Anti-"War on Terror" film-maker part of the NSA scandal

[RichA]

What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
in the woodwork of these things, always.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-nsa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

[BTR1701]

In article
<5d4cae51-b657-48c3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> in the woodwork of these things, always.

If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't clue you
in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing will.

[trotsky]

Can you provide us with more detail on what "Orwellian territory" is?


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[nick]

On Jun 11, 5:25 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> > in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> > it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> > in the woodwork of these things, always.
>
> If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
> courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't clue you
> in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing will.

The most depressing thing about all of this is that regardless of
ideology and political affiliation, everyone is in on this. Post
9-11, our fear of terrorist attack gave us a cash grab security state
where a whole bunch of politicians and private contractors used the
terrorists-are-coming! paranoia to push their agendas and gain
control.

[trotsky]

On 6/11/13 4:25 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

You're an idiot. "Orwellian territory" would be if the country was
ruled by a select few people, the Inner Party. Oh, wait, that's what
the Bush administration was trying to do. Have you even read Orwell?

[nick]

On Jun 11, 8:10 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/13 4:25 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

> >   RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> >> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> >> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> >> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>
> > If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
> > courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't clue you
> > in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing will.
>
> You're an idiot.  "Orwellian territory" would be if the country was
> ruled by a select few people, the Inner Party.  Oh, wait, that's what
> the Bush administration was trying to do.  Have you even read Orwell?
>

Bush started all this but Obama hasn't done a damn thing to try to fix
anything and it's only gotten worse. You can argue about the
semantics of whether it's "Orwellian" or not, but what's going on is
really, really bad, unless you buy into the idea that having your
private life spied on by the government and private contractors is
worth it to stop a handful of terrorists, and even then the entire new
security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.

[cloud dreamer]

Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress. Hell...the fools
in Congress just voted to keep Gitmo open. Are you going to blame Obama
for that too.

As long as you put a Republican controlled House or Senate in, no
Democratic President will get anything done.

And no so-called "free" society can do jackshit against a couple of kids
from setting off a home made bomb. To expect any society from being able
to stop 100% of crimes is insane.

Funny, you don't use the Newton terrorist attack as an example. Because
Obama is trying to do something to help prevent those kinds of
terrrorist attacks in the future but you're throwing up walls at his
every turn.

You let ideology over ride common sense. It is going to be the downfall
of your country and you're too stunned to see it.

Problem is...you're going to take the rest of us with you.

..

[Obveeus]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 9:46 AM, nick wrote:
>> Bush started all this but Obama hasn't done a damn thing to try to fix
>> anything and it's only gotten worse. You can argue about the
>> semantics of whether it's "Orwellian" or not, but what's going on is
>> really, really bad, unless you buy into the idea that having your
>> private life spied on by the government and private contractors is
>> worth it to stop a handful of terrorists, and even then the entire new
>> security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
>> kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
>
> Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress. Hell...the fools
> in Congress just voted to keep Gitmo open. Are you going to blame Obama
> for that too.

Yes. Obama could have closed Gitmo the week after he took office. Even if
that Congress was adversarial, Congress would have no choice in the matter.

I realize that, once open, there is no good way of shutting the place
down...which is why it never should have been allowed to exist in the first
place...but Obama is directly at fault for it still being open.

[calvin]

On Jun 11, 8:16 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... and even then the entire new

> security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
> kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.

Only one was a 'college kid'. The older brother, 26,
had forfeited his 'dumbass kid' status, by age and
activities, long before the bombing.

[Obveeus]

"nick" <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> and even then the entire new
>security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
>kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.

..and this even though the US Government had been officially warned about
this specific person being a terrorist. Just as with 9/11, the government
failed to property follow up on threats that they knew existed.

[moviePig]

There's no age of majority on 'dumbass kids'. Still, I'm pretty sure
neither of them were likely to get off with a reprimand...

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[nick]

On Jun 11, 8:43 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

Not in my back yard . . . there was/is some talk of using a local brig
as a place to send the Gitmo detainees if/when Gitmo closes but
there's always a public outcry because of the fear that the terrorists
will launch raids and attacks to free their imprisoned comrades, as if
they care about a bunch of washed up taxi drivers who were in the
wrong place at the wrong time and get to spend the rest of their lives
in limbo.

I don't know what the locals around here are expecting, some Red Dawn
scenario where you look out your window one morning and there's Al
Qaeda parachuting in. Seeing too many action movies + terrorist
paranoia = distorted view of reality.

[calvin]

I said 'age and activities'. If you are not aware of his
activities, you should look them up.

[cloud dreamer]

He tried to close it. Legalities got in the way. Not much he could do
when the nations refused to take the inmates and when there was
resistance to moving them to the US.

I'd like to know what people think he could have done. It's not as if he
didn't try. Seriously. What was he supposed to do to clean up that Bush
mess?

