Re: Impeach...
Ken Fortenberry
> Enter Chinese airspace with spyplanes...
>
> Out a CIA agent during wartime...
>
> Take us into a war under false pretenses...
>
> Deny ever knowing Ken Lay... Please forget about those notes with the
> salutation "Kenny Boy"...
>
> Multiple photos with Abramoff don't matter...
>
> Spy on Americans...
>
> What does it take to impeach?
A Democratic majority in the House. Duh.
--
Ken Fortenberry
bradish
"DG" <xf...@xxxxxxa.nsfd> wrote in message
news:eerht1peeejnpmj25...@4ax.com...
>
> Enter Chinese airspace with spyplanes...
>
> Out a CIA agent during wartime...
>
> Take us into a war under false pretenses...
>
> Deny ever knowing Ken Lay... Please forget about those notes with the
> salutation "Kenny Boy"...
>
> Multiple photos with Abramoff don't matter...
>
> Spy on Americans...
>
> What does it take to impeach?
An act of Congress.....
Joe
I don't have the exact quote handy, but I was quite pleased to see a
Democrat remind Bush the other day that the statute of limitations on war
crimes will not expire by 1/20/2009.
All those fuckers who have dismantled our democracy need to be held
accountable.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let the torture
of republicans begin!
Impeachment for those fuckers is way too kind.
Joe
dl5192
Ahhhh...the voice of reason, peace, and tolerance is raised again.
Careful who you pick a fight with, Joe. Remember, we own all the
guns...and we know how to use them.
Peter_Wimsey
>
> Ahhhh...the voice of reason, peace, and tolerance is raised again.
> Careful who you pick a fight with, Joe. Remember, we own all the
> guns...and we know how to use them.
>
Who says only republicans own guns? Down here everybody (except me) owns
guns, and most of them are libertarians!
And while Joe does seem to need to find some inner peace, he is in good
company in terms of ranting!:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/opinion/26thur1.html?hp
N
scarlet...@hotmail.com
King George are voted out and replaced with people who really care
about what's happening regarding the people's loss of liberties, the
white collar crime and the war crimes committed by this administration.
People who care can be Dems, Repubs or Indies, as long as they stand
for removing the parasites eating away at this country.
Theresa
kpn...@yahoo.com
DG wrote:
> Enter Chinese airspace with spyplanes...
>
> Out a CIA agent during wartime...
>
> Take us into a war under false pretenses...
>
> Deny ever knowing Ken Lay... Please forget about those notes with the
> salutation "Kenny Boy"...
>
> Multiple photos with Abramoff don't matter...
>
> Spy on Americans...
>
Interesting. I was going to post something similar. As a
registered RWNWDH, I do approve a lot of what GWB has done.
I do agree with Iraq; I don't want to go into details why.
However, the domestic spying fiasco doesn't sit well with
me. I think this needs to be investigated. I cannot approve
an end run around the checks and balances. I see the
domestic spying analogous to Iran-Contra. Didn't Congress
explicitly decree that Reagan could not do what he and Ollie
North did? Some view the ends as justifying the means.
I don't. If GWB was explicitly denied doing what he did,
I see that as an abuse of power. If another terror attack
occurred (unfortunately), then the policy would need to be
revisited and possibly reevaluated.
I know a lot of folks here have their own reasons for viewing
GWB as treasonous. This would be mine.
Kurt
Joe
> Ahhhh...the voice of reason, peace, and tolerance is raised again.
> Careful who you pick a fight with, Joe. Remember, we own all the
> guns...and we know how to use them.
Ahhh. The Return of A RWNDH Troll!
See big bad-ass anonymous troll issuing threats over Usenet.
Ohhhh. I'm scared.
Joe
Peter_Wimsey
> an end run around the checks and balances. I see the
> domestic spying analogous to Iran-Contra. Didn't Congress
> Kurt
>
Interesting. I have been a bit baffled why domestic spying and the
K-street scandal seem to be getting so much traction, but the
international things like torture, or the basic fact that Al Quaeda
appears unaffected by Iraq, aren't more important to the media.
Part of it is simplicity of the problem, but I think Iran-Contra is a
big part as well. Nobody really went down too hard over Iran-Contra, but
everybody agreed it was illegal and needed prosecution. During the
Robert's hearings, Iran-Contra was brought up several times as a case
where the president made an end-run around Congress, and pissed Congress
off in doing so.
I think that when voters feel that their Congressperson isn't somehow
empowered to represent them, they start to get really nervous. Maybe
this is a sub-text as to why the survellance thing is such big news.
After all, don't we sort of assume we are all spied on all the time - at
least by the DEA heat-sensing helicopter fly-overs?
N
JonP
>> Impeachment for those fuckers is way too kind.
>>
>> Joe
>
>Ahhhh...the voice of reason, peace, and tolerance is raised again.
>Careful who you pick a fight with, Joe. Remember, we own all the
>guns...and we know how to use them.
lol...
JonP
Carlisle
>
> Interesting. I was going to post something similar. As a
> registered RWNWDH, I do approve a lot of what GWB has done.
> I do agree with Iraq; I don't want to go into details why.
> However, the domestic spying fiasco doesn't sit well with
> me. I think this needs to be investigated. I cannot approve
> an end run around the checks and balances. I see the
> domestic spying analogous to Iran-Contra. Didn't Congress
> explicitly decree that Reagan could not do what he and Ollie
> North did? Some view the ends as justifying the means.
> I don't. If GWB was explicitly denied doing what he did,
> I see that as an abuse of power. If another terror attack
> occurred (unfortunately), then the policy would need to be
> revisited and possibly reevaluated.
>
> I know a lot of folks here have their own reasons for viewing
> GWB as treasonous. This would be mine.
>
> Kurt
I'm the opposite. The Iraq occupation makes me cringe because it was
not absolutley necessary. The US did not have UN backing like in '91,
the Congress and public opinion was even split. This "eavesdropping"
thing has not really upset me yet. Should it be scrutinized?
Definitely. But if all the Administration is doing is tapping the lines
of suspected terrorists calling a contact in the US or vice versa, I
don't see that as a treasonous thing. Perhaps this is the kind of
hardball that has to be played to prevent another attack on innocents.
Given what I've read (outside of the WSJ editorial pages) FISA needs to
be amended to stay current with the changes in technology that has
occured since 1978. So, I'm more upset with how the US military and
treasure is spread so thin throughout the world rather than being used
on the homefront than the FBI/NSA spying on Islamic fascists.
-Carrie
stinkbud
> What does it take to impeach?
1) A disgruntled former staffer
2) Independant council with a bug up his ass
3) A garment soiled with presidential splooge
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
<kpn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138294410....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. I was going to post something similar. As a
> registered RWNWDH, I do approve a lot of what GWB has done.
> I do agree with Iraq; I don't want to go into details why.
That's certainly understandable.
Who in America doesn't want to see a bunch of fanatical Shiite
fundamentalists terrorizing a third of the country with their militias? Who
in America doesn't want to see a bunch of former Baathists and Sunni clans
terrorizing the entire country with their militias? Who in America doesn't
want to see the Kurds forming their own independent country, thereby
destabilizing Turkey? Who in America isn't thrilled with the destruction of
the Iraqi oil infrastructure, as well as the water, electric grid, sewer,
and transportation infrastructure? Who in America doesn't absolutely love
the results of bringing democracy to Iraq?
Why on earth do these idiots think that democracy is somehow a stabilizing
influence in Arab countries? Palestine has democracy; and they just elected
a terrorist group to run their little piece of the world.
DUH!!!!!!
> However, the domestic spying fiasco doesn't sit well with
> me. I think this needs to be investigated. I cannot approve
> an end run around the checks and balances. I see the
> domestic spying analogous to Iran-Contra. Didn't Congress
> explicitly decree that Reagan could not do what he and Ollie
> North did? Some view the ends as justifying the means.
> I don't. If GWB was explicitly denied doing what he did,
> I see that as an abuse of power. If another terror attack
> occurred (unfortunately), then the policy would need to be
> revisited and possibly reevaluated.
>
> I know a lot of folks here have their own reasons for viewing
> GWB as treasonous. This would be mine.
