Bend over, here it comes...

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 12:44:34 PM2/11/10

to

Jon Slaughter

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 1:23:54 PM2/11/10

to

Jim Thompson wrote:
> Bend over, here it comes...
>

This is exactly what chris matthews and others have been wanting all
along... he's been waiting for that tingle to go up a little higher for far
too long.

Message has been deleted

Martin Riddle

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 7:14:17 PM2/11/10

to

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:leg8n5doflccd6erj...@4ax.com...

> Bend over, here it comes...
>
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-willing-to-sell-out--84125052.html
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Then everyone will be saying "Miss me yet?"
<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/02/11/bush_fans_beckon_from_minn_billboard/>

Cheers

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 7:20:27 PM2/11/10

to

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:53 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>Bend over, here it comes...
>>
>>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-willing-to-sell-out--84125052.html
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>

>Dick Cheney was right when he said Obama was a charlatan.

And turn off your cell phones...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 7:29:21 PM2/11/10

to

That's all the more amazing when you realize that Minnesota is almost
as leftist a state as Massachusetts.

mpm

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 9:42:38 PM2/11/10

to

On Feb 11, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:53 -0600, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
> ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
> >>Bend over, here it comes...
>

> >>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/...

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |

>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I have Sprint, and I think my phone has an option to turn the GPS
feature off.
Also, the article I think mis-states AT&T's ability to track phones,
which it does via a combination of GPS-capable phones and TDOA (time
difference of arrival) methods.

As for tracking in general, if a Judge orders it, I'm fine with it.
But not if the orders become so commonplace, that anyone, for any or
no reason, can obtain one.

D Yuniskis

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 10:29:07 PM2/11/10

to

> I have Sprint, and I think my phone has an option to turn the GPS
> feature off.
> Also, the article I think mis-states AT&T's ability to track phones,
> which it does via a combination of GPS-capable phones and TDOA (time
> difference of arrival) methods.
>
> As for tracking in general, if a Judge orders it, I'm fine with it.
> But not if the orders become so commonplace, that anyone, for any or
> no reason, can obtain one.

Even without detailed tracking, you can glean a lot just from where
the call was initially *handled* as reported in your phone records.
My ex-BinL discovered this when I handed my sister's lawyer a list
of the days and times he was screwing his mistress :-/ Apparently,
he had failed to realize the paper trail he was leaving (cell phone,
ATM cards, credit cards, etc.)

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 10:44:57 PM2/11/10

to

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:20:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:53 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bend over, here it comes...
>>>
>>>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-willing-to-sell-out--84125052.html
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Dick Cheney was right when he said Obama was a charlatan.
>
>And turn off your cell phones...
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
>
> ...Jim Thompson

You would rather they hadn't caught the bank robbers?

Andrew

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 12:13:54 AM2/12/10

to

"Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov> wrote in
message news:skj9n5dka6jonb3vr...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:20:27 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:53 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bend over, here it comes...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-willing-to-sell-out--84125052.html
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>>Dick Cheney was right when he said Obama was a charlatan.
>>
>>And turn off your cell phones...
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
>>

> You would rather they hadn't caught the bank robbers?

You shall not have door locks, curtains/shades. And do not forget to report
all you movement to the nearest NKVD station.
You have nothing to hide, don't you?
--
Andrew

Michael

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 12:28:49 AM2/12/10

to

On Feb 11, 9:44 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-

Web-Site.com> wrote:
> Bend over, here it comes...
>

> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/...

> | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 |

>
> I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of
solutions."

Obama is agnostic on solutions... so that means he doesn't believe in
solutions?

Hey, move to Haiti... and be on the receiving end of US out-of-control
spending!

Michael

Message has been deleted

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 4:30:01 AM2/12/10

to

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:38:32 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>That's poor logic. For one, it presumes there was no other way to
>catch them and it further presumes the government's position is the
>only procedural mechanism for accomplishing it.
>
> As a general principle the ends do not justify the means and, to wit,
>routine warrantless searches of all homes, say once a week, would
>catch a lot of criminals too but would you support that idea? No?
>You'd rather not catch crooks?
>
>If the government's position really is as stated, that "any record
>held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is
>not protected by the Fourth Amendment" is accurate then the 4'th
>amendment is effectively eviscerated since, in this day and age,
>virtually everything you do shows up in some 'third party record'
>somewhere.

