| |
Main
Date: 18 Jan 2007 23:57:55
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 20:44:22
From: Leroy
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
What did gross, and I will tell if that's a naff bollocks round.
On Jan 28, 12:34 pm, Bert Robbins <s...@you.com > wrote:
> I played 18 today. It was a great day and I shot a net 74.
>
> What are "naff bollocks?"
>
>
>
> Leroy wrote:
> > What the hell is with you Americans. This is a golf board, bugger off
> > with your naff bollocks about politics and contribute on topic.
>
> > Love from New Zealand
>
> > On Jan 20, 11:21 am, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
> >> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:06:38 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> OK, without going to Google or otherwise looking it up, name the last
> >>>>> ten Presidents and the last ten Leaders of the House.
> >>>>> Now do you understand?
> >>>> You either don't read newspapers or watch TV.
> >>> We're talking about the people who responded to the poll - who I
> >>> imagine are average voters.
> >>> What percentage of such people could name those Speakers?
> >>> Also - there is a difference in an approval rating and a disapproval
> >>> rating. Someone new in her job really hasn't done anything to
> >>> warrant either.I dunno. We got a lot of rhetoric about "the war", and how congress wasn't
> >> doing anything with respect to the war. OK. Fine. Now they are in and when
> >> asked what they will do about the war er...uh...well...some say this...some
> >> say that...maybe we'll do something...er it's up to the Commander in
> >> Chief...we're just po' ol' congressional representatives...but hey, minimum
> >> wage...that's good isn't it?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 15:26:52
From: Leroy
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
What the hell is with you Americans. This is a golf board, bugger off
with your naff bollocks about politics and contribute on topic.
Love from New Zealand
On Jan 20, 11:21 am, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:06:38 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> OK, without going to Google or otherwise looking it up, name the last
> > >> ten Presidents and the last ten Leaders of the House.
>
> > >> Now do you understand?
>
> > >You either don't read newspapers or watch TV.
>
> > We're talking about the people who responded to the poll - who I
> > imagine are average voters.
>
> > What percentage of such people could name those Speakers?
>
> > Also - there is a difference in an approval rating and a disapproval
> > rating. Someone new in her job really hasn't done anything to
> > warrant either.I dunno. We got a lot of rhetoric about "the war", and how congress wasn't
> doing anything with respect to the war. OK. Fine. Now they are in and when
> asked what they will do about the war er...uh...well...some say this...some
> say that...maybe we'll do something...er it's up to the Commander in
> Chief...we're just po' ol' congressional representatives...but hey, minimum
> wage...that's good isn't it?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jan 2007 18:34:05
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
I played 18 today. It was a great day and I shot a net 74.
What are "naff bollocks?"
Leroy wrote:
> What the hell is with you Americans. This is a golf board, bugger off
> with your naff bollocks about politics and contribute on topic.
>
> Love from New Zealand
>
> On Jan 20, 11:21 am, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:06:38 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> OK, without going to Google or otherwise looking it up, name the last
>>>>> ten Presidents and the last ten Leaders of the House.
>>>>> Now do you understand?
>>>> You either don't read newspapers or watch TV.
>>> We're talking about the people who responded to the poll - who I
>>> imagine are average voters.
>>> What percentage of such people could name those Speakers?
>>> Also - there is a difference in an approval rating and a disapproval
>>> rating. Someone new in her job really hasn't done anything to
>>> warrant either.I dunno. We got a lot of rhetoric about "the war", and how congress wasn't
>> doing anything with respect to the war. OK. Fine. Now they are in and when
>> asked what they will do about the war er...uh...well...some say this...some
>> say that...maybe we'll do something...er it's up to the Commander in
>> Chief...we're just po' ol' congressional representatives...but hey, minimum
>> wage...that's good isn't it?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 19:09:23
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> news:45B43068.A0D88C72@att.net...
> >
> >
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >
> > > Carbon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test
> is:
> > > > > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is
> going
> > > > > to charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin.
> It
> > > > > it really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
> > > >
> > > > One group says 2+2=4. Another group says it doesn't.
> > >
> > > Rob believes that if the President says it's legal, then it must be
> > > legal.
> > > I mean, he's the President!
> >
> > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have
> been
> > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
>
> It is legal, because the courts have held that it is legal.
I must have missed that ruling.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:57:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
The_Professor wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > > > > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
> > > >
> > > > When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
> > > >
> > > > Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
> > > > wiretaps are legal.
> > > > I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
> > > > to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
> > > > of the White House, I mean.
> > >
> > > Post all the links you want. If it were illegal, they would have been charged and
> > > convicted. What some scholar(s) think(s) should be is not relevant. I think I have
> > > more experience with the "scholar" business than you do.