Its not treason.
Its astounding levels of stupidity. This administration believes in its own
propaganda so much that they have totally lost sight of reality. Iraq will
not be a stable democracy and ally of the US. It will either be three
separate countries constantly at each others throats, or it will be three
regions of one country constantly at each others throats. Either way, they
will all hate the US for wrecking their country. They hated us before we
invaded becuase we're infidels, now they have this new added bonus reason.
Woo hoo!
EGBH
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> Why on earth do these idiots think that democracy is somehow a stabilizing
> influence in Arab countries? Palestine has democracy; and they just elected
> a terrorist group to run their little piece of the world.
If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
and the US Senate for that matter. Hamas was duly elected
so it's time to quit being so loose with "terrorist".
> <snip>
> Its astounding levels of stupidity. This administration believes in its own
> propaganda so much that they have totally lost sight of reality. Iraq will
> not be a stable democracy and ally of the US. It will either be three
> separate countries constantly at each others throats, or it will be three
> regions of one country constantly at each others throats. Either way, they
> will all hate the US for wrecking their country. They hated us before we
> invaded becuase we're infidels, now they have this new added bonus reason.
I haven't taken a poll but I'd bet the Kurds and Shiites hated
us less before the invasion than they do today. A monumental
and totally avoidable fuck-up par excellence no doubt about it.
--
Ken Fortenberry
JimK
You missed one other possiblity for Iraq. It could end up "united" by
another dictator and once again become a threat to other countries in
the region. Admittedly, this one could probably happen only if there's
a near total withdrawal of US troops.
JimK
dl5192
See you at the revolution, Joe. Hopefully you'll grow a sack by then.
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
"Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:_C8Cf.38113$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
>> ...
>> Why on earth do these idiots think that democracy is somehow a
>> stabilizing influence in Arab countries? Palestine has democracy; and
>> they just elected a terrorist group to run their little piece of the
>> world.
> If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
That is such idiotic bullshit. The Knesset has been *withdrawing* from Arab
territory. They will continue to do so, despite having a terrorist regime
for a neighbor. The Knesset has never expressed a desire to exterminate an
entire people because of a religious belief. Hamas sends kids out as
suicide bombers. They have parades in which 5 year olds beat themselves
into bloody unconsciousness, all for Allah.
> and the US Senate for that matter.
Even more idiotic bullshit.
> Hamas was duly elected
> so it's time to quit being so loose with "terrorist".
Yes, the terrorists were elected. This is inevitable when elections are
held in areas in which a fanatical belief in a medieval religious
fundamentalist Islam is prevalent.
Duh!
That's why they should be ruled by evil secular dictators. Much less
trouble for the normal world.
Fanatical Muslim fuckwads aren't ready for normal adult responsibilities
like democracy. They're still way too primitive.
EGBH
Ken Fortenberry
>> If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
>
> That is such idiotic bullshit. The Knesset has been *withdrawing* from Arab
> territory.
You want to give the zionists brownie points for giving
back only the shitty parts of what they stole in the
first place ? Talk about idiotic bullshit.
>> Hamas was duly elected
>> so it's time to quit being so loose with "terrorist".
>
> Yes, the terrorists were elected. This is inevitable when elections are
> held in areas in which a fanatical belief in a medieval religious
> fundamentalist Islam is prevalent.
Hamas was elected in large part because Fatah was corrupt.
It was more a "throw the crooked bums out" victory than a
fundamentalist Islam victory.
> That's why they should be ruled by evil secular dictators. Much less
> trouble for the normal world.
>
> Fanatical Muslim fuckwads aren't ready for normal adult responsibilities
> like democracy. They're still way too primitive.
And people wonder why they hate us so.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Carlisle
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >> If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
> >
> > That is such idiotic bullshit. The Knesset has been *withdrawing* from Arab
> > territory.
>
> You want to give the zionists brownie points for giving
> back only the shitty parts of what they stole in the
> first place ? Talk about idiotic bullshit.
No, EGBH is right on. The Israelis made an oasis out of the desert land
they were rightfully bestowed by the winners of WWII in light of the
Holocaust and historical precedent.
>
>
> >> Hamas was duly elected
> >> so it's time to quit being so loose with "terrorist".
> >
> > Yes, the terrorists were elected. This is inevitable when elections are
> > held in areas in which a fanatical belief in a medieval religious
> > fundamentalist Islam is prevalent.
I fear this too is correct.
>
> Hamas was elected in large part because Fatah was corrupt.
> It was more a "throw the crooked bums out" victory than a
> fundamentalist Islam victory.
What difference does it make? Hamas is still a terrorist organization
that uses Islam to further its authoritarian and murderous agenda.
>
> > That's why they should be ruled by evil secular dictators. Much less
> > trouble for the normal world.
> >
> > Fanatical Muslim fuckwads aren't ready for normal adult responsibilities
> > like democracy. They're still way too primitive.
I'm not as pessimistic as "Toad" but I realize that it's unrealistic to
believe the Middle East can be remade any time soon. Again, since we
are already there and many have spilled blood, I hope the Iraqis prove
us wrong and create a decent government that does not tolerate
terrorist organizations and methods.
>
> And people wonder why they hate us so.
Well for one Ken, many are ignoramouses and are indoctrinated to hate
the West from birth. It's the sad truth. If young Arabs see America,
Israel and Britain as the enemy, they won't look at their own corrupt
failing leadership.
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
Keep it real.
Carrie
mjd
you misspelled 'won after fighting back when invaded by Arabs who
refused to accept a UN resolution, sorely underestimated their enemy's
strength and sorely overestimated their own pathetic military,
political, and social skills'
Ken Fortenberry
>> they stole
>
> you misspelled 'won after fighting back when invaded by Arabs who
You have identified yourself as an inexperienced zionist
apologist. Here's a couple of clues for zionist apologist
wannabes, never mention UN resolutions and never mention
international law as it applies to occupied territories.
Hope this helps.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ray
> DG wrote:
> > What does it take to impeach?
>
> Interesting. I was going to post something similar. As a
> registered RWNWDH, I do approve a lot of what GWB has done.
> I do agree with Iraq; I don't want to go into details why.
Why you agree with what is arguably the worst foreign policy disaster
the US has ever made is a mystery to me. But hey, to each their own.
> However, the domestic spying fiasco doesn't sit well with
> me. I think this needs to be investigated. I cannot approve
> an end run around the checks and balances.
Here we're on the same page. A campaign of gross deception to take us
to war the way the Bush Admuinstration did is IMO an impeachable
offense, but their end run around our Constitution and checks and
balances is IMO an even worse offense - this is a direct threat to our
viability as a free nation.
Ray
Ray
> "Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:_C8Cf.38113$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Why on earth do these idiots think that democracy is somehow a
> >> stabilizing influence in Arab countries? Palestine has democracy; and
> >> they just elected a terrorist group to run their little piece of the
> >> world.
>
> > If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
>
> That is such idiotic bullshit. The Knesset has been *withdrawing* from Arab
> territory.
Israel withdrew from Gaza, yes. However at the same time they
strengthened their control over an even larger portion of the West
Bank.
> They will continue to do so, despite having a terrorist regime
> for a neighbor.
As Sharon ultimately (and to his credit) realized, they had no choice -
indefinite occupation is not sustainable.
> The Knesset has never expressed a desire to exterminate an
> entire people because of a religious belief.
AFAIK neither has Hamas. Hamas does however repeatedly express the
desire to destroy Israel.
> Hamas sends kids out as
> suicide bombers. They have parades in which 5 year olds beat themselves
> into bloody unconsciousness, all for Allah.
Hamas is a relgious fundamenalist terrorist organization, no doubt
about it. At this point one of the two potential silver linings to
that election that I can see is that hopefully since Hamas are now in
charge they'll understand the reality of the situation and moderate
their positions, as Sharon did. That said I find that unlikely -
Hamas, unlike Fatah, is controlled by religious fundamentalists who
believe that it is God's will that all of the Middle East be under
control of an Islamic fundamentalist state. This is why Fatah won't
(at least not yet) form a unified government with them - Fatah is
secular, and has no such religious imperarative.