That is a damned sight better than the way the profiling bastards
currently solve ZERO crime unless it falls in their laps, which is why
they do the profiling thing. The only way they can nab a dealer is if
they perform as many illegal searches they can. The sad part is that it
invariably ends up causing problems for the regular citizenry.

Robert Baer

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 4:47:49 AM2/12/10

to

Partial solutions, IN ORDER:
1) ALL searches are illegal by anybody for any reason unless agreed upon
by ALL directly affected parties, PERIOD.
2) ALL drugs are made legal, just tax them like is (now) done with alcohol.
3) Abandon, discard, forbid the so-called TSA (security? what is that?
Oh...5 gov paid snoozing idiots for each awake dunderhead).
4) Pass a law that EVERY congress critter MUST follow exactly all laws
and regulations that they have passed and will pass; AND that they shall
have NO privileges other than US "voters".
5) Pass a law that cannot be broken that for ANY lawmaking group to pass
a law that group MUST FIRST repeal at least three other laws.
(oops! we have so many...make that "repeal at least 100 laws" ; slightly
more equitable).
A start....small start; better than none.

Greegor

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 5:07:48 AM2/12/10

to

JT > And turn off your cell phones...

I seem to recall that in some cases even
if they are off they aren't really off.

This part of that cnet article hints at that quirk.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

A 2008 court order to T-Mobile in a criminal investigation of a
marriage fraud scheme, which was originally sealed and later made
public, says: "T-Mobile shall disclose at such intervals and times as
directed by (the Department of Homeland Security), latitude and
longitude data that establishes the approximate positions of the
Subject Wireless Telephone, by unobtrusively initiating a signal on
its network that will enable it to determine the locations of the
Subject Wireless Telephone."

On Feb 12, 12:15 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
f > [...], the average law abiding citizen may very well have
f > things they'd rather not, for a variety of reasons, become public.

An online opponent who is a stalker/harasser,
in her recent efforts to vilify another target, reported
that he has a thing for lactating women with big breasts.

On Feb 11, 6:14 pm, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
MR > Then everyone will be saying "Miss me yet?"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/02/11/bush_fans_beckon_from_minn_billboard/

It's already an internet "meme"
T-shirt, sweaters, etc.

http://images.google.com/images?q=miss+me+yet

JT > That's all the more amazing when you realize that Minnesota
JT > is almost as leftist a state as Massachusetts.

I was born and raised in Minnesota.
The kook left there takes their domination
as absolute and guaranteed.
There is a terrible lack of competitive thoughts.
A leftistl friend once complained it's politically inbred.

The political competition between the two major
parties in Iowa is a slight improvement.
Neither party dominates to the point of
being "inbred" as for political thought.

Left wingers from other states who pay
attention close up would be amazed just how
oppressive they are about dismissing right
wingers.

This tends to make the right wingers
more sarcastic than in other states.

Given this incubater of the extreme left
there are more avowed socialists and
avowed communists and more zombie
left wingers who see a right wing view
as a challenge to their ""religion"" or
their entire inculcated world view.

The Land O Humphrey and Mondale
has had waves of disillusionment about
BOTH parties, probably because most
of the conservatives presented there were
RINO and not true conservatives.

When the Obama administration lies,
reversing position after big RANTING,
steam rollers (30 Czars??) or takes
things for granted it looks VERY
familiar to me.

Take heart though, because given this
much rope, they always seem to hang
themselves.

I've preached a few times about the
insidiousness of gradual socialism.
Inch by inch, baby step by baby step
we are heading right down the slippery slope.

Gradualism is a trap, like the gradually boiled frog.
We don't rebel because the change is so gradual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

The Fabian gradualists crest is a wolf in sheep clothing.

Michael wrote
Obama? > "So what I want to do is to be completely
Obama? > agnostic, in terms of solutions."

M > Obama is agnostic on solutions... so that
M > means he doesn't believe in solutions?
M >
M > Hey, move to Haiti... and be on the receiving
M > end of US out-of-control spending!

I'm guessing that President Obama is thinking of this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:agnostic

someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something

He made such a BIG PROMISE regarding this
and now he's expressing doubt that he'll be able
to keep his promise about not taxing the middle class.

