
held several years without a lawyer? Lack of "speedy trial?" Where are the
things *I* discussed being talked about on Fox? Actually they WERE
discussed last night on CNN.
krp
> Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:11288147-e6a7-4ecb...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 17, 1:55 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote
>>> innews:4b02f0ac$0$4961$9a6e19ea@unlim
>> ited.newshosting.com:
>
>>> > "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> >news:0dceb6d358b38100...@remailer.privacy.at...
>>>
>>> >> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has
>>> >> said nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>
>>> >> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that
>>> >> you do watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are,
>>> >> dude. I wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who
>>> >> have brains don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their
>>> >> station like you do. Only stupid people like you watch FOX news
>>> >> and believe it, Ken, because you really ARE stupid.
>>>
>>> > After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying
>>> > that on FOX. Try again, jackass.
>>>
>>> Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
>>>
>>> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
>>> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
>>> course."
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>> GIULIANI: That is their obligation.
>>>
>>> technicality, right?
>>>
>>> GIULIANI: Of course. They have...
>>>
>>> CAVUTO: They have water boarding issues...
>>>
>>> to raise every issue that requires the United States government to
>>> 50-50 case, he's supposed to get acquitted. If there are mistakes
>>> that have been made in the processing of this case by the government,
>>> don't believe it will happen,
>>> but it's not inconceivable, the case could be thrown out for...
>>>
>>> (CROSSTALK)
>>>
>>> </quote>
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>
> There's nothing "wrong" with the discussion. The claim was that nobody
> on Fox was saying that the case could get dismissed. And here we have a
> Fox droid pimping the theory to Guilani.
That's NOT at all true, Ratboi, something you are infamous for pulling
on Usenet. The CLAIM here is that I got what *I* said from Fox news.
Cavuto's show aired well AFTER I wrote what I did, and this is only the
START of your problems. The second is that the Cavuto show did not go into
ANY of the Constitutional issues *I* did. Actually there is now a still
small but growing voice that the case will have to be dismissed.
Deadrat
news:4b03e914$0$4976$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
What do you think "technicality" means? That they couldn't get the
lights in the courtroom to work?
Deadrat
news:4b03e9c4$0$4962$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Oh, stop it. People aren't paying enough attention to anything I say to
make me "infamous."
> pulling
> on Usenet. The CLAIM here is that I got what *I* said from Fox news.
> Cavuto's show aired well AFTER I wrote what I did, and this is only
> the START of your problems.
Yeah, *I'm* the one with the problems.
> The second is that the Cavuto show did not
> go into ANY of the Constitutional issues *I* did.
Granted. You didn't get the details from Fox News. That the case might
be dismissed is discussed widely, including on Fox News.
> Actually there is
> now a still small but growing voice that the case will have to be
> dismissed.
It's a bad sign when you hear voices.
Greegor
DR > couldn't get the lights in the courtroom to work?
Do you think these issues are technicalities?
lack of jurisdiction
due process denial
Lack of Miranda rights
Lack of speedy trial ?
Some in Congress don't see those things as mere technicalities.
Deadrat
5ba5ba...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> DR > What do you think "technicality" means? �That they
> DR > couldn't get the lights in the courtroom to work?
>
> Do you think these issues are technicalities?
It doesn't mean that the issues aren't important, just that they deal
with the mechanics of the trial and not with the ultimate finding based
on the evidence.
> lack of jurisdiction
The charge is terrorism (subject matter jurisdiction), the venue is NY
(territorial jurisdiciton), and the defendant is in US custody (personal
jurisdiction). Why is this an issue?
> due process denial
There might be civil relief (or not, dependng on statute); there might be
injunctive relief to obtain due process (which would be moot now). For
any claim of denial of due process to affect the upcoming trial, the
defect would have to be in the procedures surrounding the upcoming trial.
> Lack of Miranda rights
I'm sure Khalid was read his rights as soon as he was arrested by
civilian authorities.
When he was originally arrested in Pakistan, Miranda didn't apply.
> Lack of speedy trial ?
From what I've read, the clock starts ticking when the indictment is
handed up and stops when the trial starts.
> Some in Congress don't see those things as mere technicalities.
Who, exactly?
I think there's no doubt that KSM's rights were violated. An
understatement, considering that he was tortured. But the federal courts
rarely intrude on the military, so the federal court is likely to
restrict itself to those questions that arise from civilian judicial
action.
It's certainly possible that the presiding judge could expand the scope
of inquiry. The AG doesn't seem concerned.
krp
It isn't just "iinfamous" to me, Ratboi. It's your general reputation
amongst the majority.
>> pulling on Usenet. The CLAIM here is that I got what *I* said from
>> Fox news.
>> Cavuto's show aired well AFTER I wrote what I did, and this is only
>> the START of your problems.
> Yeah, *I'm* the one with the problems.
Is this a confession?
>> The second is that the Cavuto show did not
>> go into ANY of the Constitutional issues *I* did.
> Granted. You didn't get the details from Fox News. That the case might
> be dismissed is discussed widely, including on Fox News.
Actually when I posted that, NONE of the media was discussion the
probability that the case would be dumped. Now most of the media IS
discussing the possibility. So far they have avoided guests that make a
strong DEFENSE argument that the case has multiple Consttutional problems.
Only NOW is CNN discussing that it is likely the move was political to get
at the Bush administration. I am willign to BET than then the case startes
to unravel, Eric Holder will be EVERYWHERE blaming the Constitutial problems
on the CRIMINAL BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Eric Holder will PROVE that an object
CAN be in more than one place at the same time. The little shit will have
microphones coming out of his ass. Maybe you missed that at a hearing
before the Senate yesterday whey wiped the floor with the CLOWN. He was
asked a simple question; "Can you name ANY other case in American history
when an enemy combatant has been placed on trial in a civilian court?"
Holder looked like a deer in the headlights, he stammered for a couple
moments and said; "I'll have to do some research on that." He was told not
to bother, that "We're making history." This has NEVER happened before. Now
we shall see the REAL political drama unform as Holder TRIES to make his
case against GEORGE W. BUSH and Dick Cheney! The case doesn't have a fukking
thing to do with KSM or terrorism, it has everything to do with Holder's
"OBSESSION" with bringing Bush to trial.
>> Actually there is now a still small but growing voice that the case will
>> have to be
>> dismissed.
> It's a bad sign when you hear voices.
Bad for who? Holder? Rodent - even on CNN more and more legal experts
are saying that the case in a civilian court is DOA.Too many Constitutional
violations that would have been irrelevant in a military tribunal. In giving
KSM the FULLEST Constitutional rights, the case is a loser. Begin with
"SPEEDY TRIAL" violation. THAT ALONE means the case will have to be kicked.
Then the Miranda Warning was too late. He was DENIED a lawyer for years.
DENIED - Rodent. The voices are not as loud and definite as mine - YET - but
they are growing. The terrorists will walk FREER and Holder PLANS to blame
it on Bush. The whole propaganda machine is standing by to BLAME BUSH!