And if the Congress was so upset about it, why did they vote to keep it
open just a week or so ago?

..

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:73448d62-33d4-4b0c...@20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

===================================

So what? Still a dumbass.

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:56e99cf3-00f4-482b...@k10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

=======================================

You have a point somewhere in the midst of all this?

[calvin]

On Jun 11, 11:24 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "calvin"  wrote:

There were four points:

nick's erroneous point that the terrorism was just
from a couple of dumbass kids, so we didn't need
to get all upset again about Islamic terrorism.

my point that only one was a 'kid', and the probable
leader was the older brother who by his travels and
activities showed he knew exactly what he was
doing, for Allah.

moviePig's deflection maneuver to defend nick by
ignoring half of what I pointed out, and by making an
asinine point that there is no age limit for dumbass
behavior.

my final point, which was merely noting moviePig's
deflection strategy once again.

[Mason Barge]

This crap is really becoming intolerable.

[Mason Barge]

You know what an even bigger fear is? That the federal courts will
assert habeas corpus jurisdiction over the prisoners. The US is
worried it couldn't keep these people imprisoned in violation of both
US and international law if it let them inside the country.

[David Johnston]

On 6/11/2013 6:43 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> "cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2013 9:46 AM, nick wrote:
>>> Bush started all this but Obama hasn't done a damn thing to try to fix
>>> anything and it's only gotten worse. You can argue about the
>>> semantics of whether it's "Orwellian" or not, but what's going on is
>>> really, really bad, unless you buy into the idea that having your
>>> private life spied on by the government and private contractors is
>>> worth it to stop a handful of terrorists, and even then the entire new
>>> security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
>>> kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
>>
>> Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress. Hell...the fools
>> in Congress just voted to keep Gitmo open. Are you going to blame Obama
>> for that too.
>
> Yes. Obama could have closed Gitmo the week after he took office.

And done what with the prisoners?

[Obveeus]

The President of the US could very easily have ordered that all of the
detainees be movesd to the US Federal Prison system, charged, given lawyers,
etc... as our legal system dictates. Neither Congress, the GOP, nor the
military could have prevented that order from being carried out.

> I'd like to know what people think he could have done. It's not as if he
> didn't try. Seriously. What was he supposed to do to clean up that Bush
> mess?

Continuing it endlessly is not the solution.

> And if the Congress was so upset about it, why did they vote to keep it
> open just a week or so ago?

The Congress in place now is not the same Congress as when Obama took
office. Never the less, Congress cannot prevent the facility from being
emptied, regardless of their decision to fund it. Mostly, Congress is
chicken, just like the President because everyone on all sides is affraid
that they will get the finger of blame when one of these Gitmo guys (after
years of torture and illegal confinement) gets released and immediately
turns himself into a suicide bomber.

[Obveeus]

Exactly. They can't be treated legally after being treated illegally for so
long and they cannot be released for political ramification fears of what
they might do afterwards. Obama would have been much better off shutting
down Gitmo on day#1 in office so that it was a clear line-in-the-sand policy
change rather than letting it go on such that it is a 'US thing' rather than
a 'Bush thing'.

...and again, watching the 4th episode of season #1 of BORGEN
(http://www.linktv.org/borgen excellent Danish TV series) yesterday was a
good reminder of the fact that the rest of the world doesn't see the US as
great saviors for setting up Gitmo.

[Obveeus]

Moved then into the US Federal prison system, given them access to lawyers,
and treated them legally...which yes, means charging them or releasing them.

[nick]

On Jun 11, 11:46 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:24 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "calvin"  wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 9:19 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 9:11 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 11, 8:16 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ... and even then the entire new
> > > > > security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
> > > > > kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
>
> > > > Only one was a 'college kid'.  The older brother, 26,
> > > > had forfeited his 'dumbass kid' status, by age and
> > > > activities, long before the bombing.
>
> > > There's no age of majority on 'dumbass kids'.  Still, I'm pretty sure
> > > neither of them were likely to get off with a reprimand...
>
> > I said 'age and activities'.  If you are not aware of his
> > activities, you should look them up.
>
> > =======================================
>
> > You have a point somewhere in the midst of all this?
>
> There were four points:
>
> nick's erroneous point that the terrorism was just
> from a couple of dumbass kids, so we didn't need
> to get all upset again about Islamic terrorism.
>

So what does getting "upset" about Islamic terrorism even mean? Are
you equally "upset" about gun violence in the US? So to combat the
former we sacrifice our right of privacy and our personal freedoms and
to combat the latter we do nothing aside from mumbling some nonsense
about how teachers need to have guns in the classroom? Seriously,
what good has being "upset" about Islamic terrorism done us? It's
not making it go away.