Another politician who can't keep his promises?

No!

Message has been deleted

Jim Yanik

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 9:05:59 AM2/12/10

to

Robert Baer <rober...@localnet.com> wrote in
news:AtKdnfAoVI_AvujW...@posted.localnet:

add term limits to your list;
no gov't legislator should be a career.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 9:15:03 AM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:28:12 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>The "profiling thing?" Like what? Like if a victim says it was a 6
>foot male they 'profile' for 6 foot males instead of also rounding up
>a 'politically correct' number of 4 foot females?

You're a fucking idiot. Have you never watched "Cops"? The profiling
behavior is blatant.

Then, there is experiencing it first hand as well, of course.

You have never seen a cop pull someone over for a ticket, and it
requires 3 cops to show up so they can shake down the car?

You are a fucking loon. And no, there was no politically motivated
reaction at all, you stupid twit.

And NO, you stupid fuck, I gave no endorsement for any of the practices
mentioned by the thread either.

Do you always make shit up about people?

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 9:15:44 AM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:35:28 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>
>Well, that would certainly ensure that only the certifiably brain dead
>criminal ever gets searched because no one with a better than room
>temperature I.Q. would ever agree to it.

Now ask yourself why, ya dumb little bastard.

ian field

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:05:22 AM2/12/10

to

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:leg8n5doflccd6erj...@4ax.com...

> Bend over, here it comes...

You bend over - I'm not into that sort of thing.

Rich Webb

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:55:19 AM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:05:59 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:

>add term limits to your list;
>no gov't legislator should be a career.

Term limits work to empower the civil service bureaucracy, the
un-elected legislative staffs, and the special interest lobbyists.

For all their faults, elected officials are ultimately answerable at
elections and have to satisfy their voting constituents if they want to
keep the perks and remain in office.

Term limits artificially remove that accountability. When legislators
are all newbies who know they're out of office soon regardless of how
well (or poorly) they perform, well, legislative power doesn't go away,
it just collects in someone else's hands.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Michael A. Terrell

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 1:03:48 PM2/12/10

to

flipper wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:44:57 -0800, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"

> That's poor logic. For one, it presumes there was no other way to
> catch them and it further presumes the government's position is the
> only procedural mechanism for accomplishing it.
>
> As a general principle the ends do not justify the means and, to wit,
> routine warrantless searches of all homes, say once a week, would
> catch a lot of criminals too but would you support that idea? No?
> You'd rather not catch crooks?
>
> If the government's position really is as stated, that "any record
> held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is
> not protected by the Fourth Amendment" is accurate then the 4'th
> amendment is effectively eviscerated since, in this day and age,
> virtually everything you do shows up in some 'third party record'
> somewhere.

If they ever make Dimbulb have a competency hearing, his record on
Usenet would have him committed for life.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 1:21:21 PM2/12/10

to

We just had a settlement announced today here between the Arizona
Attorney General and Western Union whereby Western Union agrees to let
the AG peruse all records of money transfers, at will!

Now I understand that the issue at hand has to do with illegal
immigrants (and drug dealers) transferring money to/from Mexico. But
it sure opens too many doors :-(

Leftist weenies are like watermelons...
GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 1:57:41 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:19:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>I already said why.

"Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>

is just another nym of that doofus-of-all-doofi, AlwaysWrong.

Please ignore him.

The Green Police are like watermelons...

GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.

Treat them as in "The Day of the Jackal"

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 2:29:22 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:14:05 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:21:21 -0700, Jim Thompson

>While I can't say I'm 100% sanguine about it my understanding is the
>'agreement' is for wire transfers above $500 between and to points
>within 200 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border so the door is not quite as
>open as you may think.
>
>
>> ...Jim Thompson

The local radio news (KFYI) didn't put in much detail, except they
seemed to imply that no court order was required.

The Green Police are like watermelons...

GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 3:36:42 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:23:38 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:29:22 -0700, Jim Thompson

>Yeah, no court order required for WU to 'automatically' report the
>above transactions.
>
>I'm not quite sure what to think about it but I note that
>Constitutional protections do not normally apply to foreign
>transactions.
>

Unless you're a _foreign_terrorist_, then you get read your Miranda
rights, courtesy of the "Manchurian Candidate".