> >
> > Right, Rob. Your erudition certainly shows here. Criminal behavior
> > ALWAYS results in convictions. That's why Ronald Reagn was convicted
> > in the Iran-Contra affair after he lied about the sale of arms to Iran,
> > transfer of proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras, lied about it, then
> > confessed to the lie.
>
> Now there's another example of a stupid political witch hunt. The
> activity itself was not illegal, but someone "lied" about it. I would
> love to get someone like you, who thinks this kind of nonsense is OK in
> front of a grand jury, grill you for a couple to several hours, and
> then research everything you said or did with respect to issues in
> qurestion, and if your grand jury testimony differs at all from the
> record, charge you with perjury; and convict you based on the facts of
> the data; you said something to the grand jury that was in fact
> different from what you said or did previously. That's not even to
> mention the waste of time and money.
You're entitled to you fantasies. Funding the Contras in violation of a
federal law expressly barring the funding of the Contras might be said
to be illegal, no? But maybe I'm being naive.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 16:27:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On 22 Jan 2007 09:57:51 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>You're entitled to you fantasies. Funding the Contras in violation of a
>federal law expressly barring the funding of the Contras might be said
>to be illegal, no? But maybe I'm being naive.
Yes, it was illegal, but in some cases the law is so unjust that
people of conscience have no recourse other than civil disobedience.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 09:46:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169299117.461927.252130@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > the fact that you don't hear about something doesn't necessarily mean
> > it isn't happening. A lot of congressional oversight, e.g., hearings
> > and investigations, don't get in the press.
>
> Why are they having illegal secret meetings?
What the hell are you talking about? the fact that the press doesn't
cover something makes it illegal and secret? I'm starting to wonder
about you, Mod.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:48:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On 22 Jan 2007 09:46:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>the Moderator wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169299117.461927.252130@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > the fact that you don't hear about something doesn't necessarily mean
>> > it isn't happening. A lot of congressional oversight, e.g., hearings
>> > and investigations, don't get in the press.
>>
>> Why are they having illegal secret meetings?
>
>What the hell are you talking about? the fact that the press doesn't
>cover something makes it illegal and secret? I'm starting to wonder
>about you, Mod.
Starting to wonder?
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 08:30:10
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Otto wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-C9DFED.22480821012007@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > This went backwards and forwards until a sixteen year old girl got up.
> > She said she was from Vinton County (again in Appalachia, nears Athens
> > County), and through tears of frustration she asked this blowhard why it
> > was that she should be denied the chance to take Spanish because the
> > school district couldn't afford a Spanish teacher. I have never seen
> > anyone stopped quite so dead in their tracks and this politico, and this
> > really is the point, isn't it? Whatever the political differences are,
> > there is simply no excuse for our society to deny any child the chance
> > to learn and study what they want to. That is simply a waste of a young
> > mind, and a failure of the older generation.
>
>
> Tell her and her parents to save their pennies or get another job and buy
> her the tapes or books or whatever is necessary to learn Spanish.
>
> If she and/or her parents have the will, they will find the way.
>
> She got a raw shake and was born into a financially disadvantaged
> demogracphic. There is always a way out if the will is there.
>
> "Victims" wallow.
>
> Winners climb.
>
> It's her choice.
>
> Let us remember. The only thing this country offers(by the constitiution) is
> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not give happiness.
> Only the pursuit of happiness.
>
> It is her choice whether to pursue or not.
>
How convenient. Vague social theory; on a schoolkid. In Athens, Co,
Ohio, most of the people lived outside the City of Athens. They
constantly whined that they can't pass school tax increases because the
people outside the city vote en masse against it because they knew it
all went to city schools. The fact is that the City was
diproportionatelyalolocating the funds from the rest of the county to
themselves.
You are right about the US Constitution though, people in upscale
neighbourhoods have no right to take educational funding the way they
do. Everyone should have the same right to pursue happiness!
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 08:30:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush's
> > warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:
>
> Fine. Then McCain should see to it that charges are filed. Otherwise he's just
> another spinster blowing hot air.
Scooter Libby says hi.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 08:22:52
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
John B. wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > > > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
> > >
> > > When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
> > >
> > > Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
> > > wiretaps are legal.
> > > I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
> > > to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
> > > of the White House, I mean.
> >
> > Post all the links you want. If it were illegal, they would have been charged and
> > convicted. What some scholar(s) think(s) should be is not relevant. I think I have
> > more experience with the "scholar" business than you do.
>
> Right, Rob. Your erudition certainly shows here. Criminal behavior
> ALWAYS results in convictions. That's why Ronald Reagn was convicted
> in the Iran-Contra affair after he lied about the sale of arms to Iran,
> transfer of proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras, lied about it, then
> confessed to the lie.