[David Johnston]

On 6/11/2013 11:00 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2013 6:43 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>> "cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress. Hell...the fools
>>>> in Congress just voted to keep Gitmo open. Are you going to blame Obama
>>>> for that too.
>>>
>>> Yes. Obama could have closed Gitmo the week after he took office.
>>
>> And done what with the prisoners?
>
> Moved then into the US Federal prison system,

Housing them with currently apolitical prisoners, many of whom are black
muslims?

[BTR1701]

In article <tdydnRd6EdtdiirM...@supernews.com>,

Like hell he has. His administration's own policies have doubled down on
the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush started; this after he
campaigned against it to get elected.

And try not to let it slip your dull mind, clod, that for the first two
years of his first term, Obama and his party controlled both houses of
Congress. There was nothing adversarial about it.

Congress has nothing to do with the breadth and the extent of the NSA's
surveillance program. The NSA falls under the DOD, of which Obama is
commander-in-chief. Obama could stop a significant amount of it with the
stroke of his pen or a phone call. He doesn't need to talk to Congress
about it at all.

Stick with Canadidian government and politics, clod. You obviously have
no clue how ours work.

[nick]

On Jun 11, 1:11 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 11:00 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>
> > "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 6/11/2013 6:43 AM, Obveeus wrote:

> >>> "cloud dreamer" <reduce.re...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress. Hell...the fools
> >>>> in Congress just voted to keep Gitmo open. Are you going to blame Obama
> >>>> for that too.
>
> >>> Yes.  Obama could have closed Gitmo the week after he took office.
>
> >> And done what with the prisoners?
>
> > Moved then into the US Federal prison system,
>
> Housing them with currently apolitical prisoners, many of whom are black
> muslims?

Maybe the Gitmo Muslims can get together with the black Muslims along
with the white supremacists and Odinists and plan a super-terror group
for when they all get out.

[BTR1701]

In article <kp7kc7$214$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

Nah, 'cause then if the charges don't stick, they get released into
American society. Put 'em on a boat and send them back home. If their
country won't let them in when they get there, that's their problem.

[David Johnston]

These aren't warrantless. They have warrants. They're just secret
warrants automatically applied for every 3 months.

And yeah, that's just a token gesture. What else did you expect?

[BTR1701]

In article
<c38e10aa-2132-48b3...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
nick <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 11, 5:25 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has
> > > a hand in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try
> > > to pretend it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always
> > > some anti-American in the woodwork of these things, always.
> >
> > If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
> > courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't
> > clue you in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing
> > will.
>

> The most depressing thing about all of this is that regardless of
> ideology and political affiliation, everyone is in on this. Post
> 9-11, our fear of terrorist attack gave us a cash grab security state
> where a whole bunch of politicians and private contractors used the
> terrorists-are-coming! paranoia to push their agendas and gain
> control.

I was never afraid of the terrorists. It's like being afraid of being
struck by lightning. Yes, it happens, but the odds of it specifically
happening to *you* are infinitesimal.

I'm much more afraid the emerging government panopticon and the almost
casual disregard of the law whenever the law gets in their way.

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:69d32226-d685-4a04...@m8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

============================================

I don't care WHY they did it. Neither do I care about their age or academic
accomplishment. The important thing is that they WERE just a couple of
chuckleheads. You can't possibly believe our world can be completely safe
from these sort of random lunatics regardless of their motives or their
perverse justifications for creating mayhem and slaughter. Just as you
can't stop every nut job from walking up to someone and stabbing any random
person with a pencil to the eye and perhaps killing them. In THIS
case...they probably COULD have stopped and caught them. But maybe only IF
we wish to become as oppressive a state as say Russia or China. And even
THEN...well look at all the Chechen atrocities committed even over THERE.
The hard ass, take no prisoner tactics of the Russians can't completely stop
shit like this either. We can limit these...remain vigilant...stop them
where we may. But there is ALWAYS a price to pay for freedom.

[Obveeus]

If they are US citizens, they should be released into American society. If
they are not US citizens, they should be deported after the trial.

[moviePig]

...whereas *my* point was merely about the lifelong bioavailabilty of
"dumbass kid" status as well as its irrelevance in this instance. And
any 'deflection' of your point, or 'protection' of Nick's, is an
invention you might try to patent... if you can find a use for it...

[thinbluemime]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:11:38 +0100, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

GOOD!

Now that Americans are becoming aware at the governmental abuse, we have
the opportunity to openly discuss and debate the surveillance state.

Get angry gawd-damn-it.

Now let's fix it.

[Barb May]

Are you not aware that Congress has acted repeatedly to prevent the
transfer of prisoners from GITMO by withholding funding for such moves?

--
Barb

[thinbluemime]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:55:21 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-nsa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html
>

Anti-American? We went to war in 1776 over less intrusive violations of
our liberty.

