Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 19 Oct 2006 09:08:59
From: annika1980
Subject: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c

Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:30:58
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 19 2006 09:08:59 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c

Thanks for the descriptive thread title. It helps me figure out very
quickly I can kill the thread and not have to read it to know it is OT
political junk.

PS -- Annika (Sorenstam) Rules!
PSS -- If you reply I won't see it.
--

jvdp
I ain't buying beer for no replay HIO.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:57:30
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

John van der Pflum wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c
>
> Thanks for the descriptive thread title. It helps me figure out very
> quickly I can kill the thread and not have to read it to know it is OT
> political junk.
>

I notice you took more time replying to the post (before you "killed"
it) than it took to watch the video.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 09:42:54
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 19, 11:08 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c

Holy shit - nice! POTY....at least Bret's POTY, anyway.

Date: 19 Oct 2006 23:37:32
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak in
complete sentences.

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161274139.791535.188920@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c
>

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:38:01
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> in complete sentences.

Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
dinner talk on April 11, 1942

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 20 Oct 2006 11:57:04
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote in message
news:NP7_g.33148$vi3.6952@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
>> in complete sentences.
>
> Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>
>
> "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms
> to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
> So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone
> will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
> throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
> strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied
> country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
> I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
> gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
> Jefferson

I'm from the west and it doesn't make sense to me to take people's guns
away. The NRA opposing trigger locks to make guns safer around children,
baffles me. I think that is the case. But ... I have never lived in a city
like New York or Chicago or Detroit so I don't know how I would balance the
right to bear arms agains what they have to deal with. Do you? It seems
obvious to me that the citizens need to have access to guns to protect
themselves against their own government but I don't know that we need to
have concealed carry in large cities. Sounds like I'm running for somethin,
huh. Talk out of both sides. I wonder what other people think who have lived
in big cities and also out west or small towns.

What does this have to do with Wishful? Find some Republicans who aren't
gung ho about invading every country they can rationaize. Find someone who
doesn't say things like "axes of evil" and that North Korea's leader is
______ . What did Bush call him? A dwarf or midget or something like that.
Bush is a bully, isn't he? Maybe he really is.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 17:48:24
From: John B.
Subject: Re: John B. Living example of the broken window theory

Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
> >><brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
> >>>thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
> >>>
> >>>Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
> >>
> >>So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
> >
> >
> > What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
> >
>
> John B.
>
> Mike D. can explain it better but basically people like you are one of
> the reasons neighborhoods run down.
>
> Joe

Great, I look forward to hearing his explanation.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 12:32:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: correction

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
> >
> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>
> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?

What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 20:20:50
From: Joe
Subject: John B. Living example of the broken window theory

John B. wrote:

> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>><brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>>>thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>>>
>>>Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>>
>>So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>
>
> What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>

John B.

Mike D. can explain it better but basically people like you are one of
the reasons neighborhoods run down.

Joe

Date: 22 Oct 2006 14:37:45
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>> >
>> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>>
>> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>
>What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.

Do you know the name of this news group?
--
___,
\o

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:45:58
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 2006 04:13:43 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
> > >habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
> > >combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
> > >detention.
> >
> > I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
> > to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
> > has lost any rights at all.
>
> Even if that were true (which I don't believe for a second), is it any
> less unacceptable?
>
> So now, it's OK to torture folks and lock them up forever without trial
> just so long as they aren't US citizens.

Where did you get the torture angle? Secretly wishing you were in the
rack?

> What's next? Perhaps this is
> Bush's new way to control illegal immigration? Just lock them all up
> forever.

What is your idea to control the flow of illegal aliens?
Build more golf courses and high them as grounds crew?

Tex

Date: 24 Oct 2006 13:20:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24 2006 06:45:58 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>> What's next? Perhaps this is
>> Bush's new way to control illegal immigration? Just lock them all up
>> forever.
>
>What is your idea to control the flow of illegal aliens?
>Build more golf courses and high them as grounds crew?
>
>Tex

The standard procedure for illegal immigrants is to let them go after
scheduling a hearing that they never show up for. At least some
jurisdictions are now arresting illegal's, charging them with the
crime of entering the US illegally, keeping them in custody for 90
days and then deporting them. This created a problem with
overcrowding at first, but once the word got out, Illegal's caught in
these areas dropped by 90%.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:41:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:16:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 2006 04:13:43 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
> >habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
> >combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
> >detention.
>
> I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
> to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
> has lost any rights at all.

Even if that were true (which I don't believe for a second), is it any
less unacceptable?
So now, it's OK to torture folks and lock them up forever without trial
just so long as they aren't US citizens. What's next? Perhaps this is
Bush's new way to control illegal immigration? Just lock them all up
forever.

The NRA gun crowd is always worried about the Democrats taking away
their AK-47s.
Seems to me they have a lot more to worry about now.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 12:16:59
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161695793.039465.152660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The NRA gun crowd is always worried about the Democrats taking away
> their AK-47s.
> Seems to me they have a lot more to worry about now.
>
Not if you talk to a Democrats other face.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:42:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24 2006 06:16:33 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Even if that were true (which I don't believe for a second), is it any
>less unacceptable?
>So now, it's OK to torture folks and lock them up forever without trial
>just so long as they aren't US citizens. What's next? Perhaps this is
>Bush's new way to control illegal immigration? Just lock them all up
>forever.

This is his strategy to get more foreigners to work covertly with us -
because they trust us so much. It will probably work as well as
invading Iraq to persuade prospective terrorists that we are the good
guys.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 18:03:46
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c

You must have missed Dalecki's R and B length post asking if Political
threads are really necessary............

Date: 22 Oct 2006 00:53:16
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Gordo" <golfzlf@gmail.com > wrote ...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c
>
> You must have missed Dalecki's R and B length post asking if Political
> threads are really necessary............

Silly rabbit. Don't you know that nobody reads posts that long?

Randy

Date: 20 Oct 2006 16:45:42
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 20, 5:57 pm, "Tex" <marktexkoe...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 2006 14:11:28 -0700, Tex wrote:
> > > John B. wrote:
>
> > >> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > >> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > >> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> > > You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> > > your "guy" did it.
>
> > Cite, please.Find it yourself, Clinton, and even Carter were "wiretapping"...in
> Clinton's case, there were also programs to read emails and listen to
> phone calls.
>
> I know you won't believe me, so just go search Google...
> But you can start here:http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

Now there's a well constructed website. Everything on that site just
has to be accurate and balanced.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:57:07
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Carbon wrote:
> On Fri, 20 2006 14:11:28 -0700, Tex wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
>
> >> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> >> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> >> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
> >
> > You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> > your "guy" did it.
>
> Cite, please.

Find it yourself, Clinton, and even Carter were "wiretapping"...in
Clinton's case, there were also programs to read emails and listen to
phone calls.

I know you won't believe me, so just go search Google...
But you can start here:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

Tex

Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:42:10
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161385027.748063.286580@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I know you won't believe me, so just go search Google...
> But you can start here:
> http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

OMG, nice web site! lol You get the other half of your facts listening to
Rush Limbaugh?

Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:54:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> > >
> >
> > Habeas Corpus. And that's just this week.
>
> Really? Wow...when? where? what crime were you charged with?

I don't even have to be charged with a crime. With the passage of the
"Military Commissions Act of 2006" all they have to do is label me
either an enemy combatant or someone who is giving aid to the enemy.
Then they can lock me up and throw away the key. Same goes for you,
big boy. Don't think your party allegiance means shit to these guys.
They'll take your vote and your money and then they'll laugh at you
like Falwell. Besides, when Hillary takes over we're locking up all
you loons.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 12:04:46
From: Brett
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Besides, when Hillary takes over we're locking up all
> you loons.
>

You mean Richardson?

brett
Independant (neither asks me for money) in NM

Date: 20 Oct 2006 14:11:28
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

John B. wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > Head Shot wrote:
> > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > > > in complete sentences.
> > > >
> > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> >
> > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> >
> > Tex
>
> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.

You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
your "guy" did it.

Tex

Date: 20 Oct 2006 16:00:35
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161378688.673943.5260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> John B. wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>> > annika1980 wrote:
>> > > Head Shot wrote:
>> > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
>> > > > > speak
>> > > > > in complete sentences.
>> > > >
>> > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
>> > > > the
>> > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
>> > > > who have
>> > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
>> > > > downfall
>> > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of
>> > > > arms to
>> > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any
>> > > > sovereignty. So
>> > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
>> > > > alone will
>> > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
>> > > > throughout
>> > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
>> > > > strong-points
>> > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
>> > > > Hitler,
>> > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>> >
>> > Which "rights" have you lost??
>> > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>> >
>> > Tex
>>
>> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
>> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
>> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> your "guy" did it.
>
> Tex

Your guy is doing it without court orders and he's tearing down check and
balances. I guess if he can get the brush cleared from the ranch and make
sure that baseball players are steroid free, that he will have had a
successful presidency. At least God will have told him so. How long does it
take to recover from alcohol induced delusions?