Movie Trivia Fact: Did you know that Frank Sinatra was so disturbed by
that movie he bought the redistribution rights to it and kept it from
circulation until he died?

Coming soon to the elementary school in your neighborhood...

I pledge allegiance to Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama and to the
community organization for which he stands: one nation under
ACORN, unchallengeable, with wealth redistribution and climate
change for all.

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 4:00:51 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:49:29 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:36:42 -0700, Jim Thompson

>Yeah, well, that get's back to my comment about Cheney being right
>when he called Obama a charlatan.
>
>I can't recall the government ever so overrun by arrogant two-faced
>despotism and stupefying incompetence.

>
>>Movie Trivia Fact: Did you know that Frank Sinatra was so disturbed by
>>that movie he bought the redistribution rights to it and kept it from
>>circulation until he died?
>

>I didn't know that. What was he worried about?
>
>
>> ...Jim Thompson

I think he feared that the movie would give terrorist organizations
ideas on how to do it... like run an Islamist thug from Chicago,
cloaked in political correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and
promises of wealth redistribution... something like that.

Of course nothing like that could really happen, now could it ?:-)

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 8:43:33 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:31:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:00:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>>>
>>>>Movie Trivia Fact: Did you know that Frank Sinatra was so disturbed by
>>>>that movie he bought the redistribution rights to it and kept it from
>>>>circulation until he died?
>>>
>>>I didn't know that. What was he worried about?
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>I think he feared that the movie would give terrorist organizations
>>ideas on how to do it... like run an Islamist thug from Chicago,
>>cloaked in political correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and
>>promises of wealth redistribution... something like that.
>

>That doesn't sound very likely as, at the time the book was written
>and the movie made, we were hip deep in the "communist threat" and
>'terrorists' were low on the security totem pole, if on the radar
>screen at all.
>
>Well, that made me wonder so I checked imdb and they have a note in
>the trivia section saying that's an urban myth.
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/trivia not quite half way down.

>
>
>>Of course nothing like that could really happen, now could it ?:-)
>

>Not to ruin your joke but "brain washing" someone into roboticaly
>doing what they would otherwise never do is quite a different thing
>than 'selling' someone an idea based on it's alleged 'merits'. I.E.
>Islamic terrorists are 'believers' in the morals and mission. They
>may, if important to the mission, hide it from *you* but it's not
>'submerged' in themselves nor does it run counter to their 'true
>nature'.
>
>
>> ...Jim Thompson

OK. Show me where it was shown between the original release and his
death. I tried to find even contraband videos, but none was to be
found (I saw it in-theater at original release). I did find "Name of
the Rose" (*) in Brazil YEARS before it was available in the US...
somewhat ratty, but it sufficed until the US caught up ;-)

I'm a bit of a nut with good (old) movies... 300+ DVD's in my
collection.

Joel Koltner

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 8:55:24 PM2/12/10

to

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in

message news:pj0cn5h40rl9jdltg...@4ax.com...

> I'm a bit of a nut with good (old) movies... 300+ DVD's in my
> collection.

You should post your top 10 or 25 favorites some day. :-)

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 9:20:58 PM2/12/10

to

I need to update the whole list, I'm way behind, might number ~400
now.

I'll do that and indicate my favorites ;-)

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:03:40 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:03:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Now we all know why I wish this dumbfuck would just drop dead.

It would be nice if he had a little Chi Chi first. You know, like
hours of excruciating pain before an even more painful myocardial
infarction.

You are as bad as Joran's dad, and you deserve to die, just like he
did.

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:06:23 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:18:57 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:15:03 -0800, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
><BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:28:12 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The "profiling thing?" Like what? Like if a victim says it was a 6
>>>foot male they 'profile' for 6 foot males instead of also rounding up
>>>a 'politically correct' number of 4 foot females?
>>
>>
>> You're a fucking idiot.
>

>You lose.