More likely IMO is another potenital silver lining is that Fatah - or
perhaps a viable offshoot from it - will finally understand that they
need to be more responsive to the immediatee needs of their people
(hospitals, schools, etc), so that in the next election they can regain
control of the PA. Still a longshot however.
Ray
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> Hamas is a relgious fundamenalist terrorist organization, no doubt
> about it.
And so is the Knesset, no doubt about it. It will be
interesting to see how Hamas handles political power.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > ...
> > Hamas is a relgious fundamenalist terrorist organization, no doubt
> > about it.
>
> And so is the Knesset, no doubt about it.
The current-day Knesset has religious fundamentalists as well, some of
whom advocate for 'ethnic cleansing' of Palestinians. However the
current-day Knesset as a whole is not driven by violent religious
fundamentalism, and they at least have enough sense to not send suicide
bombers with the express primary objective of killing innocent
civilians.
> It will be
> interesting to see how Hamas handles political power.
Agreed, but at this point I'm not optimistic.
Ray
Ray
> >they stole
It was a conquest.
> you misspelled 'won after fighting back when invaded by Arabs who
> refused to accept a UN resolution
Per Israeli historian/journalist Tom Segev, from his excellent book
"One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate":
"The Zionist movement accepted the [1947 U.N.] partition plan, in a
wise tactical step. Even then all the players understood that
geographically and demographically the U.N.'s partition plan could not
be implemented. The border between the two states was long and
contorted, impossible to defend; the Jewish state would include more
than half a million Arabs, slightly more than the number of Jews then
living within the proposed boundaries. Some ten thousand Jews,
including the inhabitants of the city of Nahariya, would find
themselves within Arab boundaries... No one believed in the U.N.'s
map; everyone knew there would be war."
Ray
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>> If Hamas is a terrorist organization so is the Knesset,
>> That is such idiotic bullshit. The Knesset has been *withdrawing* from
>> Arab territory.
> You want to give the zionists brownie points for giving
> back only the shitty parts of what they stole in the
> first place ? Talk about idiotic bullshit.
That's certainly your forte.
And yes, of course, any sentient being would be glad to see the Jews give
back territory they won fair and square after their country was invaded by a
bunch of Arabs. Its pretty rare when the victor over aggression hands back
territory; especially to a bunch of suicidal religious kamikazes.
>>> Hamas was duly elected
>>> so it's time to quit being so loose with "terrorist".
>> Yes, the terrorists were elected. This is inevitable when elections are
>> held in areas in which a fanatical belief in a medieval religious
>> fundamentalist Islam is prevalent.
> Hamas was elected in large part because Fatah was corrupt.
> It was more a "throw the crooked bums out" victory than a
> fundamentalist Islam victory.
Yes, you are correct. The original terrorists were corrupt, so the new
religious terrorists won.
Is there anybody over in Palestine that isn't a terrorist?
>> That's why they should be ruled by evil secular dictators. Much less
>> trouble for the normal world.
>> Fanatical Muslim fuckwads aren't ready for normal adult responsibilities
>> like democracy. They're still way too primitive.
> And people wonder why they hate us so.
I don't wonder. They hate us because we're rich and powerful and because we
don't believe in some silly old book that says the Muslims will rule the
world. They also hate us because their Arab brothers refused to give the
Palestinians a country when they ran Gaza and the West Bank (that makes no
sense of course, but there ya go). They also hate us because the Jews,
after experiencing the worst mass murder in the history of the world, were
told to go to Palestine and start their own country. That may not have been
the best move for the world, but its a done deal and to pretend that the
Jews will all somehow leave and give back Isreal to a people that never had
a country in the first place is of course lunacy and stupidity to the 100th
power. The only possible solution is for Isreal to continue what its been
doing, give back the parts the world never gave them, and to try to live in
peace with their neighbors. But Palestine just elected a bunch of suicidal,
baby killing, fundamentalist religious terrorists, so apparently they have
chosen that "lifestyle" over peace. Hope they enjoy their continued
poverty, misery, and occasional air to ground missile attacks..........
They can't even rule 12 acres of dirt and huts, despite receiving billions
in international aid.
Instead of acting like normal people, they send their adolescents to blow
themselves up in pizza parlors.
Hello! Pizza parlors are for eating, playing video games, and socializing
with members of the opposite sex. Kid suicide attacks are for religious
freak idiots.
EGBH
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
> mjd wrote:
>>> they stole
>>
>> you misspelled 'won after fighting back when invaded by Arabs who
>> refused to accept a UN resolution, ...
>
> You have identified yourself as an inexperienced zionist
> apologist.
Now you sound like David Duke.
ZOG is the enemy!
Heil Hitler!
EGBH
Carlisle
You have identified yourself as anti-Zionist radical.
Here's a couple of clues for anti-Zionist radical chic wannabes, never
mention the Holocaust, never mention Arab aggression, never mention
suicide bombers. And never give an accurate picture of the birth of the
tiny (comparatively speaking) state of Israel. You got a problem with
Israel's right to exist? Take it up with President Truman, PM Winston
Churchill and the other victors of WWII who gave their support..I guess
it's too late for that. Being an apologist for groups like
Hamas/Hezbollah/al Qaeda is not a position I would would to sign up
for!
HTH.
Carrie
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
"Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138312123.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> More likely IMO is another potenital silver lining is that Fatah - or
> perhaps a viable offshoot from it - will finally understand that they
> need to be more responsive to the immediatee needs of their people
> (hospitals, schools, etc), so that in the next election they can regain
> control of the PA. Still a longshot however.
The problem with almost all Arab countries is that none of their governments
seem to care about their people at all.
The dominant viewpoint is that life is cheap; as demonstrated by sending
children to blow themselves to bits over a religious deslusion.
EGBH
Effty
The first two would certainly be handy. Where's Ken Starr when you
really need him??? The third one is kinda creepy to think about. Bill
Lumbergh, that's what come to mind when I think of the third one.
~e.
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
LOL.
The Knesset has Arab muslims as elected members, as Isreal is chock full of
Arab citizens. Not there's any Jews in the areas run by the freaked out
religious terrorists, but if there were, I'm sure the Hamas choice would be
to send some schoolkids to blow them up instead of allowing them to serve in
an elected legislature.
Before Isreal became a nation, back when there was just a small minority of
Jews living in the area, the desire of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was to
ask Hitler when Rommel was going to finally get across the Suez Canal and
start exterminating all of them.
There's your answers.
EGBH
Ken Fortenberry
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>> apologist.
>
> Now you sound like David Duke.
>
> ZOG is the enemy!
>
> Heil Hitler!
Godwin's Law. I win.
Israel has no right to exist, never has, never will. The
zionist state was created by terrorists and will never be
legitimate. German atrocities, European guilt, Palestinian
weakness and American indifference are not moral or valid
reasons to establish a fundamentalist zionist state and
steal Palestine from Palestinians.
The only solution to the Palestine problem is a secular,
democratic Palestine with a constitution that forbids
religious intolerance of any stripe. Palestine must be one
state where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Russian
Orthodox and the followers of his Noodly Appendage can all
live in peace or it will forever be a cauldron of religious
ferment.
I think the election of Hamas is a positive step in this
direction. Time will tell.
EOT for me.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Joe
>Being an apologist for groups like Hamas/Hezbollah/al Qaeda is
>not a position I would would to sign up for!
republican.
Republicans = mass murderers, liars, corrupt thieves, and terrorists.
IMPRISON ALL REPUBLICANS
IMPEACH BUSH
Ray
> news:%xbCf.38164$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > Ray wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Hamas is a relgious fundamenalist terrorist organization, no doubt
> >> about it.
>
> > And so is the Knesset, no doubt about it. It will be
> > interesting to see how Hamas handles political power.
>
> LOL.
>
> The Knesset has Arab muslims as elected members, as Isreal is chock full of
> Arab citizens. Not there's any Jews in the areas run by the freaked out
> religious terrorists,
There are hundreds of thousands of Jews in the West Bank and Golan.
They are known as 'settlers'.
