Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL
Additional at http://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
krp
"NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL" <sharks...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34caf9a7-fb98-4bde...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has been
denied a "speedy trial" and that mandates a dismissal - AND it mandates
COMPENSATION. So not only will there be NO trial and KSM be released back
home, he will be handsomely paid. There are at least two dozen issues that
demand a dismissal under regular American criminal law. Not the least of
which is the water boarding issue. But then the Obama administration KNOWS
this. The REAL agenda here is to release the terrorists because of the
sympathies for them in the administration. They may even put him on a 767
with a personal set of box cutters. For me? I'd just put their asses on a
plane and fly them to Saudi Arabia and tell THEM to deal with these people.
And tell the Saudis that if they let them go, Riyadh will be nuked.
Greegor
1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
2. Is this man entitled to a US Civil Court vs Military Courts
martial?
3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and waterboarding,
etc.?
4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
5. Why would the President do that?
6. Is this Constitutionally required?
7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
9. Did the Presidential Administration need a distraction?
Put down your anonymous mailers and your script kiddy code
and explain your logic, Davey!
Davey the ""Anonymous"" wrote ( in triplicate and invisible ink )
WHAT "sympathies for them in the administration", you stupid prick??
Are
you referring to the fact that (unlike our previous president) this
one
wants to follow the law and protect the rights of the accused as
outlined by our Constitution? Oh, I'M SORRY, you poor, poor
brainless
thing. Leave it to an idiot like you to protest THAT. EVERYONE is
entitled to a fair trial in this country, moron. EVERYONE, even
people
who are highly suspected BEFORE the trial to be innocent. That's
just
the way it is and if you non-patriotic PRICK don't like the way we
run
things around here, you are WELCOME to go to your wife's native
island
of CUBA. Do it. Stay there. Every line you wrote above was based in
ignorance and stupidity. Every single line.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.terrorism/msg/82a3bfef6e076304
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime, alt.conspiracy,
misc.legal, alt.security.terrorism
From: "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:03:26 -0500
Local: Fri, Nov 13 2009 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New
York trial
"NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL" <sharkseek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34caf9a7-fb98-4bde-
a98e-1e3...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Point by point:
>
>1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
Was what?
>
>2. Is this man entitled to a US Civil Court vs Military Courts
>martial?
Neither.
He's not accused of committing a tort, so Civil courts are out.
He's not a member of the U.S. Armed Services, so military courts are
out.
If he stands trial, it will be in a criminal court.
>
>3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and waterboarding,
>etc.?
There are no convictions in a civil court. There is a finding for
the plaintiff or defendant.
For someone who claims to be erudite, you go out of our way to
PROVE you're stone cold stupid (unable to learn).
>
>4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
Given the two options you present, it would have to.
>
>5. Why would the President do that?
It's unlikely he would.
>
>6. Is this Constitutionally required?
If someone is accused of a committing a criminal act, they are to
get a trial, unless they waive that right by pleading guilty or
charges are dropped.
>
>7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
>
Everyone under U.S. jurisdiction gets due process. This includes
a trial if charged with a crime.
I understand you HATE the U.S., but that's the way it is.
>8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
>
Maybe the fool who took a criminal matter to civil court rather
than criminal court?
>9. Did the Presidential Administration need a distraction?
>
You're the one presenting that a criminal charge would be tried
in a civil court.
Given your extensive history with criminal and civil courts
(losing each time), you should understand the difference.
>Put down your anonymous mailers and your script kiddy code
>and explain your logic, Davey!
>
David didn't author the post to which you replied, stupid. The
person who posts with the nym "NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL" has been around
for a long time.
An erudite person would have checked and learned of this.
>
>
>Davey the ""Anonymous"" wrote ( in triplicate and invisible ink )
Not everyone who makes use of a remailer is David. Really.
[...]
Get off the illegal drugs, Greg.
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
Deadrat
news:005afc71-46a5-4c91...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> Point by point:
>
> 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
Presumably, the AG in consultation with POTUS.
> 2. Is this man entitled to a US Civil Court vs Military Courts
> martial?
The least you can do is get your terms straight. It's a *civilian*
court. And the choice is entirely up to the executive.
>
> 3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and waterboarding,
> etc.?
The AG thinks so.
> 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
No.
> 5. Why would the President do that?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
> 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
What? A trial? Of course. A trial in federal court? No.
>
> 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
Because Khalid is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution
of the United States of America.
> 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
Nobody. Unlike you, Obama trusts the US legal system.
> 9. Did the Presidential Administration need a distraction?
Yeah, just like health care, Afghanistan, and the economy, this is just
one more distraction left to us by the WPE.
<snip/>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.terrorism/msg/82a3bfef6e076
> 304
>
> Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime, alt.conspiracy,
> misc.legal, alt.security.terrorism
> From: "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:03:26 -0500
> Local: Fri, Nov 13 2009 4:03 pm
> Subject: Re: Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New
> York trial
>
> "NOMOREWARS_FORISRAEL" <sharkseek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:34caf9a7-fb98-4bde-
> a98e-1e3...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
>
> He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has
> been
> denied a "speedy trial" and that mandates a dismissal - AND it
> mandates
> COMPENSATION.
Although it's clear that KSM has been denied a speedy trial, this will
turn on the length of time between *indictment* and trial.
> So not only will there be NO trial and KSM be released
> back
> home, he will be handsomely paid. There are at least two dozen issues
> that
> demand a dismissal under regular American criminal law. Not the least
> of
> which is the water boarding issue.
No, the waterboarding will taint any evidence so obtained, but it won't
get the charges dismissed.
> But then the Obama administration
> KNOWS
> this. The REAL agenda here is to release the terrorists because of
> the
> sympathies for them in the administration. They may even put him on a
> 767
> with a personal set of box cutters. For me? I'd just put their asses
> on a
> plane and fly them to Saudi Arabia and tell THEM to deal with these
> people.
> And tell the Saudis that if they let them go, Riyadh will be nuked.
Why do you hate this country?
Greegor
On Nov 14, 8:27 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote innews:005afc71-46a5-4c91...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
G > Point by point:
G >
G > 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
DR > Presumably, the AG in consultation with POTUS.
G > 2. Is this man entitled to a US [ Civilian Criminal ]
G > Court vs Military Courts martial?
DR > The least you can do is get your terms straight.
DR > It's a *civilian* court.
Thanks for that correction.
DR > And the choice is entirely up to the executive.
Which executive? GW Bush or BH Obama?
If one decided, does the latter have a right to change that course?
G > 3. Is a [civilian criminal ] court conviction
G > possible after delay and waterboarding, etc.?
DR > The AG thinks so.
G > 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
DR > No.
How do you KNOW that? Or just an opinion?
G > 5. Why would the President do that?
DR > Assumes facts not in evidence.
Goes to motive.
G > 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
DR > What? A trial? Of course.
DR > A trial in federal court? No.
G > 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
DR > Because Khalid is within the territorial jurisdiction
DR > of the Constitution of the United States of America.
OK, so IF TRUE, then the Judge will be automatically
obligated to throw it out because of waterboarding,
lack of speedy trial, and abduction overseas by CIA.
But merely being IN the USA does not confer
the rights of citizens under the US Constitution, does it?
G > 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
DR > Nobody. Unlike you, Obama trusts the US legal system.
To follow the Constitution for a foreign national who
is an enemy combatant pulled off foreign soil?