Now there's another example of a stupid political witch hunt. The
activity itself was not illegal, but someone "lied" about it. I would
love to get someone like you, who thinks this kind of nonsense is OK in
front of a grand jury, grill you for a couple to several hours, and
then research everything you said or did with respect to issues in
qurestion, and if your grand jury testimony differs at all from the
record, charge you with perjury; and convict you based on the facts of
the data; you said something to the grand jury that was in fact
different from what you said or did previously. That's not even to
mention the waste of time and money.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 07:54:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> John B. <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Robert Hamilton wrote:
> :> annika1980 wrote:
> :>
> :> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> :> > > > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
> :> >
> :> > Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
> :> >
> :>
> :> One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> :> was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
> :> charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
> :> really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
> :
> : The "dem congress" is not a law enforecement body and has no power to
> : "charge" anybody with anything.
>
> The Congress has the authority of impeachment (indictment) and
> trial, so, yes, they do have the authority to charge people
> with things, as well as convict them.
>
Fair enough, Chris, but that authority applies only to federal elective
office-holders, i.e., the president, VP and members of Congress.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 07:51:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
> >
> > Here's a story from 1 year ago:
> >
> > http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/
> >
> > Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush's
> > warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:
>
> Fine. Then McCain should see to it that charges are filed. Otherwise he's just
> another spinster blowing hot air.
How's he going to do that?
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 05:02:17
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
> >
> > When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
> >
> > Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
> > wiretaps are legal.
> > I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
> > to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
> > of the White House, I mean.
>
> Post all the links you want. If it were illegal, they would have been charged and
> convicted. What some scholar(s) think(s) should be is not relevant. I think I have
> more experience with the "scholar" business than you do.
Right, Rob. Your erudition certainly shows here. Criminal behavior
ALWAYS results in convictions. That's why Ronald Reagn was convicted
in the Iran-Contra affair after he lied about the sale of arms to Iran,
transfer of proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras, lied about it, then
confessed to the lie.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 04:55:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I agree with you on that NATO, the UN and the like are a total waste of US
> > > resources. Spend more on arts and sciences and forget about the world
> > > leadership
> > > nonsense. They all want to kill each other anyways, and in the end they will.
> > > It's
> > > why most of our ancestors ran very fast from the "old world".
> >
> > The UN and NATO are not the ones turning the Middle East upside down -
> > it is the US that is managing to make itself the object of such virulent
> > hatred. We are.
> >
> > But I agree. Just imagine what we could do for education with the $1BN a
> > day that is going down the drain that is Iraq.
>
> These characters would hate the US anyways. Earning the hatred of Slavic nations
> with the foolishness in Serbia is another issue though. No way the US should have
> become involved in any of that. IMHO, it is THE reason why relations between the US
> and Russia have chilled so much.
That's ridiculous. what on earth makes you think that Slavic people
hate the US? The reason relations w/Russia have soured is the behavior
of Putin, who has all but abrogated any semblance of democracy there.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 15:20:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On 22 Jan 2007 04:55:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>That's ridiculous. what on earth makes you think that Slavic people
>hate the US? The reason relations w/Russia have soured is the behavior
>of Putin, who has all but abrogated any semblance of democracy there.
Putin's also pissed off that the US stopped all his illegal dealings
with Iraq.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 05:12:34
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
>
> Here's a story from 1 year ago:
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/
>
> Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush's
> warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:
Fine. Then McCain should see to it that charges are filed. Otherwise he's just
another spinster blowing hot air.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 05:05:22
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> > laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
>
> When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
>
> Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
> wiretaps are legal.
> I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
> to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
> of the White House, I mean.
Post all the links you want. If it were illegal, they would have been charged and
convicted. What some scholar(s) think(s) should be is not relevant. I think I have
more experience with the "scholar" business than you do.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:52:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
Here's a story from 1 year ago:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/
Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Bush's
warrantless domestic wiretapping program is illegal:
WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal
authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps.
MCCAIN: You know, I don't think so, but why not come to Congress? We
can sort this all out. I don't think - I know of no member of
Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here's
why we need this capability, that they wouldn't get it. And so
let's have the hearings.
McCain is the latest addition to a growing list of prominent
conservatives - including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen
Specter (R-PA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)
- who have expressed serious concerns about the legality of the
program.
Karl Rove doesn't want to spin it this way but concern about the
warrantless domestic spying program is bipartisan.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:46:45
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
> laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
wiretaps are legal.
I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
of the White House, I mean.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 23:22:59
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1169437605.216653.50240@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have
>> been
>> laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
>
> When your Uncle nailed his sister were charges laid? Or just your mom?