>
>> Have you never watched "Cops"? The profiling
>>behavior is blatant.
>>
>> Then, there is experiencing it first hand as well, of course.
>>
>> You have never seen a cop pull someone over for a ticket, and it
>>requires 3 cops to show up so they can shake down the car?
>>
>> You are a fucking loon. And no, there was no politically motivated
>>reaction at all, you stupid twit.
>>
>> And NO, you stupid fuck, I gave no endorsement for any of the practices
>>mentioned by the thread either.
>>
>> Do you always make shit up about people?
>

>No need to when you're so blatantly full of it.

You're the goddamned liar that claimed that I am for cell phone
tracking behaviors.

You're the one that is blatantly full of shit.

It isn't the pot calling the kettle black, it is the shit heap (you)
calling anyone anything. You're so full of shit, it is evident before
you even finish your first sentence.

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:07:10 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:19:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>I already said why.

Then, you got that wrong too.

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:08:59 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:57:41 -0700, Jim Thompson

<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:19:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:15:44 -0800, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
>><BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:35:28 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, that would certainly ensure that only the certifiably brain dead
>>>>criminal ever gets searched because no one with a better than room
>>>>temperature I.Q. would ever agree to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now ask yourself why, ya dumb little bastard.
>>
>>I already said why.
>
>"Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>
>
>is just another nym of that doofus-of-all-doofi, AlwaysWrong.
>
>Please ignore him.
>
> ...Jim Thompson

You're a goddamned idiot, Thommpson. They ALL ALREADY know who I am.
They do not need your filters or your stupid, less than even peanut
gallery horseshit commentary, you dumb, retarded old bastard.

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:09:55 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:16:10 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:57:41 -0700, Jim Thompson

><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:19:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:15:44 -0800, "Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason"
>>><BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:35:28 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, that would certainly ensure that only the certifiably brain dead
>>>>>criminal ever gets searched because no one with a better than room
>>>>>temperature I.Q. would ever agree to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now ask yourself why, ya dumb little bastard.
>>>
>>>I already said why.
>>
>>"Herbert John \"Jackie\" Gleason" <BufordT...@Texarkanacops.gov>
>>
>>is just another nym of that doofus-of-all-doofi, AlwaysWrong.
>>
>>Please ignore him.
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>

>Yes, I recognized the signature 'doofusness'.

Jeez. Both of you are utterly retarded.

Herbert John "Jackie" Gleason

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:11:38 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:34:01 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:03:48 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>

>And no warrant needed to gather the information either because Usenet
>really does fit the notion of 'public'.

You really do not know just how deep in the dark you are.

Son of a Sea Cook

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:23:46 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:36:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>
>Unless you're a _foreign_terrorist_, then you get read your Miranda
>rights, courtesy of the "Manchurian Candidate".
>
>Movie Trivia Fact: Did you know that Frank Sinatra was so disturbed by
>that movie he bought the redistribution rights to it and kept it from
>circulation until he died?
>
> ...Jim Thompson

WRONG!

The movie was shown for two weeks in 1962, and then got pulled by Uncle
Sam himself.

It never aired again until AFTER it was made into a Laser Disc release
in the mid 80s.

Sinatra died AFTER the Laser Disc and VHS releases in 1998.

Try again, asshole. Try for a real fact next time.

Son of a Sea Cook

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:24:30 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:49:29 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>
>I didn't know that. What was he worried about?

It would be just like you to believe his utter bullshit.

Son of a Sea Cook

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:37:05 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:43:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

You really are a fucking idiot. Did you even READ the page he linked
you to?

It AIRED in '65. I would bet completely cropped and chopped all to
hell.

It was ALSO RELEASED on Laser Disc BEFORE he died. And United Artists
owns the damned thing anyway!

> I tried to find even contraband videos, but none was to be
>found

You really ARE a complete idiot. Why would there be a video of a title
that is on VHS Laser Disc, and various forms of DVD?

> (I saw it in-theater at original release).

Oh Boy. Now please croak for us like most of the cast has. The event
is a desirable one in your case, however.

> I did find "Name of
>the Rose" (*) in Brazil YEARS before it was available in the US...
>somewhat ratty, but it sufficed until the US caught up ;-)

Yer dumber than dog shit, boy.

>I'm a bit of a nut with good (old) movies... 300+ DVD's in my
>collection.

Try "Fetiche" or "The Mascot" circa 1934 by Ladislas Starewicz. Also
known as "The Devil's Ball".