Date: 20 Oct 2006 22:49:56
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

In article <1161378688.673943.5260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

I'd like to see your reference on "pre Bush" Patriot's Act loss of
rights. Please enlighten us on that one.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 19:44:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

tiggerspalewife wrote:
> In article <1161378688.673943.5260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to see your reference on "pre Bush" Patriot's Act loss of
> rights. Please enlighten us on that one.

Do you pay cash for your purchases or do you use a credit card?

Do you pay cash for your purchases and take advantage of the savings
offered by just about everyone?

"They" already know more about your habits than you.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 22:09:19
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Hey LLLLLarrrry...some reading material about your hero

Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > :> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :> :
: > :> : MnMikew wrote:
: > :> :> "Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
: > :> :> news:pan.2006.10.20.03.40.07.786915@nospam.verizon.net...
: > :> :> > On Fri, 20 2006 03:02:47 +0000, bill-o wrote:
: > :> :> >> On 19--2006, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
: > :> :> >>
: > :> :> >>> Oh, so you're an empiricist now. Unlike the other day when you
: > :> :> >>> dismissed the Lancet study as being a hitjob by a bunch of pinko commie
: > :> :> >>> academics.
: > :> :> >>
: > :> :> >> Empirical extrapolation is an oxymoron.
: > :> :> >
: > :> :> > No doubt you would be just as up in arms if the Lancet study produced
: > :> :> > conclusions you liked. Because you live for truth, casting aside any hint
: > :> :> > of bias, trusting alone reason to illuminate what was mere darkness
: > :> :> > before.
: > :> :> >
: > :> :> > Like when you declared the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil.
: > :> :>
: > :> :> I keep hearing about all this oil we should be swimming in. Where is it?
: > :> :> Isnt the double secret Halliburton pipeline done yet?
: > :> :
: > :> : It's triple secret now, that's why you stopped hearing about it...not
: > :> : even the NYTimes can get past triple secret information.
: > :>
: > :> Come on, boys, surely you can figure out that incompetence
: > :> doesn't mean there wasn't a plan. Especially you, Mark, I
: > :> know you're smarter than this.
: > :
: > : Come on Chris, you have to get some new material. I know you are
: > : smarter than this.
: >
: > Not really. I'm pretty dumb.
: >
: > You, though... making an argument you *know* is pure sophistry...
: > oh, I forgot, you're a troll. :-p
:
: If you are pretty dumb, then you can't *know* I'm smarter, now can you.

Crap.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 21 Oct 2006 08:24:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

In article <1161378688.673943.5260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

> John B. wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > Head Shot wrote:
> > > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
> > > > > > speak
> > > > > > in complete sentences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
> > > > > the
> > > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
> > > > > have
> > > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
> > > > > downfall
> > > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of
> > > > > arms to
> > > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
> > > > > So
> > > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
> > > > > alone will
> > > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
> > > > > throughout
> > > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
> > > > > strong-points
> > > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
> > > > > Hitler,
> > > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> > >
> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> your "guy" did it.
>
> Tex

Not without proper use of FISA, we didn't. But then you guys couldn't
care less about the actual law when it doesn't suit you.

William Clark

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:16:53
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: correction

> >The only thing to complain about is that it didn't have OT in the
> >subject, but since the subject obviously shows it is OT in this case,
> >then there is nothing to complain about.
> That's crap.

No, you getting pissed off is crap. The subject says "Bush". You don't
want to talk politics, then skip the thread!

> When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
> A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.

No, it won't. I skip 99% of the political posts. You can too.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:22:26
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On 22 2006 19:16:53 -0700, "Indiana_John" <bigpufan@aol.com >
wrote:

>> >The only thing to complain about is that it didn't have OT in the
>> >subject, but since the subject obviously shows it is OT in this case,
>> >then there is nothing to complain about.
>> That's crap.
>
>No, you getting pissed off is crap. The subject says "Bush". You don't
>want to talk politics, then skip the thread!
>
>> When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
>> A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.
>
>No, it won't. I skip 99% of the political posts. You can too.

I'll be sure to do the same with yours too.
--
___,
\o

Date: 22 Oct 2006 17:08:26
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: correction

Bobby Knight wrote:
> When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
> A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.

If I wanna talk about golf there is nothing you can post about that
will keep me from doing that.

-Annika1980 ----- > fighting Groupthink since 1994

Date: 23 Oct 2006 04:15:32
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: correction

On 22--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> If I wanna talk about golf there is nothing you can post about that
> will keep me from doing that.

Now that you mention it, Sparky was wanting to know if you're ready to get
your ass waxed again?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:35:30
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On 22 2006 17:08:26 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
>> A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.
>
>If I wanna talk about golf there is nothing you can post about that
>will keep me from doing that.
>
>-Annika1980 -----> fighting Groupthink since 1994

That is good to know that.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 10:45:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: correction

bill-o wrote:
> Now that you mention it, Sparky was wanting to know if you're ready to get
> your ass waxed again?
>

Just Bring It!

Date: 23 Oct 2006 06:23:14
From: John B.
Subject: Re: correction

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 22 2006 17:45:29 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
> >> >> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
> >> >> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
> >> >
> >> >What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
> >>
> >> Do you know the name of this news group?
> >
> >That doesn't really answer my question.
> >
> It wasn't a very astute question, and the fact that you needed an
> answer is even less so.

OK, I'm obtuse. Now, will someone please answer the question?

> --
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 23 Oct 2006 13:57:29
From: Joe
Subject: Re: correction

John B. wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
>>On 22 2006 17:45:29 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>>>>>><brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>>>>>>>thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>>>>>
>>>>>What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>>>>
>>>>Do you know the name of this news group?
>>>
>>>That doesn't really answer my question.
>>>
>>
>>It wasn't a very astute question, and the fact that you needed an
>>answer is even less so.
>
>
>
> OK, I'm obtuse. Now, will someone please answer the question?
>
>
>> --
>> ___,
>> \o
>>

Date: 23 Oct 2006 09:58:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On Mon, 23 2006 13:57:29 GMT, Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net >
wrote:

>
>
>John B. wrote:
>> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 2006 17:45:29 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you know the name of this news group?
>>>>
>>>>That doesn't really answer my question.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It wasn't a very astute question, and the fact that you needed an
>>>answer is even less so.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I'm obtuse. Now, will someone please answer the question?
>>

>>>bk
>>

>John B.
>
>I did answer it. It is all about broken windows.
>
>If you let people do wrong things pretty soon the whole neighborhood is
>run down.
>
>Are you really that thick?
>
>Joe

I figured that he was. That's why an answer won't help.
___,
\o

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:49:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > > in complete sentences.
> > >
> > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > >
> > >
> > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > >
> >
> > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>
> Which "rights" have you lost??
> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>
> Tex

I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 19:42:04
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

John B. wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>>>>> It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
>>>>> in complete sentences.
>>>> Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
>>>> subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
>>>> allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
>>>> by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
>>>> the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
>>>> let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
>>>> bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
>>>> the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
>>>> must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
>>>> dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>>>>
>>> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>>> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>>> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>> Which "rights" have you lost??
>> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>>
>> Tex
>
> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>

Data from your phone calls (source, destination, duration) has always
been recored and analyzed by the phone company which makes it easy for
the government to subpoena. Every call you make on a cell phone can be
recorded and is recorded by Echelon.

Your ISP is recording your Internet activities, the government
subpoena's them

Go to the ATM and get some cash and then use that to buy your books and
don't let them scan your book club card to get a discount and then have
your purchase recorded.

Ninety-nine percent of the libraries in the US are run by various levels
of government organizations.

The government can only record you activities if you let them or if you
are too cheap and have to buy with a discount.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 10:39:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161377395.509572.178280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tex wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>> > Head Shot wrote:
>> > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
>> > > > speak
>> > > > in complete sentences.
>> > >
>> > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
>> > > the
>> > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
>> > > have
>> > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
>> > > downfall
>> > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of
>> > > arms to
>> > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
>> > > So
>> > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
>> > > alone will
>> > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
>> > > throughout
>> > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
>> > > strong-points
>> > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
>> > > Hitler,
>> > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>>
>> Which "rights" have you lost??
>> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>>
>> Tex
>
> I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.

I bet your employer does the above all the time.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:26:44
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> >
>
> Habeas Corpus. And that's just this week.