>
> Ask any Constitutional scholar whether he believes that warrantless
> wiretaps are legal.
> I can provide many links if you wish. How about providing some links
> to some scholars that feel these wiretaps are legal. Someone outside
> of the White House, I mean.
Hell, I would just like to know if there's ANYONE in the White House that
could legitimately be called a "scholar." I mean a "scholar" of ANY kind.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 03:44:04
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > >
> > > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> > > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going
> > > to charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It
> > > it really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
> >
> > One group says 2+2=4. Another group says it doesn't.
>
> Rob believes that if the President says it's legal, then it must be
> legal.
> I mean, he's the President!
I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have been
laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 11:06:09
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45B43068.A0D88C72@att.net...
>
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > Carbon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test
is:
> > > > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is
going
> > > > to charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin.
It
> > > > it really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
> > >
> > > One group says 2+2=4. Another group says it doesn't.
> >
> > Rob believes that if the President says it's legal, then it must be
> > legal.
> > I mean, he's the President!
>
> I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have
been
> laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
It is legal, because the courts have held that it is legal.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:13:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:06:09 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
>news:45B43068.A0D88C72@att.net...
>>
>>
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>
>> > Carbon wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test
>is:
>> > > > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is
>going
>> > > > to charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin.
>It
>> > > > it really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
>> > >
>> > > One group says 2+2=4. Another group says it doesn't.
>> >
>> > Rob believes that if the President says it's legal, then it must be
>> > legal.
>> > I mean, he's the President!
>>
>> I beleive it's not illegal because if it were illegal, charges would have
>been
>> laid. But wait, Bret says it's illegal, so it must be illegal!
>
>It is legal, because the courts have held that it is legal.
>
Cite.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:37:53
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Carbon wrote:
> >
> > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going
> > to charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It
> > it really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
>
> One group says 2+2=4. Another group says it doesn't.
Rob believes that if the President says it's legal, then it must be
legal.
I mean, he's the President!
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:44:58
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
> >
> > Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
> >
>
> One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
> charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
> really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
The "dem congress" is not a law enforecement body and has no power to
"charge" anybody with anything.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:09:32
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
John B. <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Robert Hamilton wrote:
: > annika1980 wrote:
: >
: > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
: > > > > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
: > >
: > > Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
: > >
: >
: > One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
: > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
: > charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
: > really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
:
: The "dem congress" is not a law enforecement body and has no power to
: "charge" anybody with anything.
The Congress has the authority of impeachment (indictment) and
trial, so, yes, they do have the authority to charge people
with things, as well as convict them.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 14:01:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:09:32 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: The "dem congress" is not a law enforecement body and has no power to
>: "charge" anybody with anything.
>
>The Congress has the authority of impeachment (indictment) and
>trial, so, yes, they do have the authority to charge people
>with things, as well as convict them.
Absolutely, Congress can impeach the President and throw him out of
office.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 21:11:27
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
> > >
> >
> > One groups says it's legal.
>
> Which group would that be?
>
> >Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> > was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
> > charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
> > really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
>
> That's bull. If I break into your house and never get charged, is it
> legal?
> And how long has the Dem Congress been in office? A week?
They don't hesitate for a minute if the other side does something they think is
illegal, irrespecitve of who "they" are. The Whitewater thing and the Valerie
Plame thing are perfect examples. Nothing there, but there's a chance, so they go
for it big time. The US AG says its legal, BTW. You commit a felony, say you did
it, and you will be charged.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:12:42
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
> >
>
> One groups says it's legal.
Which group would that be?
>Another says it's not. However, the test is:
> was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
> charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
> really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
That's bull. If I break into your house and never get charged, is it
legal?
And how long has the Dem Congress been in office? A week?
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 17:59:29
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
>
> Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
>
One groups says it's legal. Another says it's not. However, the test is:
was anyone charged with anything? Do you think the dem congress is going to
charge anyone with anything? Nope. You know why? It's just spin. It it
really were illegal we would have seen something happen by now.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 17:53:58
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > Bush:
> > > 1. +3,000 US dead in Iraq
> > > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
> > > 3. Illegal signing statements (shits on the Constitution). ?????
> > >
> > > 4. Illegal Coverups in the White House (Plame case) No evidence
> > > of any sort of coverup in the so called "Plame case".
>
> Wrong.
>
> > > 5. Gives tax breaks to the rich and the oil companies. Gave me a
> > > tax break worth about 2K that the dems will repeal the first chance
> > > they get. I guess I must be an oil company, cause I sure ain't rich!
>
> We got $600. I'd give it back if it would bring back the +3,000 US
> dead in Iraq.