If they do, they will have to let Khalid walk.
If they DON'T, they will then be trampling
on the meaning OF the Constitution.
Which is worse?
This Khalid guy should have NEVER had
access to a civilian criminal court process.
G > 9. Did the Presidential Administration need a distraction?
DR > Yeah, just like health care, Afghanistan,
DR > and the economy, this is just one more
DR > distraction left to us by the WPE.
From further down in response to KPR:
DR > No, the waterboarding will taint any evidence so
DR > obtained, but it won't get the charges dismissed.
Please explain how the Federal Civilian Court
Judge will have the authority to overlook the
lack of speedy trial, waterboarding and
overseas abduction.
If the Judge DOES overlook those things, then
the Judge violates the US Constitution in such a
big way as to be a threat to every US Citizen.
If the Judge does NOT overlook those things
then an admitted mass murder conspirator goes free.
That is a threat to US Citizens as well.
Do you REALLY think that BH Obama and
his legal experts didn't realize this would happen?
Which outcome did BH Obama not expect?
violating Constitution to get him?
or
honoring the Constitution and letting a mass murderer walk?
Deadrat
news:b2e47aca-b93f-4028...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/ms
> g/5219ae555eaa2abc
>
> On Nov 14, 8:27嚙緘m, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:005afc71-46a5-4c91-b53e-bbceb1
> f85...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> G > Point by point:
> G >
> G > 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
>
> DR > Presumably, the AG in consultation with POTUS.
>
> G > 2. Is this man entitled to a US [ Civilian Criminal ]
> G > Court vs Military Courts martial?
>
> DR > The least you can do is get your terms straight.
> DR > It's a *civilian* court.
>
> Thanks for that correction.
>
> DR >嚙璀nd the choice is entirely up to the executive.
>
> Which executive? GW Bush or BH Obama?
The current one, BHO.
> If one decided, does the latter have a right to change that course?
Yes, It's called prosecutorial discretion and the power is reserved to
the executive. There is no review by either the legislature or the
judiciary.
> G > 3. Is a [civilian criminal ] court conviction
> G > possible after delay and waterboarding, etc.?
>
> DR > The AG thinks so.
>
> G > 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
>
> DR > No.
>
> How do you KNOW that? Or just an opinion?
Obviously I can't read minds, but there would seem to be no benefit to
losing the case. And the trial will take place in a building from which
the towers used to be visible. So what do you think?
> G > 5. Why would the President do that?
>
> DR > Assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> Goes to motive.
If you wish to present some evidence that the administration wants the
case to fail, I'm open to listen, but you've just asked why the President
would do something for which you've presented none.
> G > 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
>
> DR > What? 嚙璀 trial? 嚙瞌f course.
> DR >嚙璀 trial in federal court? 嚙瞇o.
>
> G > 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
>
> DR > Because Khalid is within the territorial jurisdiction
> DR > of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>
> OK, so IF TRUE, then the Judge will be automatically
> obligated to throw it out because of waterboarding,
> lack of speedy trial, and abduction overseas by CIA.
I don't think so. The judge should throw out any evidence obtained by
the waterboarding, but misconduct by the authorities won't automatically
quash the indictment. The civilian court will measure the speed of the
trial by the time elapsed from the indictment, which was just handed up,
to the trial. As I understand it, the Pakistanis captured KSM and handed
him over to us. The federal court has no jurisdiction to inquire into
the legalities of what happens to aliens in other countries, even when US
agents are involved. See United States v Verdugo-Urquidez, 494US259
(1990).
> But merely being IN the USA does not confer
> the rights of citizens under the US Constitution, does it?
According to our system of government, rights are not conferred by the
state, but rather accrue as the result of being human, hence the term
"inalienable rights." Rights are protected by the Constitution, which
mentions citizens in very few places, mostly with regard to voting and
holding federal office. Check the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
Their provisions are either phrased as restrictions on the government or
they use such words as "people," "persons," "the accused," and so on.
Aliens in the US don't have to get treatment identical to citizens, but
the gov must protect their rights.
> G > 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
>
> DR > Nobody. 嚙磊nlike you, Obama trusts the US legal system.
>
> To follow the Constitution for a foreign national who
> is an enemy combatant pulled off foreign soil?
This is an odd response. Why should the US legal system be less
trustworthy in the case of "an enemy combatant pulled off foreign soil"?
>
> If they do, they will have to let Khalid walk.
I don't think so, for the reasons I gave above.
> If they DON'T, they will then be trampling
> on the meaning OF the Constitution.
>
> Which is worse?
I don't think KSM will walk, even if a jury does not convict him for
9/11. He's committed a string of atrocities and attempted attrocities
going back at least to 1993. In any case, by definition, trampling on
the Constitution is *legally* considered worse than the escape of any one
guilty party from punishment. Hence the phrase "a system of laws and not
men." YMMV.
>
> This Khalid guy should have NEVER had
> access to a civilian criminal court process.
Your opinion is noted.
> G > 9. Did the Presidential Administration need a distraction?
>
> DR > Yeah, just like health care, Afghanistan,
> DR > and the economy, this is just one more
> DR > distraction left to us by the WPE.
>
> From further down in response to KPR:
>
> DR > No, the waterboarding will taint any evidence so
> DR > obtained, but it won't get the charges dismissed.
>
> Please explain how the Federal Civilian Court
> Judge will have the authority to overlook the
> lack of speedy trial, waterboarding and
> overseas abduction.
See above. What's unclear about my explanation?
> If the Judge DOES overlook those things, then
> the Judge violates the US Constitution in such a
> big way as to be a threat to every US Citizen.
See above. What's not clear?
> If the Judge does NOT overlook those things
> then an admitted mass murder conspirator goes free.
See above.
> That is a threat to US Citizens as well.
See above why this won't happen.
> Do you REALLY think that BH Obama and
> his legal experts didn't realize this would happen?
I think the administration realized that it's possible that a jury might
theoretically fail to convict KSM.
> Which outcome did BH Obama not expect?
> violating Constitution to get him? or
> honoring the Constitution and letting a mass murderer walk?
Neither of these things will obtain for the reasons I've given.
And, quite frankly, I don't think you're really worried about them
either. I didn't hear you complaining during the eight years during
which the WPE violated the Constitution every time he turned around.
You're objecting to a political decision to stop glorifying mass
murderers as combatants in some legitimate war and treat them like the
criminals they are. That requires trusting our system to handle outrages
committed by such people.
I know it's scary, but suck it up and try to be worthy of the principles
that our founders used to build this country.
I'm really not trying to be snarky here, but you seem unclear on some
basic principle of US law. Have you actually tested any of the opinions
you express? Or have you merely adopted some talking points from sources
that comfort you?
The decision to try KSM in a civilian court is both a political and a
legal one. It is possible to disagree with the former without making up
things about the latter, and some people I respect, like Jim Webb, do
just that.
krp
> news:Te-dnUIHdPmA-mLX...@giganews.com...
>> Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:005afc71-46a5-4c91...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Point by point:
>>>
>>> 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
>>
>>
>>> martial?
>>
>> The least you can do is get your terms straight. It's a *civilian*
>> court. And the choice is entirely up to the executive.
>
> Exactly! He meant CIVILIAN.
>
>>> 3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and waterboarding,
>>> etc.?
>
>> The AG thinks so.
>
> Do you BELIEVE that Mr. Holder REALLY thinks he'll get a conviction?