Really? Wow...when? where? what crime were you charged with?

Tex

Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:12:23
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote ...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Tex wrote:
>> > Which "rights" have you lost??
>> > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>> >
>>
>> Habeas Corpus. And that's just this week.
>
> Really? Wow...when? where? what crime were you charged with?

I really am surprised that you would react that way. But of course, as long
as you trust the person to whom this powerful tool was given (Mr. Bush),
then I understand why you don't consider it a threat to the liberties that
were guaranteed to us all by the Framers.

But I just wonder.......if Hillary were to be elected (and no, I'm not
supporting her or predicting that she'll become president), how would it
make you feel knowing that SHE would have the power to name anyone (even
you) an "enemy combatant," lock them (or you) up and throw away the key? Do
you really think it's wise to give that sort of power to a U.S. "king" (or
"queen")? Have we become another banana republic?

It's a travesty that this President pushed for, and this rubber-stamp
Congress passed, this act, which is in direct violation of the very
Constitution that they tell us it's designed to protect.

Read the Constitution, Mark. The framers clearly and specifically stated
that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened. Read the Constitution,
Mark.

Didn't Bush place his hand on a Bible and swear to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution?" Twice? Instead, he has pushed for (and won) this
law, which is in direct violation of that same Constitution he swore to
uphold.

And you wonder why people call him a liar.

You may trust them. I don't. And I wouldn't trust this tool in the hands
of a liberal administration, either. And you shouldn't, either.

Randy

Date: 23 Oct 2006 00:28:37
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 22--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> But I just wonder.......if Hillary were to be elected (and no, I'm not
> supporting her or predicting that she'll become president), how would it
> make you feel knowing that SHE would have the power to name anyone (even
> you) an "enemy combatant," lock them (or you) up and throw away the key?
> Do you really think it's wise to give that sort of power to a U.S. "king"
> (or
> "queen")? Have we become another banana republic?

This is disturbing

> Instead, he has pushed for (and won) this
> law, which is in direct violation of that same Constitution he swore to
> uphold.

If this is so then it should not pass muster with the courts, of course,
Kelo vs New London shouldn't have either.
--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:35:52
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote ...
>
>> But I just wonder.......if Hillary were to be elected (and no, I'm not
>> supporting her or predicting that she'll become president), how would it
>> make you feel knowing that SHE would have the power to name anyone (even
>> you) an "enemy combatant," lock them (or you) up and throw away the key?
>> Do you really think it's wise to give that sort of power to a U.S. "king"
>> (or "queen")? Have we become another banana republic?
>
> This is disturbing

You're damn right it's disturbing. It's unAmerican. The fact that an
American president -- Republican, Democrat or Independent -- would have the
power to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant," and in so doing,
would have the unquestionable authority to send them away (yes, the detainee
would just "disappear," like we used to hear of people doing in those banana
republics), and the person locked up would have no recourse whatsoever, is,
as you say, disturbing. No right to an attorney. No right to question why
they're being locked up.

This is at the very heart of the new law. It eliminates the Writ of Habeas
Corpus, and in so doing, it guts the Bill of Rights for us all...

What is habeas corpus and what does it mean to us that it's been suspended?

Find out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3AuPf3uXaI

Or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKzjCb0PkwI&mode=related&search=

Now most of us will never be affected by this new law. Or at least we can
certainly hope that's true. One would reason that George W. Bush, he of
impeccible integrity and the highest ethical standards, would only use it
against terrorists, and maybe that's true. But George W. Bush will not
always be president. Personally, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could
throw him. But you might; I understand that. But will you trust this same
power in the hands of another president later on who you don't feel so good
about? Someone like Hillary? What about someone like Al Gore, who, if he
were to run for president again and once again win the popular vote and
actually gain enough electoral votes to become president, might feel that he
has a few political scores to settle? How comfortable would you be with it
then?

An examination of history shows that American presidents not only might, but
HAVE, used similar powers, ostensibly granted to them to give them greater
ability to "protect America," only to see them use those powers to tamp down
dissent in this nation -- that's right, to lock up people who engaged in
nothing more than an exercise of their freedom of speech. This is not some
fantasy. It's in your history books. Ronald Reagan even had to go so far
as to issue a national public apology for one such episode in one of the
nation's darker chapters of history.

Since you're not likely to read your history books to learn about this,
watch and learn here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW2jQiyE2p0&mode=related&search=

You may trust Bush. I respect your right to believe he's an honest man. I
don't happen to agree, and I'm certain history will not reflect kindly upon
him. But the powers he granted to himself and future presidents when he
signed this bill into law cut to the very core of all of our liberties --
the very liberties he claims to be trying to protect. This new law guts the
judicial underpinnings that define our nation, and the law redefines the
fundamental American principles for which so many servicemen and women
fought and died to protect.

And some wonder why so many people not only dislike George W. Bush, but hate
him.

Randy

> If this is so then it should not pass muster with the courts, of course,
> Kelo vs New London shouldn't have either.
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 04:13:43
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 22--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> You're damn right it's disturbing. It's unAmerican. The fact that an
> American president -- Republican, Democrat or Independent -- would have
> the power to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant," and in so
> doing,
> would have the unquestionable authority to send them away (yes, the
> detainee would just "disappear," like we used to hear of people doing in
> those
> banana republics), and the person locked up would have no recourse
> whatsoever,
> is, as you say, disturbing. No right to an attorney. No right to
> question
> why they're being locked up.

I don't believe this is the case:

Applicability to U.S. Citizens (from Wikipedia)

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures
governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy
combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal
and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has
also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military
commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9] CBS Legal
expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the
"suspension of the writ of habeas corpus � the ability of an imprisoned
person to challenge their confinement in court�applies only to resident
aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured
here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and
liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted".
[10]

> Since you're not likely to read your history books to learn about this,
> watch and learn here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW2jQiyE2p0&mode=related&search=

Could you have perhaps found a source that was less full of himself ? Holy
Melodrama Batman. Olbermann should stick to sports.

> You may trust Bush.

Not as long as he is a politician. But I do trust him more than Olbermann.
If you want the straight poop on the Law go to the source:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109cXjf0O::

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 07:06:18
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:453c41ed$0$17438$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 22--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You're damn right it's disturbing. It's unAmerican. The fact that an
>> American president -- Republican, Democrat or Independent -- would have
>> the power to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant," and in so
>> doing,
>> would have the unquestionable authority to send them away (yes, the
>> detainee would just "disappear," like we used to hear of people doing in
>> those
>> banana republics), and the person locked up would have no recourse
>> whatsoever,
>> is, as you say, disturbing. No right to an attorney. No right to
>> question
>> why they're being locked up.
>
> I don't believe this is the case:

It is absolutely the case. Do what the lawmakers on Capitol Hill didn't do.
Read the bill.

> Applicability to U.S. Citizens (from Wikipedia)
>
> The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures
> governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy
> combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
> of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."
> Legal
> and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
> habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
> combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
> detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has
> also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military
> commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9] CBS Legal
> expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the
> "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus � the ability of an imprisoned
> person to challenge their confinement in court�applies only to resident
> aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals
> captured
> here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms
> and
> liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been
> restricted".
> [10]

The only problem with the lazy man's way of doing research (Googling it, or
looking it up on the internet) is that you often don't see the actual
documentation to which others are referring in their narrative.

The bill itself makes no stipulation for whether detainees are limited to
non-citizens of the US. It can be anyone. You. Me. Even Tex.

Read it.

>> Since you're not likely to read your history books to learn about this,
>> watch and learn here:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW2jQiyE2p0&mode=related&search=
>
> Could you have perhaps found a source that was less full of himself ? Holy
> Melodrama Batman. Olbermann should stick to sports.
>
>> You may trust Bush.
>
> Not as long as he is a politician. But I do trust him more than Olbermann.
> If you want the straight poop on the Law go to the source:

Fine. Don't trust Olbermann. No one is suggesting that you should. But by
simply dismissing what he says simply because he has a different point of
view than your own, you ignore the points he makes. You can dismiss someone
if you don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them factually
inaccurate.

That's the problem with blind ideology. Idealogues only believe people they
agree with, and dismiss viewpoints that, if examined closely, might actually
shed light in some areas where their narrow views lend only darkness.

The problem with America, if you ask me, is that a once "informed citizenry"
is less informed today than ever before. Despite the internet, truly a
blessing when it comes to available information, most people choose to read
only that which agrees with their own viewpoint. That is not "being
informed." That's allowing one's self to become programmed.