--------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qa9VjuzTJs

[Obveeus]

No significant funding is needed. They don't need a new specially built
prison. A Federal prison system already exists and would work perfectly
well...and costs of transfers/security could easily be funneled away from
the GITMO budget without separate Congressional approval.

[Obveeus]

How would you feel about a compromise:
The government cannot collect this data without specific warrants for
specific people but...
The government can require the phone/internet companies to store all the
data for 3 years such that there is something historical to recover when a
search warrant is issued.

[thinbluemime]

As it 'should be' under the Constitution of the United States of America.

> but...
> The government can require the phone/internet companies to store all the
> data for 3 years such that there is something historical to recover
> when a search warrant is issued.

Long term storage of private communications of American citizens not
accused of any wrong doing, to be used as evidence in a court of law for
prosecution, before a warrant is issued?

I don't think so.

This is EXACTLY what is currently being done and why whistle-blowers like
William Binney and Thomas Drake railed against the unconstitutionality of
the NSA program.


But, I am sure similar measures will be proposed in the ongoing debate.

[Barb May]

Dream on. Any attempt at an end-run would not go unnoticed or
unchallenged by an overwhelming majority in Congress.

--
Barb

[David Johnston]

On 6/11/2013 8:19 AM, thinbluemime wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:55:21 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
>> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
>> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
>> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-nsa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html
>>
>>
>
> Anti-American? We went to war in 1776 over less intrusive violations of
> our liberty.

You went to war over resentment that a government that you could not
even theoretically influence with voting was making policy for you. A
modern day equivalent would be if the Federal government decided that
part of the country would no longer be represented in Congress and
disbanded their state governments.

[calvin]

...whereas *my* point was merely that the Boston bombing
was not done by a couple of rowdy college kids who just
happened to watch 'Animal House' the night before.

[Mason Barge]

Charging people who have never been inside the United States with a
U.S. crime would make them look pretty silly.

[thinbluemime]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:56:59 +0100, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

> On 6/11/2013 8:19 AM, thinbluemime wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:55:21 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
>>> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
>>> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
>>> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-nsa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Anti-American? We went to war in 1776 over less intrusive violations of
>> our liberty.


> You went to war over resentment that a government that you could not
> even theoretically influence with voting was making policy for you.

It's impossible to influence secret policy no matter how much the
government touts it's transparency.

The fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret courts,
which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, would indicate no matter
how we vote makes no difference in our Constitutionally guaranteed right
to privacy.

It's now worse than 1776, because it was no secret back then that we were
being abused.

[trotsky]

Really? Has the teabagger agenda really brainwashed you that badly?

You are admitting that you're a teabagger, right?


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[trotsky]

On 6/11/13 12:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <c38e10aa-2132-48b3...@g8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> nick <leftbehindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 11, 5:25 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has
>>>> a hand in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try
>>>> to pretend it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always
>>>> some anti-American in the woodwork of these things, always.
>>>
>>> If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
>>> courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't
>>> clue you in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing
>>> will.
>>
>> The most depressing thing about all of this is that regardless of
>> ideology and political affiliation, everyone is in on this. Post
>> 9-11, our fear of terrorist attack gave us a cash grab security state
>> where a whole bunch of politicians and private contractors used the
>> terrorists-are-coming! paranoia to push their agendas and gain
>> control.
>
> I was never afraid of the terrorists.

...said the anonyshit.

[Obveeus]

True, but charging them with a crime was only one of two options I offered
up. Meanwhile, holding people in prisons, without charging them with any
crime, , without access to lawyers, and while denying them even the basic
rights put forth under the Geneva Convention made us look far sillier.

[BTR1701]

In article <kp7md7$ekf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Most of them aren't, though.

[BTR1701]

In article <kp7rks$f9u$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

> On 6/11/2013 8:19 AM, thinbluemime wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:55:21 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> >> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> >> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> >> in the woodwork of these things, always.
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-n
> >> sa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Anti-American? We went to war in 1776 over less intrusive violations of
> > our liberty.
>
> You went to war over resentment that a government that you could not
> even theoretically influence with voting was making policy for you.

Pretty much how it is now, too.

[Obveeus]

"BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-C28996...@news-europe.giganews.com...

What was the point in snipping the next statement from my post (deport them
if they are not US citizens) just so you could offer up that disingenuous
reply?

[BTR1701]

In article <kp853s$ar2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

Anyone following the thread would have read your full post. I only
needed to respond to part of it, so I snipped the rest. There's nothing
disingenuous in only addressing one point out of several.

[calvin]

On Jun 11, 1:42 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> ...  And

> any 'deflection' of your point, or 'protection' of Nick's, is an
> invention you might try to patent... if you can find a use for it...