> It should be OBVIOUS that the purpose is to trash George W. Bush! He
> flatly doesn't give a shit if KSM walks free, in fact he's LOVE it so he
> can scream about Bush.
>
>>> 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
>
>
> Certainly it is. The only appropriate venue was a military tribunal.
>
>>> 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
>
>
>>> 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
>
>> of the United States of America.
>
> military tribunal.
>
>>> 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
>
>
> Come on, Ratboi, these are all LAWYERS from the Ivy League. Holder
> KNOWS that the case will be tossed for proceedural issues. It HAS to be.
> That is why the trials were moved to a CIVILIAN criminal court. No miranda
> warnings. He wasn't provided a lawyer. All kinds of police misconduct.
> Lack of jurisdiction.
>
>
>>>> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
>
>>> He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has been
>>> denied a "speedy trial" and that mandates a dismissal - AND it mandates
>>> COMPENSATION.
>
>> Although it's clear that KSM has been denied a speedy trial, this will
>> turn on the length of time between *indictment* and trial.
>
> Especially after YEARS. Not to get to the "torture" (according to the
> Obama administration).
>
>> So not only will there be NO trial and KSM be released back
>>> home, he will be handsomely paid. There are at least two dozen issues
>>> that demand a dismissal under regular American criminal law. Not the
>>> least
>>> of which is the water boarding issue.
>
>> get the charges dismissed.
>
> It was "POLICE MISCONDUCT." And the military and CIA in the setting of
> a CIVILIAN trial were acrting AS "law enforcement" so under OUR laws the
> blow back will be significant.
>
>>> But then the Obama administration KNOWS
>>> this. The REAL agenda here is to release the terrorists because of the
>>> sympathies for them in the administration. They may even put him on a
>>> 767 with a personal set of box cutters. For me? I'd just put their asses
>>> on a plane and fly them to Saudi Arabia and tell THEM to deal with
>>> these
>>> people. And tell the Saudis that if they let them go, Riyadh will be
>>> nuked.
>
>> Why do you hate this country?
>
> done to it for decades.
>
>
>
Deadrat
news:4b006111$0$5096$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:Te-dnUIHdPmA-mLX...@giganews.com...
>>> Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:005afc71-46a5-4c91...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.co
>>> m:
>>>
>>>> Point by point:
>>>>
>>>> 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
>>>
>>> Presumably, the AG in consultation with POTUS.
>>>
>>>> 2. Is this man entitled to a US Civil Court vs Military Courts
>>>> martial?
>>>
>>> The least you can do is get your terms straight. It's a *civilian*
>>> court. And the choice is entirely up to the executive.
>>
>> Exactly! He meant CIVILIAN.
Then he needs to say civilian (or even CIVILIAN). Civil court is
different.
>>>> 3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and
>>>> waterboarding, etc.?
>>
>>> The AG thinks so.
>>
>> Do you BELIEVE that Mr. Holder REALLY thinks he'll get a
>> conviction?
>> It should be OBVIOUS that the purpose is to trash George W. Bush! He
>> flatly doesn't give a shit if KSM walks free, in fact he's LOVE it so
>> he can scream about Bush.
>>
>>>> 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Certainly it is. The only appropriate venue was a military
>> tribunal.
This is political judgment. Your opinion is noted.
>>>> 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
>>
>>> What? A trial? Of course. A trial in federal court? No.
>>
>>>> 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
>>
>>> Because Khalid is within the territorial jurisdiction of the
>>> Constitution of the United States of America.
>>
>> He WILL be in New York. He was NOT entitled to the same "RIGHTS"
>> in a military tribunal.
He is entitled to exactly the same rights (no need for scare quotes or
SHOUTING, for that matter). He is not entitiled to the same *procedures*
in a military tribunal.
>>>> 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
>>
>>> Nobody. Unlike you, Obama trusts the US legal system.
>>
>> Come on, Ratboi, these are all LAWYERS from the Ivy League.
>> Holder
>> KNOWS that the case will be tossed for proceedural issues. It HAS to
>> be. That is why the trials were moved to a CIVILIAN criminal court.
>> No miranda warnings. He wasn't provided a lawyer. All kinds of police
>> misconduct. Lack of jurisdiction.
You're just making things up. His Miranda warnings were no doubt read to
him (or will be) when he enters civilian jurisdicition. I believe he had
a lawyer at Gitmo. Police misconduct may lead to the supression of
evidence but not the indictment. Why does the federal district court in
NY not have jurisdiction for terrorism committed in NY?
>>>>> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
>>
>>>> He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has
>>>> been
>>>> denied a "speedy trial" and that mandates a dismissal - AND it
>>>> mandates COMPENSATION.
>>
>>> Although it's clear that KSM has been denied a speedy trial, this
>>> will turn on the length of time between *indictment* and trial.
>>
>> Not actually correct. It can start from the the time of
>> incarceration. Especially after YEARS.
It can, if the suspect was in civilian custody. He wasn't.
> Not to get to the "torture" (according to the Obama administration).
According to just about everyone but you. In fact, after World War II,
we prosecuted Japanese officers for waterboarding American soldiers.
>>> So not only will there be NO trial and KSM be released back
>>>> home, he will be handsomely paid. There are at least two dozen
>>>> issues that demand a dismissal under regular American criminal law.
>>>> Not the least
>>>> of which is the water boarding issue.
>>
>>> No, the waterboarding will taint any evidence so obtained, but it
>>> won't get the charges dismissed.
>>
>> It was "POLICE MISCONDUCT." And the military and CIA in the
>> setting of
>> a CIVILIAN trial were acrting AS "law enforcement" so under OUR laws
>> the blow back will be significant.
The blowback may well be significant. As it should. Torture is illegal.
But the federal courts do not intrude on military matters or matters of
the treatment of aliens abroad, even if US agents are involved.
>>>> But then the Obama administration KNOWS
>>>> this. The REAL agenda here is to release the terrorists because of
>>>> the sympathies for them in the administration. They may even put
>>>> him on a 767 with a personal set of box cutters. For me? I'd just
>>>> put their asses on a plane and fly them to Saudi Arabia and tell
>>>> THEM to deal with these
>>>> people. And tell the Saudis that if they let them go, Riyadh will
>>>> be nuked.
>>
>>> Why do you hate this country?
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't. I hate what is being DONE to it and what HAS been
>> being done to it for decades.
Your evasion is noted.
You don't trust our courts, our laws, and our traditions. I'll ask
again.
yD
> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y85s4ge
>
> Additional athttp://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM
I don't think the attacks on the WTC were anything to do with Israel.
yD
krp
>
>>>>> Point by point:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. In the Obama Administration, WHOSE idea was this?
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, the AG in consultation with POTUS.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Is this man entitled to a US Civil Court vs Military Courts
>>>>> martial?
>>>>
>>>> The least you can do is get your terms straight. It's a *civilian*
>>>> court. And the choice is entirely up to the executive.
>>>
>>> Exactly! He meant CIVILIAN.
> Then he needs to say civilian (or even CIVILIAN). Civil court is
> different.
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 like 99%
of other Americans.
>>>>> 3. Is a civil court conviction possible after delay and
>>>>> waterboarding, etc.?
>>>> The AG thinks so.
>>> Do you BELIEVE that Mr. Holder REALLY thinks he'll get a conviction?