It will show you where you are heading. Exactly where you are heading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-mkGqcvKPM

Son of a Sea Cook

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 10:54:18 PM2/12/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:20:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:55:24 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>>message news:pj0cn5h40rl9jdltg...@4ax.com...
>>> I'm a bit of a nut with good (old) movies... 300+ DVD's in my
>>> collection.
>>
>>You should post your top 10 or 25 favorites some day. :-)
>
>I need to update the whole list, I'm way behind, might number ~400
>now.
>
>I'll do that and indicate my favorites ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson

700 DVDs and 200 Laser Discs. 200 HD DVDs and 200 BR-DVDs.

Almost 800 discreet titles.

Favorites:

Un Chein Andalou 1928

The Mascot 1934

La lune � un m�tre 1898 (A Trip to the Moon)

Meet John Doe 1941

The Wizard of Oz 1939 (of course)

The Trouble With Harry 1955 (Hitcock's only comedy)

Jason and the Argonauts 1963

The Time Machine 1960

MacKenna's Gold 1969

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly 1966

Can't forget: Arsenic and Old Lace 1944

Newer:

The Shawshank Redemption

The Fifth Element

Aliens

The Abyss

LOTR trilogy

Bourne trilogy

Die Hard trilogy (or is it 4?)

Lethal Weapon plurality

Mad Max set of flics

Young Frankenstein

Blazing Saddles

Many more that would be called favorites.

And of course Avatar, when it comes out this year!

Jon

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 12:08:33 AM2/13/10

to

<snip>
>
> The Fifth Element
>
<snip>

If you can enjoy animation Jim, watch 'Heavy Metal' through to the end then
compare that with The Fifth Element.

It isn't for the young one.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

Message has been deleted

Beryl

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 2:03:31 AM2/13/10

to

Robert Baer wrote:

>>> not protected by the Fourth Amendment" is accurate then the 4'th
>>> amendment is effectively eviscerated since, in this day and age,

...
> Partial solutions, IN ORDER:
> 1) ALL searches are illegal by anybody for any reason unless agreed upon
> by ALL directly affected parties, PERIOD.

Remember your post, some time back, about the U.S. Coast Guard searching
some poor shmuck's fishing boat EVERY time he took it out off the
Florida coast? We found out then that 4th Amendment rights against
unreasonable search only apply _inside_ your home. Not in your car,
boat, or even your own back yard. The Supreme Court has consistently
said so.

Message has been deleted

Beryl

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 3:50:39 AM2/13/10

to

flipper wrote:

> I don't think so but if your version is correct then SOMEone on the
> court needs to reread the 4'th because 'houses' is but ONE of the FOUR
> specifics listed. And that's without making any 'interpretations'.

>
>> The Supreme Court has consistently
>> said so.
>

> I'd like to see a cite for that claim.

There were a couple extensive wikipedia pages about it all. I'll look
again later.
There was one case cited, about cops ignoring "No Trespassing" signs,
entering someone's private property without any warrant or court order,
and finding drugs. I think they found a marijuana patch. The court ruled
that since no privacy could be reasonably expected outdoors, no "search"
had occurred. And since there was no search, there was no unreasonable
search. Simple as that.

Beryl

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 4:30:58 AM2/13/10

to

flipper wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:03:31 -0800, Beryl <fo...@road.net> wrote:
>

> I don't think so but if your version is correct then SOMEone on the
> court needs to reread the 4'th because 'houses' is but ONE of the FOUR
> specifics listed. And that's without making any 'interpretations'.
>

>> The Supreme Court has consistently
>> said so.
>

> I'd like to see a cite for that claim.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>

Okay, cars have a "reduced expectation of privacy", but not none. Unless
they're in the vicinity of an international airport, of course, which
could turn an unreasonable search into a Border Search Exception.

Here's the catchall that nailed the pot grower I mentioned:
"Not all actions by which governmental authorities obtain information
from or about a person constitute a search. Therefore, government action
triggers the amendment's protections only when the information or
evidence at issue was obtained through a "search" within the meaning of
the amendment. If no search occurs, no warrant is required. Generally,
authorities have searched when they have impeded upon a person's
reasonable expectation of privacy."