> Of course, there is really nothing to give back since we've spent at
> least $600 more on gas than we would've at pre-Bush prices. Of course,
> Bush has nothing to do with the price of gas. Nothing at all.
So you think the dems wouldn't have raised the taxes on gas if it were up to
them, and would have relaxed the regulations on different grades of gas, like
Bush has? I too got the few hundred bucks, but I also save via the repeal of
the riage penalty, which the dems want back in. You can't increase taxes on
oil companies. All they can do is increase taxes on oil consumers. Increase
the cost of the commoditiy and it is passed onto the consumer one way or
another; either directly in direct price increases, or by throwing a wet
blanket on investment, and supply declines.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 09:51:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
Really? Which law allows warrantless wiretapping?
Perhaps you were on the golf course this week and missed the story
about how the White House will now only do wiretaps with warrants like
everyone else?
==========================
Never mind what we said about spying
By: Steve Chapman
Published January 21, 2007
Is President Bush surrendering in the war on terror? For more than a
year, the administration has insisted that preserving its "terrorist
surveillance program," which involves unfettered and unauthorized
wiretapping of Americans suspected of communicating with Al Qaeda
operatives abroad, was, in the words of former White House press
secretary Scott McClellan, "a vital tool" for us "to stay a step ahead
of a deadly enemy that is determined to strike America again." Now,
Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the program will not be renewed.
Before, we were told it was impossible to combat terrorism within the
confines of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which
places such investigations under the review of a special intelligence
court--a process Gonzales portrayed as cumbersome and obsolete.
But that was in the past. "Any electronic surveillance that was
occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be
conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court," wrote Gonzales in a letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee last week. Did we say impossible? We meant easy!
This about-face must be causing massive cognitive dissonance within the
administration and among conservatives who regard any check on
executive power as a favor to Al Qaeda. From the moment the secret
National Security Agency program was revealed by The New York Times in
2005, Republicans treated its critics as foolish appeasers.
Never mind that it apparently violated the law, and never mind that it
let the government spy on Americans right here at home, without
bothering to get the search warrants that are normally required. Issues
of legality, constitutionality and privacy cut no ice with the
administration and its supporters. Either you were for the program, or
you preferred to expose us to catastrophe.
During last fall's campaign, Bush mercilessly ridiculed congressional
critics. "They must not think we're at war," he charged. "When the
Terrorist Surveillance Program was brought to a vote on the floor of
the House of Representatives, the vast majority of Democrats voted
against it." So when, exactly, did the war end?
Even stalwart administration allies are asking that question. An
editorial in The Wall Street Journal, which defended the program from
the start, declared itself "baffled by Mr. Bush's surrender" and warned
that the "administration has some explaining to do--not least to its
own officials who spent months saying FISA warrants were dangerously
restrictive."
Contrary to the president's suggestions, critics were never against
surveillance of Al Qaeda confederates in the United States. They only
wanted the government to do what cops normally do when they want to
eavesdrop: go to a judge and explain why the person targeted warrants
investigation. In an emergency, FISA even allows the NSA to install the
wire-tap first and seek approval within 72 hours. But that wasn't good
enough for the administration.
The attorney general now says the NSA no longer has to operate as it
did because the Justice Department worked with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to devise a faster, more flexible way to get a
judge's approval of wiretaps. But if there is a way to do that, why did
the administration wait five years to propose it?
Congress, after all, has amended FISA several times since it was
enacted. Yet the White House chose to circumvent the law and create a
secret program that, if the president had his way, would still be
spying on Americans without our knowledge.
We don't know exactly how the program will operate under the court's
supervision, because Gonzales refuses to say. But apparently the
administration has succumbed to the once-intolerable burden of
demonstrating to judges that certain people pose a danger before they
are bugged.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, says Justice Department officials assured him the
eavesdropping will proceed on the basis of old-fashioned individualized
warrants, not simply a blanket court approval of what the NSA was
doing. Other sources told The Washington Post that such warrants are
one part of the new system. So apparently we can fight Al Qaeda without
giving up our privacy protections.
Maybe we were misled before, or maybe we're being misled now. But the
next time the president tries to sell us on the idea that some
expansion of executive power is critical to fighting terrorism, I hope
he'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:31:23
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Bush is also more popular than ass cancer, but it's really nothing to
brag about.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 09:43:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > Bush:
> > 1. +3,000 US dead in Iraq
> > 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
> > 3. Illegal signing statements (shits on the Constitution). ?????
> >
> > 4. Illegal Coverups in the White House (Plame case) No evidence
> > of any sort of coverup in the so called "Plame case".
Wrong.
> > 5. Gives tax breaks to the rich and the oil companies. Gave me a
> > tax break worth about 2K that the dems will repeal the first chance
> > they get. I guess I must be an oil company, cause I sure ain't rich!