I blame Bush for DITHERING on starting the military trials. Its the
WIMP/CHIP factor.
krp
The CONSTITUTION is NOT a "technicality." In a military trial none of those
things YOU call "technicalities" would have been a problem. I fault
chickenshit Bush for NOT starting the military trials because he was a
COWARD!
krp
>> DR > What do you think "technicality" means? That they
>> DR > couldn't get the lights in the courtroom to work?
>>
>> Do you think these issues are technicalities?
>
> It doesn't mean that the issues aren't important, just that they deal
> with the mechanics of the trial and not with the ultimate finding based
> on the evidence.
>
>> lack of jurisdiction
> The charge is terrorism (subject matter jurisdiction), the venue is NY
> (territorial jurisdiciton), and the defendant is in US custody (personal
> jurisdiction). Why is this an issue?
Really fails. The acts complained of did NOT occur on U.S. soil. Now IF
KSM were arrested ON an airplane crashing into the WTC would have a point.
>> due process denial
> There might be civil relief (or not, dependng on statute); there might be
> injunctive relief to obtain due process (which would be moot now). For
> any claim of denial of due process to affect the upcoming trial, the
> defect would have to be in the procedures surrounding the upcoming trial.
Civil relief? In a criminal proceeding? The lack of proceedural and
substantive due process is sufficient grounds for dismissal with prejudice.
>> Lack of Miranda rights
> I'm sure Khalid was read his rights as soon as he was arrested by
> civilian authorities.
TOO LATE.
> When he was originally arrested in Pakistan, Miranda didn't apply.
Sure it did IF there is a trial in a CIVILIAN COURT. Would NOT apply in
a military tribunal.
>> Lack of speedy trial ?
> From what I've read, the clock starts ticking when the indictment is
> handed up and stops when the trial starts.
You READ wrong.The clock starts ticking when the person goes into
CUSTODY.
>> Some in Congress don't see those things as mere technicalities.
> Who, exactly?
Did you miss yesterday's flame broiling of Holder before the Senate?
Even the Democrats were roasting him. Senator Graham delivered the coup de
gras.
> I think there's no doubt that KSM's rights were violated. An
> understatement, considering that he was tortured. But the federal courts
> rarely intrude on the military, so the federal court is likely to
> restrict itself to those questions that arise from civilian judicial
> action.
Oh but in this case they will HAVE TO. They wouldn't intervene IF the
trials had been begun in the military courts., BUT George W.Bush was too
cowardly to order they to start.
> It's certainly possible that the presiding judge could expand the scope
> of inquiry. The AG doesn't seem concerned.
The AG doesn't give a flying shit if ALL terrorists walk free. This has
NOTHING to do with THEM or Terrorism. It is 100% of Eric Holder's OBSESSION
with putting George Bush and Dick Cheney on trial. He's so obsessed with
doing that he hasn't been able to shit for 8 years!
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c6ag5pfo0bk5hj3e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has said
>>>>> nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that you
>>>>> do watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude. I
>>>>> wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who have brains
>>>>> don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their station like you
>>>>> do. Only stupid people like you watch FOX news and believe it, Ken,
>>>>> because you really ARE stupid.
>>>>
>>>> After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying that
>>>> on FOX. Ty again, jackass.
>>>
>>> Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
>>
>>> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
>>> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
>>> course."
>>
>> #1 I never saw it. But nobody was saying what *I* said.
>>
>
> "BULLSHIT. Fox has said nothing about the case being dismissed."
Typical POLACK BULLSHIT. Ever hear of a calendar? At the time I wrote that,
Fox had not commented on the Constitutional issues. They have SINCE. Or did
I miss the part where you think I said they "NEVER WILL?" HUH, POLACK? You
get dumber by the minute, jackass.
Deadrat
news:4b053033$0$5104$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:Mdidndj_YOWdpZnW...@giganews.com...
>
>
<snip/>
> The case doesn't
> have a fukking thing to do with KSM or terrorism, it has everything to
> do with Holder's "OBSESSION" with bringing Bush to trial.
Wow! You really are hearing voices in your head. Bush and Cheney ought
to be tried for their crimes, starting with authorizing torture. The
administration hasn't even brought the torturers up on charges. Don't
worry. Cheney and the WPE are safe.
>
>>> Actually there is now a still small but growing voice that the case
>>> will have to be
>>> dismissed.
>
>> It's a bad sign when you hear voices.
>
> Bad for who? Holder? Rodent - even on CNN more and more legal
> experts are saying that the case in a civilian court is DOA.
How many is more and more? Please name them.
> Too many
> Constitutional violations that would have been irrelevant in a
> military tribunal.
Why would they have been irrlevant in a military tribunal? Or do you
mean just easier to ignore?
> In giving KSM the FULLEST Constitutional rights, the case is a loser.
Them's the breaks when you go with the rule of law.
> Begin with "SPEEDY TRIAL" violation.
The civilian court won't go near military policy; it will measure the
"speed" starting with the indictment a few days ago.
> THAT ALONE means the case will have to be kicked.
We'll see, won't we?
> Then the Miranda Warning was too late.
He was arrrested in Pakistan; Miranda deosn't apply there.
> He was DENIED a lawyer for years. DENIED - Rodent.
He was never tried. That might go to the speedy trial issue, but he
didn't need a lawyer if he wasn't on trial. But I believe KSM had a
military lawyer appointed to represent him at Gitmo.
> The voices are not as loud and definite as mine -
They have medication for that now.
> YET - but they are
> growing. The terrorists will walk FREER and Holder PLANS to blame it
> on Bush. The whole propaganda machine is standing by to BLAME BUSH!
So who do you think is responsible for violating KSM's Constitutional
rights if not the WPE?
> I blame Bush for DITHERING on starting the military trials. Its
> the WIMP/CHIP factor.
CHIP?
Don't blame the WPE. The courts screwed up his plans to sweep the mess
under the military rug.
Deadrat
news:4b05308f$0$5083$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Don't get your panties in a twist. "Technicality" applies to the
mechanics of the trial and not the determination of guilt.
> In a military trial none of
> those things YOU call "technicalities" would have been a problem.
Why is that?
> I
> fault chickenshit Bush for NOT starting the military trials because he
> was a COWARD!
Bush's unconstitutional plans ran into the legal problems. It wasn't a
matter of bravery
�n�hw��f
news:4b02e191$0$22551$607e...@cv.net:
>
> "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC662E7B11BAs...@216.196.97.142...
>>
>> Faux Noise panders to the lowest common denominator.
>>
>> Its an echo chamber for repug talking points. They dont just
>> "report", they create news and movements.
>> The teabagger thing was a prome example of FN driven astroturf.
>>
>> HTH
>
> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>
Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck. They
might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big audience for
jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase talking points.
> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>
Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it. He
taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people in
americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
reform?
It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall Street
> had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>
Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to monied
corporate interests they might have done something.
Too fucking late now :)
> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>
They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions a
day on negative adverts.
Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
> to 12 billion a year.
>
Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
influence in DC.