The best way to truly become informed is to accept the fact that most
information being conveyed nowadays comes with a certain slant, and to
sample it from both sides equally, then make up your own mind. Instead,
most choose to listen only to those they believe are "credible." The
trouble with this approach is that if folks were truly honest with
themselves, they'd admit that to them, "credible" sources are nothing more
than sources that share their own biases. Fair and balanced, it is not.

Yeah, I watch Olbermann. But I also watch Hannity. I watch (and listen to)
lots of people on both sides. And I read newspapers -- both "conservative"
and "liberal" newspapers.

As a result, I consider myself generally better informed than most people
who choose to filter the information they receive based upon whether the
resource of that information has the same slant on the news as they do.

Try it. You might be surprised at just how much more "fair and balanced"
your views can be when you do the filtering of information AFTER you've
received it instead of BEFORE.

Randy

Date: 23 Oct 2006 14:38:34
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 23--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> It is absolutely the case. Do what the lawmakers on Capitol Hill didn't
> do.
> Read the bill.

Been there, done that perhaps you didn't get down to the link to the very
bill, it was a long post! ;-)

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
commission under this chapter.

key word is Alien

> The only problem with the lazy man's way of doing research

thank you for your condescension, but as someone who has passed doral
exams and served as a research assistant for senior faculty, I know how to
research: when possible go to the source. I was not satisfied with Wiki as
you must have been with Ubermann since you obviously have not read the bill.
If this is not the case cite me the clause that applies to US citizens.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c1090acJqR:e2995:

> Fine. Don't trust Olbermann. No one is suggesting that you should. But
> by simply dismissing what he says simply because he has a different point
> of
> view than your own, you ignore the points he makes. You can dismiss
> someone if you don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them factually
> inaccurate.

No but I read the law before typing that, and that makes him factually
inaccurate.

> That's the problem with blind ideology. Idealogues only believe people
> they agree with, and dismiss viewpoints that, if examined closely, might
> actually shed light in some areas where their narrow views lend only
> darkness.

Pissing up the wrong tree here buddy. I have no party and am the furthest
thing from "ideologue" as anyone on planet earth. But if you want to rush to
labels because I disagree, after doing my homework, go right ahead, this is
still a free country.

> The problem with America, if you ask me, is that a once "informed
> citizenry" is less informed today than ever before. Despite the internet,
> truly a
> blessing when it comes to available information, most people choose to
> read only that which agrees with their own viewpoint. That is not "being
> informed." That's allowing one's self to become programmed.

No arguments here. What is even more appalling than not checking your facts
is the masses that don't even care enough to be engaged on any level.

<Snip >

> Try it. You might be surprised at just how much more "fair and balanced"
> your views can be when you do the filtering of information AFTER you've
> received it instead of BEFORE.

I've been trying it as long as I've been politically conscience, say since
the 70s. The premise of your last 3 paragraph seems to be that I can't be
informed since I disagree.
This partisan rancor seems to be the affliction of our times. I refuse to
have any of it. I still would like to see where the Military Commisions Act
of 2006 applies to US Citizens, as I could not find it in the law.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 16:50:52
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 23--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
:
: > It is absolutely the case. Do what the lawmakers on Capitol Hill didn't
: > do.
: > Read the bill.
:
: Been there, done that perhaps you didn't get down to the link to the very
: bill, it was a long post! ;-)
:
: Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
:
: `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
: commission under this chapter.
:
: key word is Alien

That's meaningless. It doesn't exclude anyone.

Neither does subsection ii of the definition of "unlawful enemy
combatants:"

[any person] who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment
of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to
be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal
or another competent tribunal established under the authority of
the President or the Secretary of Defense.

So, anybody that the President's tribunal declares an unlawful
enemy combatant can be whisked off to Gitmo and kept there
indefinitely. No trial, no lawyer, no nothing.

This ain't the United States anymore. It's more and more like
El Salvador.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:31:24
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 23--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
> :
> : `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
> : commission under this chapter.
> :
> : key word is Alien

> That's meaningless. It doesn't exclude anyone.

How do you figure? No word is meaningless...Unless of course you say so.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 15:00:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 23--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
:
: > Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
: > :
: > : `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
: > : commission under this chapter.
: > :
: > : key word is Alien
:
:
: > That's meaningless. It doesn't exclude anyone.
:
: How do you figure? No word is meaningless...Unless of course you say so.

If the exercise is to understand who the law *doesn't* apply
to, citing a passage which defines one set of people to whom
the law *does* apply isn't helpful. That's all I meant.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 15:43:04
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> If the exercise is to understand who the law *doesn't* apply
> to, citing a passage which defines one set of people to whom
> the law *does* apply isn't helpful. That's all I meant.

Point taken, however, in many laws the definitions at the beginning of the
bill is were the devilish details are laid out, not to mention that my cite
was to whom it did apply.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:06:04
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 24--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > If the exercise is to understand who the law *doesn't* apply
: > to, citing a passage which defines one set of people to whom
: > the law *does* apply isn't helpful. That's all I meant.
:
: Point taken, however, in many laws the definitions at the beginning of the
: bill is were the devilish details are laid out, not to mention that my cite
: was to whom it did apply.

And my cite expanded that definition. Did you look at it?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Oct 2006 07:11:37
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> And my cite expanded that definition. Did you look at it?

I'm not sure it did. In 3 seperate sections : 948B, C (cited earlier) and D
dealing with the general purpose, who is subject and the jurisdiction of
said commissions all include the phrase alien unlawful combattant. As I read
it the commissions may not apply to someone such as Padilla who is a
citizen. Does that mean that citizens could not be declared "unlawful
combattants?." No, but they would have the right to contest any such
labeling per Hamdi V. Rumsfeld:

At this difficult time in our Nation�s history, we are called upon to
consider the legality of the Government�s detention of a United States
citizen on United States soil as an �enemy combatant� and to address the
process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his
classification as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit held that petitioner�s detention was legally authorized and that he
was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant
label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized
the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due
process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy
combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for
that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.

I suspect the Hamdi descision is the only reason that the MCA of 2006 was
limited to "aliens" so thank the Court for that.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:24:05
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 24--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > And my cite expanded that definition. Did you look at it?
:
: I'm not sure it did. In 3 seperate sections : 948B, C (cited earlier) and D
: dealing with the general purpose, who is subject and the jurisdiction of
: said commissions all include the phrase alien unlawful combattant. As I read
: it the commissions may not apply to someone such as Padilla who is a
: citizen. Does that mean that citizens could not be declared "unlawful
: combattants?." No, but they would have the right to contest any such
: labeling per Hamdi V. Rumsfeld:

The MCA was specifically meant to override Hamdi.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:49:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Mon, 23 2006 04:13:43 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:

>Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
>habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
>combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
>detention.

I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
has lost any rights at all.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 11:38:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Mon, 23 2006 21:49:29 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>>Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
>>habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
>>combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
>>detention.
>
>I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
>to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
>has lost any rights at all.

In addition, in times of war the Constitution expands the President's
power. Historically, this has been the case and the courts have
supported this time and time again. During the Civil War, Lincoln
interned around 13,000 dissidents without trial and he even ignored a
writ of habeas corpus issued by the USSC Chief Justice. FDR interned
over 100,000 US citizens during WW2 because they were Japanese and the
USSC ruled that it was Constitutional under the Presidents expanded
powers during a war.

One has to understand historical precedent and that the powers of the
President expands during a war. This was what the founding fathers
wanted.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:44:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 11:38:13 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>In addition, in times of war the Constitution expands the President's
>power. Historically, this has been the case and the courts have
>supported this time and time again. During the Civil War, Lincoln
>interned around 13,000 dissidents without trial and he even ignored a
>writ of habeas corpus issued by the USSC Chief Justice. FDR interned
>over 100,000 US citizens during WW2 because they were Japanese and the
>USSC ruled that it was Constitutional under the Presidents expanded
>powers during a war.

Yep. Just because Lincoln did it doesn't mean it was right.

>One has to understand historical precedent and that the powers of the
>President expands during a war.

Yep.

>This was what the founding fathers wanted.

Nope.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:06:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 22:44:12 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>Yep. Just because Lincoln did it doesn't mean it was right.

Actually, many USSC justices have said that the decision supporting
FDR's internment of Japanese Americans was wrong. I tend to agree.
Unfortunately, the "sneak" attack by Japan at PH didn't exactly create
an atmosphere of trust of the Japanese.

Ultimately, right and wrong is determined by the courts. When the
issue is Constitutional in nature the court that decides is the USSC.
Lincoln ignored the SC on a number of occasions. I doubt that Bush
will do that if it comes to it.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 12:21:20
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:51csj2dudubufpnvkb4arro28hhh2djfgf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 2006 21:49:29 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
> >>habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as
"unlawful
> >>combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
> >>detention.
> >
> >I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
> >to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
> >has lost any rights at all.
>
>
> In addition, in times of war the Constitution expands the President's
> power.