We got $600. I'd give it back if it would bring back the +3,000 US
dead in Iraq.
Of course, there is really nothing to give back since we've spent at
least $600 more on gas than we would've at pre-Bush prices. Of course,
Bush has nothing to do with the price of gas. Nothing at all.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 09:04:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <t4OdnaKc-7qn5C7YnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <fQDsh.2310$Ts.909@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> The result is that rural and inner
> > >>>> city education in the US stink, but if you live in a nice suburb, you
> > >>>> can get a very good education from the public system in the US.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's not about the money and it's not about the politics.
> > >>
> > >> It's about the parents.
> > >>
> > >> The high achieving suburban public schools have well educated, involved
> > >> parents. Involved in the classroom. Involved in Pta. Involved in
> > >> extracurricular activities, etc.
> > >>
> > >> Involved at home.
> > >>
> > >> Involved parents. Parents that pick a public school because the parents
> > >> before them are involved and responsible.
> > >>
> > >> It's about parents holding themselves and their children accountable.
> > >>
> > >> Forget about Bush or Pelosi. They couldn't give a rat's arse if your
> > >> children get educated.
> > >>
> > >> If you are a parent------accept responsibility and if you believe in your
> > >> public school------make it work.
> > >>
> > >> It's all about the parents. If they don't care--nothing else matters.
> > >>
> > >> Otto
> > >
> > > No it really isn't about parents, it's about the tax base. As long as we
> > > continue to fund schools from local (property) taxes, this is
> > > inevitable. We live in a very affluent school district, where our kids
> > > have the best of everything. They have available high quality teachers,
> > > and courses and options that simply do not exist in poor rural areas.
> > > There is also a culture of high expectations and achievement, so they do
> > > outstandingly well on standardized tests. Now it is true to say that
> > > there is good parental support and involvement, but I have seen that in
> > > poor inner city schools, too, where the average kid just simply has the
> > > deck stacked against them.
> >
> > It is not about the money, it really is about the parents involvement in
> > their children's education. The Washington, D.C. public school system
> > spends the most per student than any other public school system in the
> > country and the students cannot read the menu board at McDonald's.
> >
> > > Educating the next generation is the single most important
> > > responsibility we have as citizens. Nothing else will dictate our
> > > society's survival and downfall more.
> >
> > Money is not the the problem, teachers are a part of the problem and
> > greater parent involvement is the solution.
> >
> > Teacher to student ratio 30 to 1.
> > Parent to child ration 1 to 1.
>
> Your argument is self-contradictory. Firstly, your claim about DC's
> apparently high cost per pupil is baseless. DC actually spends over
> $3,800 less per pupil than Arlington, $2,100 less than Alexandria, and
> so on. Add to that the fact that DC has a very high proportion of
> children with special (i.e. more expensive) educational needs, that take
> up a significant fraction of the funding and it is clear that pupils in
> the DCPS system are at a considerable disadvantage compared to
> surrounding suburbs. In addition, look at the proportion of that figure
> that goes to teachers' salaries, and you get a very clear idea of how
> DCPS (and other inner city school districts) compare to their affluent
> suburban neighbours. It matters not how much money a school district
> spends unless that spending attracts the right resources. Very few of
> the best teachers are going to pass up a well-paying job in an affluent
> white suburb, to go to the inner city.
>
> "Money is not the the problem, teachers are a part of the problem and
> greater parent involvement is the solution." Sounds just like the
> typical neocon pabulum to excuse inequitable distribution of resources
> and opportunity. It is meangingless.
>
> William Clark
Moreover, DC is unique in that it isn't part of a state and therefore
gets no state tax dollars. I live in Fairfax County, Va., a DC suburb.
It is a very affluent county and according to whoever measures these
things it has the best public school system in the US. Kids who go to
FC public schools tend to do very well in college admissions. My wife
and I would love to send our 16-year-old daughter to the U. of Va., but
the admissions policy there makes it very difficult to get admitted
from Fairfax Co. They dont admit this publicly, but if they were to
make no distinctions about where in-state applincants live, the
university would be flooded with students from Northern Va. Is that
because N. Va. parents are better at parenting than those in the rest
of the state? Of course not. Good parenting doesn't always produce good
students. Bad parenting doesn't always produce bad students.
|
| |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 07:27:49
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <fQDsh.2310$Ts.909@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> The result is that rural and inner
> >>>> city education in the US stink, but if you live in a nice suburb, you
> >>>> can get a very good education from the public system in the US.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not about the money and it's not about the politics.
> >>
> >> It's about the parents.
> >>
> >> The high achieving suburban public schools have well educated, involved
> >> parents. Involved in the classroom. Involved in Pta. Involved in
> >> extracurricular activities, etc.