American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
Deadrat
news:4b05326b$0$5118$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:rZ-dnfGReediQ5nW...@giganews.com...
>
>>> DR > What do you think "technicality" means? That they
>>> DR > couldn't get the lights in the courtroom to work?
>>>
>>> Do you think these issues are technicalities?
>>
>> It doesn't mean that the issues aren't important, just that they deal
>> with the mechanics of the trial and not with the ultimate finding
>> based on the evidence.
>>
>>> lack of jurisdiction
>
>> The charge is terrorism (subject matter jurisdiction), the venue is
>> NY (territorial jurisdiciton), and the defendant is in US custody
>> (personal jurisdiction). Why is this an issue?
>
> Really fails. The acts complained of did NOT occur on U.S. soil.
The WTC wasn't on US soil?
> Now IF
> KSM were arrested ON an airplane crashing into the WTC would have a
> point.
You think that if someone isn't in the US, the courts have no subject
matter jurisdiciton over his actions? Think again.
>
>>> due process denial
>
>> There might be civil relief (or not, dependng on statute); there
>> might be injunctive relief to obtain due process (which would be moot
>> now). For any claim of denial of due process to affect the upcoming
>> trial, the defect would have to be in the procedures surrounding the
>> upcoming trial.
>
> Civil relief? In a criminal proceeding?
No, in a separate civil proceeding to complain about the violation of
rights.
> The lack of proceedural and
> substantive due process is sufficient grounds for dismissal with
> prejudice.
So you say. But you're hearing voices.
And you're an ignoramus.
So I think I won't take your word for it. OK?
>>> Lack of Miranda rights
>
>> I'm sure Khalid was read his rights as soon as he was arrested by
>> civilian authorities.
>
> TOO LATE.
Why?
>> When he was originally arrested in Pakistan, Miranda didn't apply.
>
> Sure it did IF there is a trial in a CIVILIAN COURT.
Nope. See US v Verdugo. You really have no idea what you're talking
about, do you?
> Would NOT apply in a military tribunal.
Why not?
>>> Lack of speedy trial ?
>
>> From what I've read, the clock starts ticking when the indictment is
>> handed up and stops when the trial starts.
>
> You READ wrong.The clock starts ticking when the person goes into
> CUSTODY.
We'll see. I doubt the federal court will inquire into any military
procedures.
>>> Some in Congress don't see those things as mere technicalities.
>
>> Who, exactly?
>
> Did you miss yesterday's flame broiling of Holder before the
> Senate?
> Even the Democrats were roasting him. Senator Graham delivered the
> coup de gras.
Bwahahahahahaha! Graham!
Could you please cite someone disinterested.
>> I think there's no doubt that KSM's rights were violated. An
>> understatement, considering that he was tortured. But the federal
>> courts rarely intrude on the military, so the federal court is likely
>> to restrict itself to those questions that arise from civilian
>> judicial action.
>
> Oh but in this case they will HAVE TO. They wouldn't intervene IF
> the
> trials had been begun in the military courts., BUT George W.Bush was
> too cowardly to order they to start.
I suppose that the WPE could have defied the courts. But that still
wouldn't have been a matter of bravery.
>
>
>> It's certainly possible that the presiding judge could expand the
>> scope of inquiry. The AG doesn't seem concerned.
>
> The AG doesn't give a flying shit if ALL terrorists walk free.
You're a mindreader now?
> This has
> NOTHING to do with THEM or Terrorism. It is 100% of Eric Holder's
> OBSESSION with putting George Bush and Dick Cheney on trial. He's so
> obsessed with doing that he hasn't been able to shit for 8 years!
And I hope puts them both on trial. But there isn't a chance in hell of
that happening.
Is it possible that the court will dismiss the charges? Of course.
That's the chance we take with an independent judiciary.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> pinched out a steaming pile of
> news:4b02e191$0$22551$607e...@cv.net:
>
>>
>> "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CC662E7B11BAs...@216.196.97.142...
>>>
>>> Faux Noise panders to the lowest common denominator.
>>>
>>> Its an echo chamber for repug talking points. They dont just
>>> "report", they create news and movements.
>>> The teabagger thing was a prome example of FN driven astroturf.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>>
> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck. They
> might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big audience for
> jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase talking points.
>
>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>>
> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it. He
> taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people in
> americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
> reform?
I think the best fix to the health insurance industry would be to allow
people to buy their insurance from whatever company they wanted, instead of
being restricted to their own state.
In 1947 the health industry convinced the gov that they wouldn't need to be
regulated if the people in each state had to buy their ins IN that state.
> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>
>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall Street
>> had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>>
> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to monied
> corporate interests they might have done something.
> Too fucking late now :)
The regs started to come off during the Clinton admin.
>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>>
> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions a
> day on negative adverts.
> Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
If I'm not mistaken the pharm industry now spends more each year on
advertising and promotion than they spend on research.
>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>> to 12 billion a year.
>>
> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
> influence in DC.
> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
Sad but true.
Deadrat
news:4b0580c8$0$22544$607e...@cv.net:
Is there no Republican bullshit you won't buy? This is the core of the
GOP plan to reform health care. What it would mean is that your
insurance company can sell you insurance in your state without meeting
your state's insurance regulations.
Kinda like the credit card companies don't have to obey your state's
usury laws.
<snip/>
Dan Sullivan
Right now the health ins co's can meet and discuss rate hikes, etc, etc...
because there's no fed regs to stop them.
Open interstate purchasing of health ins and the feds would stop that.
krp
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> pinched out a steaming pile of
> news:4b02e191$0$22551$607e...@cv.net:
>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck. They
> might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big audience for
> jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase talking points.
Like MSNBC and PBS?
>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it. He
> taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people in
> americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
> reform?
Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the proposed
legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR healthcare?"
Do you believe that Washington or the people would be in a better position
to KNOW their needs?
> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
Maybe they feel they already have it? Or are they just SUPID mortar
forkers?
>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall Street
>> had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to monied
> corporate interests they might have done something.
> Too fucking late now :)
They DID demand accountability. Congress (both parties) told them to
"get forked!"
>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions a day
> on negative adverts.
> Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
He does through the tea parties and protests.
>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>> to 12 billion a year.
> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate influence
> in DC.
> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that goes on
wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore house???
Deadrat
To be precise, they can do that because they have an exemption from
antitrust laws.
> Open interstate purchasing of health ins and the feds would stop that.
Only if their exemption is gone.
Dan Sullivan
Federal antitrust laws.
>> Open interstate purchasing of health ins and the feds would stop that.
>
> Only if their exemption is gone.
Interstate competition... and antitrust laws.
40 states have more than half of the health insurance being sold by TWO
companies.
krp
>> The case doesn't
>> have a fukking thing to do with KSM or terrorism, it has everything to
>> do with Holder's "OBSESSION" with bringing Bush to trial.
>
> Wow! You really are hearing voices in your head. Bush and Cheney ought
> to be tried for their crimes, starting with authorizing torture. The
> administration hasn't even brought the torturers up on charges. Don't
> worry. Cheney and the WPE are safe.