Michael A. Terrell

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 3:50:30 PM2/13/10

to

flipper wrote:

>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > If they ever make Dimbulb have a competency hearing, his record on
> >Usenet would have him committed for life.
>
> And no warrant needed to gather the information either because Usenet
> really does fit the notion of 'public'.

Don't forget that Dimbulb isn't fit to be out in the public.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 6:49:28 PM2/13/10

to

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:31:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:00:51 -0700, Jim Thompson

>That doesn't sound very likely as, at the time the book was written
>and the movie made, we were hip deep in the "communist threat" and
>'terrorists' were low on the security totem pole, if on the radar
>screen at all.
>
>Well, that made me wonder so I checked imdb and they have a note in
>the trivia section saying that's an urban myth.
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/trivia not quite half way down.
>
>

>>Of course nothing like that could really happen, now could it ?:-)
>

>Not to ruin your joke but "brain washing" someone into roboticaly
>doing what they would otherwise never do is quite a different thing
>than 'selling' someone an idea based on it's alleged 'merits'. I.E.
>Islamic terrorists are 'believers' in the morals and mission. They
>may, if important to the mission, hide it from *you* but it's not
>'submerged' in themselves nor does it run counter to their 'true
>nature'.
>
>
>> ...Jim Thompson

I guess I got sucked up by someone's urban legend, then validated it
in my own mind when I couldn't get it on DVD :-(

Though my platitudes still fit the situation don't they ?:-)

Message has been deleted

Jim Thompson

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 9:06:04 PM2/13/10

to

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:25:20 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:49:28 -0700, Jim Thompson

><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:31:42 -0600, flipper <fli...@fish.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:00:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>><To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>>

[snip]

>>>>I think he feared that the movie would give terrorist organizations
>>>>ideas on how to do it... like run an Islamist thug from Chicago,
>>>>cloaked in political correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and
>>>>promises of wealth redistribution... something like that.
>>>
>>>That doesn't sound very likely as, at the time the book was written
>>>and the movie made, we were hip deep in the "communist threat" and
>>>'terrorists' were low on the security totem pole, if on the radar
>>>screen at all.
>>>
>>>Well, that made me wonder so I checked imdb and they have a note in
>>>the trivia section saying that's an urban myth.
>>>
>>>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/trivia not quite half way down.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course nothing like that could really happen, now could it ?:-)
>>>
>>>Not to ruin your joke but "brain washing" someone into roboticaly
>>>doing what they would otherwise never do is quite a different thing
>>>than 'selling' someone an idea based on it's alleged 'merits'. I.E.
>>>Islamic terrorists are 'believers' in the morals and mission. They
>>>may, if important to the mission, hide it from *you* but it's not
>>>'submerged' in themselves nor does it run counter to their 'true
>>>nature'.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>I guess I got sucked up by someone's urban legend, then validated it
>>in my own mind when I couldn't get it on DVD :-(
>

>It's certainly easy enough to do because 'things (seem to) fit', so to
>speak.
>
>That's one reason I'm typically a skeptic (and a 'look it up'). Not
>because I think people are 'lying' but because I've found that to be
>one of the most common deductive flaws.
>
>Some people even do it as a matter of form: having a conclusion and
>then looking for 'evidence' of the conclusion. The problem is: the
>supposed 'evidence' is usually consistent with not only the
>'preferred' conclusion but a gaggle of others as well.
>
>It takes 'effort', though, because we have a natural 'built in'
>information reduction system where things are screened in light of
>what we already consider 'plausible' or 'reasonable'.

>
>>Though my platitudes still fit the situation don't they ?:-)
>

>I'm not sure which ones you mean.
>

"...like run an Islamist thug from Chicago, cloaked in political

correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and promises of wealth
redistribution... something like that."

Leftist weenies are like watermelons...

GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.

Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"

Message has been deleted

Beryl

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 11:55:32 PM2/13/10

to

flipper wrote:

> That, btw, does not mean I necessarily object to the way cell pone
> records were used in the 'bank robber' case but I strongly object to
> the argument being used to justify it.

Tracking time and location of calls bothers you?
Read this.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
"mobile providers can remotely install a piece of software on to any
handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the
microphone even when its owner is not making a call."