You have a talent for grabbing some side aspect of a topic
and magnifying it in order to defend a person or idea that
you favor, and discredit a person or idea that you don't
favor. In this case the side aspect was the word, 'dumbass'.
The Boston bombing was not the work of 'dumbasses'.
Their IQs likely were higher than those of the people with
whom they associated. The probable leader, the 26 year
old brother, had become radicalized with Islamic ideas,
which is easily seen by his behavior in recent years. Look
at the way he treated his wife, for example. The bombing
was not the work of 'kids', plural, nor was it the work of
'dumbasses.' I used the word in order to deal with the way
nick used it. You siezed on it to avoid dealing with the real
issue.

[moviePig]

I didn't "seize" on it, I stumbled over it, i.e., over the idea that a
26-year-old couldn't be a 'dumbass kid' in such a contest. And, iirc,
their adventure in terror comprises a litany of idiocies unexpected of
someone experienced and well-trained. Was I misinformed?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-C69297...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <tdydnRd6EdtdiirM...@supernews.com>,
> cloud dreamer <reduce...@recycle.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/06/2013 9:46 AM, nick wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 8:10 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

> > >> On 6/11/13 4:25 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

> > >>> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> > >>>> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> > >>>> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> > >>>> in the woodwork of these things, always.
> > >>

> > >>> If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
> > >>> courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't clue you
> > >>> in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing will.
> > >>

> > >> You're an idiot. "Orwellian territory" would be if the country was
> > >> ruled by a select few people, the Inner Party. Oh, wait, that's what
> > >> the Bush administration was trying to do. Have you even read Orwell?
> > >>
> > > Bush started all this but Obama hasn't done a damn thing to try to fix
> > > anything and it's only gotten worse. You can argue about the
> > > semantics of whether it's "Orwellian" or not, but what's going on is
> > > really, really bad, unless you buy into the idea that having your
> > > private life spied on by the government and private contractors is
> > > worth it to stop a handful of terrorists, and even then the entire new
> > > security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
> > > kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
>

> > Obama has done what he can with a adversarial Congress.
>

> Like hell he has. His administration's own policies have doubled down on
> the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush started; this after he
> campaigned against it to get elected.
>

> And try not to let it slip your dull mind, clod, that for the first two
> years of his first term, Obama and his party controlled both houses of
> Congress. There was nothing adversarial about it.
>
> Congress has nothing to do with the breadth and the extent of the NSA's
> surveillance program. The NSA falls under the DOD, of which Obama is
> commander-in-chief. Obama could stop a significant amount of it with the
> stroke of his pen or a phone call. He doesn't need to talk to Congress
> about it at all.
>
> Stick with Canadidian government and politics, clod. You obviously have
> no clue how ours work.

She doesn't know how electricity or water works, either.

--
Dano's just a troll.

[Mason Barge]

Silly is too kind a word for what Bush did. And note, it's not like
Obama came riding in on a white horse and put an end to it.

[Mason Barge]

Sigh. You'd think something could actually be done about that, but I'm
really getting cynical.

[BTR1701]

In article <albfr8931ame1l809...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:30:21 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <kp7rks$f9u$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/11/2013 8:19 AM, thinbluemime wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:55:21 +0100, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> >> >> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> >> >> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> >> >> in the woodwork of these things, always.

> >> > Anti-American? We went to war in 1776 over less intrusive violations of
> >> > our liberty.
> >>
> >> You went to war over resentment that a government that you could not
> >> even theoretically influence with voting was making policy for you.
> >
> >Pretty much how it is now, too.
>
> Sigh. You'd think something could actually be done about that, but I'm
> really getting cynical.

I'm hearing a lot about oaths in the news today. Weird that some pundits
talk only about secrecy oaths, never about oaths to uphold Constitution.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-166D8...@news.easynews.com>,

Her mind is in a perpetual flat-spin.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 6/11/2013 12:17 PM:

If I didn't know better, I might think that CD didn't know what she was
talking about here.

> And try not to let it slip your dull mind, clod, that for the first two
> years of his first term, Obama and his party controlled both houses of
> Congress. There was nothing adversarial about it.

There you go letting facts get in the way of CD's baseless claims once
again. You're a heartless bastard.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[calvin]

No. Rather than repeat what I've said several times,
I'll leave it at that for those two guys. What about the
one with bloody hands and a meat cleaver who had
just beheaded an innocent young man on the street
in London? Was he a 'dumbass kid' too?

[BTR1701]

In article <kp8due$jcs$1...@dont-email.me>,

It's as anim8r says, lately she's been saying stuff that's too stupid
even for her. This has to be an act.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-9A6189...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

If only it would blow on impact.

[RichA]

On Jun 11, 8:06 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/13 4:25 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <5d4cae51-b657-48c3-a2d4-b43badcd3...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >   RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> >> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> >> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> >> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>
> > If the fact that there are now secret laws, interpreted by secret
> > courts, which issue secret rulings and secret warrants, doesn't clue you
> > in that we're well into Orwellian territory now, nothing will.
>

> Can you provide us with more detail on what "Orwellian territory" is?