Usually I hear thopse voices on the evening news, rodent. Like from
Holder himself.
>>>> Actually there is now a still small but growing voice that the case
>>>> will have to be dismissed.
>>> It's a bad sign when you hear voices.
>>
>> Bad for who? Holder? Rodent - even on CNN more and more legal
>> experts are saying that the case in a civilian court is DOA.
> How many is more and more? Please name them.
On which network? Even CNN's Rich Sanchez has had them on. Look at his
blog.
>> Too many
>> Constitutional violations that would have been irrelevant in a
>> military tribunal.
> Why would they have been irrlevant in a military tribunal? Or do you
> mean just easier to ignore?
There is NO "speedy trial" right under the UCMJ with an enemy
combatant.
krp
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
> news:4b05326b$0$5118$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>>
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:rZ-dnfGReediQ5nW...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>> DR > What do you think "technicality" means? That they
>>>> DR > couldn't get the lights in the courtroom to work?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think these issues are technicalities?
>>>
>>> It doesn't mean that the issues aren't important, just that they deal
>>> with the mechanics of the trial and not with the ultimate finding
>>> based on the evidence.
>>>
>>>> lack of jurisdiction
>>
>>> The charge is terrorism (subject matter jurisdiction), the venue is
>>> NY (territorial jurisdiciton), and the defendant is in US custody
>>> (personal jurisdiction). Why is this an issue?
>>
>> Really fails. The acts complained of did NOT occur on U.S. soil.
> The WTC wasn't on US soil?
Ddid they hatch the plot on the 100th floor of Tower 1? Where was the
PLOT put together, Roident?
>> Now IF KSM were arrested ON an airplane crashing into the WTC would
>> have a
>> point.
> You think that if someone isn't in the US, the courts have no subject
> matter jurisdiciton over his actions? Think again.
Yes, if he is not in the U.S. and doesn't participate in the physical
act in the U.S. jurisdiction over the person and subject matter is shaky.
Especially when the person is a "combatant" legal or not.
>>>> due process denial
>>
>>> There might be civil relief (or not, dependng on statute); there
>>> might be injunctive relief to obtain due process (which would be moot
>>> now). For any claim of denial of due process to affect the upcoming
>>> trial, the defect would have to be in the procedures surrounding the
>>> upcoming trial.
>> Civil relief? In a criminal proceeding?
> No, in a separate civil proceeding to complain about the violation of
> rights.
I know you love to *THINK* of yourself as a Usenet LAWYER - but the
"civil action" will be just a touch shakey unless the criminal court finds
his rights were violeted.
>> The lack of proceedural and
>> substantive due process is sufficient grounds for dismissal with
>> prejudice.
>
> So you say. But you're hearing voices.
>
> And you're an ignoramus.
>
> So I think I won't take your word for it. OK?
>
>>>> Lack of Miranda rights
>>
>>> I'm sure Khalid was read his rights as soon as he was arrested by
>>> civilian authorities.
>>
>> TOO LATE.
>
> Why?
>
>>> When he was originally arrested in Pakistan, Miranda didn't apply.
>>
>> Sure it did IF there is a trial in a CIVILIAN COURT.
> Nope. See US v Verdugo. You really have no idea what you're talking
> about, do you?
Did AFghanistan authorize the actions against KSM? Written decision by
an Afghan court? The main problem is that gthe AC LU laweyers went
PREDICTABLY to California Federal courts which SCOTUS doesn't have ANY
respect for. They reverse on a "consider the source" basis. The District
Court is gthe predictabled FAR LEFT Judge in Sacramento, and the 9th COA is
in San Francisco, You can just presumne they are wrong and not have to read
their shit.
>> Would NOT apply in a military tribunal.
>
> Why not?
>
>>>> Lack of speedy trial ?
>>
>>> From what I've read, the clock starts ticking when the indictment is
>>> handed up and stops when the trial starts.
>>
>> You READ wrong.The clock starts ticking when the person goes into
>> CUSTODY.
> We'll see. I doubt the federal court will inquire into any military
> procedures.
We'll see. They have before even in YOUR OWN EXAMPLE.
>>>> Some in Congress don't see those things as mere technicalities.
>>
>>> Who, exactly?
>>
>> Did you miss yesterday's flame broiling of Holder before the
>> Senate?
>> Even the Democrats were roasting him. Senator Graham delivered the
>> coup de gras.
> Bwahahahahahaha! Graham! Could you please cite someone disinterested.
SO unless ihyt is an EXTREME LEFTIST nothing they say counts, right,
Rodent?
Deadrat
news:4b05c37d$0$5111$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:urCdneKqccl265jW...@giganews.com...
>
>>> The case doesn't
>>> have a fukking thing to do with KSM or terrorism, it has everything
>>> to do with Holder's "OBSESSION" with bringing Bush to trial.
>>
>> Wow! You really are hearing voices in your head. Bush and Cheney
>> ought to be tried for their crimes, starting with authorizing
>> torture. The administration hasn't even brought the torturers up on
>> charges. Don't worry. Cheney and the WPE are safe.
>
> Usually I hear thopse voices on the evening news, rodent. Like
> from Holder himself.
You're hearing those voices from the TV now? If they start talking to
you on the phone, get out of the house!
>>>>> Actually there is now a still small but growing voice that the
>>>>> case will have to be dismissed.
>
>>>> It's a bad sign when you hear voices.
>>>
>>> Bad for who? Holder? Rodent - even on CNN more and more legal
>>> experts are saying that the case in a civilian court is DOA.
>
>> How many is more and more? Please name them.
>
> On which network? Even CNN's Rich Sanchez has had them on. Look at
> his blog.
Your claim; your burden. I'm not doing your homework.
>>> Too many
>>> Constitutional violations that would have been irrelevant in a
>>> military tribunal.
>
>> Why would they have been irrlevant in a military tribunal? Or do you
>> mean just easier to ignore?
>
> There is NO "speedy trial" right under the UCMJ with an enemy
> combatant.
We're not talking enemy combatants. By treaty, their status cannot be
criminalized, and they can be held prisoner until the cessation of
hostilities.
We're not talking about the UCMJ, which applies only to military
personnel and military contractors. In fact, Article 10 of the UCMJ
guarantees a speedy trial.
We're talking about KSM, who was not captured on the battlefield, but
arrested in his home country and turned over to us. We have alleged that
KSM committed criminal acts, and he is entitled to a speedy trial under
the Constitution. The question is what constitutes "speedy" in a
military court. It needn't be the same thing as defined in civilian
courts. Indefinitte detention is out, though.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1c6ag5pfo0bk5hj3e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>>> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has said
>>>>>> nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that you
>>>>>> do watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude. I
>>>>>> wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who have brains
>>>>>> don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their station like you
>>>>>> do. Only stupid people like you watch FOX news and believe it, Ken,
>>>>>> because you really ARE stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying that
>>>>> on FOX. Ty again, jackass.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
>>>
>>>> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
>>>> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
>>>> course."