>>> It should be OBVIOUS that the purpose is to trash George W. Bush! He
>>> flatly doesn't give a shit if KSM walks free, in fact he's LOVE it so
>>> he can scream about Bush.
>>>
>>>>> 4. Was this trial INTENDED to fail?
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Certainly it is. The only appropriate venue was a military
>>> tribunal.
> This is political judgment. Your opinion is noted.
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. On
Constitutional grounds, while what the accused did was deplorable, criminal
prosecution in a civilian court is most likely to fail. Not the least of
which is the jurisdictional issues.
>>>>> 6. Is this Constitutionally required?
>>>> What? A trial? Of course. A trial in federal court? No.
>>>>> 7. Why is Khalid entitled to US Constitutional rights?
>>>> Because Khalid is within the territorial jurisdiction of the
>>>> Constitution of the United States of America.
>>> He WILL be in New York. He was NOT entitled to the same "RIGHTS"
>>> in a military tribunal.
> He is entitled to exactly the same rights (no need for scare quotes or
> SHOUTING, for that matter). He is not entitiled to the same *procedures*
> in a military tribunal.
Proceedural righs, Ratboi. Miranda, speedy trial and the list is almost
endless of Constitutional violarions. Not to mention that moving the trial
into a CIVILIAM (criminal) court places the military who took him into
custody and held him, and the CIA who questioned him into defacto law
enforcement officers.It changed the issues from being military (war) to law
enforcement issues by the stroke of Mr. Holder's pen on orders of the White
House. (Obama) Given that from Obama down we have Ivy Leage lawyers who KNOW
that they are doing. You have to see the POLITICS behind all of this, the
mileage they hope to get when the cases are thrown out and ALL the bullshit
they have been saying for the past 8 years about the "CRIMINAL BUSH
ADMINISTRATION" seemingly becomes justified.
There will be plenty of dumb people wh will BUY it too.This is 100%
POLITICAL WARFARE. The FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR left against George W. Bush,
PAYBACK for the 2000 election which they still believe was stolen from them
in Florida. (An issue for another day.)
>>>>> 8. When this gets thrown out of civil court, who will Obama blame?
>>>
>>>> Nobody. Unlike you, Obama trusts the US legal system.
>>> Come on, Ratboi, these are all LAWYERS from the Ivy League. Holder
>>> KNOWS that the case will be tossed for proceedural issues. It HAS to
>>> be. That is why the trials were moved to a CIVILIAN criminal court.
>>> No miranda warnings. He wasn't provided a lawyer. All kinds of police
>>> misconduct. Lack of jurisdiction.
> You're just making things up.
Prove it!
> His Miranda warnings were no doubt read to him (or will be) when he
> enters civilian jurisdicition.
TOO LATE! He was NOT read his "rights" when he was taken into custody or
questioned by the military and CIA. That much IS part of the historical
record. The Bush administration was quite clear that their view was that it
was a military issue arising from a "war" setting and Miranda et all did not
apply. Did you miss that? Were you asleep for the past 8 years of debate on
the "detainees?" Did you miss EVERYTHINg the ACLU said?
> I believe he had a lawyer at Gitmo. Police misconduct may lead to the
> supression of
> evidence but not the indictment. Why does the federal district court in
> NY not have jurisdiction for terrorism committed in NY?
Only for the past 2 years, atboi, did he have a lawyer, following years
of litigation and a "EXTREMELY FRIENDLY" Federal Judge that the ACLU finally
located who would ORDER it. A federal judge in California. (WHAT A SHOCKER!)
Talk about JUDGE SHOPPING!
>>>>>> Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial
>>>
>>>>> He absolutely WILL NOT stand trial in New York! You see he has
>>>>> been
>>>>> denied a "speedy trial" and that mandates a dismissal - AND it
>>>>> mandates COMPENSATION.
>>>
>>>> Although it's clear that KSM has been denied a speedy trial, this
>>>> will turn on the length of time between *indictment* and trial.
>>>
>>> Not actually correct. It can start from the the time of
>>> incarceration. Especially after YEARS.
> It can, if the suspect was in civilian custody. He wasn't.
Doesn't make any difference if the TRIAL is in a CIVILIAN COURT. Now it
is and now it does.
>> Not to get to the "torture" (according to the Obama administration).
> According to just about everyone but you. In fact, after World War II,
> we prosecuted Japanese officers for waterboarding American soldiers.
The Japs did a bit more than waterboard. If you want to bring up HISTORY
you'll need to be better informed.
>>>> So not only will there be NO trial and KSM be released back
>>>>> home, he will be handsomely paid. There are at least two dozen
>>>>> issues that demand a dismissal under regular American criminal law.
>>>>> Not the least
>>>>> of which is the water boarding issue.
>>>
>>>> No, the waterboarding will taint any evidence so obtained, but it
>>>> won't get the charges dismissed.
>>>
>>> It was "POLICE MISCONDUCT." And the military and CIA in the setting
>>> of
>>> a CIVILIAN trial were acting AS "law enforcement" so under OUR laws
>>> the blow back will be significant.
> The blowback may well be significant. As it should. Torture is illegal.
iknow that YOU believe that it was TORTURE - but that is not as widely
accepted as you NEED to believe.
> But the federal courts do not intrude on military matters or matters of
> the treatment of aliens abroad, even if US agents are involved.
Not until the folks are DEFENDANTS in a criminal trial in that court.
Then they DO.
>>>>> But then the Obama administration KNOWS
>>>>> this. The REAL agenda here is to release the terrorists because of
>>>>> the sympathies for them in the administration. They may even put
>>>>> him on a 767 with a personal set of box cutters. For me? I'd just
>>>>> put their asses on a plane and fly them to Saudi Arabia and tell
>>>>> THEM to deal with these
>>>>> people. And tell the Saudis that if they let them go, Riyadh will
>>>>> be nuked.
>>>
>>>> Why do you hate this country?
>>>
>>> Hmmm. I don't. I hate what is being DONE to it and what HAS been
>>> being done to it for decades.
> Your evasion is noted.
Nope - a statement of fact. We are so FAR away from what the founders of
this country planned it is silly to even think it is the same country they
lived in. The metamorphasis has been going on since the mid-19th century.
> You don't trust our courts, our laws, and our traditions. I'll ask again.
They have become too corrupt with politics and GREEDY SELF INTERESTS. I
live in them and work in them and have for the past 33+ years.
> Why do you hate this country?
I love the country of George Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson and all. I
do not like what we are rapidly becoming. Lately a boated Venezuela.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>> He is entitled to exactly the same rights (no need for scare quotes or
>> SHOUTING, for that matter). He is not entitiled to the same *procedures*
>> in a military tribunal.
>
> Proceedural righs, Ratboi. Miranda,
"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn alcoholic (according to his own claims)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team.
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
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote innews:4b02f0ac$0$4961$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's wrong with that?
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?
Deadrat
news:3a1235d7-4eae-45dc...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/ms
> g/f59456085a5bdf10
>
> 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.
When I want to villify someone, I'll spell it correctly. This is a simple
matter of a claim about whether a matter was discussed on Fox News.
> Except yourself.
Except myself? I'm not an opponent of myself.
> 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?
Think what's possible? That the case could be dismissed? Yes, I think
it's possible. Based on what I've read, I don't think it's likely. Even
Giulani doesn't think it's likely. But we have judges to make those kinds
of decisions. And it's why we have judges who serve no matter how
unpopular those decisions may be.