Please point me to the "Declaration of War". I'm told that the "war" on
terrorism may take a generation or more to "win".

If a sitting president can unilaterally "declare" we are in a state of
(perhaps perpetual) "war"? Can he simply declare marshal law and suspend
the constitution? So what defines "war" in the 21st century? A formal
declaration by Congress? The opinion of the sitting executive? A threat by
a nation against the "interests" of the US? A threat by a "group"? An
individual? To my knowledge, Congress authorized military action to remove
Saddam Hussain from power and remove the threat of WMDs posed by Iraq -
"mission accomplished" as someone (in)famous once said. We are now not at
war, but are engaged in something else - call it nation building, or a
police action, or military occupation.

It is a pretty slippery slope we are on.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:51:25
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 12:21:20 -0400, "FredK"
<fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com > wrote:

>> In addition, in times of war the Constitution expands the President's
>> power.
>
>Please point me to the "Declaration of War". I'm told that the "war" on
>terrorism may take a generation or more to "win".

The Administration has already won a few court decisions based on the
precedent of expanded powers of the President during a war. Both
houses of Congress voted to authorize a war with Iraq to enforce UN
resolutions on WMDs. While this is not a formal declaration of war,
the courts seem to think that it's enough.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 18:04:15
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 11:38:13 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 2006 21:49:29 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies
>>>habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful
>>>combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their
>>>detention.
>>
>>I think some people have difficulty understanding this point and tend
>>to get melodramatic about loss of freedoms when in fact no US citizen
>>has lost any rights at all.
>
>
>In addition, in times of war the Constitution expands the President's
>power. Historically, this has been the case and the courts have
>supported this time and time again. During the Civil War, Lincoln
>interned around 13,000 dissidents without trial and he even ignored a
>writ of habeas corpus issued by the USSC Chief Justice. FDR interned
>over 100,000 US citizens during WW2 because they were Japanese and the
>USSC ruled that it was Constitutional under the Presidents expanded
>powers during a war.
>
>One has to understand historical precedent and that the powers of the
>President expands during a war. This was what the founding fathers
>wanted.

and at this point in a rather naive and completely off topic thread
one has to say war? What war?

Crispin Roche

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:44:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Sun, 22 2006 21:35:52 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

>and the person locked up would have no recourse whatsoever, is,
>as you say, disturbing.

Actually, the case of enemy combatants was heard by the USSC, so to
say that they have no recourse is totally wrong. They've had their
day in court. However, if you think that the people being held at
Gitmo are entitled to Constitutional rights you're mistaken.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:28:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"R&B" wrote:
> You're damn right it's disturbing. It's unAmerican. The fact that an
> American president -- Republican, Democrat or Independent -- would
> have the power to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant," and
> in so doing, would have the unquestionable authority to send them
> away (yes, the detainee would just "disappear," like we used to hear
> of people doing in those banana republics), and the person locked up
> would have no recourse whatsoever, is, as you say, disturbing. No
> right to an attorney. No right to question why they're being locked
> up.

I am no lawyer, Randy, but does this apply to citizens of USA that are in
America? I mean, the people at Guantanimo - didn't they get there
directly from Afghanestan and Iraq? Does this apply to folks like you and
I? Can Bushtard call us enemy combatants and ship our asses off to Cuba?

> You may trust Bush. I respect your right to believe he's an honest
> man. I don't happen to agree, and I'm certain history will not
> reflect kindly upon him.

I think he is an ex cocaine addict and a liar. But I am still worried about
this "enemy combatant" problem. Can he send bunches of American citizens to
Cuba on a whim?

Thomas Jefferson already told us what to do about Bushtard. "The tree
of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants". I do not think Bushtard is the patriot.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:33:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

>The framers clearly and specifically stated
>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.

Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?

Date: 24 Oct 2006 01:51:18
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
: <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
:
: >The framers clearly and specifically stated
: >that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
: >circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
: >which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
:
: Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?

Jose Padilla.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:20:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> Which "rights" have you lost??
> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>

Habeas Corpus. And that's just this week.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 20:33:30
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

In article <1161375616.180389.128240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

How about the right to have an administration working for the people
instead of just "their" people.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 13:08:05
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > in complete sentences.
> >
> > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> >
> >
> > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> >
>
> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.

Which "rights" have you lost??
"Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
"Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
"Right" to shoot low golf scores?

Tex

Date: 20 Oct 2006 15:56:13
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161374885.488150.138350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>> > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
>> > > in complete sentences.
>> >
>> > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>> >
>> >
>> > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
>> > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
>> > have
>> > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
>> > downfall
>> > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of
>> > arms to
>> > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
>> > So
>> > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone
>> > will
>> > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
>> > throughout
>> > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
>> > strong-points
>> > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
>> > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>> >
>>
>> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>
> Which "rights" have you lost??
> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>
> Tex

How about the right of human beings to have a trial by their peers with
representation, where they can face their accuser?
I assume that since these rights are "God given" they apply to everyone on
earth or does God only give human rights to those George Wishful Bush
annoints? How about not giving the government the right to tap phones
without a court order ... with this administration it isn't even good enough
that they can do the wiretaps and get the court orders afterwords.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:40:23
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161374885.488150.138350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>
> Which "rights" have you lost??
> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?

Many people have lost the right to criticize the government, at least
without being arrested and/or harrassed. Many people have lost the right to
privacy. Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested and
held. And I'm in the process of losing my right to spend my money as I wish
playing poker on the internet.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 00:25:29
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 21--2006, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Many people have lost the right to criticize the government, at least
> without being arrested and/or harrassed.

Who?

> Many people have lost the right
> to privacy.

Who?

> Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested
> and held.

Who outside Guantanamo?

> And I'm in the process of losing my right to spend my money as I
> wish playing poker on the internet.

This is a right? Now when the gov't condems your house for a shopping center
then you'll have an argument.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:34:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Mon, 23 2006 00:25:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:

>> Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested
>> and held.
>
>Who outside Guantanamo?

And there are no US citizens in Gitmo.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 01:51:55
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Mon, 23 2006 00:25:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
: wrote:
:
: >> Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested
: >> and held.
: >
: >Who outside Guantanamo?
:
: And there are no US citizens in Gitmo.

How, exactly, do you know this with such certainty? You don't.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 13:43:39
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 01:51:55 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

>: And there are no US citizens in Gitmo.
>
>How, exactly, do you know this with such certainty? You don't.

The Red Cross has access to all the prisoners at Gitmo, so unless
there holding some people in secret detention, there are no Americans
being held in Gitmo.

I'm surprised that no one has come up with case of Yaser Hamdi who was
a US citizen caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was
originally in Gitmo but was transferred to the US when it was learned
that he was born in Louisiana. He was classified as an unlawful
combatant and the courts upheld his status as such. Their reasoning
is as follows:

"Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active
combat in a foreign theater of conflict, we hold that the submitted
declaration is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the
commander-in-chief has constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the
war powers entrusted to him by the United States Constitution," the
Appeals Court said. "No further factual inquiry is necessary or
proper, and we remand the case with direction to dismiss the
petition."

Date: 23 Oct 2006 21:42:16
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 2006 00:25:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested
>>> and held.
>>
>> Who outside Guantanamo?
>
> And there are no US citizens in Gitmo.

Is Guantanamo Bay considered USA territory? I do know that they don't pay
to be there and are not wanted there by Cuba (Cuba has never accepted or
cashed a check paid by USA for the right to be there). I vaguely remember
someone once telling me that as soon as someone steps foot on US soil they
are protected by the US Consitution.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 24 Oct 2006 11:23:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Mon, 23 2006 21:42:16 -0400, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> I vaguely remember
>someone once telling me that as soon as someone steps foot on US soil they
>are protected by the US Consitution.

To some extent, that's correct. Legal aliens do have constitutional
rights and even illegal aliens are afforded due process. However,
aliens, legal or illegal are subject to deportation which can't happen
to citizens.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 21:29:26
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 2006 21:42:16 -0400, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> I vaguely remember
>> someone once telling me that as soon as someone steps foot on US soil they
>> are protected by the US Consitution.
>
> To some extent, that's correct. Legal aliens do have constitutional
> rights and even illegal aliens are afforded due process. However,
> aliens, legal or illegal are subject to deportation which can't happen
> to citizens.