>>>
>>> #1 I never saw it. But nobody was saying what *I* said.
>>>
>>
>> "BULLSHIT. Fox has said nothing about the case being dismissed."
>> --Kenneth Robert Pangborn
>
>Typical POLACK BULLSHIT.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>Ever hear of a calendar?
Yes.
>At the time I wrote that,
>Fox had not commented on the Constitutional issues.
As can be seen from the quote above, you made no mention of
Constitutional issues. You claimed Fox said nothing about the case
being dismissed. Fox did.
You either lied or you made a mistake. Only you can know which.
>They have SINCE. Or did
>I miss the part where you think I said they "NEVER WILL?"
Have I claimed, directly or through implication, that I thought
you meant they never will?
>HUH, POLACK? You
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>get dumber by the minute, jackass.
>
I quote you, and that makes me dumb? Please explain in detail.
"Quotes below have been highly altered."
-- -- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, accidentally
admitting in misc.legal
that he alters posts when he replies.
krp
>>>>> Ken Pangborn proves my point by saying: "BULLSHIT. Fox has said
>>>>>>> nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting your manboobs tied up in knots, Ken? You just proved that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> do watch FOX news. What a stupid blob of nothing you are, dude. I
>>>>>>> wouldn't know what FOX news said because sane people who have brains
>>>>>>> don't watch the stupidity that is emitted from their station like
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> do. Only stupid people like you watch FOX news and believe it, Ken,
>>>>>>> because you really ARE stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After your claim I looked at their website. NOBODY was saying
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> on FOX. Ty again, jackass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. From "Your World With Neil Cavuto," November 13, 2009.
>>>>
>>>>> Neil and Rudy talk about the case getting tossed. Neil says, "[T]hey
>>>>> could also throw this out on a technicality, right?" Rudy says "Of
>>>>> course."
>>>>
>>>> #1 I never saw it. But nobody was saying what *I* said.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "BULLSHIT. Fox has said nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>> --Kenneth Robert Pangborn
>>
>>Typical POLACK BULLSHIT.
>>Ever hear of a calendar?
> Yes.
>>At the time I wrote that,
>>Fox had not commented on the Constitutional issues.
> As can be seen from the quote above, you made no mention of
> Constitutional issues. You claimed Fox said nothing about the case
> being dismissed. Fox did.
Oh Christ you ARE the Polack.
Greegor
Kent is such a moron that his inheritance has to
be given to him through a protective trust to
keep him from blowing it on magic beans.
Perhaps for him a reputation as an idiot is
a step up from what he actually is?
Maybe it's like a rhesus monkey aspiring to be a chimpanzee?
�n�hw��f
Olbermann or Maddow pointed out last night that all the ins co's could
move to a state that didnt regulate them, like Texas.
Which just creates more problems for consumers.
> In 1947 the health industry convinced the gov that they wouldn't
> need to be regulated if the people in each state had to buy their
> ins IN that state.
>
Obviously we need a system like Norway's, or Autrailia's, or the UK's,
or Canada's.
>> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
>> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>>
>>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall
>>> Street had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>>>
>> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to
>> monied corporate interests they might have done something.
>> Too fucking late now :)
>
> The regs started to come off during the Clinton admin.
>
Odd that. Since Clinton was trying to pass health ins reform.
>>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>>>
>> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions
>> a day on negative adverts.
>> Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
>
> If I'm not mistaken the pharm industry now spends more each year on
> advertising and promotion than they spend on research.
>
Most likely. They will change one small item in a drugs structure just
to keep it from becoming generic. When the revolution comes, I will not
be giving safe harbor to any of those corporate cretins.
Jus Sayin[tm]
^_^
>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>>> to 12 billion a year.
>>>
>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>> influence in DC.
>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>
> Sad but true.
>
The revolution will not be televised.
^_^
--
�n�hw��f
news:4b05bc94$0$5111$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC86607F612Es...@216.196.97.142...
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> pinched out a steaming pile
>> of news:4b02e191$0$22551$607e...@cv.net:
>
>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>
>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>> talking points.
>
> Like MSNBC and PBS?
>
Too deep for you eh?
>>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>
>> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it.
>> He taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
>> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people
>> in americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
>> reform?
>
> Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the
> proposed
> legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR
> healthcare?"
Beck is a pinhead, at best.
> Do you believe that Washington or the people would be
> in a better position to KNOW their needs?
>
The people must hold government accountable.
Right now, government is under control of corporations.
>> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
>> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>
> Maybe they feel they already have it? Or are they just SUPID
> mortar
> forkers?
>
They're obviously not smart enough to be Masons :)
>>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall
>>> Street had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>
>> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to
>> monied corporate interests they might have done something.
>> Too fucking late now :)
>
> They DID demand accountability. Congress (both parties) told
> them to
> "get forked!"
>
Government is owned by the corporations, for the corporations.
Agreed.
>
>>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>
>> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions
>> a day on negative adverts.
>> Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
>
> He does through the tea parties and protests.
>
Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
"Follow the money", if you dare :)
>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>>> to 12 billion a year.
>
>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>> influence in DC.
>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>
> It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that
> goes on
> wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore house???
>
>
Thats pretty vague.
Care to narrow it down?
^_^
krp
>>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>>>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>>> talking points.
>> Like MSNBC and PBS?
> Too deep for you eh?
Yes, Olberman delivers ONLY the 100% truth. <bullshit>
>>>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>>>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>>
>>> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it.
>>> He taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
>>> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people
>>> in americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
>>> reform?
>> Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the proposed
>> legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR
>> healthcare?"
> Beck is a pinhead, at best.
And YOU are worth 100 times what Beck is RIGHT, genius?
>> Do you believe that Washington or the people would be
>> in a better position to KNOW their needs?
> The people must hold government accountable.
> Right now, government is under control of corporations.
Has been for over a century. Both parties are equally guilty.
>>> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
>>> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>> Maybe they feel they already have it? Or are they just SUPID
>> mortar forkers?
> They're obviously not smart enough to be Masons :)
Lots of Masons in the middle of the country sparky.
>>>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall
>>>> Street had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>>
>>> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to
>>> monied corporate interests they might have done something.
>>> Too fucking late now :)
>> They DID demand accountability. Congress (both parties) told
>> them to "get forked!"
> Government is owned by the corporations, for the corporations.
> Agreed.
I am not so sure who owns who. Big OIL owns Congress AND the white
house.
>>>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>>> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions
>>> a day on negative adverts. Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
>> He does through the tea parties and protests.
> Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
> "Follow the money", if you dare :)
Yes the public are all MORONS except you "ELITE" the rest of the country
are IODIOTS and dumb worker bees.
>>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>>>> to 12 billion a year.
>>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>>> influence in DC.
>>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>>
>> It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that
>> goes on wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore house???
> Thats pretty vague. Care to narrow it down?
Congress is spending money like WEE had it, meanwhile shipping our jobs
overseas. Have you looked around lately?