This wasn't a discussion of the likelihood of a dismissal. It was a
refutation of the claim that Fox News wasn't pimping the idea.
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.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>news:iNCdnRud29YlYp_W...@giganews.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
>> <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?
Deadrat quotes it above.
>Actually they WERE
>discussed last night on CNN.
>
And before that as well, according to the web site.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
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."
> --Kenneth Robert Pangborn
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.
Deadrat
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:
<snip/>
>>> 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???
You're right! Indict Bush, Hastert, and Stevens!
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.
Deadrat
news:4b0729e1$0$5091$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "�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>
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. 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.
>>>>> 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.
<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.
Not every angry person is an IODIOT. The ones who take Beck seriously
and tell their Congressmen to keep the government's hands off their
Medicare are.
>>>>> 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?
The gov routinely spends money that we have to borrow. And I doubt a
single government job has been shipped overseas.
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
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/>
krp
>>
>>> 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.
WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think Mao Tse
Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph Hitler?
> This is not to say that there aren't plenty of angry people out there,
> but their rage has been co-opted.
In YOUR opinion. Ratboi better consider the lowly onion.
>>>>>>>> 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.>
But in the SERVICE SECTOR.... How many companies moved MASSIVE amounts
of production offshore, Rodent? You see UNABLE to see pats the bullshit
statistics and miss what IS happening.
Deadrat
news:4b087438$0$4891$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:GoSdnQ2qyPOU9pXW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think Mao
> Tse Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph Hitler?
What does this even mean? The AFP through its right-wing corporate
sponsors provides the money, the transportation, the publicity for the
teabaggers. This isn't illegal or unethical; neither does it put them in
the company of Mao and Adolph.
Just don't confuse the movement with some populist movement of ordinary
people. Follow the money.
>
>> This is not to say that there aren't plenty of angry people out
>> there, but their rage has been co-opted.
>
> In YOUR opinion. Ratboi better consider the lowly onion.
This isn't opinion. It's by definition of the word "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.>
>
> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
Your goal-post movement is noted.
> How many companies moved MASSIVE amounts
> of production offshore, Rodent? You see UNABLE to see pats the
> bullshit statistics and miss what IS happening.
At least I'm not screaming so I can't hear myself think.
Kent Wills
Actually, it was a projected surplus.
--
Count your blessings by thinking of those whom you love.
krp
>>>> 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.
>> WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think Mao
>> Tse Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph Hitler?
> What does this even mean? The AFP through its right-wing corporate
> sponsors provides the money, the transportation, the publicity for the
> teabaggers. This isn't illegal or unethical; neither does it put them in
> the company of Mao and Adolph.
And your PROOF that they are PAYING for ANY of that Ratboi? Other than
from the Huffington Post with ITS impeccible record of accuracy. Maybe Keith
Olberman with HIS? SO what, IF they contributed along with others. Look
ASSWIPE - who PAID for 99% of the anti-Viet Nam war protests? I mean
INCLUDING paying the participants?? Colme on you claim to KNOW everything,
who footed the bills? Who STAGED them? You want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG
CORPORATIONS funded protests aimed mostly at these CORPORATIONS and
Congress. Gotta tell ya, Rodeny, yer a bet "teeched!"
> Just don't confuse the movement with some populist movement of ordinary
> people. Follow the money.
Rodent, you are full of shit.
>>>>>> 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.>
>> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
> Your goal-post movement is noted.
Rodent what can't you understand about moving MANUFACTURING JOBS
overseas? What about steel? How many stedel plants have been closed and
replaced by IMPORTING steel from overseas? Shall we examine that 40% of
GM's assembly has been moved offshore? 65% of Chrysler? 30% of Ford's? Or
shall we note that almost 90% of the various PARTS that make up the cars (or
raw materials) come from offshore? You seem NOT to get it that almost 50% of
our GNP is either produced off shore or are owned by foreign companies.
Tell me Rodent, how's your American made TV working for you? Let's see
Muntz was the last to quit making TV sets in America about 1985. Been able
to find a replacement picture tube for it? Maybe you are still using a Muntz
4 track or 8 track tape player? That "HI-FI" stuff. Oh there are some
"American" brands still around, BUT NOT made in the U.S. Calculators? ALL
made off-shore. Small appliances? NONE made here. Clothing? 85% from Asia.
Shoes? Same. Nike is made in China. Leather shoes? Where have the tanneries
gone? Where is Florsheim made? Have you been to your local Thom McCann
store lately? You CAN find Thom McCann shoes in K-Mart - MADE IN ASIA.
Between HIGH TAXES and oppressive regulations, as well as other negative
factors companies are URGED to move plants and jobs overseas. Hell, they are
being DRIVEN OUT. Why put up with all the bullshit you have to deal with
in the U.S.? The Republicans have THEIR motives and the Democrats have
theirs. The PEOPLE are screwed.
Here's a problem for you, Ratboi. The flat panel monitor you are likely
using to read this, as well as flat panel TV's were invented IN America by
an American. NONE have ever been manufactured here.The first reason is that
EVERY American computer manufacturer threw the guy OUT when he tried to sell
it to them. Secondly by the time the IDIOTS caught on they were already
being built in Asia for 10% of what it would have cost to start up and make
them here. It's one of those times *I* call a "DUHHHH" moment in Business.
But even so, they would have been blocked by environmental concerns.
America is sinking in decades of moronic political correctness. We block the
flow of a river that provides irrigation for much of California's farming to
save some IDIOTIC snail. GOOD THINKING! So now much of California's RICH
farmland is a DUSTBOWL! Is it worth it that NOW we ahve to IMPORT much of
our food we used to GROW????
Where does the stupidity end? It seems we have cornered the world
market on that. Oh. and Ratboi, of ALL things we just CANNOT HAVE under ANY
circumstances is nuclear power!
Deadrat
news:4b090fda$0$4864$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:DNadnYh6CrB0HJXW...@giganews.com...
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>> WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think
>>> Mao Tse Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph Hitler?
>
>> What does this even mean? The AFP through its right-wing corporate
>> sponsors provides the money, the transportation, the publicity for
>> the teabaggers. This isn't illegal or unethical; neither does it put
>> them in the company of Mao and Adolph.
>
> And your PROOF that they are PAYING for ANY of that Ratboi? Other
> than
> from the Huffington Post with ITS impeccible record of accuracy. Maybe
> Keith Olberman with HIS?
They don't make any secret of this.
> SO what, IF they contributed along with
> others. Look ASSWIPE - who PAID for 99% of the anti-Viet Nam war
> protests? I mean INCLUDING paying the participants??
Nobody paid me. You think the VVAW and others had corporate sponsorship?
But even if they did, you've merely got a tu quoque argument. To quote
the philosopher, "SO what?"
> Colme on you
> claim to KNOW everything, who footed the bills? Who STAGED them?
Assumes facts not in evidence. The Vietnam War was genuinely unpopular.
> You
> want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG CORPORATIONS funded protests aimed
> mostly at these CORPORATIONS and Congress. Gotta tell ya, Rodeny, yer
> a bet "teeched!"
These protests are not aimed at corporations (or even CORPORATIONS).
They are aimed at the administration in general and specific policies,
like health-insurance reform.
>
>> Just don't confuse the movement with some populist movement of
>> ordinary people. Follow the money.
>
> Rodent, you are full of shit.