> but if there were, I'm sure the Hamas choice would be
> to send some schoolkids to blow them up instead of allowing them to serve in
> an elected legislature.
True. However the religious and nationalist settlers don't want to be
a part of an arab-majority democracy in any event - they want to
permanently take over the West Bank and Golan, via gradual
'settlement'.
> Before Isreal became a nation, back when there was just a small minority of
> Jews living in the area, the desire of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was to
> ask Hitler when Rommel was going to finally get across the Suez Canal and
> start exterminating all of them.
Before Isreal became a nation the Jews were not a small but instead a
very significant minority, and everyone knew that their goal was to
take over the region. To this end, during much if this period they had
the muddled support of the British. Not that that excuses the Grand
Mufti's involvement with the Nazis, but on a purely strategic/defensive
level it made sense as an attempt to stop the Zionist influx into and
takeover of his homeland.
Ray
Ray
> seem to care about their people at all.
>
> The dominant viewpoint is that life is cheap; as demonstrated by sending
> children to blow themselves to bits over a religious deslusion.
There are a lot of problems with almost all Arab countries, not the
least of which is that most of them aren't organic countries that were
established of their own accord, but instead were created by the allied
powers (Britain and France) after WWI, who carved up the region and
appointed dictators that would serve their imperialist interests and
not those of the people living in these new 'nations'.
Then there's Middle East oil - which to obtain the West gladly props up
and supports dictators and regimes that it would otherwise ignore, and
would then literally be history.
That doesn't explain all of the Middle East's problems - from from it.
Many of which the arabs are considerably more responsible for than many
of them will care to admit, and much to their own detriment.
Ray
Ray
> Israel has no right to exist, never has, never will. The
> zionist state was created by terrorists and will never be
> legitimate.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..."
Israel took its land by military conquest. Just as everyone else has.
> I think the election of Hamas is a positive step in this
> direction. Time will tell.
If a state 'created by terrorists' has no right to exist then how does
a Hamas-led (or Fatah-led, FTM) government have a right to exist?
Ray
Roger
Effty wrote:
> stinkbud wrote:
> > > What does it take to impeach?
> >
> > 1) A disgruntled former staffer
> > 2) Independant council with a bug up his ass
> > 3) A garment soiled with presidential splooge
> Lumbergh, that's what come to mind when I think of the third one.
Or Jeff Gannon.
Roger
scarlet...@hotmail.com
....3) A garment soiled with presidential splooge
You mean Presidue...
Theresa
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>> Israel has no right to exist, never has, never will. The
>> zionist state was created by terrorists and will never be
>> legitimate.
>
> "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..."
>
> Israel took its land by military conquest. Just as everyone else has.
I posted "EOT for me" and when I do that I rarely post
in that thread again, but I like discussing things with
an honest and intelligent correspondent and you fit the
bill in both categories. But our conversation cannot be
private and so will quickly degenerate into speculation
about how often I give my dog a blow job. That's rmgd.
But I will take exception to your last sentence. Israel
is unique in that it is a 20th century religious conquest
perpetrated by non-neighbors on a population with virtually
nothing to conquer and therefore with virtually no one to
defend it.
Turning Palestine into a zionist religious state is the
mother of all injustices in the Middle East and if you
want peace you must seek justice.
OK, so really this time, EOT for me. But I'd enjoy a
discussion at a pub sometime if we're ever in the same
place at the same time.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Carlisle
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
> > "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >> You have identified yourself as an inexperienced zionist
> >> apologist.
> >
> > Now you sound like David Duke.
> >
> > ZOG is the enemy!
> >
> > Heil Hitler!
>
> Godwin's Law. I win.
>
> Israel has no right to exist, never has, never will. The
> zionist state was created by terrorists and will never be
> legitimate. German atrocities, European guilt, Palestinian
> weakness and American indifference are not moral or valid
> reasons to establish a fundamentalist zionist state and
> steal Palestine from Palestinians.
Palestine was not a nation. Jews were already there!
Good try.
> The only solution to the Palestine problem is a secular,
> democratic Palestine with a constitution that forbids
> religious intolerance of any stripe. Palestine must be one
> state where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Russian
> Orthodox and the followers of his Noodly Appendage can all
> live in peace or it will forever be a cauldron of religious
> ferment.
Good luck with that dream. You have Jordan which is a majority
Palestinian. So if all of the West Bank and Jerusalem is given to "the
Palestinians" will this stop the animosity of those who feel "Israel
has not right to exist"? In fact compared to the birth of most nations,
Israel had a civilized and peaceful beginning. It is unfortunate that
some Arabs had to make way for more Jews. Get over it! The alternative
is a constant state of warfare.
>
> I think the election of Hamas is a positive step in this
> direction. Time will tell.
Unreal.
>
> EOT for me.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
Oy Vey!
Carrie
Effty
LOL! So many things have gone wrong in this administration the press
doesn't have time to latch onto them all... A creepy kiss ass fake
reporter / "male prostitute" spending the night in the white house
would have crushed the Clinton white house, but nothing seems to have
come of it for the Bushes. Pun intended. *shivers*
~e.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >> Israel has no right to exist, never has, never will. The
> >> zionist state was created by terrorists and will never be
> >> legitimate.
> >
> > "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..."
> >
> > Israel took its land by military conquest. Just as everyone else has.
>
> I posted "EOT for me" and when I do that I rarely post
> in that thread again
I'm a little slow sometimes - I didn't know what 'EOT' meant. Now I
assume it means 'End Of Thread'.
>, but I like discussing things with
> an honest and intelligent correspondent and you fit the
> bill in both categories.
Thanks ; FWIW I hold that opinion of you as well.
> But I will take exception to your last sentence. Israel
> is unique in that it is a 20th century religious conquest
> perpetrated by non-neighbors on a population with virtually
> nothing to conquer and therefore with virtually no one to
> defend it.
It's a military conquest. As such I don't see it as any more or less
"legitimate" than, say, the United States' conquest of what is now the
United States. And if there was virtually no one to defend it then
that's unfortunate (to put it mildy) for the 'no ones' who were there
first, but again that's not much different than what we did to the
Indians.
With regards to the religious aspect of the Israeli conquest, most of
Israel's founders were not particularly religious and they did not see
themselves as establishing a religious state. They instead saw
themselves as establishing a homeland for the Jewish people - IMO an
understandable objective given the history of Jewish persecution.
Setting that aside however, if one were to accept that religious
conquests are intrinsically illegitimate then the Muslim conquest of
the Holy Land was also illegitimate, and therefore Muslims have no
rights to said land either.
> Turning Palestine into a zionist religious state is the
> mother of all injustices in the Middle East
In my view the mother of all (modern) injustices in the Middle East was
how after WWI the English and the French carved up the region and
installed dictators who served their interests in order to further
their own imperialist objectives. This was "A Peace to End All Peace",
as an excellent book by the same title explains, and what happened in
Palestine was only one small consquence of this much larger action.
> and if you want peace you must seek justice.
Here we agree, though it seems that we probably disagree on what
'justice' means in this context.
> OK, so really this time, EOT for me. But I'd enjoy a
> discussion at a pub sometime if we're ever in the same
> place at the same time.
My preference would be to continue this discussion and to ignore
offensive comments from others, but I understand your reticence - this
topic even more than most is all too often characterized by more heat
than light. That said I too would enjoy a pub discussion with you
someday if the opportunity arises.
Ray
mjd
>apologist. Here's a couple of clues for zionist apologist
>wannabes, never mention UN resolutions and never mention
>international law as it applies to occupied territories.
>Hope this helps.
--
>Ken Fortenberry
just stating historical fact, that's all. I apologize for no one.
hope that helps.
Carlisle
*Democrat does NOT mean liberal here in Kentucky.
Trust me on this, my man!
Represent.
Carrie
mjd
>democratic Palestine with a constitution that forbids
>religious intolerance of any stripe. Palestine must be one
>state where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Russian
>Orthodox and the followers of his Noodly Appendage can all
>live in peace or it will forever be a cauldron of religious
>ferment.
right - sort of how the Israelis have tried to run things. We're all
still waiting for any evidence that shows the Palestinian muslims, on
the other hand, are proponents of religious tolerance or a peaceful
state of living in any way shape or form. ... crickets.....