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:791acec1-49a2-4be9...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Ken pisses all over himself because he keeps forgetting how to operate his
fly.
Greegor
> "§nühw¤£f" <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CC662E7B11BAs...@216.196.97.142...
>
>
>
> > Faux Noise panders to the lowest common denominator.
>
> > Its an echo chamber for repug talking points. They dont just "report",
> > they create news and movements.
> > The teabagger thing was a prome example of FN driven astroturf.
>
> > HTH
>
> insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>
> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>
> done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>
>
> profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year to 12 billion a
> year.
You didn't think that "WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT"
was sarcastic? Like Reagan's "We're from the
government and we're here to help you" sarcasm?
Greegor
How did your parents amass their fortune?
You're in a blue state aren't you?
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png
Dan Sullivan
So you think Beck really wants the government to be involved in
private sector business, grag?
Or didn't you see and hear Beck make that comment?
Greegor
Dan, Many people have said that we would
be better off if the government had let those
Wall Street firms fail! I think so.
Same with the banks and sub prime home loans.
Untenable or failed business ventures
should not be bailed out by taxpayers.
How is it any different from your good buddy Bernie?
Why would a true CAPITALIST expect the
government to spend TRILLIONS it doesn't
have to bail out irresponsible companies?
Which disaster is worse, companies failing
or the TRILLIONS of waste and debt?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>>> "BULLSHIT. Fox has said nothing about the case being dismissed."
>>>> --Kenneth Robert Pangborn
>>>
>>>Typical POLACK BULLSHIT.
>
>>>Ever hear of a calendar?
>
>> Yes.
>
>>>At the time I wrote that,
>>>Fox had not commented on the Constitutional issues.
>
>> As can be seen from the quote above, you made no mention of
>> Constitutional issues. You claimed Fox said nothing about the case
>> being dismissed. Fox did.
>
> Oh Christ you ARE the Polack.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
It's accepted that you are a bigot. As such, there really is no
need for you to prove it on a daily basis.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, expressing his
fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KRP > Oh Christ you ARE the Polack.
>
>Kent is such a moron that his inheritance has to
>be given to him through a protective trust to
>keep him from blowing it on magic beans.
You already admitted you were lying about that.
Whereas it's been accepted you were lying, why do you continue to
make the claim? Serious question.
>
>Perhaps for him a reputation as an idiot is
>a step up from what he actually is?
Who, besides you (an admitted user and abuser of illegal drugs)
and Pangborn (a guy who claims his alcoholism caused him to be found
legally insane) see me as having such a reputation?
You'll understand if I'm not too upset.
>
>Maybe it's like a rhesus monkey aspiring to be a chimpanzee?
You're the monkey, as you have PROVED each time you've done what
I've told you after I address you as a monkey.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Kent Wills
wrote:
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team commenting on his ONLY
on-line friend, Gregory Scott Hanson.
krp
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:45:33 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:791acec1-49a2-4be9...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> KRP > Oh Christ you ARE the Polack.
>>>
>>> Kent is such a moron that his inheritance has to
>>> be given to him through a protective trust to
>>> keep him from blowing it on magic beans.
>>>
>>> Perhaps for him a reputation as an idiot is
>>> a step up from what he actually is?
>>>
>>> Maybe it's like a rhesus monkey aspiring to be a chimpanzee?
>>
>>fly.
>
> Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
Thanks POLACK for drawing attention to the issue. Want to keep it up?
krp
>>>>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>>>>>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>>
>>>>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>>>>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>>>>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>>>>> talking points.
>>>> Like MSNBC and PBS?
>>> Too deep for you eh?
>> Yes, Olberman delivers ONLY the 100% truth. <bullshit>
> Here's what reasonable people do -- they evaluate their sources,
> understanding that people whose opinions they don't agree with may be
> right about some factual issue and that people whose opinions they
> generally do agree with may be wrong about some factual issue.
Well, just HOW do YOU do that maestro? Give us in the great UNWASHED
MASSES a bit of your infinite wisdom.
> If Beck is serious and not just playing the rubes for the bucks, then
> Beck is
> batshit crazy and dogshit stupid. Reasonable people understand this as
> they also understand that this does not require that they defend
> Olbermann just because he makes fun of Beck.
So Beck is insane and Olberman is JESUS.. Got it. I can't tell a fukking
thing about YOUR politics, Rodent.
>>>>>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>>>>>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>>>>
>>>>> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it.
>>>>> He taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
>>>>> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people
>>>>> in americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
>>>>> reform?
>>
>>>> Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the
>>>> proposed
>>>> legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR
>>>> healthcare?"
>>
>>> Beck is a pinhead, at best.
>>
>> And YOU are worth 100 times what Beck is RIGHT, genius?
> Beck is either a fraud or a fool. In either case, your random person
> would be worth 100 times what Beck is, if not what Beck is paid.
Oh I don't know rodent. I sometimes cath parts of Beck's show. He is a
bit hyperbolic for my tastes, but much of what he says is well grounded in
fact. Frankly, my belief is that if he made a dry presentation of the facts
he discusses, he'd put people to sleep and nobody would realize the mess we
are in. We can't just keep spending like crazy. The MASSIVE health care
thing is nice, but we don't have the money for the plan on the floor. I
really don't think you ahe ANY idea of our economy and that we are on a
sinking ship, Rodent. Do you have a CLUE as to how many American jobs have
been shipped offshore in the past 50 years? A hint. Where are the steel
mills today? Have you paid ANY attention to how CLEAN Pittsburgh is now? How
that brand new AMERICAN MADE TV set doing for you? Your new Chevy made in
Mexico? Your new Chrysler made in Ontario? How about that great MRI they
scanned you in the hospital? GE of FRANCE! Oh and the electrical turbine
giving you the juice to run your TV and computer? Westinghouse? Owned by
TOSHIBA and made in Asia. The people with money are getting it OUT of the
U.S. and OUT of DOLLARS. If something doesn't change the smallest dollar
will be a Million dollar note. And even then you'll need to take your cash
to the supermarket on a FORK LIKFT!
> <snip/>
>
>>> Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
>>> "Follow the money", if you dare :)
>>
>> Yes the public are all MORONS except you "ELITE" the rest of the
>> country are IODIOTS and dumb worker bees.
> Bwahahahahahaha! "IODIOTS"; Sorry, even your typos undercut you.
Sorry for the typo. Unlike you, *I* can't walk on water.
§ñühw¤£f
>
> "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC992F9FFE0Bs...@216.196.97.142...
>
>>>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>>>>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>
>>>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>>>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>>>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>>>> talking points.
>
>>> Like MSNBC and PBS?
>
>> Too deep for you eh?
>
> Yes, Olberman delivers ONLY the 100% truth. <bullshit>
>
story lately?
Interesting.
>>>>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>>>>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>>>
>>>> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it.
>>>> He taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
>>>> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people
>>>> in americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
>>>> reform?
>
>>> Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the proposed
>>> legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR
>>> healthcare?"
>
>> Beck is a pinhead, at best.