>
> --
> Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
> reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

The American government did this because of America's reaction to
getting attacked. If Americans are willing to put up with a few
hundred dead each year or so from terrorist acts, then they can stop
evesdropping on the communication channels Americans use. Are the
dead, and people will die, worth it?

[RichA]

On Jun 11, 11:24 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "calvin"  wrote in message
>
> news:56e99cf3-00f4-482b...@k10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

>
> On Jun 11, 9:19 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 9:11 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 8:16 am, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > ... and even then the entire new

> > > > security sate nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
> > > > kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon.
>

> > > Only one was a 'college kid'.  The older brother, 26,
> > > had forfeited his 'dumbass kid' status, by age and
> > > activities, long before the bombing.
>
> > There's no age of majority on 'dumbass kids'.  Still, I'm pretty sure
> > neither of them were likely to get off with a reprimand...
>
> I said 'age and activities'.  If you are not aware of his
> activities, you should look them up.
>
> =======================================
>
> You have a point somewhere in the midst of all this?

They should close Guantanamo, and HANG every TERRORIST in it.

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fhbfr8tqoc3uh43g4...@4ax.com...

Which is exactly the point I made when I entered this thread.

[thinbluemime]

Most of the Gitmo prisoners aren't guilty of any act of terror.

But they HAVE been TERRORIZED for over 10 years. Many are on a hunger
strike right now because they would rather DIE than continue in
confinement.

Who was it that said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"?

[Scott]

On 10-Jun-13 23:55, RichA wrote:
> What a surprise, a film-maker opposed to the war on terror has a hand
> in this, what are the odds? No matter how liberals try to pretend
> it's some kind of blow for freedom, there is always some anti-American
> in the woodwork of these things, always.
>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/filmmaker-has-a-key-role-in-nsa-revelations/2013/06/10/b93f221a-d21e-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html
>

All the indignant posturing in this thread makes me laugh.
The American people get exactly what they deserve.
Especially the "I have nothing to hide" crowd. The program
is particularly geared for that collection of dimwits.

[thinbluemime]

Well surprise, surprise Goober, because not only is the NSA spying on us,
it is really fugging spying on you. Read todays headlines and see the out
rage of the European Union members.

And if you live in Canada, we can drone strike you in the afternoon and be
home in time for the evening news, which will naturally report about the
collateral damage and terrorist acts prevented by the air strike in
Vancouver.

Gawd-damn, I love the smell of maple syrup and napalm in the morning....

[thinbluemime]

It's difficult to know because the elder brother is dead and the younger
brother isn't talking because he was shot in the throat by the highly
trained cops who thought he had a gun that turned out to be a fountain pen.

And the one potential witness in Florida has also been rather quiet since
he was shot in the head 7 times because he attacked an FBI agent while
simultaneously writing a midnight confession and wielding some exotic
weapon combination of a pole-sword-knife-boomererang...



------------

Tags: Todashev, Dzhokhar, Tamerlan, Tsarnaev, Operation Urban Shield, bomb
dogs, roof sniper, Homeland Security, Keystone Cops

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/07/before-police-could-plan-for-terrorist-attack-real-thing-happened/ufxjb9O0RXyzVZNPFyGkiI/story.html

http://pastebin.com/xHUqCXNW

-------------------


So.......the security agencies are warned several times about Tsarnaev,
interviewed him, transposed one letter in his name so lost track of him,
had the ability to listen to his NSA recorded phone calls from years
before but failed to stop the actual bombing, that the security agencies
in Boston had been preparing for with a drill, because super sleuth
Tsarnaev was so brilliant he forgot to plan a get away.

Was I misinformed?

[trotsky]

Doesn't exactly sound like a criminal mastermind. But you really didn't
have a point, did you.

[trotsky]

Yeah! And they shouldn't allow anonyshits on the internet either!!

[calvin]

On Jun 12, 6:31 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/13 7:54 PM, calvin wrote:

> > ...  What about the

> > one with bloody hands and a meat cleaver who had
> > just beheaded an innocent young man on the street
> > in London?  Was he a 'dumbass kid' too?
>
> Doesn't exactly sound like a criminal mastermind.  But you
> really didn't have a point, did you.

My original post had a clear point that need not have been
challenged. The point was muddled by the challengers.

nick wrote:
" ... and even then the entire new security state

nation wasn't enough to stop a couple of dumbass college
kids from setting a bomb at the Boston Marathon."

[trotsky]

That doesn't make a point. The point is that their random act of terror
is very far removed from a terrorist plot, i.e. 9/11. Usually you're
not this obtuse, calvin.