>I think the election of Hamas is a positive step in this
>direction. Time will tell.
You've identified yourself as someone with a difficult time grasping
reality. No need for any time in order to tell.
Hope that helps.
mjd
>private and so will quickly degenerate into speculation
>about how often I give my dog a blow job. That's rmgd
Ken, don't go all victimish on us now. how unseemly. poor mistreated
Ken - let me go get my violin.
Richard Morris
"Carlisle" <carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1138297443.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> kpn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. I was going to post something similar. As a
>> registered RWNWDH, I do approve a lot of what GWB has done.
>> I do agree with Iraq; I don't want to go into details why.
>> However, the domestic spying fiasco doesn't sit well with
>> me. I think this needs to be investigated. I cannot approve
>> an end run around the checks and balances. I see the
>> domestic spying analogous to Iran-Contra. Didn't Congress
>> explicitly decree that Reagan could not do what he and Ollie
>> North did? Some view the ends as justifying the means.
>> I don't. If GWB was explicitly denied doing what he did,
>> I see that as an abuse of power. If another terror attack
>> occurred (unfortunately), then the policy would need to be
>> revisited and possibly reevaluated.
>>
>> I know a lot of folks here have their own reasons for viewing
>> GWB as treasonous. This would be mine.
>>
>> Kurt
>
> I'm the opposite. The Iraq occupation makes me cringe because it was
> not absolutley necessary. The US did not have UN backing like in '91,
> the Congress and public opinion was even split. This "eavesdropping"
> thing has not really upset me yet. Should it be scrutinized?
What part of "against the law" is confusing to you, Carrie?
> Definitely. But if all the Administration is doing is tapping the lines
> of suspected terrorists calling a contact in the US or vice versa, I
Which means tapping the lines of US citizens, possibly. Which, our
constitution and the law of the land has determined requires a warrant.
> don't see that as a treasonous thing. Perhaps this is the kind of
Treasonous is a straw man. No one has said it is treasonous. It is against
the law. What part of that do you not understand????
> hardball that has to be played to prevent another attack on innocents.
No ... the law allows him to get warrants to do what he needs to do. He can
act within the law without losing an effective deterrent.
If government is allowed to evesdrop with out following the legal
requirements to do so, including obtaining a warrant, then I guarantee you
that such evesdropping will be used for purposes other than to prevent
terrorism.
Why is it so hard for you to **demand** that your legal representatives act
within the law of the land?
R.
> Given what I've read (outside of the WSJ editorial pages) FISA needs to
> be amended to stay current with the changes in technology that has
> occured since 1978. So, I'm more upset with how the US military and
> treasure is spread so thin throughout the world rather than being used
> on the homefront than the FBI/NSA spying on Islamic fascists.
> -Carrie
>
Richard Morris
Yeah, well. Who speaks for the common Palestinian man or woman? If you
divide the parties in the Middle East into the righteous jews, and the
terrorist Muslims ... then who will speak for the Palestinian who simply
wants a place to live, a job ... food ... a family ... all of the things we
take for granted? Who, Carrie?
Carlisle
They just held an election, Richard. I guess Hamas will be speaking for
them.
And I believe that's unfortunate.
Granted, they didn't have a lot of options or information and Hamas
buys off votes with services.
-cc
Richard Morris
Perhaps they would not feel the need to have Hamas represent them if they
experienced compassion from Israel.
Carlisle
If anyone is interested to read another perspective and see where I'm
coming from, feel free to e-mail me. I can copy and paste you an
article from Victoria Toensing which ran in the WSJ on 1/19. There is a
lot there and I don't want to take up room with it on this music
newsgroup.
Meanwhile I just stated that the domestic spy case should be closely
scrutinized by Congress to make certain that legitimate terror suspects
are being monitored and not innocent Quakers or Deadheads. The law
should be upheld, but in this case the law needs to be amended to be
more flexible as to prevent another 9/11.
HTH,
Carrie
dyrewlf
"Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:mN2dnSxzJ-G...@comcast.com...
>
>
Hey Richard, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because I have major
issues with this whole thing. Do you need a warrant to eavesdrop on foreign
citizens? The reason I ask is, let's say you've got a court order for a
wiretap of someone's phone. You've got an associate of that guy who calls
into or receives calls from that phone, he then is effectively being tapped
whenever talking to the one who has the legal wiretap against him. Well if
its legal, and I don't know whether it is, to tap foreign citizens wouldn't
it be similar to this circumstance? Steve
Richard Morris
Richard Morris
1) How much more fucking flexible do you need to be than to be able to
request a search warrant *after* you have started monitoring?
2) Congressional oversight? Bullshit. They can't police themselves. No
mechanism exists for such a thing.
3) Was it lack of phone eavesdropping that led to 9/11? If so, first I have
heard of it. But, perhaps the republicans like to implement solutions to
non-existent problems. Makes it look as though they are doing something.
R.
Richard Morris
"dyrewlf" <dyr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JFfCf.34359$RK3.5097@trnddc06...
As far as I know, non-citizens in the U.S. are entitled to constitutional
protection.
>The reason I ask is, let's say you've got a court order for a wiretap of
>someone's phone. You've got an associate of that guy who calls into or
>receives calls from that phone, he then is effectively being tapped
>whenever talking to the one who has the legal wiretap against him. Well if
>its legal, and I don't know whether it is, to tap foreign citizens
>wouldn't it be similar to this circumstance? Steve
I don't know. I just want to know why the president of the United States
can't obey the fucking law, first off ... and then I want to know why all
these god-damned law-and-order republicans running around don't give a shit
whether he does or not.
Hypocritical bastards is what I call them.
Richard Morris
snip
> *Democrat does NOT mean liberal here in Kentucky.
> Trust me on this, my man!
> Represent.
> Carrie
Yes ... some of us remember the good old days, being cautioned that people
with long hair or beards should exercise extreme caution traveling in the
south, lest they experience true southern hospitality.
What is it like to live in area which has such a long history, steeped in
intolerance, racism, and bigotry?
dyrewlf
From my understanding the taps are being placed on suspected terrorists
outside of the US, presuming they are not US citizens, do they still enjoy
the same constitutional freedoms that we do?
Ray
> >The only solution to the Palestine problem is a secular,
> >democratic Palestine with a constitution that forbids
> >religious intolerance of any stripe. Palestine must be one
> >state where Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Russian
> >Orthodox and the followers of his Noodly Appendage can all
> >live in peace or it will forever be a cauldron of religious
> >ferment.
>
> right - sort of how the Israelis have tried to run things.
"We are trying to convince the whole world there is no gap between
Judaism and democracy, but when there is a conflict, everyone has to
remember there is only one Jewish state.... This is the state for the
Jewish people, not the state for all its citizens. That has to be
obvious."
- Reuven Rivlin, Israeli Minister of Communications
July 9, 2002
> We're all
> still waiting for any evidence that shows the Palestinian muslims, on
> the other hand, are proponents of religious tolerance or a peaceful
> state of living in any way shape or form. ... crickets.....
Palestinian Christians have generally lived quite peacefully with
Palestinian Muslims for generations. The rise of Islamist
fundamentalism/Hamas in the occupied territories over the couple of
decades may change that dynamic however.
Ray
Richard Morris
Ah ... are they only listening in on half of the conversation?
What does the law say? What does the constitution of our country say?
My understanding is that the law requires a warrant to conduct this kind of
activity. Period.
Do you understand something different?
The question you are asking is bullshit. A special court exists to provide
warrants, and they can be issued retroactively, for shit sakes. What is the
fucking problem here?
Look. Your presnit locks people up without due process. Unconstitutional.
Tortures. Unconstitutional. Searches without warrant. Unconstitutional.
Prevents people from exercising their right to protected speech.
Unconstitutional. And so on. In the name of national security.
THIS IS A FUCKING INTOLERABLE SITUATION. YOUR FREEDOMS ARE AT RISK.
ALREADY WE HAVE SEEN THE SONSABITCHES ACT AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NO WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM A TERRORIST RISK.