>
> And YOU are worth 100 times what Beck is RIGHT, genius?
>
If you're judging based on monetary values George Soros trumps Beck.
Jus Sayin[tm]
>>> Do you believe that Washington or the people would be
>>> in a better position to KNOW their needs?
>
>> The people must hold government accountable.
>> Right now, government is under control of corporations.
>
> Has been for over a century. Both parties are equally guilty.
>
No arguments there...
>>>> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
>>>> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>
>>> Maybe they feel they already have it? Or are they just SUPID
>>> mortar forkers?
>
>> They're obviously not smart enough to be Masons :)
>
> Lots of Masons in the middle of the country sparky.
>
But where are the Bilderburgers!?!?
>>>>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall
>>>>> Street had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>>>
>>>> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to
>>>> monied corporate interests they might have done something.
>>>> Too fucking late now :)
>
>>> They DID demand accountability. Congress (both parties) told
>>> them to "get forked!"
>
>> Government is owned by the corporations, for the corporations.
>> Agreed.
>
> I am not so sure who owns who. Big OIL owns Congress AND the white
> house.
>
So we're fucked.
I'm feeling lots better now.
>>>>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>
>>>> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions
>>>> a day on negative adverts. Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
>
>>> He does through the tea parties and protests.
>
>> Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
>> "Follow the money", if you dare :)
>
> Yes the public are all MORONS except you "ELITE" the rest of the
> country are IODIOTS and dumb worker bees.
>
Yer dodging the fact that the "teebagger" movement was funded by
corporate interests. Why?
>>>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>>>>> to 12 billion a year.
>
>>>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>>>> influence in DC.
>>>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>>>
>>> It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that
>>> goes on wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore
>>> house???
>
>> Thats pretty vague. Care to narrow it down?
>
>
> Congress is spending money like WEE had it, meanwhile shipping our
> jobs overseas. Have you looked around lately?
>
ANd the previous admin didnt do that?
Hmmm...
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S39MhPrLQz4
http://www.savebiogems.org/wolves/| http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
_..._ ___ ___ ___ ___ _..._
,' `::. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,~ `:. ,' `::.
: `::: `:: `:: `:: `:: `:::
: .::: .:: .:: .:: .:: .:::
: .:::`. .;' `. .;' `. .;'.`. .;': .:::
: .::: `.' .`.'.: `.' ::`.' :. .:::
:. .::' ::: : `: .:::
`: .:: : : .::'
: .:: . :. .::
: ::' `: .::.
.\ `: ,: :. : .::.:
:.\ :. :.: :`: .' .::.:
::`. : :':: : `: : .;'.:
: `.; :'.:: : :: ;:' ::
. :' .::. .: .:: :
: :' ::: :' .:: .
: `:: : .::
:' .::. .: .:::
: .::: ,:. .:. :' .:::
: .:::,' `:. ,' `:.: .:::
: .::: ::: ::: .:::
: .::: ::: ::: .:::
`._ .::'.`._.::' `._.::'.`._ .::' _ Seal _
~~~ :: :: ~~~
Deadrat
news:4b07c92d$0$4864$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:LtadnTk0UILGr5rW...@giganews.com...
>
>>>>>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too
>>>>>>> embarrassed to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>>>
>>>>>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>>>>>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>>>>>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>>>>>> talking points.
>
>>>>> Like MSNBC and PBS?
>
>>>> Too deep for you eh?
>
>>> Yes, Olberman delivers ONLY the 100% truth. <bullshit>
>
>> Here's what reasonable people do -- they evaluate their sources,
>> understanding that people whose opinions they don't agree with may be
>> right about some factual issue and that people whose opinions they
>> generally do agree with may be wrong about some factual issue.
>
> Well, just HOW do YOU do that maestro?
You look it up.
<snip/>
>> If Beck is serious and not just playing the rubes for the bucks,
>> then
>> Beck is
>> batshit crazy and dogshit stupid. Reasonable people understand this
>> as they also understand that this does not require that they defend
>> Olbermann just because he makes fun of Beck.
>
> So Beck is insane and Olberman is JESUS.. Got it. I can't tell a
> fukking thing about YOUR politics, Rodent.
Beck is insane, ignorant, or a huckster. But go back and read carefully.
I'm *not* a fan of Olbermann. As I said, it's one benefit of not being a
rigid ideologue: I don't have to defend Olbermann just because I realize
that Beck is insane, ignorant, or a huckster.
<snip/>
>> Beck is either a fraud or a fool. In either case, your random person
>> would be worth 100 times what Beck is, if not what Beck is paid.
>
> Oh I don't know rodent. I sometimes cath parts of Beck's show. He
> is a bit hyperbolic for my tastes, but much of what he says is well
> grounded in fact.
Almost nothing Beck says is grounded in fact. He thinks that John D.
Rockefeller was a "progressive," who put up propaganda art in Rockefeller
Center to sway people to a leftist agenda. He claims that his 9/12
project rally drew 1.7 million people.
<snipped: rant about the economy/>
Different topic, and unrelated to evaluating Beck and Olbermann.
>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
>>>> "Follow the money", if you dare :)
>>>
>>> Yes the public are all MORONS except you "ELITE" the rest of the
>>> country are IODIOTS and dumb worker bees.
>
>> Bwahahahahahaha! "IODIOTS"; Sorry, even your typos undercut you.
>
>
> Sorry for the typo. Unlike you, *I* can't walk on water.
No need to apologize. The typos are the most amusing parts of your
posts.
Kent Wills
wrote:
The post edit from Kenneth Robert Pangborn, legally insane
alcoholic[1], restored to the original at no additional charge.
You're welcome.
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uibfg5194h5c36v7t...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:45:33 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:791acec1-49a2-4be9...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> KRP > Oh Christ you ARE the Polack.
>>>>
>>>> Kent is such a moron that his inheritance has to
>>>> be given to him through a protective trust to
>>>> keep him from blowing it on magic beans.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps for him a reputation as an idiot is
>>>> a step up from what he actually is?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's like a rhesus monkey aspiring to be a chimpanzee?
>>>
>>>Ken pisses all over himself because he keeps forgetting how to operate
>>>his fly.
>>
>> Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
>
> Thanks POLACK
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
Thank you drunkard for allowing me another chance to get the
truth about your bigotry out.
Yes, it's accepted, seemingly by everyone, that you're a bigot.
Still, each time the URL for the TRUTH site is posted, more people can
see the PROOF, consisting of your own writings, that you are the bigot
you present yourself to be.
Not to mention how they can see the other pages of the TRUTH site
and see just how incompetent you truly are.
Be a good little monkey and RUN from the truth I've posted.
>for drawing attention to the issue. Want to keep it up?
>
I'm more than willing to keep bringing up the PROOF that you're a
bigot. The URL is a very small sample of the available proof,
consisting of your own writings, that you are a bigot.
Be a good little monkey and RUN from the truth I've posted.
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team commenting on his ONLY
on-line friend, Gregory Scott Hanson.