[BTR1701]

In article <xpCdncfQ3uYa0yXM...@mchsi.com>,

So you're apparently not an "anonyshit" because you put one name and an
initials for the other in your email address, but Rich does the same
thing in his screen name and you claim he is one.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[BTR1701]

In article
<a0734514-91ae-418c...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

I don't believe that would actually happen without illegally spying on
everyone, but yep.

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:799ef957-641c-41d2...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

=========================================

One guy WAS a college kid. He was also supposedly the bright one...though
not the leader. He followed his older brother. Not all that unusual for
siblings to stick together. The older brother seemed like a pretty
disturbed individual...one with women issues. He had been charged with a
domestic assault of a previous girlfriend. Probably took the parts he
wanted from his Muslim religion in order to feed his justifications for his
problems with women. This is NOT something unique to Muslims if you
haven't noticed. Refer to domestic abuse and violence against women
statistics if you doubt that. He also was into boxing. Something good
Muslims shouldn't be involved in. He was a mess of contradictions.
Shouldn't surprise. Did you catch any of the crap coming out of his mom's
stupid mouth?

These two WERE inherently stupid. IQ's and education aside. Just follow
the path they took and the brainless "plan" they employed. Hell. These
morons didn't even have the gas money to get away...let alone an escape
route or vehicle. Yet they weren't "suicide" bombers either. You two can
continue to berate each other over irrelevant aspects...but this much is
indisputable...these two were no masterminds. This was not a well thought
out plan at all. But that's all it takes to cause mayhem. Our fates hang
by a most slender thread. Just about any random dope can do this type of
damage. That's hard to come to grips with for many.

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:fea19bd5-3bac-4d22...@b4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

======================================

Oh no...of course not...he was a freaking criminal genius!

How's he doing now?

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:020667f4-a171-4276...@5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

==========================================

Which is utterly inconsequential.

[NoOne]

All this partisan bickering going on. It looks like
the people of one party *need* the people of the
other party to blame for their own party's misdeeds.
Listening/reading to all these claims that the "other"
party is responsible for all the evil in the world,
makes it sound like we should divide the county into
the "PUSA" and the "CUSA" (Progressive USA and Con-
servative USA), so that each can create their own
utopias without the evil other party ruining everything.

I predict though, that with few exceptions, people
would be completely again such a move and will come
up with no end of lame excuses why it wouldn't work.
But the real reason it won't happen I suspect, is the
desire to control the others and the convenience of
being able to always blame the other party for all
their own failures.

Shesh.

NoOne

[Dano]

"NoOne" wrote in message news:bqGdndLlS68ILCXM...@swcp.com...

==========================================

Well you should be pleased today. Woke up to John Boehner in agreement with
the president and Ron Paul holding hands with Bernie Sanders. Why aren't
you happy?

[calvin]

On Jun 12, 12:12 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "calvin"  wrote:

My 'utterly inconsequential' point being that Islamic
terrorism is -here- and -now-. Someone is being radicalized
toward blowing off people's legs or cutting off their heads
in the name of Allah right now on your street, or on the street
of someone you know.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:36:21 -0500, NoOne <no...@nospam.com> wrote:

>All this partisan bickering going on. It looks like
>the people of one party *need* the people of the
>other party to blame for their own party's misdeeds.
>Listening/reading to all these claims that the "other"
>party is responsible for all the evil in the world,
>makes it sound like we should divide the county into
>the "PUSA" and the "CUSA" (Progressive USA and Con-
>servative USA),

I see that, for some unknown reason, you're avoiding "LUSA" (Liberal
USA). :)

[trotsky]

You comment on my appearance all the time you piece of dog shit. Try
again, you worthless fuck.

Shithead alert.

[trotsky]

You need a better definition of terrorism, or just admit that you have
no point.

[Dano]

"calvin" wrote in message
news:4bc3dd89-a29e-4451...@x4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

================================================

I'm from Boston. Let 'em fucking try. See how these two made out? WE
won't be living in fear over it like the sniveling cowards that would
willingly give up their freedom in a false quest for "security". The world
is a dangerous place. Doesn't matter WHY psychos do what they do.
Murderers and all brands of miscreants have always found SOME rationale for
their twisted behavior. Trust me when I say Muslims didn't invent this sort
of thing...and they sure aren't the only ones out there. You're pretty
thick and misguided if you actually believe that nonsense. But bigots have
ALWAYS been atop the charts of the twisted bastards who stir up this stuff.
Neither the Hatfields or McCoys...or the Confederate States of America (The
South) or the United States of America (The North) were Muslim. People
always find reasons to kill, slaughter and maim.

And with that...I consign you to my Bozo Bin. No point in discussing
anything with you at this point.

[BTR1701]

In article <DbKdneULLq-dXiXM...@mchsi.com>,

> You comment on my appearance all the time you piece of dog shit. Try
> again, you worthless fuck.