You want to sit back and say, "oh, not me. I don't do anything wrong, so it
doesn't affect me one way or the other."
Hah.
I never thought I would see the day in this country where so-called
conservatives are so eager to establish a dictatorship in Washington.
Looks like folks want to suspend the constitution, one article at a time.
Bastards are no better than communists, sez I.
Ray
> If anyone is interested to read another perspective and see where I'm
> coming from, feel free to e-mail me. I can copy and paste you an
> article from Victoria Toensing which ran in the WSJ on 1/19. There is a
> lot there and I don't want to take up room with it on this music
> newsgroup.
Here's a rebuttal to Ms. Toensing's "variety of falsehoods":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200008
> Meanwhile I just stated that the domestic spy case should be closely
> scrutinized by Congress to make certain that legitimate terror suspects
> are being monitored and not innocent Quakers or Deadheads. The law
> should be upheld
And the Bush Administration, from all appearances, is directly
violating said law.
Ray
JimK
wrote:
So why hasn't your hero made any attempt to persuade Congress to amend
the law? And why did his administration argue against changing the law
in 2002, stating it wasn't necessary?
JimK
Sherry
> King George are voted out and replaced with people who really care
> about what's happening regarding the people's loss of liberties, the
> white collar crime and the war crimes committed by this administration.
> People who care can be Dems, Repubs or Indies, as long as they stand
> for removing the parasites eating away at this country.
YRYK.
Sherry in Vermont
Carlisle
You don't need to be droppin' the F-bombs, Richard. I feel like you are
getting all pissed again. Please calm down. Honest people can disagree.
If you are that fascinated with why a person can have issues with
FISA's affect on national security and why the current program has been
working as advertised to the Congress four years ago, I'll e-mail you a
reasoned essay from a former insider.
> 2) Congressional oversight? Bullshit. They can't police themselves. No
> mechanism exists for such a thing.
Well too bad Americans did not elect individuals that you trust. This
is the way the system works or doesn't. Regardless, this issue is front
and center now as it should be.
> 3) Was it lack of phone eavesdropping that led to 9/11? If so, first I have
> heard of it. But, perhaps the republicans like to implement solutions to
> non-existent problems. Makes it look as though they are doing something.
Partly yes.
Here's one quote-
"The (FISA) court cited an FBI agent's testimony that efforts to
investigate two of the 9/11/01 hijackers were blocked by senior FBI
officials, concerned about the FISA rule requiring separation."
We agree on some things here, R. I'm not in favor of an executive who
is above the law. National security is a touchy subject given the
post-9/11 world. Congress, the Executive branch and the Judiciary needs
to revisit this now. If any major laws were broken and/or civil
liberties of innocent Americans were infringed upon then the Democrats
in the House should bring forth articles of impeachment.
> R.
Good Night America.
Carrie
Ray
> So why hasn't your hero made any attempt to persuade Congress to amend
> the law? And why did his administration argue against changing the law
> in 2002, stating it wasn't necessary?
Not only did the Bush Adminstration argue against changing FISA in 2002
because it wasn't necessary, but they did also argued agianst it out of
concern that doing so - specifically changing the non-warrant standard
from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" for electronic
surveillance - would be ruled unconstitutional.
And now the Bush Adminstration is arguing that they secretly ignored
FISA - *even at the time they were arguing against changing FISA* -
because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was
too onerous.
Incredible.
Ray
Carlisle
Ray wrote:
> Carlisle wrote:
> > If anyone is interested to read another perspective and see where I'm
> > coming from, feel free to e-mail me. I can copy and paste you an
> > article from Victoria Toensing which ran in the WSJ on 1/19. There is a
> > lot there and I don't want to take up room with it on this music
> > newsgroup.
>
> Here's a rebuttal to Ms. Toensing's "variety of falsehoods":
>
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200008
Just keep in mind where "Media Matters for America" is coming from.
They are looking to smear any defenders of the Administration. Plain
and simple. And that's fine. Should I start posting links to Brent
Bozell's journal and Accuracy in Media? I don't think so.
> > Meanwhile I just stated that the domestic spy case should be closely
> > scrutinized by Congress to make certain that legitimate terror suspects
> > are being monitored and not innocent Quakers or Deadheads. The law
> > should be upheld
>
> And the Bush Administration, from all appearances, is directly
> violating said law.
Perhaps preventing another terrorist attack in the meantime...but the
law is being violated!! Change the damn law already. We are not dealing
with nice civilized entities here, Ray. They would LOVE to strike again
and kill you and yours.
We will agree insofar as the executive branch must be kept in check by
Congress and the courts. If an impeachable offense has been committed,
there will be some sort of backlash. It may not be impeachment, but if
it's proven that we have a lawless executive, there will be an
electoral price to pay for the party.
This time, good night. ;-o
cc
Ray
> If you are that fascinated with why a person can have issues with
> FISA's affect on national security and why the current program has been
> working as advertised to the Congress four years ago, I'll e-mail you a
> reasoned essay from a former insider.
The Toensing editorial? LOL. Or it would be funny if some people
didn't take it seriously.
> National security is a touchy subject given the
> post-9/11 world.
9/11 created - or exposed - a bunch of cowardly wimps who would throw
out our constitutional protections and freedoms, and thus undermine the
very foundation that this great nation is built upon, all in the hope
of gaining a little more 'security'.
> Congress, the Executive branch and the Judiciary needs
> to revisit this now. If any major laws were broken and/or civil
> liberties of innocent Americans were infringed upon then the Democrats
> in the House should bring forth articles of impeachment.
Why is it only "the Democrats" who should be standing up for our
Constitution and the separation of government powers?
And in any event without at least some genuine Republican support any
real investigation and/or impeachment proceedings are going nowhere
anyway, unless the Dems take back Congress this year.
Ray
Ray
Carlisle wrote:
> Ray wrote:
> > Carlisle wrote:
> > > If anyone is interested to read another perspective and see where I'm
> > > coming from, feel free to e-mail me. I can copy and paste you an
> > > article from Victoria Toensing which ran in the WSJ on 1/19. There is a
> > > lot there and I don't want to take up room with it on this music
> > > newsgroup.
> >
> > Here's a rebuttal to Ms. Toensing's "variety of falsehoods":
> >
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200008
>
> Just keep in mind where "Media Matters for America" is coming from.
> They are looking to smear any defenders of the Administration. Plain
> and simple. And that's fine. Should I start posting links to Brent
> Bozell's journal and Accuracy in Media? I don't think so.
Hey if you bring up misleading editorials by Bush minions like Toensing
then I'll bring up rebuttals to her deceptions.
> > And the Bush Administration, from all appearances, is directly
> > violating said law.
>
> Perhaps preventing another terrorist attack in the meantime...but the
> law is being violated!! Change the damn law already.
Why do you think the Bush Adminstration didn't support changing the law
in 2002, Carrie?
> We are not dealing
> with nice civilized entities here, Ray. They would LOVE to strike again
> and kill you and yours.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I (and many other
Bush critics) don't understand this - I do. Unlike some people,
however, I don't wet my pants over it - I put our Constitution and the
foundations that our nation is built on first and before such fears.
> We will agree insofar as the executive branch must be kept in check by
> Congress and the courts.
However in a Republican-controlled Congress there are no guarantees
that this will happen - far from it.
Ray
dyrewlf
Guess you missed the part in my original post saying I was playing devil's
advocate.Let's say that I was running something illegal and the FBI had a
wiretap against me. Let's also say you were an associate of mine and they
found out about your illegal activity through my wiretap. You would still be
caught up in all of it despite the fact that the tap wasn't against you. I
think this is the way the admin is trying to get around the law, by saying
they are tapping foreigners outside the country who have ties to terrorism.
Thereby snaring US citizens who have had contact with those folks overseas.
The way I understand it is the FISA court is for foreign intelligence agents
working inside the US. So they are trying to skirt the law by applying the
tap to foreigners overseas who don't enjoy the same constitional freedoms we
do. So in the end we may actually have a situation that is legal and
constitutional. And yes, I have a huge problem with that, because if there
is no oversight and foreigners overseas don't enjoy our rights then the next
step is to go from "suspected" terrorists to all overseas calls because you
never know who might be a terrorist. It's not that far of leap from one to
the other. Steve
Effty
A nice piece of flip-flopping!