[1] Unless he lied
krp
"���hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OcKdnbVdyvihh5XW...@centurytel.net...
>>>>>> You'd think that anyone with half a brain would be too embarrassed
>>>>>> to spew insanity like Coulter and Glenn Beck.
>>
>>>>> Not when it pays the bills. We assume they beleive their dreck.
>>>>> They might just be doing conserva-shtick because theres a big
>>>>> audience for jingoistic stupidity in the form of catch-phrase
>>>>> talking points.
>>
>>>> Like MSNBC and PBS?
>>
>>> Too deep for you eh?
>> Yes, Olberman delivers ONLY the 100% truth. <bullshit>
> And Fox Noise hasnt been caught putting the wrong video footage to a story
> lately? Interesting.
Yes, actually twice. It seems to have been accidental (sloppy) both
times. HOWEVER - sir, putting a BOMB on a truck to make a story (NBC
franchise) is a little different. Fox is far from perfect, but compared to
MSNBC and CNN they are saints. How many stories do we need to review that
were PREMEDITATED bullshit from NBC and CBS? How about Dan Rather's BOGUS
memos from a guy who was DEAD at the time Rather said hed wrote them? The
bullshit that FINALLY cost Rather his job.
>>>>>> A few weeks ago Beck asked "Do we want the government involved in
>>>>>> business??? NO! Because WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT!"
>>>>> Its not so much *what* Beck says that matters as *how* he says it.
>>>>> He taps into red-state americas frustration and confusion over why
>>>>> government isnt responsive to their needs. Why *would* poor people
>>>>> in americas heartland protest a chance to get real health insurance
>>>>> reform?
>>
>>>> Did it ever occur to you that they may be familiar with the
>>>> proposed
>>>> legislation and do NOT believe it will actually improve THEIR
>>>> healthcare?"
>>
>>> Beck is a pinhead, at best.
>>
>> And YOU are worth 100 times what Beck is RIGHT, genius?
> If you're judging based on monetary values George Soros trumps Beck.
> Jus Sayin[tm]
Well you said he was a "PINHEAD." You see the FUNNY thing as long as you
are bellowing your bullshit, is that PINHEAD BECK in his hour show has MORE
viwers than MSCNC does all day. AND in that hour he has more viewers than
your HERO Olberman has in a week. The PINHEAD. Guy he also matches CNN-HL
for a day as well. Even IOF Nancy Grace started doing her show in gthe buff,
Beck would win.
>>>> Do you believe that Washington or the people would be
>>>> in a better position to KNOW their needs?
>>
>>> The people must hold government accountable.
>>> Right now, government is under control of corporations.
>>
>> Has been for over a century. Both parties are equally guilty.
> No arguments there...
The big difference here is that under GEORGE W. BUSH and now Obama the
RATE of defecit spending has gone to the moon. While US companies are URGED
by Washington to move jobs overseas. The Republicans for their reasons and
the Democrats for theirs. In ANY event, given the direction of the Obama
administration and its wild spending and m oving jobs to other countries,
pretty damn soon Americans will be picking crops in MEXICO for the GOOD
LIFE. Have you noticed that the flood of illegal immigrats from mexico has
been slowing down? Why shiuld they come here and pick crops in the hot sun
for $1.50 an hour, when they can stay in Mexico and make Cheveys in an air
conditioned factory with FULL UAW benefits for $15 an hour? And they don't
even have to learn Grino (English).
>>>>> It is in their own self interest to have access to affordable
>>>>> healthcare, yet they act as if its "TEH EVIL!!!"
>>
>>>> Maybe they feel they already have it? Or are they just SUPID
>>>> mortar forkers?
>>
>>> They're obviously not smart enough to be Masons :)
>>
>> Lots of Masons in the middle of the country sparky.
> But where are the Bilderburgers!?!?
In Europe with their money!
>>>>>> As if the American people were able to take care of what Wall
>>>>>> Street had done. Or what the auto industry had done.
>>>>
>>>>> Had they demanded an accountable government that didnt pander to
>>>>> monied corporate interests they might have done something.
>>>>> Too fucking late now :)
>>
>>>> They DID demand accountability. Congress (both parties) told
>>>> them to "get forked!"
>>
>>> Government is owned by the corporations, for the corporations.
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> I am not so sure who owns who. Big OIL owns Congress AND the white
>> house.
> So we're fucked. I'm feeling lots better now.
Now you are catching on. Vote Democratic, BEND OVER!
>>>>>> Better yet the health insurance industry.
>>>>> They have the ability to shape public opinion by spending millions
>>>>> a day on negative adverts. Joe Sixpack, no such ability.
>>>> He does through the tea parties and protests.
>>> Astroturf movements funded by big corporate interests.
>>> "Follow the money", if you dare :)
>> Yes the public are all MORONS except you "ELITE" the rest of the
>> country are IODIOTS and dumb worker bees.
> Yer dodging the fact that the "teebagger" movement was funded by corporate
> interests. Why?
What corporate interests?
>>>>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>>>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a year
>>>>>> to 12 billion a year.
>>
>>>>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>>>>> influence in DC.
>>>>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>>>>
>>>> It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that
>>>> goes on wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore
>>>> house???
>>
>>> Thats pretty vague. Care to narrow it down?
>> Congress is spending money like WEE had it, meanwhile shipping our
>> jobs overseas. Have you looked around lately?
> ANd the previous admin didnt do that? Hmmm...
>
Oh hell, Bush didn't invent it. JIMMY
Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarter did. Clinton shifted it into 2nd
Gear, Bush put it in third and Obama has it in OVERDRIVE.
Good luck finding a job in 2 years in THIS country.
Deadrat
news:4b08597e$0$4851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "���hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OcKdnbVdyvihh5XW...@centurytel.net...
<snip/>
>
>> Yer dodging the fact that the "teebagger" movement was funded by
>> corporate interests. Why?
>
> What corporate interests?
It's called "astroturfing," meaning a phony grassroots movement. Check
out Americans for Prosperity.
This is not to say that there aren't plenty of angry people out there,
but their rage has been co-opted.
>
>>>>>>> In the last ten years the cost of health insurance has doubled,
>>>>>>> while the profits in that industry have gone from 2 billion a
>>>>>>> year to 12 billion a year.
>>>
>>>>>> Its criminal. Its also what you get with uncontrolled corporate
>>>>>> influence in DC.
>>>>>> American government is, in fact, for sale to the highest bidder.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also CRIMINAL (isn't it?) when you have a CONGRESS that
>>>>> goes on wild spending sprees like drunken sailors in a whore
>>>>> house???
>>>
>>>> Thats pretty vague. Care to narrow it down?
>
>>> Congress is spending money like WEE had it, meanwhile shipping
>>> our
>>> jobs overseas. Have you looked around lately?
>
>> ANd the previous admin didnt do that? Hmmm...
>>
>
>
> Oh hell, Bush didn't invent it. JIMMY
> Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarter did. Clinton shifted it
> into 2nd Gear,
The US job force expanded during Clinton's terms, and he left a surplus.>
<snip/>