What does that have to do with you claiming Rich is an anonyshit for
doing the same thing you do, Hutt?

[BTR1701]

In article <kpa69g$nm1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> "calvin" wrote in message
> news:799ef957-641c-41d2...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 11, 1:42 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > ... And
> > any 'deflection' of your point, or 'protection' of Nick's, is an
> > invention you might try to patent... if you can find a use for it...
>
> You have a talent for grabbing some side aspect of a topic
> and magnifying it in order to defend a person or idea that
> you favor, and discredit a person or idea that you don't
> favor. In this case the side aspect was the word, 'dumbass'.
> The Boston bombing was not the work of 'dumbasses'.
> Their IQs likely were higher than those of the people with
> whom they associated. The probable leader, the 26 year
> old brother, had become radicalized with Islamic ideas,
> which is easily seen by his behavior in recent years. Look
> at the way he treated his wife, for example. The bombing
> was not the work of 'kids', plural, nor was it the work of
> 'dumbasses.' I used the word in order to deal with the way
> nick used it. You siezed on it to avoid dealing with the real
> issue.
>
> =========================================
>
> One guy WAS a college kid.

Neither one of them were kids. They were both grown adults. This
insistence on calling them 'kids' is some kind of attempt to minimize
them and what they did is bizarre.

[calvin]

On Jun 12, 7:47 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> Neither one of them were kids. They were both grown adults. This
> insistence on calling them 'kids' is some kind of attempt to minimize
> them and what they did is bizarre.

The left wants to go on pretending that Christian
fundamentalism is the great menace.

[BTR1701]

In article <kpavru$9h0$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

No, the whole city just hid in their houses for three days before they
were caught. Two criminals literally shut down the entire city.

Stand strong, Boston!

[William December Starr]

In article <kp7knj$44m$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> said:

> ...and again, watching the 4th episode of season #1 of BORGEN
> (http://www.linktv.org/borgen excellent Danish TV series)
> yesterday was a good reminder of the fact that the rest of the
> world doesn't see the US as great saviors for setting up Gitmo.

Is "Borgen" Danish for "broken"?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <atropos-C69297...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> And try not to let it slip your dull mind, clod, that for the
> first two years of his first term, Obama and his party controlled
> both houses of Congress. There was nothing adversarial about it.

Even then the Democrats didn't have enough Senate votes to shut down
filibusters,did they?

-- wds

[trotsky]

Tell me what "Rich" looks like then, asshole. Are you just stupid, or what?

[trotsky]

What's good about it? Did it help you pray the gay away?

[trotsky]

And you've been hiding your identity on Usenet for years. Stand strong,
anonyshit!

[calvin]

On Jun 13, 7:46 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/13 7:41 PM, calvin wrote:
>
> > On Jun 12, 7:47 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> Neither one of them were kids. They were both grown adults. This
> >> insistence on calling them 'kids' is some kind of attempt to minimize
> >> them and what they did is bizarre.
>
> > The left wants to go on pretending that Christian
> > fundamentalism is the great menace.
>
> What's good about it?  Did it help you pray the gay away?

After you stop beating your wife, try praying the
homophobia away.

[moviePig]

Don't know about 'great'. But 'disproportionate', surer'n Southern
Baptist hell...

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[calvin]

On Jun 13, 11:15 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:41 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 7:47 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Neither one of them were kids. They were both grown adults. This
> > > insistence on calling them 'kids' is some kind of attempt to minimize
> > > them and what they did is bizarre.
>
> > The left wants to go on pretending that Christian
> > fundamentalism is the great menace.
>
> Don't know about 'great'.  But 'disproportionate', surer'n Southern
> Baptist hell...

Disproportionate to what? The Islamic fundamentalism
menace? That is the implied comparison of the subtopic,
though the comparison you're making might be anything.
Before you allude to the Middle Ages or the Salem witch
burnings, we're talking about -today's- threats from the
Islamic fundamentalists vs. the Christian fundamentalists,
and I don't think the Southern Baptists are barbecuing
humans at their church functions.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 6/12/2013 1:04 PM:

Isn't it interesting how conservatives have no fear of the "C" label
while liberals continue to trample over one another in their rush to
relabel themselves as progressives? Too funny. And it speaks volumes. Of
course, they'll eventually make a mockery of the "P" word and have to
come up with yet another label, but there's no shortage of words in the
dictionary.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[Mason Barge]

On 12 Jun 2013 23:36:19 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

Not even close. But whether 40 Republicans would have filibustered a
bill to shut down Gitmo is really a shaky assumption. I doubt it.

[trotsky]

I'm not homophobic--I just hate the hypocrisy of your not admitting
you're in the closet. That's pretty obvious--if you're not a simpleton,
I mean.