Bush has now stated that there's no need to change the law because what
he's doing is not illegal. That is a determination he can't and should
not make. He's an executive body not a judicial body afterall. I hate
when he makes statements like that on camera because a certain portion
of the poulation actually believes him. It's a strategy bent on giving
credibility to a blatant lie.
The executive branch has one check over the judicial, and that is the
appointment of justices. He doesn't get to decide whether something is
legal or illegal. The courts do that!
Aaaaarrrgh!
~e.
Joe
the world, to lie once again during his State of the Union address.
Of course he'll lie about "terrorists" and "wars" and throw out excuses
and confuse the issues with his sheer stupidity.
Well, fuck him and his corrupt, dishonest government!
As Bush lies to the world you can take to the streets to protest his lies.
Hundreds of demonstrations are planned:
Whose streets?
Our streets?
Whose country?
Our country?
Whose President?
Not ours!
Joe
Joe
> *Democrat does NOT mean liberal here in Kentucky.
> Trust me on this, my man!
> Represent.
> Carrie
Well then, Kentucky is wrong. Wrong, like in W; dead wrong.
Joe
scarlet...@hotmail.com
the greatest of flip floppers, Come Nov. 2006 when I vote his ultimate
Bush crony (the dishonorable Scott Garrett, NJ) out of offce, I'll hope
there's HOPE for the US and we (the US) can become what this Great
Nation was to be before the ilk of Bush and his kind came into power.
Power to the people....
Theresa
scarlet...@hotmail.com
wrong).
Love you babe.
T
Joe
> Love you babe.
W Stands for:
A) Wrong
B) Witless
C) Whore
D) Warmonger
E) All of the Above
And, the correct answer is E.
And, as the sun sets on the Toxic Nightmare of America, good night and
sweet dreams, T. Dream of a land where peace and justice prevail; where
honesty is a virtue, and where the entire Bush family is imprisoned.
Joe
scarlet...@hotmail.com
the times that we are approaching. Wthin a week, gone are the days of
reproductive choice, freedom of speech, dissent, etc. I'll find comfort
in knowing that I opposed King George's reign all the way to my bitter
end... (my forefather's had a better record in 1776 than in 2006).
Unless there's a major paradigm shift in Washington, the masses (you
and me) are f*cked.
Seth Jackson
>
>Enter Chinese airspace with spyplanes...
>
>Out a CIA agent during wartime...
>
>Take us into a war under false pretenses...
>
>Deny ever knowing Ken Lay... Please forget about those notes with the
>salutation "Kenny Boy"...
>
>Multiple photos with Abramoff don't matter...
>
>Spy on Americans...
>
>What does it take to impeach?
>
A Congress not controlled by his own party.
Richard Morris
"Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138335311.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, well ... if you don't plan on adhering to the law anyway, there is no
reason to change it, is there?
R.
bradish
You should know.....you also live in the USA dont you?
mjd
for 50+ years. To me, that stands in stark contrast to the stance of
Muslim fundamentalists, whose view is one of extreme and violent
intolerance of any non-Muslims. While it's nice that the Palestinian
Christians have by and large peacefully coexisted, aren't they a
relatively small percentage of the pie? And while I don't dispute that
the Israeli occupation has probably helped foment the fundamentalist
movement over the past 20-some years, that occupation came about as a
result of years of attacks, invasions, and terrorism directed against
Israel.
JC Martin
> Carlisle wrote:
>
>>If you are that fascinated with why a person can have issues with
>>FISA's affect on national security and why the current program has been
>>working as advertised to the Congress four years ago, I'll e-mail you a
>>reasoned essay from a former insider.
>
>
> The Toensing editorial? LOL. Or it would be funny if some people
> didn't take it seriously.
>
>
>>National security is a touchy subject given the
>>post-9/11 world.
>
>
> 9/11 created - or exposed - a bunch of cowardly wimps who would throw
> out our constitutional protections and freedoms, and thus undermine the
> very foundation that this great nation is built upon, all in the hope
> of gaining a little more 'security'.
HRYK.
Some perspective is due here as well. We already had information and
previous experience indicating that Osama was targeting the WTC,
airplanes being noted in one report as a tool for attack, which the Bush
administration did not take seriously coming in. Oddly enough, the WTC
was really taken down with box cutters. Lack of knowledge was our
greatest undoing here, not the lack of ability to pry into American's
personal lives without judicial oversight. This type of activity will
undoubtedly be abused for political and personal gain (history and human
nature spells that out clearly), if not now, certainly in the future.
What's weird to me is that if we can sacrifice 1000's of lives for
freedom abroad, why couldn't we then handle the same loss at home? The
fact is that we can and we will. These current methods will not
eradicate future and inevitable terrorist attacks, and this brand of
terrorism we speak of (not really tied into the Palestinian cause BTW)
will likely increase as terrorist recruitment increases. That being at
least partially a function of outdated U.S. foreign policy in the Middle
East and the greed which feeds its survival. Yeah, we need a new type
of thinking all right post-9/11. But it has yet to occur.
-JC
the wharf rat
Richard Morris <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>What is it like to live in area which has such a long history, steeped in
>intolerance, racism, and bigotry?
>
The only difference between Southern racism and Yankee racism
is that Yankees pretend they're not racist when they think people are
watching. I heard plenty of remarks about "those people" during my
time in the Northeast. Saw a bunch of stuff, too.
kpn...@yahoo.com
DG wrote:
> Hilton Head. The guy told him, "get out of here nigger".
> Fortunately, the owner saw it and kicked the racist out. I drank for
> free the rest of the night and got a free cab ride home.
>
> I've been called "nigger" by Italians for being Sicilian. Racism is
> alive and well throughout the world. What's the point?
The point is very simple. People who live in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones.
Kurt
Richard Morris
"bradish" <bradi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LqWdndSvQrYWiEfe...@comcast.com...
There are matters of degree.
kpn...@yahoo.com
> >> > Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> >> >> mjd wrote:
> >> >> >> they stole
> >> >> >
> >> >> > you misspelled 'won after fighting back when invaded by Arabs who
> >> >> > refused to accept a UN resolution, ...
> >> >>
> >> >> You have identified yourself as an inexperienced zionist
> >> >> apologist. Here's a couple of clues for zionist apologist
> >> >> wannabes, never mention UN resolutions and never mention
> >> >> international law as it applies to occupied territories.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hope this helps.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ken Fortenberry
> >> >
> >> > You have identified yourself as anti-Zionist radical.
> >> > Here's a couple of clues for anti-Zionist radical chic wannabes, never
> >> > mention the Holocaust, never mention Arab aggression, never mention
> >> > suicide bombers. And never give an accurate picture of the birth of the
> >> > tiny (comparatively speaking) state of Israel. You got a problem with
> >> > Israel's right to exist? Take it up with President Truman, PM Winston
> >> > Churchill and the other victors of WWII who gave their support..I guess
> >> > it's too late for that. Being an apologist for groups like
> >> > Hamas/Hezbollah/al Qaeda is not a position I would would to sign up
> >> > for!
> >>
> >> Yeah, well. Who speaks for the common Palestinian man or woman? If you
> >> divide the parties in the Middle East into the righteous jews, and the
> >> terrorist Muslims ... then who will speak for the Palestinian who simply
> >> wants a place to live, a job ... food ... a family ... all of the things
> >> we
> >> take for granted? Who, Carrie?
> >
> > They just held an election, Richard. I guess Hamas will be speaking for
> > them.
> > And I believe that's unfortunate.
> > Granted, they didn't have a lot of options or information and Hamas
> > buys off votes with services.
> > -cc
> >
>
> Perhaps they would not feel the need to have Hamas represent them if they
> experienced compassion from Israel.
I disagree. I think what happened in Palestine is what happened in
Venezuela. Essentially, the existing government did not represent the
people, and the people revolted by electing outside of previous
choices.
The problem is that in Venezuela's case, Chavez has morphed that
nation away from any resemblence of democracy (note the recall vote).