Ah, I see you've come down to your last, best argument.
>>>>>>> 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.>
>
>>> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
>
>> Your goal-post movement is noted.
>
<snipped: manufacturing rant/>
>
> Where does the stupidity end?
For you? I give up, where?
<snip/>
>> At least I'm not screaming so I can't hear myself think.
Your inability to think is not a result of your screaming; it's the other
way around.
krp
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think
>>>> Mao Tse Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph Hitler?
(NOTE this is never answered.)
>>> What does this even mean? The AFP through its right-wing corporate
>>> sponsors provides the money, the transportation, the publicity for
>>> the teabaggers. This isn't illegal or unethical; neither does it put
>>> them in the company of Mao and Adolph.
>> And your PROOF that they are PAYING for ANY of that Ratboi? Other
>> than
>> from the Huffington Post with ITS impeccible record of accuracy. Maybe
>> Keith Olberman with HIS?
> They don't make any secret of this.
So show us the source proving that they are paying the bills.
>> SO what, IF they contributed along with
>> others. Look ASSWIPE - who PAID for 99% of the anti-Viet Nam war
>> protests? I mean INCLUDING paying the participants??
> Nobody paid me. You think the VVAW and others had corporate sponsorship?
> But even if they did, you've merely got a tu quoque argument. To quote
> the philosopher, "SO what?"
Most of the rallies were "ORGANIZED" by the Communist Party. The Soviet
embassy and consulates were up to their asses paying for pulling the
strings. Every Communist cell in the country went full time into organizing
on colleges all over the country. Every Communist sympathizer in the media
was pulled in to propagandize it.The anti-war movement was one of the best
organized insurrections in history. In any other country the revolution
would have toppled the government.
>> Come on you claim to KNOW everything, who footed the bills? Who STAGED
>> them?
> Assumes facts not in evidence. The Vietnam War was genuinely unpopular.
The FACTS are in evidence. The Viet Nam war didn't start out being
unpopular. Neither did Afghanistan. TODAY after a barrage of propaganda it
IS. Let's not forget that the Viet Nam was was highly propagandized.
Remember a little creep called Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetah Ahhhhhhhnett?
Remember him inventing statements and attributing them to Westmoreland and
almost everyone else? Ole Petey was and IS a complete snake. Remember his
FAMOUS report in Desert Storm of the bombing of the building that had a sign
saying "BABY MILK FACTORY." What shameless BULLSHIT. As iff buildings had
their signs IN ENGLISH in Iraq. That wasn't the funny part. The freshly
painted sign was untouched from the bombing. Looked BRAND NEW (it was) while
a building accross te street was flattened. Miraculously the sign survived
UNTOUCHED. Yes Arnett got a Pulitzer for his reporting in Viet Nam. Too bad
they can't be taken back because of FRAUD.
>> You want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG CORPORATIONS funded protests aimed
>> mostly at these CORPORATIONS and Congress. Gotta tell ya, Rodeny, yer
>> a bet "teeched!"
> These protests are not aimed at corporations (or even CORPORATIONS).
> They are aimed at the administration in general and specific policies,
> like health-insurance reform.
You didn't listen. There was HUGE OUTRAGE at AIG and the banks not to
mention General Motors et al. You must be deeeef boy!
>>> Just don't confuse the movement with some populist movement of
>>> ordinary people. Follow the money.
>> Rodent, you are full of shit.
> Ah, I see you've come down to your last, best argument.
Well there's a point, Ratbrain where we have to get to the bottom line
truth. That is, that YOU are just plain FULL OF SHIT!
>>>>>>>> Congress is spending money like WE 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.
>>>> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
>>> Your goal-post movement is noted.
> <snipped: manufacturing rant/>
Sure SNIP what you can't refute about GOOD JOBS being shipped off shore.
Tell me, asswipe, do you think it is a GOOD THING that a guy who worked on
the line at a Buick plant had his job shipped overseas ($20 an hour) and
now he works as a greeter at Wal Mart for $7.50 an hour? GOOD trade in your
book, is it Ratbrain?
>> Where does the stupidity end?
> For you? I give up, where?
A revolution of sorts. Getting the corrupt politicians out of office.
First stop the wild TAX AND SPEND bullshit, and roll back all the FREEBIES.
Secondly get the jobs back here. If GM won't voluntarily build new planrs in
the US, then let's call their BILL due, and let's help some Americans start
a NEW car company. Forclose all of GM's plants, and let a new owner start
making Buicks, but ONLY in the U.S. and make it a FELONY for a CEO to ship
jobs overseas. Make sure that a foreign company cannot DUMP products on the
U.S. market by imposing teroffs sufficient to keep American products
competitive. That's where it SHOULD end.
Deadrat
news:4b09a751$0$5079$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:C_-dndIo2eZW5ZTW...@giganews.com...
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> WHY? Did THEY run the tea bag gatherings? Does Phillips think
>>>>> Mao Tse Tung is HIS idol? Was he best buds with Adolph
>>>>> Hitler?
>
> (NOTE this is never answered.)
OK, he wasn't best buds with Adolph Hitler.
<snip/>
> Most of the rallies were "ORGANIZED" by the Communist Party. The
> Soviet
> embassy and consulates were up to their asses paying for pulling the
> strings. Every Communist cell in the country went full time into
> organizing on colleges all over the country. Every Communist
> sympathizer in the media was pulled in to propagandize it.The anti-war
> movement was one of the best organized insurrections in history. In
> any other country the revolution would have toppled the government.
Bwahahahahahaha! Hey, dude, when I get done laughing at you, I'll look
up some sources for the corporate sponsorship of the teabaggers. That's
a fair request. The Communist Party! Most of their members were
undercover agents of the FBI. The anti-war movement was not that well
organized, at least not where I was, and it was hardly an insurrection.
The closest they came was the '68 Democratic convention, and Daley's cops
were more than a match for them. At no point, did the anti-war movement
attempt to topple the government. They couldn't have if they wanted to
-- *Nixon* won the '68 and '72 elections. After Nixon's failures, the
country turned against the war, as opinion polls and election results
showed.
>>> Come on you claim to KNOW everything, who footed the bills? Who
>>> STAGED them?
>
>> Assumes facts not in evidence. The Vietnam War was genuinely
>> unpopular.
>
> The FACTS are in evidence. The Viet Nam war didn't start out being
> unpopular. Neither did Afghanistan. TODAY after a barrage of
> propaganda it IS. Let's not forget that the Viet Nam was was highly
> propagandized. Remember a little creep called
> Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetah Ahhhhhhhnett? Remember him inventing
> statements and attributing them to Westmoreland and almost everyone
> else? Ole Petey was and IS a complete snake. Remember his FAMOUS
> report in Desert Storm of the bombing of the building that had a sign
> saying "BABY MILK FACTORY." What shameless BULLSHIT. As iff buildings
> had their signs IN ENGLISH in Iraq. That wasn't the funny part. The
> freshly painted sign was untouched from the bombing. Looked BRAND NEW
> (it was) while a building accross te street was flattened.
> Miraculously the sign survived UNTOUCHED. Yes Arnett got a Pulitzer
> for his reporting in Viet Nam. Too bad they can't be taken back
> because of FRAUD.
The fraud was the war itself. Whatever reason you claim, the US turned
against the disaster in Vietnam with no help from corporate antiwar
sponsors, which didn't exist.
