He wasn't conventionally religious, either.
> How about John F Kennedy?
If he was a "good Catholic" he must have spent half his time doing penance .
Adulterer. Slept with suspected Nazi spy, also w/a gangster's moll. Screwed
up Bay of Pigs. He should have provided air cover for the Bay of Pigs landing
or called it off. Fish or cut bait, but half-assing it was stupid. Screwed up
regarding NATO missiles in Turkey, inviting Russian retaliation in Cuba.
Allowing the Diem assassination was another "genius move."
Good points: cut marginal tax rates.
> How about Robert Kennedy?
Adulterer. Illegally bugged organized crime victims,
and Martin Lither King, Jr. Supported McCarthy's
excesses as a Senate staffer.
> How about William F Buckley?
He was another defender of McCarthy, and made common cause
with "state's rights" segregationists when he should have
been a champion of individual rights. He cavalierly suggested
we use nukes against China, and in Viet Nam.
WFB was a favorite of mine when I was young. He had a libertarian
side he would tease reader with, from time to time, but, when his
side was in power, or close to reaching it, he could support state
power as a practical matter. [The draft, limiting the civil rights
of those infected with HIV, etc ]
He did decide the drug war was futile, and he did "excommunicate"
the Birchers and other anti-Semites from the conservative movement.
> If you were wise, you would not have claimed I said I was a lawyer without checking
> with the Bar association.
*******************************************************************************************
I have pointed out how Tandy paltered:
From this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.atheism/Z7WuuRq0g4g
Message-ID: <
6e79539f-2606-4301...@googlegroups.com>
{QUOTE}
Tandy did, at least once, call himself a Naval Prosecutor, and
told us he attended U of I Law without bothering to tell us
he withdrew after 1 year: a "lie by omission."
[quote]
I attended Law school at the University of Illinois in
Champaign. You can check their records if you don't believe
me. I also practiced criminal law as a prosecutor in the Navy
for 4 years.
[quote] from:
Message-ID: <
0f190f59-c420-4005...@m5g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
22 July, 2011
See also:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?STYPE=msgid&A=0&MSGI=%3C0f190f59-c420-4005-b918-78c673c26af2%40m5g2000prh.googlegroups.com%3E OR
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/alt.atheism/aod7Q3zB-b4/nYrs2c3fGWgJ
Note he didn't originally tell us he attended UofI Law for 1 year,
allowing those who don't read closely to assume he went the full 3.
"Lying by omission," the good faddas and sistas called it back when
I was in Catholic school.
Now, is it fair to claim being a non-JAG "legal officer" on
board ship to be "practicing law?" State bar associations
would probably say "no."
It's easy to deal with this, Tandy. Just say "I expressed that
incorrectly."
{/Quote}
I still say, that when one claims to have "practiced law," that is
an equivalent claim to "I am/was a lawyer."
Practicing law without a license is generally not permitted in
the US, though there are paralegals and some limited license
legal technicians in states like Washington. Since the Navy
would follow its own rules, under Federal, not state law, Tandy
doing what he did do was perfectly legal. He certainly wasn't a
JAG lawyer, though, or anything near it. And rules for non-lawyers
doing work that used to be the sole province of licensed lawyers have
loosened over the years. A paralegal may work in a law practice,
but isn't a full-fledged lawyer.
Again, the record has been corrected, but let's not forget that
Tandy tried to slide this past us, in a case of "claiming false
expertise," but got caught.
-------------------------------------------------------
Anybody who reads this can judge how truthful Tandy was on
this issue, before correcting the record.
I think it is plain that he was attempting to paint himself
with the authority of credentials he never had. That's
one man's opinion, of course.
*********************************************************************
> You are a ludicrous lying clown.
You repeat the same old crap that we have already refuted. Don't get
pissed off if the rebuttals are dragged out of the archives and reposted.