The US Constitution enumerates the form and power of the government of
the several states and the bill of rights enumerates the rights of the
citizens of the several states. It is the custom of the US to extend to
all of those that step foot on our soil the the rights enumerated in the
constitution with many exceptions.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 17:45:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: correction

Date: 22 Oct 2006 19:50:30
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On 22 2006 17:45:29 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>> >> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>> >> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>> >> >
>> >> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>> >>
>> >> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>> >
>> >What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>>
>> Do you know the name of this news group?
>
>That doesn't really answer my question.
>
It wasn't a very astute question, and the fact that you needed an
answer is even less so.
--
___,
\o

Date: 22 Oct 2006 14:16:41
From: Indiana_John
Subject: Re: correction

Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bobby Knight wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
> >> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
> >> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
> >> >
> >> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
> >>
> >> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
> >
> >What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>
> Do you know the name of this news group?
> --

All newsgroups go beyond their name. If they didn't, they would become
very boring places. The newgroups become communities of people with
common interests (at least one anyway).

The only thing to complain about is that it didn't have OT in the
subject, but since the subject obviously shows it is OT in this case,
then there is nothing to complain about.

Show me a newsgroup that stays on topic with the subject in its name
and I'll show you a dead newsgroup.
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 22 Oct 2006 16:59:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On 22 2006 14:16:41 -0700, "Indiana_John" <bigpufan@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>> >> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>> >> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>> >> >
>> >> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>> >>
>> >> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>> >
>> >What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>>
>> Do you know the name of this news group?
>> --
>
>All newsgroups go beyond their name. If they didn't, they would become
>very boring places. The newgroups become communities of people with
>common interests (at least one anyway).
>
So, if a golf news group becomes a community of people whose only
common interest is politics, that's acceptable?

>The only thing to complain about is that it didn't have OT in the
>subject, but since the subject obviously shows it is OT in this case,
>then there is nothing to complain about.
That's crap.

>Show me a newsgroup that stays on topic with the subject in its name
>and I'll show you a dead newsgroup.

As I said in an earlier post, I've done my share of off topic posts,
and am swearing off, but your attitude is ridiculous.

When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.
--
___,
\o

Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:50:02
From: Roger Pattee
Subject: Re: correction

On Sun, 22 2006 16:59:43 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
typed:

>On 22 2006 14:16:41 -0700, "Indiana_John" <bigpufan@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> On 22 2006 12:32:06 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Bobby Knight wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 21 2006 22:44:58 GMT, "Brian Foster"
>>> >> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Nice job Dalecki, You wait to get a couple dozen posts down an OT political
>>> >> >thread to give the hey Not in this News group rant........
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Like you don't read this crap. Give it a break.
>>> >>
>>> >> So, you're on record that the political posts are OK?
>>> >
>>> >What harm do they do? If they don't interest you, don't read them.
>>>
>>> Do you know the name of this news group?
>>> --
>>
>>All newsgroups go beyond their name. If they didn't, they would become
>>very boring places. The newgroups become communities of people with
>>common interests (at least one anyway).
>>
>So, if a golf news group becomes a community of people whose only
>common interest is politics, that's acceptable?
>
>>The only thing to complain about is that it didn't have OT in the
>>subject, but since the subject obviously shows it is OT in this case,
>>then there is nothing to complain about.
>That's crap.
>
>>Show me a newsgroup that stays on topic with the subject in its name
>>and I'll show you a dead newsgroup.
>
>As I said in an earlier post, I've done my share of off topic posts,
>and am swearing off, but your attitude is ridiculous.
>
>When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
>A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.
> --
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 22 Oct 2006 21:19:32
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: correction

On Sun, 22 2006 21:50:02 -0400, Roger Pattee
<motordawg1@comcast.net > wrote:

>On Sun, 22 2006 16:59:43 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>typed:

=
>>When 90% of the posts in RSG are political, THAT'S what will kill it.
>>A few, here and there, are expected, but this has gotten out of hand.
>> --

>>bk
>------------
>Thank you Bobby.
>
>Yes, *we all* have made off topic posts, but lately it is getting
>(got) out of hand.
>
>Any newsgroup is going to have OT posts..nature of humans to get off
>target, but when that takes control, or gets out of control of the
>individuals, what was said, I believe, is correct SELF CONTROL is
>needed..we have to step back and think about stopping such.
>
>Now..about that RSG special 400 yard drive with a three quarter swing
>of a five iron (was it off hard pan?)..how's that work again? ;-)

It was a wild ass dream. :-)
bk

Date: 20 Oct 2006 11:01:29
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Head Shot wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > in complete sentences.
>
> Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>
>
> "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>

Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
Bush is just a modern Nazi.

And so endeth this thread.

Date: 20 Oct 2006 21:17:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
>> the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
>> who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared
>> their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say
>> that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the
>> overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia
>> or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole
>> responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the
>> occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
>> must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
>> Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>>
>
> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> Bush is just a modern Nazi.

Adolf was against private citizens owning guns. I believe that Democrats
and not Republicans want to do a gun grab. Are you suggesting that Dem's
don't want to do a gun grab?

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 22 Oct 2006 02:37:53
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161367289.150637.96090@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> Bush is just a modern Nazi.

No, but he is a modern fascist.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 00:22:11
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 21--2006, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:

> > Bush is just a modern Nazi.
>
> No, but he is a modern fascist.

You don't really know what facism is, do you?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 21 Oct 2006 07:22:39
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

John B. wrote:
> I just want to note for the record that almost every criticism of Bush
> and the Republican party now gets the same response: Clinton did it,
> too. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Ted Kennedy. Or Gerry Studds. I'd call this
> rhetorical bankruptcy.

You forgot their favorite .... that damned left-wing media.

The media is always at fault for reporting atrocities in Iraq or
corruption in Washington.
When something comes out about torture prisons overseas or treason at
home, the Republicans don't want to talk about how to solve the problem
.... they want to know who leaked the info to the damned liberal
left-wing press. Guys like Bush and Hastert hold press conferences and
vow to get to the bottom of the situation and fire anyone involved.
Then when it turns out that they were the ones involved ..... crickets.

Perhaps the Repugs should hire Mark Foley as a special investigator
since he seems to be the only one who is good at getting to the bottom
of things.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:44:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > Head Shot wrote:
> > > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > > > > in complete sentences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> > >
> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> your "guy" did it.
>
> Tex

I just want to note for the record that almost every criticism of Bush
and the Republican party now gets the same response: Clinton did it,
too. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Ted Kennedy. Or Gerry Studds. I'd call this
rhetorical bankruptcy.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:32:01
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > Head Shot wrote:
> > > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > > > > in complete sentences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> > >
> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> your "guy" did it.
>
> Tex

"My guy" didn't push the Patriot Act through Congress. That was your
guy.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 06:31:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Tex wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > Head Shot wrote:
> > > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can speak
> > > > > > in complete sentences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> > > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
> > > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall
> > > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to
> > > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
> > > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout
> > > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points
> > > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler,
> > > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> > > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> > > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> > >
> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
> your "guy" did it.
>
> Tex

"My guy" didn't sign push the Patriot Act through Congress. That was
your guy.

Date: 21 Oct 2006 11:14:32
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161437507.326176.97500@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tex wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>> > Tex wrote:
>> > > annika1980 wrote:
>> > > > Head Shot wrote:
>> > > > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> > > > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
>> > > > > > speak
>> > > > > > in complete sentences.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to
>> > > > > allow the
>> > > > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
>> > > > > who have
>> > > > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
>> > > > > downfall
>> > > > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply
>> > > > > of arms to
>> > > > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any
>> > > > > sovereignty. So
>> > > > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
>> > > > > alone will
>> > > > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
>> > > > > throughout
>> > > > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
>> > > > > strong-points
>> > > > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
>> > > > > Hitler,
>> > > > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> > > > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> > > > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>> > >
>> > > Which "rights" have you lost??
>> > > "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> > > "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> > > "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>> > >
>> > > Tex
>> >
>> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
>> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
>> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>>
>> You lost that pre-Bush...you just didn't know, or didn't care because
>> your "guy" did it.
>>
>> Tex
>
> "My guy" didn't sign push the Patriot Act through Congress. That was
> your guy.

Do you think that ignoring the process for getting court orders after the
fact, which is/was part of the patriot act, was done by someone other than
the people working directly for the president? Does it matter of is it more
important to support him and his party because they are so much better
morally or some other way that we have to ignore some of the things he does?

Date: 21 Oct 2006 16:35:49
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: correction

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> Many people using RSG are not US Citizens, and they couldn't care less
> about these topics; yet, you keep shoving it down their throats. Many
> of the rest of us find you are a primary reason why this GOLF NEWSGROUP
> is far less interesting and useful than it once was.