> >>
> >> Involved at home.
> >>
> >> Involved parents. Parents that pick a public school because the parents
> >> before them are involved and responsible.
> >>
> >> It's about parents holding themselves and their children accountable.
> >>
> >> Forget about Bush or Pelosi. They couldn't give a rat's arse if your
> >> children get educated.
> >>
> >> If you are a parent------accept responsibility and if you believe in your
> >> public school------make it work.
> >>
> >> It's all about the parents. If they don't care--nothing else matters.
> >>
> >> Otto
> >
> > No it really isn't about parents, it's about the tax base. As long as we
> > continue to fund schools from local (property) taxes, this is
> > inevitable. We live in a very affluent school district, where our kids
> > have the best of everything. They have available high quality teachers,
> > and courses and options that simply do not exist in poor rural areas.
> > There is also a culture of high expectations and achievement, so they do
> > outstandingly well on standardized tests. Now it is true to say that
> > there is good parental support and involvement, but I have seen that in
> > poor inner city schools, too, where the average kid just simply has the
> > deck stacked against them.
>
> It is not about the money, it really is about the parents involvement in
> their children's education. The Washington, D.C. public school system
> spends the most per student than any other public school system in the
> country and the students cannot read the menu board at McDonald's.
>
> > Educating the next generation is the single most important
> > responsibility we have as citizens. Nothing else will dictate our
> > society's survival and downfall more.
>
> Money is not the the problem, teachers are a part of the problem and
> greater parent involvement is the solution.
>
> Teacher to student ratio 30 to 1.
> Parent to child ration 1 to 1.
Everybody in this discusssion wants to lay the failure of some public
school systems at the feet of one discrete cause. It's the parents. No,
it's the inequitable distribution of tax dollars. No, it's immigrant
kids in the schools. A lot of very st, professional people devote
their lives to improving the quailty of public education in the US, and
I doubt that any of them thinks there is only one flaw to be fixed.
|
| |
Date: 20 Jan 2007 21:16:44
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45B00750.98C72206@att.net...
> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>
You got a site for those stats, junior?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 10:50:19
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
In article <45b3135b$0$15493$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com > wrote:
> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> news:45B00750.98C72206@att.net...
> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
> >
> You got a site for those stats, junior?
Yes, I've asked that, too. You won't get an answer - it's probably
Hannity.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 17:47:50
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> In article <45b3135b$0$15493$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:45B00750.98C72206@att.net...
> > > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
> > >
> > You got a site for those stats, junior?
>
> Yes, I've asked that, too. You won't get an answer - it's probably
> Hannity.
>
> William Clark
Who is Hannity? A legitimate comissioned poll by the same organizations
that do all such polls. Of course, NBC would never commission such a
poll!
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:39:11
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
In article <45B3A510.C5E588A6@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" wrote:
>
> > In article <45b3135b$0$15493$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> > "aeiouy" <aeiouy@vowels.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:45B00750.98C72206@att.net...
> > > > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
> > > >
> > > You got a site for those stats, junior?
> >
> > Yes, I've asked that, too. You won't get an answer - it's probably
> > Hannity.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Who is Hannity? A legitimate comissioned poll by the same organizations
> that do all such polls. Of course, NBC would never commission such a
> poll!
Now which "organization" would that be?
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:47:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
People hate Bush because of his record.
People hate Pelosi because they are being conditioned to.
Here's a poll with some typical results:
Name 5 things that both Bush and Pelosi have done since they took
office of which you disapprove.
Bush:
1. +3,000 US dead in Iraq
2. Illegal wiretapping
3. Illegal signing statements (shits on the Constitution).
4. Illegal Coverups in the White House (Plame case)
5. Gives tax breaks to the rich and the oil companies.
Pelosi:
1. Well ........ she's a LIBERAL from SAN FRANCISCO!
2. Uh ....... she's a DAMN LIBERAL!
3. She's from SAN FRANCISCO!
4. I think she is GAY!
5. She wants QUEERS to get ried!
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jan 2007 01:04:51
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>
> People hate Bush because of his record.
> People hate Pelosi because they are being conditioned to.
>
> Here's a poll with some typical results:
>
> Name 5 things that both Bush and Pelosi have done since they took
> office of which you disapprove.
>
> Bush:
> 1. +3,000 US dead in Iraq
> 2. Illegal wiretapping Really. Not according to the law
> 3. Illegal signing statements (shits on the Constitution). ?????
>
> 4. Illegal Coverups in the White House (Plame case) No evidence
> of any sort of coverup in the so called "Plame case".