>>> You want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG CORPORATIONS funded protests
>>> aimed mostly at these CORPORATIONS and Congress. Gotta tell ya,
>>> Rodeny, yer a bet "teeched!"
>
>> These protests are not aimed at corporations (or even CORPORATIONS).
>> They are aimed at the administration in general and specific
>> policies, like health-insurance reform.
>
> You didn't listen. There was HUGE OUTRAGE at AIG and the banks not
> to mention General Motors et al. You must be deeeef boy!
OK, that's true. But where's the outrage now? Big government and health
care. The teabaggers are just angry. Any target will do.
<snip/>
>>>>>>>>> Congress is spending money like WE 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.
>
>>>>> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
>
>>>> Your goal-post movement is noted.
>
>> <snipped: manufacturing rant/>
>
> Sure SNIP what you can't refute about GOOD JOBS being shipped off
> shore. Tell me, asswipe, do you think it is a GOOD THING that a guy
> who worked on the line at a Buick plant had his job shipped overseas
> ($20 an hour) and now he works as a greeter at Wal Mart for $7.50 an
> hour? GOOD trade in your book, is it Ratbrain?
You're arguing with yourself. I'm just noting that your general rant was
incorrect about Clinton.
>
>>> Where does the stupidity end?
>
>> For you? I give up, where?
>
> A revolution of sorts.
Anyone can play Braveheart in cyberspace.
> Getting the corrupt politicians out of
> office.
> First stop the wild TAX AND SPEND bullshit, and roll back all the
> FREEBIES. Secondly get the jobs back here. If GM won't voluntarily
> build new planrs in the US, then let's call their BILL due, and let's
> help some Americans start a NEW car company. Forclose all of GM's
> plants, and let a new owner start making Buicks, but ONLY in the U.S.
> and make it a FELONY for a CEO to ship jobs overseas. Make sure that
> a foreign company cannot DUMP products on the U.S. market by imposing
> teroffs sufficient to keep American products competitive. That's where
> it SHOULD end.
Good luck with that.
�n�hw��f
news:GoSdnQ2qyPOU9pXW...@giganews.com:
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
> 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.
>
Sounds interesting...easily confirmed!
http://twitpic.com/odkx2
Pretty much says it all.
> This is not to say that there aren't plenty of angry people out
> there, but their rage has been co-opted.
>
Or *manufactured* :)
OOPS! Looks like it was:
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/11/michele-bachmanns-astroturfing-
teabaggers-a-rally-for-no-solution/
Heh.
>>>> 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.
>
Are you sure?
Hmmm...WOW...even Fox admits it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
Interesting.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
Deadrat
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> pinched out a steaming pile of
> news:GoSdnQ2qyPOU9pXW...@giganews.com:
>
>> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
>> 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.
>>
> Sounds interesting...easily confirmed!
> http://twitpic.com/odkx2
> Pretty much says it all.
>
>> This is not to say that there aren't plenty of angry people out
>> there, but their rage has been co-opted.
>>
> Or *manufactured* :)
> OOPS! Looks like it was:
> http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/11/michele-bachmanns-astroturfing-
> teabaggers-a-rally-for-no-solution/
>
> Heh.
Check out
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/111209-are-we-making-difference
They'll even tell you where to catch the bus. It's no secret.
krp
>> Most of the rallies were "ORGANIZED" by the Communist Party. The
>> Soviet
>> embassy and consulates were up to their asses paying for pulling the
>> strings. Every Communist cell in the country went full time into
>> organizing on colleges all over the country. Every Communist
>> sympathizer in the media was pulled in to propagandize it.The anti-war
>> movement was one of the best organized insurrections in history. In
>> any other country the revolution would have toppled the government.
> Bwahahahahahaha! Hey, dude, when I get done laughing at you, I'll look
> up some sources for the corporate sponsorship of the teabaggers. That's
> a fair request. The Communist Party! Most of their members were
> undercover agents of the FBI.
Really? That's not what the KGB thought. Maybe you have forgotten that
for a time after the Soviet Union fell many of their records came to light.
Including the names of the WW-2 nuclear spies including the Rosenbergs, and
that the Soviets RAN the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam war.
> The anti-war movement was not that well organized, at least not where I
> was, and it was hardly an insurrection.
> The closest they came was the '68 Democratic convention, and Daley's cops
> were more than a match for them. At no point, did the anti-war movement
> attempt to topple the government. They couldn't have if they wanted to
> -- *Nixon* won the '68 and '72 elections. After Nixon's failures, the
> country turned against the war, as opinion polls and election results
> showed.
They were damn effective, but mostly the infiltration of the media
helped get Congress to quit the war even though we largely had it won.
>>>> Come on you claim to KNOW everything, who footed the bills? Who
>>>> STAGED them?
>>> Assumes facts not in evidence. The Vietnam War was genuinely
>>> unpopular.
>
>> The FACTS are in evidence. The Viet Nam war didn't start out being
>> unpopular. Neither did Afghanistan. TODAY after a barrage of
>> propaganda it IS. Let's not forget that the Viet Nam was was highly
>> propagandized. Remember a little creep called
>> Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetah Ahhhhhhhnett? Remember him inventing
>> statements and attributing them to Westmoreland and almost everyone
>> else? Ole Petey was and IS a complete snake. Remember his FAMOUS
>> report in Desert Storm of the bombing of the building that had a sign
>> saying "BABY MILK FACTORY." What shameless BULLSHIT. As iff buildings
>> had their signs IN ENGLISH in Iraq. That wasn't the funny part. The
>> freshly painted sign was untouched from the bombing. Looked BRAND NEW
>> (it was) while a building accross te street was flattened.
>> Miraculously the sign survived UNTOUCHED. Yes Arnett got a Pulitzer
>> for his reporting in Viet Nam. Too bad they can't be taken back
>> because of FRAUD.
> The fraud was the war itself. Whatever reason you claim, the US turned
> against the disaster in Vietnam with no help from corporate antiwar
> sponsors, which didn't exist.
Agreed, we picked the wrong side.What existed was funding from the USSR
and the use of a largely sympathetic media to the Soviets.
>>>> You want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG CORPORATIONS funded protests
>>>> aimed mostly at these CORPORATIONS and Congress. Gotta tell ya,
>>>> Rodeny, yer a bet "teeched!"
>>
>>> These protests are not aimed at corporations (or even CORPORATIONS).
>>> They are aimed at the administration in general and specific
>>> policies, like health-insurance reform.
>>
>> You didn't listen. There was HUGE OUTRAGE at AIG and the banks not
>> to mention General Motors et al. You must be deeeef boy!
> OK, that's true. But where's the outrage now? Big government and health
> care. The teabaggers are just angry. Any target will do.
They are not as organized and controlled as you think. But you are going
to continue to see that outrage in elections. I think you will find
incumbents in deep shit in thr next ones. You may even see a new third
party.
> <snip/>
>>>>>>>>>> Congress is spending money like WE 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.
>>
>>>>>> But in the SERVICE SECTOR....
>>
>>>>> Your goal-post movement is noted.
>>
>>> <snipped: manufacturing rant/>
>>
>> Sure SNIP what you can't refute about GOOD JOBS being shipped off
>> shore. Tell me, asswipe, do you think it is a GOOD THING that a guy
>> who worked on the line at a Buick plant had his job shipped overseas
>> ($20 an hour) and now he works as a greeter at Wal Mart for $7.50 an
>> hour? GOOD trade in your book, is it Ratbrain?