He is a shit stirrer in that region. Hamas cannot consolidate power
yet,
and I don't think they will since they will be scrutinized at every
step.
However, I think their ascension of power has more to do with PLO than
Israel.
Kurt
band beyond description
> Ray wrote:
>> Carlisle wrote:
>>
>>> If you are that fascinated with why a person can have issues with
>>> FISA's affect on national security and why the current program has been
>>> working as advertised to the Congress four years ago, I'll e-mail you a
>>> reasoned essay from a former insider.
>>
>>
>> The Toensing editorial? LOL. Or it would be funny if some people
>> didn't take it seriously.
>>
>>
>>> National security is a touchy subject given the
>>> post-9/11 world.
>>
>>
>> 9/11 created - or exposed - a bunch of cowardly wimps who would throw
>> out our constitutional protections and freedoms, and thus undermine the
>> very foundation that this great nation is built upon, all in the hope
>> of gaining a little more 'security'.
>
>
> HRYK.
>
> Some perspective is due here as well. We already had information and
> previous experience indicating that Osama was targeting the WTC,
> airplanes being noted in one report as a tool for attack, which the
> Bush administration did not take seriously coming in.
Bushco was too busy prepping for an Iraq invasion.
--
Peace,
Steve
JC Martin
I think you're correct. Bush was talking about Iraq before 9/11. Of
course the talk really ramped up post-9/11.
-JC
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
>> "Ken Fortenberry" <kenfort...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>> news:%xbCf.38164$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> > Ray wrote:
>> >> Hamas is a relgious fundamenalist terrorist organization, no doubt
>> >> about it.
>>
>> > And so is the Knesset, no doubt about it. It will be
>> > interesting to see how Hamas handles political power.
>> LOL.
>>
>> The Knesset has Arab muslims as elected members, as Isreal is chock full
>> of
>> Arab citizens. Not there's any Jews in the areas run by the freaked out
>> religious terrorists,
> There are hundreds of thousands of Jews in the West Bank and Golan.
I of course was referring to areas under control of the Palestinians. No
way they'd ever tolerate a single Jew in their midst.
> They are known as 'settlers'.
I call them freaked out religiously fanatical Jews.
>> but if there were, I'm sure the Hamas choice would be
>> to send some schoolkids to blow them up instead of allowing them to serve
>> in
>> an elected legislature.
> True. However the religious and nationalist settlers don't want to be
> a part of an arab-majority democracy in any event - they want to
> permanently take over the West Bank and Golan, via gradual
> 'settlement'.
I despise those religious freaks. They're almost as bad as the Muslim ones.
The difference here is that most Isrealis no longer sympathize with the
settlers, and over time they have been kicked out of the Sinai and Gaza by
the normal Jews. If the Palestinians were to ever start acting like
potentially peaceful people instead of a mob of corrupt fundamentalist baby
killers, the normal Isrealis would eventually kick the settlers out of the
West Bank too.
There don't appear to be many peace loving Palestinians, although I'm sure
that number will grow over time as they wake up and realize that their lives
still suck after 60 years of futile resistance.
>> Before Isreal became a nation, back when there was just a small minority
>> of
>> Jews living in the area, the desire of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was
>> to
>> ask Hitler when Rommel was going to finally get across the Suez Canal and
>> start exterminating all of them.
> Before Isreal became a nation the Jews were not a small but instead a
> very significant minority, and everyone knew that their goal was to
> take over the region. To this end, during much if this period they had
> the muddled support of the British. Not that that excuses the Grand
> Mufti's involvement with the Nazis, but on a purely strategic/defensive
> level it made sense as an attempt to stop the Zionist influx into and
> takeover of his homeland.
The chief towel head wanted extermination. Just a little example of how
whacked out these kooks have been since day one. Peace has never been an
option. Too bad its the only option...............
EGBH
Sean Baker
> JimK wrote:
>> So why hasn't your hero made any attempt to persuade Congress to amend
>> the law? And why did his administration argue against changing the law
>> in 2002, stating it wasn't necessary?
>
> Not only did the Bush Adminstration argue against changing FISA in 2002
> because it wasn't necessary, but they did also argued agianst it out of
> concern that doing so - specifically changing the non-warrant standard
> from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" for electronic
> surveillance - would be ruled unconstitutional.
>
> And now the Bush Adminstration is arguing that they secretly ignored
> FISA - *even at the time they were arguing against changing FISA* -
> because the "probable cause" standard for obtaining a FISA warrant was
> too onerous.
>
>
> Ray
Actually, it is not incredible. The "Administration's" objective changed.
If, from a law enforcement point of view, you intend to capture, try,
convict, sentence and punnish someone, you do not want to remove the
Constitutional protections from the law. The offender would just go free in
that case. The FBI balked at the Administration's requests because they are
a law enforcement agency. Their objective is to capture, turn over to
Justice, try, convict, sentence and punnish.
The FBI is not an obstacle with enemy combatants or FOREIGN terroritst.
However, if you intend to increase the power of the executive through a war
time act, declare individuals "enemy combatants" and "terrorists," render
them through executive power (CIA, NSA, ect.) to countries that have no
human rights and hold them indefinitely outside the arms of a criminal
JUSTICE system, well then you don't need to change the laws. You just
exercise executive war time power and do the above.
The Administration never intended to change the laws because through
executive power they never intended to be bound or have to follow them in
relation to enemy combatants and foreign terrorists. And if a scenario
arose, domestically, they would have laws to capture and punnish someone,
i.e. McVeigh, ALF, ELF. They want to make an example and publicise those
individuals. They will never publicise "whoever" is in a GITMO type prison.
Just throw away the key. And places like Europe will play investigation,
but tacitly wink at the White House. And anyone who states "The
Constitution" will be branded a capitulator.
Peace,
Sean
--
"Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels start
closing in, the only real cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and then
drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas." Hunter S. Thompson
My music list for trades: http://db.etree.org/FionaRCB
Peter_Wimsey
As I recall he was too busy trying to push through "faith-based
initiatives",
N
Carlisle
>
> snip
>
> > *Democrat does NOT mean liberal here in Kentucky.
> > Trust me on this, my man!
> > Represent.
> > Carrie
>
> Yes ... some of us remember the good old days, being cautioned that people
> with long hair or beards should exercise extreme caution traveling in the
> south, lest they experience true southern hospitality.
Don't you pull rank on me like that, Richard! I've read "Drop City", I
saw Easy Rider, I've gotten strange looks from straight people who were
not tripping.
>
> What is it like to live in area which has such a long history, steeped in
> intolerance, racism, and bigotry?
I believe you are getting Kentucky confused with Indiana, but why split
hairs?! Racial animosity is an unknown phenomenon in places like
Philly, Chicago and Boston, right? <Let me clear my throat> Perhaps
I'll move an hour north to Cincinnati and live among the enlightened.
Nah!!
Go Kats!
Lady C.
Peter_Wimsey
such intense vitreol to describe "our little problem" (my euphamism for
W. when talking with international folks) you open yourself up to really
hurtful and damaging emotions. I mean, the anti-semitism alone is really
damaging.
If you all really think that fingers can be pointed that easily, I
strongly urge you to read some novels by Louis deBernieres:
http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth2
I just finished "Birds without Wings" which colorfully details the rise
of Turkey. One thing that is apparent is that any human is capable of
hate, and it is not just the job of racists, jews, blacks, muslims, or
Bush.
N
Carlisle
Wait a second, "T"...He's mine, beeaoch! Didn't we discuss this
off-line?!
You get Dave Kelly and I get Joe.
Check yourself! ;-()
cc
Joe
> Wait a second, "T"...He's mine, beeaoch! Didn't we discuss this
> off-line?!
> You get Dave Kelly and I get Joe.
> Check yourself! ;-()
> cc
I just love the women of rmgd! All of you!
I'm still waiting for the busload of you to show up here, on the other
side of the rainbow, in beautiful and liberated Marin County.
Think of it this way: If Marin County was good enough for Jerry Garcia,
it's good enough for you!
The Organic Twins (me and Geraldine) await your arrival.
Joe