Message has been deleted

Beryl

unread,

Feb 14, 2010, 2:10:59 AM2/14/10

to

flipper wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:55:32 -0800, Beryl <fo...@road.net> wrote:
>
>> flipper wrote:
>>
>>> That, btw, does not mean I necessarily object to the way cell pone
>>> records were used in the 'bank robber' case but I strongly object to
>>> the argument being used to justify it.
>> Tracking time and location of calls bothers you?
>

> I didn't say it bothered me. In fact I said, after a discussion of the
> 4'th amendment you snipped out, that it "does not mean I necessarily
> object to..."

>
>> Read this.
>> http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
>> "mobile providers can remotely install a piece of software on to any
>> handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the
>> microphone even when its owner is not making a call."
>

> Okay, I read it. Now what?

Don't fret over the small stuff.

Message has been deleted

don

unread,

Feb 14, 2010, 9:49:31 AM2/14/10

to

flipper wrote:
>
> Besides, your cell carrier is a 'third party' so you don't have an
> 'expectation of privacy' anyway, right?

How does this "third party" thing work ?

If I ask you (any you) to spy on Jim T. and I use that information in
court, but I saw I did not get that information, "I got it from a third
party", why is that not spying ?!

Does anyone have links to this argument ?

don

unread,

Feb 14, 2010, 12:59:15 PM2/14/10

to

OK, this looks like it:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/4/kerr.pdf

don

John Byrns

unread,

Feb 14, 2010, 2:10:14 PM2/14/10

to

In article <CYqdnZgS9bZ9HOrW...@posted.toastnet>,
Beryl <fo...@road.net> wrote:

Wouldn't those "bad guys" in New York notice that their cell phones
didn't have much talk time when this technique was being used? I would
think it would tend to run the battery down unexpectedly.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Message has been deleted

Beryl

unread,

Feb 15, 2010, 12:15:47 AM2/15/10

to

Creepy, huh? What do you drive?

"A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn
on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors'
OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations."

life imitates life

unread,

Feb 15, 2010, 12:40:39 AM2/15/10

to

Sounds like a good time to market third party aftermarket installed
microphone switches. Hard not to rely on a switch position.

Message has been deleted

Greegor

unread,

Feb 15, 2010, 1:47:11 AM2/15/10

to

flipper
> I may seem "creepy" to you but the cell phone surveillance was
> pursuant to a court order so it prima facie does not constitute a
> warrantless search.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=civilliberties&civilliberties_surveillance=civilliberties_database_programs

May 2008: Number of Americans Listed as Potential Suspects in Main
Core Database Reportedly Reaches Eight Million What Radar magazine
describes as a “knowledgeable source” claims that 8 million Americans
are now listed in the Main Core database as potentially suspect. Main
Core is a database of enemies of the state established several decades
before as a part of the Continuity of Government (COG) program (see
1980s or Before). In the event of a national emergency, the suspects
could be subject to, for example, heightened surveillance, tracking,
direct questioning, or even detention. [Radar, 5/2008]

Beryl

unread,

Feb 15, 2010, 2:37:37 AM2/15/10

to

Greegor wrote:
> flipper
>> I may seem "creepy" to you but the cell phone surveillance was
>> pursuant to a court order so it prima facie does not constitute a
>> warrantless search.
>
> http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=civilliberties&civilliberties_surveillance=civilliberties_database_programs
>
> May 2008: Number of Americans Listed as Potential Suspects in Main
> Core Database Reportedly Reaches Eight Million What Radar magazine

> describes as a ï¿½knowledgeable sourceï¿½ claims that 8 million Americans

> are now listed in the Main Core database as potentially suspect. Main
> Core is a database of enemies of the state established several decades
> before as a part of the Continuity of Government (COG) program (see
> 1980s or Before). In the event of a national emergency, the suspects
> could be subject to, for example, heightened surveillance, tracking,
> direct questioning, or even detention. [Radar, 5/2008]

The entire Bush era was a national emergency. The boob would raise the
threat level to Orange whenever his support was sagging, like right
before the 2004 election.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

unread,

Feb 15, 2010, 1:07:58 PM2/15/10

to

In the UK there are elections coming up.
What the govt needs is a big terrorist scare.
It would also help if things went well in Afghanistan, but the Taliban
might not cooperate. Better to keep the troops in base and claim that
it's all quietened down because of our success.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show