> 5. Gives tax breaks to the rich and the oil companies. Gave me a
> tax break worth about 2K that the dems will repeal the first chance
> they get. I guess I must be an oil company, cause I sure ain't rich!
|
| |
Date: 20 Jan 2007 05:18:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:21:41 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I dunno. We got a lot of rhetoric about "the war", and how congress wasn't
> > >doing anything with respect to the war. OK. Fine. Now they are in and when
> > >asked what they will do about the war er...uh...well...some say this...some
> > >say that...maybe we'll do something...er it's up to the Commander in
> > >Chief...we're just po' ol' congressional representatives...but hey, minimum
> > >wage...that's good isn't it?
> >
> > This congress is no different than any other. There are certain
> > things that they can, and can't do.
> > The war in Iraq is one that isn't in the power of Congress.
> >
> > Even the things that Congress has addressed, like minimum wage,
> > student loan rates, and stem cell research are at risk of a
> > presidential veto.
> >
> > --
>
> They weren't saying that before the election! They were going to be "oversight".
> Remember? Don't hear much about that now!
the fact that you don't hear about something doesn't necessarily mean
it isn't happening. A lot of congressional oversight, e.g., hearings
and investigations, don't get in the press.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jan 2007 10:54:57
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1169299117.461927.252130@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> the fact that you don't hear about something doesn't necessarily mean
> it isn't happening. A lot of congressional oversight, e.g., hearings
> and investigations, don't get in the press.
Why are they having illegal secret meetings?
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 08:48:54
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:q1h0r29jhrdrrf6a36l3q9mufi7kv5aib8@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>\"R&B\" wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
> >>> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
> >>>
> >>> Bush is more popular than you, too.
> >>>
> >>> What does that mean?
> >>>
> >>> That you're one unpopular guy.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
> >>
> > Don't ask for a vote Rob.
> > --
>
> I just ran a poll and Im more popular than anyone here. Really. :-)
...which begs the question of the meaning of being popular amongst a
bunch of paranoid schizophrenics!
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:42:00
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote ...
> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
Bush is more popular than you, too.
What does that mean?
That you're one unpopular guy.
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:08:23
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:po-dnWw8mLN3si3YnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
>> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>
>
> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> That you're one unpopular guy.
>
> Randy
But I bet he still beats Pelosi. :-)
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
\"R&B\" wrote:
> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>
> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> That you're one unpopular guy.
>
I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:08:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>
>
>\"R&B\" wrote:
>
>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
>> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>>
>> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>>
>> That you're one unpopular guy.
>>
>
>I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
>
Don't ask for a vote Rob.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:09:09
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:q1h0r29jhrdrrf6a36l3q9mufi7kv5aib8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>\"R&B\" wrote:
>>
>>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
>>> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>>>
>>> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>>
>>> That you're one unpopular guy.
>>>
>>
>>I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
>>
> Don't ask for a vote Rob.
> --
I just ran a poll and Im more popular than anyone here. Really. :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:10:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:09:09 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:q1h0r29jhrdrrf6a36l3q9mufi7kv5aib8@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>\"R&B\" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
>>>> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>>>>
>>>> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean?
>>>>
>>>> That you're one unpopular guy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
>>>
>> Don't ask for a vote Rob.
>> --
>
>I just ran a poll and Im more popular than anyone here. Really. :-)
>
You have my vote. Really. :-)
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:11:51
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >\"R&B\" wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
> >> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
> >>
> >> Bush is more popular than you, too.
> >>
> >> What does that mean?
> >>
> >> That you're one unpopular guy.
> >>
> >
> >I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
> >
> Don't ask for a vote Rob.
>
I get voted on all the time.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:18:55
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:11:51 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:05:14 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
>> >\"R&B\" wrote:>> >
>> >> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote ...
>> >> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
>> >>
>> >> Bush is more popular than you, too.
>> >> What does that mean?
>> >> That you're one unpopular guy.
>> >I don't care. At least I'm more popular than you are!
>> >
>> Don't ask for a vote Rob.
>>
>
>I get voted on all the time.
:-)
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2007 16:42:40
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
Hmmm... Must mean that we don't care for leadership, in general.
On Jan 18, 3:57 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote:
> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:03:57
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
I think you hit the nail on the head there!
dugjustdug wrote:
> Hmmm... Must mean that we don't care for leadership, in general.
>
> On Jan 18, 3:57 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> wrote:
> > 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:14:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush more popular than Pelosi!
|
In article <45B00750.98C72206@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
wrote:
> 38% Bush; 33% Pelosi.
Nice try, but Dubya is President, and Pelosi is the obscure Leader of
the House - apples and oranges. Most people, outside of you rabid smear
mongers, have barely heard of her.
William Clark
|
|