Personally, I find the political stuff a lot more interesting than the
golf stuff on RSG.
I've also noticed that some of the people who are always complaining
about off-topic posts rarely make any golf-related posts themselves.
Maybe they just like to piss and moan? Not that there's anything wrong
with that.

Yessir, it seems the worst thing about RSG is all these guys who are
always tellin everybody how bad RSG is or what they don't like about it.

Date: 22 Oct 2006 12:29:05
From: John B.
Subject: Re: correction

Mike Dalecki wrote:
> AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> > Tex,
> > Do you think it was necessary to do wiretaps without getting court orders,
> > even though the wiretaps could be done first and there was a few days time
> > to get the orders, after the taps were already done? Does it matter that
> > much of is it more important to support the president and his party because
> > they are so much better morally or some other way that we have to ignore
> > some of the things he does? Like "nobody is perfect" and "we disagree on
> > some things" ... but the alternative democrat party is much much worse.
> >
> >
>
> AKA GA:
>
> Do you think it's necessary to keep posting political garbage here on a
> golf newsgroup?
>
> It is the height of hubris, self-centeredness, and condescension to
> think that your opinion on politics is so important that we, here, on a
> golf newsgroup, need to hear it over and over again.
>
> Your insistence that such topics are appropriate here does nothing but
> reduce your credibility; whatever quality your arguments might have is
> nullified by your being unable or unwilling to avoid discussions of such
> things WHERE THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
>
> Many people using RSG are not US Citizens, and they couldn't care less
> about these topics; yet, you keep shoving it down their throats. Many
> of the rest of us find you are a primary reason why this GOLF NEWSGROUP
> is far less interesting and useful than it once was.
>
> You do nothing for your position except to make it appear that it is
> held only by people whose persons and positions are defined by such
> immoderation. I agree with much of what you say; yet, you demonstrate
> a complete lack of interest in what the rules are. It embarrasses me
> that people like you advance positions I agree with; others who might be
> convinced are likely more impressed by what appears to be wide-eyed
> ranting, and as such would discount your views.
>
> It has been said that one sign of mental illness is continuing to do the
> same thing while expecting a different outcome. You've convinced no one
> here that I can tell; they are not convincing you. If you can't, from
> that, discern that your numerous OFF-TOPIC posts are having no effect,
> then you are, by the above definition, quite possibly mentally ill.
>
> Take it somewhere else, or stop talking about it.
>
> Mike

You just wasted 10 mins. of your time complaining. Wouldn't it have
been easier to not have opened this thread in the first place?

>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker http://clubdor.com
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006: June 23-25 Info: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/
> RSG-Wisconsin 2006 Pics: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2006/pics/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Oct 2006 07:19:34
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"R&B" wrote:

<lotsa good stuff >

Great points, Randy. Facts are facts no matter who says them.
Same goes for lies. You can believe what someone says or you can go
research it a little bit to find out for yourself. If Sean Hannity
says it's gonna be a beautiful sunny day today, I'm grabbin my fuckin
umbrella on the way out the door.

Personally, I only trust Presbyterians from Tennessee.
Anyone else must be wrong.

Bill-o doesn't trust Olbermann. That's cool. I don't trust Bill
O'Reilly.
Both of these guys are full of themselves, but the difference is that
one of them deals in facts while the other one makes stuff up half the
time. Or as David Letterman told him, "Sixty percent of what you say
is crap!"

Bill-o (our Bill-o, not the O'Reilly creep) would have a hard time
finding any blatant lies in Olbermann's commentary, but the internet is
full of O'Reilly's lies.

So instead of saying, "I'm going to listen to this guy's show and
believe what he says about everything," why not say, "I'm going to
listen to this guy's show and then go do some research on my own to see
how much of it is true."

The world needs more cynics right now as evidenced by the fact that
over 30% of the people in the US still think Bush is doing a great job.
Why? Because he told you he was?
Wake up, America! At least Jim Jones needed Kool-Aid. Bush just uses
Rush, Hannity, and O-Reilly.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:27:08
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 23--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> Bill-o doesn't trust Olbermann. That's cool. I don't trust Bill
> O'Reilly.

What a pompous ass (O'Reilly not Annika). For the record I don't trust any
of the cheerleaders of any side (Rush, Hannity, Matthews etc). They are tow
the line types. Not my cup o' Java.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 11:45:07
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:453db2b1$0$17433$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 23--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill-o doesn't trust Olbermann. That's cool. I don't trust Bill
>> O'Reilly.
>
> What a pompous ass (O'Reilly not Annika). For the record I don't trust any
> of the cheerleaders of any side (Rush, Hannity, Matthews etc). They are
> tow
> the line types. Not my cup o' Java.

Basically, I agree with you.

The difference, in my mind, is that it's easy enough to determine whose side
any given cheerleader is on. One can hear what they have to say, with the
understanding that whatever information they're dispensing comes with a
heavy dose of bias, and weigh it against opposing information from
cheerleaders from the other side. It's the best way I know to give a truly
fair and balanced weighing of perspectives on both sides. Then, one can
judge for themselves which side makes the most sense.

Randy

Date: 25 Oct 2006 07:16:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24--2006, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

> Basically, I agree with you.
>
> The difference, in my mind, is that it's easy enough to determine whose
> side
> any given cheerleader is on. One can hear what they have to say, with the
>
> understanding that whatever information they're dispensing comes with a
> heavy dose of bias, and weigh it against opposing information from
> cheerleaders from the other side. It's the best way I know to give a
> truly
> fair and balanced weighing of perspectives on both sides. Then, one can
> judge for themselves which side makes the most sense.

Alright Randy, this being RSG, you are hereby informed that you have just
reached your reasonble thought quota for the month and further outburts
shall not be tolerated! ;-)

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 17:33:47
From:
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

annika1980 wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaF8bjFDr2c

"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the
street and lynch us." (George H. W. "Poppy" Bush) ----------- (You are
so, right Bush.)

Date: 23 Oct 2006 11:30:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161377395.509572.178280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tex wrote:
> >> annika1980 wrote:
> >> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
> >> > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
> >> > > > speak
> >> > > > in complete sentences.
> >> > >
> >> > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
> >> > > the
> >> > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
> >> > > have
> >> > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
> >> > > downfall
> >> > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of
> >> > > arms to
> >> > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
> >> > > So
> >> > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
> >> > > alone will
> >> > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
> >> > > throughout
> >> > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
> >> > > strong-points
> >> > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
> >> > > Hitler,
> >> > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
> >> > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
> >> > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
> >>
> >> Which "rights" have you lost??
> >> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
> >> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
> >> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
> >>
> >> Tex
> >
> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>
> I bet your employer does the above all the time.

They do. They even drug-tested me before I started. But I agreed to all
that when I went to work for them. I never agreed to letting the FBI
contact my local public library and say: what books did John B. check
out this week? They can do that and the library has to comply.

But I have to stop posting to these threads because some people in this
ng are really mad at me for trashing the place. They're comparing me to
a vandal. You'd better stop too, or they might direct their wrath at
you.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 14:26:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161628241.050157.200660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1161377395.509572.178280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tex wrote:
>> >> annika1980 wrote:
>> >> > Head Shot wrote:
>> >> > > AKA Gray Asphalt wrote:
>> >> > > > It's republican hype to get people to believe that Wishful can
>> >> > > > speak
>> >> > > > in complete sentences.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Gun Grabbing Democrats have a leader too:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
>> >> > > who
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
>> >> > > downfall
>> >> > > by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > arms to
>> >> > > the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any
>> >> > > sovereignty.
>> >> > > So
>> >> > > let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops
>> >> > > alone will
>> >> > > bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order
>> >> > > throughout
>> >> > > the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military
>> >> > > strong-points
>> >> > > must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf
>> >> > > Hitler,
>> >> > > dinner talk on April 11, 1942
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hitler? Isn't he the one who went around invading other countries
>> >> > trying to impose his will, and took the rights away of many of his
>> >> > citizens? Sounds kinda Republican to me.
>> >>
>> >> Which "rights" have you lost??
>> >> "Right" to a high paying job for being lazy?
>> >> "Right" to bitch and moan about politics on a golf newsgroup?
>> >> "Right" to shoot low golf scores?
>> >>
>> >> Tex
>> >
>> > I've lost the right to assume that my phone calls, e-mails, websites I
>> > visit and books I buy or check out of the library aren't being
>> > monitored under authority of the Patriot Act. And so have you.
>>
>> I bet your employer does the above all the time.
>
> They do. They even drug-tested me before I started. But I agreed to all
> that when I went to work for them. I never agreed to letting the FBI
> contact my local public library and say: what books did John B. check
> out this week? They can do that and the library has to comply.
>
> But I have to stop posting to these threads because some people in this
> ng are really mad at me for trashing the place. They're comparing me to
> a vandal. You'd better stop too, or they might direct their wrath at
> you.
>
RSG was trashed years before your arrival John. :-) Besides they typically
only complain about pro-Bush posts. Bush Bashing is perfectly OK.