> You're arguing with yourself. I'm just noting that your general rant was
> incorrect about Clinton.
No it was not. There was a SMALL net gain in employment under Clinton,
but they were low paying service sector jobs. Manufacturing and high tech
jobs wre leaving like made. Clinton turned his back on Unions as did
Congress. My point is that under Clinton the move of jobs off shore
accelerated.
>>>> Where does the stupidity end?
>>> For you? I give up, where?
>> A revolution of sorts.
> Anyone can play Braveheart in cyberspace.
I guess you ignore the recent elections.
>> Getting the corrupt politicians out of
>> office.
>> First stop the wild TAX AND SPEND bullshit, and roll back all the
>> FREEBIES. Secondly get the jobs back here. If GM won't voluntarily
>> build new planrs in the US, then let's call their BILL due, and let's
>> help some Americans start a NEW car company. Forclose all of GM's
>> plants, and let a new owner start making Buicks, but ONLY in the U.S.
>> and make it a FELONY for a CEO to ship jobs overseas. Make sure that
>> a foreign company cannot DUMP products on the U.S. market by imposing
>> teroffs sufficient to keep American products competitive. That's where
>> it SHOULD end.
> Good luck with that.
It's going to take a new political party. The Republicans had 8 years.
They were WORSE than the Democrats for spending on black hole boondoggles
and helping screw our economy and shift jobs and wealth off-shore. Trapping
states into wild tax and spend policies that drive companies out. There is a
reason the "rust belt" exists. Lots of it can be explained by deficit
spending now having us in debt by either $11 TRILLION or $100 TRILLION
depending on who you believe. And now they want to SPEND even MORE!!
Deadrat
news:4b0a5848$0$4883$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:7PCdnU4keYAYLpTW...@giganews.com...
>
>>> Most of the rallies were "ORGANIZED" by the Communist Party. The
>>> Soviet
>>> embassy and consulates were up to their asses paying for pulling the
>>> strings. Every Communist cell in the country went full time into
>>> organizing on colleges all over the country. Every Communist
>>> sympathizer in the media was pulled in to propagandize it.The
>>> anti-war movement was one of the best organized insurrections in
>>> history. In any other country the revolution would have toppled the
>>> government.
>
>> Bwahahahahahaha! Hey, dude, when I get done laughing at you, I'll
>> look up some sources for the corporate sponsorship of the teabaggers.
>> That's a fair request. The Communist Party! Most of their members
>> were undercover agents of the FBI.
>
> Really? That's not what the KGB thought.
Like you've got a clue as to what the KGB thought.
> Maybe you have forgotten that
> for a time after the Soviet Union fell many of their records came to
> light. Including the names of the WW-2 nuclear spies including the
> Rosenbergs,
The Rosenbergs were a different era.
> and that the Soviets RAN the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam
> war.
There was no evidence for this.
>> The anti-war movement was not that well organized, at least not
>> where I was, and it was hardly an insurrection.
>> The closest they came was the '68 Democratic convention, and Daley's
>> cops were more than a match for them. At no point, did the anti-war
>> movement attempt to topple the government. They couldn't have if
>> they wanted to -- *Nixon* won the '68 and '72 elections. After
>> Nixon's failures, the country turned against the war, as opinion
>> polls and election results showed.
>
> They were damn effective, but mostly the infiltration of the media
> helped get Congress to quit the war even though we largely had it won.
There were most ineffective. Nixon won in '68 and '72, remember? That
we "had it won" is a rightard canard (hey! It even rhymes.) that won't
go away. We backed a corrupt and unpopular government in a country that
had resisted foreign occupation for centuries. We didn't know the
culture, we didn't know the language, and we committed the abuses of
occupiers.
Sound familiar.
You couldn't find an example of this "largely sympathetic media" if you
tried. And being against an unwinnable war was not being sympathetic to
the Soviets.
>>>>> You want to IMPLY that AFP and BIG CORPORATIONS funded protests
>>>>> aimed mostly at these CORPORATIONS and Congress. Gotta tell ya,
>>>>> Rodeny, yer a bet "teeched!"
>>>
>>>> These protests are not aimed at corporations (or even
>>>> CORPORATIONS). They are aimed at the administration in general and
>>>> specific policies, like health-insurance reform.
>>>
>>> You didn't listen. There was HUGE OUTRAGE at AIG and the banks
>>> not to mention General Motors et al. You must be deeeef boy!
>
>> OK, that's true. But where's the outrage now? Big government and
>> health care. The teabaggers are just angry. Any target will do.
>
> They are not as organized and controlled as you think. But you are
> going to continue to see that outrage in elections. I think you
> will find
> incumbents in deep shit in thr next ones. You may even see a new third
> party.
This may well be as true as it is irrelevant to the point.
Sorry. Under Clinton, the economy gained 21 million jobs, and median
household income jumped by 15%. If you want to argue that this was part
of the tech bubble or that Presidents don't really have all that much to
do with the job market, that's fine. But don't make things up.
>>>>> Where does the stupidity end?
>
>>>> For you? I give up, where?
>
>>> A revolution of sorts.
>
>> Anyone can play Braveheart in cyberspace.
>
> I guess you ignore the recent elections.
Elections do not count as a "revolution."
<snip/>
�n�hw��f
Looks like not all 50 states are listed...maybe just the stupid ones
made the list.
krp
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
> news:4b0a5848$0$4883$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>>
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:7PCdnU4keYAYLpTW...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>> Most of the rallies were "ORGANIZED" by the Communist Party. The
>>>> Soviet
>>>> embassy and consulates were up to their asses paying for pulling the
>>>> strings. Every Communist cell in the country went full time into
>>>> organizing on colleges all over the country. Every Communist
>>>> sympathizer in the media was pulled in to propagandize it.The
>>>> anti-war movement was one of the best organized insurrections in
>>>> history. In any other country the revolution would have toppled the
>>>> government.
>>
>>> Bwahahahahahaha! Hey, dude, when I get done laughing at you, I'll
>>> look up some sources for the corporate sponsorship of the teabaggers.
>>> That's a fair request. The Communist Party! Most of their members
>>> were undercover agents of the FBI.
>>
>> Really? That's not what the KGB thought.
> Like you've got a clue as to what the KGB thought.
Do you know how to READ, Rodent? Many of the KGB files were made public.
I guess THEY knew what they thought. Are you dumb enough to think Communist
cells atarted up in 1968? lease tlel me that you are not THAT sgtupid,
Ratbrain.
>> Maybe you have forgotten that
>> for a time after the Soviet Union fell many of their records came to
>> light. Including the names of the WW-2 nuclear spies including the
>> Rosenbergs,
> The Rosenbergs were a different era.
Yeah FAR FAR FAR back in history! 20 years before! LONG ago. Ratbrain
you are an amusing diversion, that is for being an IDIOT.
>> and that the Soviets RAN the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam
>> war.
> There was no evidence for this.
Just FBI investigations and more recently the KGB's own files.
Deadrat
news:4b0b458a$0$4858$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Please cite them properly, then.
<snip/>
> you are an amusing diversion, that is for being an IDIOT.
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me an IDIOT.
>>> and that the Soviets RAN the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam
>>> war.
>
>> There was no evidence for this.
>
> Just FBI investigations and more recently the KGB's own files.
You're pretty much just making this up, aren't you?