Date: 23 Oct 2006 20:02:53
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

MnMikew wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1161628241.050157.200660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
SNIP

>>But I have to stop posting to these threads because some people in this
>>ng are really mad at me for trashing the place. They're comparing me to
>>a vandal. You'd better stop too, or they might direct their wrath at
>>you.
>>
>
> RSG was trashed years before your arrival John. :-) Besides they typically
> only complain about pro-Bush posts. Bush Bashing is perfectly OK.
>
>
CRASH!

There goes another window!

J

Date: 24 Oct 2006 09:23:35
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> :> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> :> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> :> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> :> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
> :> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> :> :
> :> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
> :>
> :> Jose Padilla.
> :
> : One of out 300 Million...not bad.
>
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> after all I was not a communist.
>
> When they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> after all I was not a social democrat.
>
> When they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> after all I was not a trade unionist.
>
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.

When it gets to 1000, we'll talk again. Until then, you've injected
Nazi's...thread closed.

Tex

Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:07:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: > :> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
: > :> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
: > :> :
: > :> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
: > :> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
: > :> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
: > :> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
: > :> :
: > :> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
: > :>
: > :> Jose Padilla.
: > :
: > : One of out 300 Million...not bad.
: >
: > When the Nazis came for the communists,
: > I remained silent;
: > after all I was not a communist.
: >
: > When they locked up the social democrats,
: > I remained silent;
: > after all I was not a social democrat.
: >
: > When they came for the trade unionists,
: > I did not speak out;
: > after all I was not a trade unionist.
: >
: > When they came for me,
: > there was no one left to speak out.
:
: When it gets to 1000, we'll talk again. Until then, you've injected
: Nazi's...thread closed.

Sorry, Mark, the best way to insure disaster is to wait for a
body count before doing anything. By the time you get your 1000,
it'll be too late.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 25 Oct 2006 05:02:14
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24--2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > :> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> > :> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> > :> :
> > :> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> > :> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> > :> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions
> > were met,
> > :> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> > :> :
> > :> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
> > :>
> > :> Jose Padilla.
> > :
> > : One of out 300 Million...not bad.
> >
> > When the Nazis came for the communists,
> > I remained silent;
> > after all I was not a communist.
> >
> > When they locked up the social democrats,
> > I remained silent;
> > after all I was not a social democrat.
> >
> > When they came for the trade unionists,
> > I did not speak out;
> > after all I was not a trade unionist.
> >
> > When they came for me,
> > there was no one left to speak out.
>
> When it gets to 1000, we'll talk again. Until then, you've injected
> Nazi's...thread closed.

Good, now that that's settled can we get back to what this newsgroup is
all about? ....trashing Larrry's swing!

me

Date: 25 Oct 2006 12:24:40
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Sparky <biff@funco.com > wrote:

: Good, now that that's settled can we get back to what this newsgroup is
: all about? ....trashing Larrry's swing!

Larry has a swing? When did that happen?

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:19:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

In article <1161707015.738271.206300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > :> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> > :> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> > :> :
> > :> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> > :> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> > :> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were
> > :> :>met,
> > :> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> > :> :
> > :> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
> > :>
> > :> Jose Padilla.
> > :
> > : One of out 300 Million...not bad.
> >
> > When the Nazis came for the communists,
> > I remained silent;
> > after all I was not a communist.
> >
> > When they locked up the social democrats,
> > I remained silent;
> > after all I was not a social democrat.
> >
> > When they came for the trade unionists,
> > I did not speak out;
> > after all I was not a trade unionist.
> >
> > When they came for me,
> > there was no one left to speak out.
>
> When it gets to 1000, we'll talk again. Until then, you've injected
> Nazi's...thread closed.
>
> Tex

Changing the subject and protesting too much doesn't let you off the
fact that you were proved wrong. Couldn't expect you to admit it, though.

William Clark

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 24 Oct 2006 06:51:18
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 23 2006 00:25:29 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> Many people have lost the right to a trial when being arrested
> >> and held.
> >
> >Who outside Guantanamo?
>
> And there are no US citizens in Gitmo.

US citizens or not, people held in detention by the US, which claims to
be a beacon of fairness, human rights and human decency, have a human
right to be treated fairly and humanely. That means, among other
things, not being held indefinitely without being charged with a crime
or given access to legal counsel. It means not being physically abused
or tortured. You'd have to be one seriously cynical son-of-a-bitch to
believe that foreign nationals held in US detention have no human
rights at all. Or, you have to be completely unconcerned with what the
rest of the world thinks of us.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 05:54:21
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> :
> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> :
> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
>
> Jose Padilla.

One of out 300 Million...not bad.
You've got better odds at winning the Lotto...do you fear that? I'll
bet you don't even play because the odds are too high.

Tex

Date: 24 Oct 2006 13:14:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24 2006 05:54:21 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Jose Padilla.
>
>One of out 300 Million...not bad.
>You've got better odds at winning the Lotto...do you fear that? I'll
>bet you don't even play because the odds are too high.
>
>Tex

Padilla is an interesting case, but eventually he was transferred to
civilian authority, charged with a crime and convicted.

However, the government did their best to delay his release to
civilian authority. There is the old saying that justice delayed is
justice denied, but a lot of the delays were due to Padilla's own
legal team screwing up.

Nevertheless, no one can say that Padilla was denied his day in court.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 15:02:01
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
: > : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
: > : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
: > :
: > :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
: > :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
: > :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were met,
: > :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
: > :
: > : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
: >
: > Jose Padilla.
:
: One of out 300 Million...not bad.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/

Date: 24 Oct 2006 13:23:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On Tue, 24 2006 15:02:01 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:

> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.

I'll speak out for you Chris. Be sure to write :)

Date: 24 Oct 2006 12:13:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3inup2I1jfN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> :> : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> :> : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> :> :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> :> :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions
> were met,
> :> :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> :> :
> :> : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
> :>
> :> Jose Padilla.
> :
> : One of out 300 Million...not bad.
>
> When the Nazis came for the communists,
> I remained silent;
> after all I was not a communist.
>
> When they locked up the social democrats,
> I remained silent;
> after all I was not a social democrat.
>
> When they came for the trade unionists,
> I did not speak out;
> after all I was not a trade unionist.
>
> When they came for me,
> there was no one left to speak out.
>
Jesus, the drama.

Date: 24 Oct 2006 22:45:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 24 2006 05:54:21 -0700, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

>One of out 300 Million...not bad.
>You've got better odds at winning the Lotto...do you fear that? I'll
>bet you don't even play because the odds are too high.

So what percentage of the American population should the Constitution
be for?

Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:16:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

In article <1161694461.306636.10720@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:

> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> > : On Sun, 22 2006 02:12:23 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> > : <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> > :
> > :>The framers clearly and specifically stated
> > :>that the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not to be suspended under any
> > :>circumstances, unless certain very specific and narrow conditions were
> > :>met,
> > :>which, by any reasonable measure, has not happened.
> > :
> > : Which US citizens have been denied the right of HC?
> >
> > Jose Padilla.
>
> One of out 300 Million...not bad.
> You've got better odds at winning the Lotto...do you fear that? I'll
> bet you don't even play because the odds are too high.
>
> Tex

So tell us just what statistical measure of the abrogation of
constitutional rights is acceptable here? 0.1%, 1%, 10% . . ? This is
like claiming that someone is just a little bit dead.

Odds are not good enough in a case of absolutes like this.

William Clark

Date: 25 Oct 2006 08:15:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Sparky wrote:
>
> Good, now that that's settled can we get back to what this newsgroup is
> all about? ....trashing Larrry's swing!
>

I thought it was about me kickin your butt this weekend?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 03:07:01
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

On 25--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> Sparky wrote:
> >
> > Good, now that that's settled can we get back to what this newsgroup
> > is
> > all about? ....trashing Larrry's swing!
> >
>
> I thought it was about me kickin your butt this weekend?

Oh, there's gonna be an ass-waxin this weekend, no doubt. It just ain't
gonna be mine...

me :-)

Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:23:59
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's Most Honest Speech Ever

Sparky wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > I thought it was about me kickin your butt this weekend?
>
> Oh, there's gonna be an ass-waxin this weekend, no doubt. It just ain't
> gonna be mine...
>

Well then maybe I'll just wax your head.