Bush is a hero

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161541 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Hruuuumph! Bollocks. RG is posting an extensive list ALL of which I seriously doubt you are "WELL aware". And did it occur to you there are OTHERS reading in here who may find that extensive list interesting, whether it was originally addressed to you or not? PUBLIC ANON MSG BOARD!
As I recall, you & Chaser find this Soros character to be a "fine American" (or words to that effect).
I'm pretty sure you know which of Soros' political activities I support, bob - and the fact that I hardly support ALL OF THEM, as well.

What I said, was, "I'm starting to like this guy." Not that I think he's a 'fine American'. But in all reality, any American citizen who stands up for what he/she believes in, and puts their money where their mouth is, is doing a commendable job of being a 'fine American'. Even if that person's aspirations don't coincide with mine. It's that whole 'individual freedom' thing. Soros, and (just in case you forgot about them) the Koch brothers, just happen to have more money to play with in this regard, than does the average 'fine American'.

JMO
Roberta G

Tucker, GA

#161542 Apr 27, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Well, actually, I think what he wants, is for me to gracefully join his RobertaG admiration society, and throw my sister senting opinions into the winds of change.
Bob would prefer that I have a 'come to Jesus' moment, and stop being so cantankerous. What he doesn't realize is that I actually DO like and admire Roberta - she seems like a lovely person, with very strong convictions. And while I often disagree with her, and poke a bit of fun at her on occasion, it doesn't mean I think she's a dork. Far from it.(Frankly, I believe even Lisw has sensible things to say every now and then, although her goodie-two-shoes act is pretty annoying most of the time.)
But, if bob wants those with whom he disagrees to come around to his way of thinking, or worse, to 'shut up', he's certainly going about that in an unproductive manner, when it comes to me.
:)
I didn't know I had an admiration society :) Kewl!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161543 Apr 27, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
More crap. Last I checked BB is way more in the center than you pretend to be. What side is vested the second something happens with demonization in an effort to shut people up? What side cryes bigot, racist ect before Obama was even elected and does so at the drop of a hat to shut down people?
The answer to all your so-called questions is 'both sides', Chris.

If you don't know that, when you talk about low information voters you should be including yourself.

As you your estimation of how close or far away from the center I am, I think it might be hard for you and several others to tell. I don't think you listen, because you've already been told what liberals say and you spend more time trying to fit whatever I say into that 'model' than you do thinking about what it is I'm saying.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161544 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, yer not NEARLY as smart as I thought ya were.
All I can go on is what I read in the thread, bob, and that seems to be the direction you've taken.

What point is there in having a conversation when the only response I'm going to get is 'you only say that to blindly cover Obama (Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, target of the day)'?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161545 Apr 27, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't know I had an admiration society :) Kewl!
Well, ya do. Now you know.

:)

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161546 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The answer to all your so-called questions is 'both sides', Chris.
If you don't know that, when you talk about low information voters you should be including yourself.
As you your estimation of how close or far away from the center I am, I think it might be hard for you and several others to tell. I don't think you listen, because you've already been told what liberals say and you spend more time trying to fit whatever I say into that 'model' than you do thinking about what it is I'm saying.
Not really. Short answer is it doesn't matter too much. People say many things, I am far more concerned with action. On this point I agree with Hip. He once posted and Jesus Himself said this: You will know where a man's treasure is by where he puts his money (paraphrased) Most of the things I've found in my 39 years so far have been quite easy. Its either right or wrong. Its rare I see any gray. Most of what I see dems supporting is wrong and does much harm to the very people they say they care about. Talk is cheap and I really don't care who rolls up sleeves or what any of the "optics" are.

Since: Sep 10

Long Island City, NY

#161547 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Hruuuumph! Bollocks. RG is posting an extensive list ALL of which I seriously doubt you are "WELL aware". And did it occur to you there are OTHERS reading in here who may find that extensive list interesting, whether it was originally addressed to you or not? PUBLIC ANON MSG BOARD!
As I recall, you & Chaser find this Soros character to be a "fine American" (or words to that effect).
Even better than that, in my view.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161549 Apr 27, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Well, actually, I think what he wants, is for me to gracefully join his RobertaG admiration society, and throw my dissenting opinions into the winds of change.
WRONG (as usual)! No one has a fan club here that I'm aware of.
What I "prefer" is for you treat others as they treat you, or simply ignore them.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob would prefer that I have a 'come to Jesus' moment, and stop being so cantankerous. What he doesn't realize is that I actually DO like and admire Roberta - she seems like a lovely person, with very strong convictions. And while I often disagree with her, and poke a bit of fun at her on occasion, it doesn't mean I think she's a dork. Far from it.(Frankly, I believe even Lisw has sensible things to say every now and then, although her goodie-two-shoes act is pretty annoying most of the time.)
If you "poke fun" at someone and forget to post a smiley face,
that's on you. And I've been posting with Lis for the better part of 5 years, and have found there's only ONE other person that described Lis as a "goodie-2-shoes" type.

Wilson is constantly harassing Lis over her msgs, but has NEVER used that description of her, nor has HipGnosis or anyone else I can recall. The only other one was SHOVELHEAD, and I challenged her much more often than I do you.
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>
But, if bob wants those with whom he disagrees to come around to his way of thinking, or worse, to 'shut up', he's certainly going about that in an unproductive manner, when it comes to me.
:)
It was a RIDICULOUS notion to begin with.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161550 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>All I can go on is what I read in the thread, bob, and that seems to be the direction you've taken.
What point is there in having a conversation when the only response I'm going to get is 'you only say that to blindly cover Obama (Holder, Clinton, Napolitano, target of the day)'?
It isn't the ONLY response you'll get. I try to provide a viable rebuttal, now WITH LINKS, so that anyone can read my reasoning.

But at any rate, it works BOTH ways mister....if you refuse to see this admin did anything wrong to slam the door on the FBI interrogation for example, and cannot counter with a reasonable excuse, what else can it be?

FTR, there's only ONE annoying poster I'd like to see shut down permanently, and that's Global Idiot.

BTW, this thread was painfully slow earlier this week, and I'm not beyond stretching a truth or two, etc., to stir things up a bit.
It's not always pretty, but it does usually work.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161551 Apr 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even better than that, in my view.
Gee, what a shock!

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161552 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>bob's not going to be happy until he shuts up everyone he doesn't agree with
Riiiiiight! Chris brought that up on numerous occasions of people in here trying to silence him. As I recall, you and the others told him often, he was "paranoid" or something.

I simply have NO intentions of shutting anyone up, and don't have the power or authority to accomplish it even if I did.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161553 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Riiiiiight! Chris brought that up on numerous occasions of people in here trying to silence him. As I recall, you and the others told him often, he was "paranoid" or something.
I simply have NO intentions of shutting anyone up, and don't have the power or authority to accomplish it even if I did.
Omg, you're right. And it was mainly Willie who said he was paranoid, in a kind of fatherly superior way. Now I wonder what his response will be to the fact that he is doing the same thing. I imagine he'll say that "this" is different.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161555 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't the ONLY response you'll get. I try to provide a viable rebuttal, now WITH LINKS, so that anyone can read my reasoning.
But at any rate, it works BOTH ways mister....if you refuse to see this admin did anything wrong to slam the door on the FBI interrogation for example, and cannot counter with a reasonable excuse, what else can it be?
FTR, there's only ONE annoying poster I'd like to see shut down permanently, and that's Global Idiot.
BTW, this thread was painfully slow earlier this week, and I'm not beyond stretching a truth or two, etc., to stir things up a bit.
It's not always pretty, but it does usually work.
I don't know that they did anything wrong by filing charges (and providing him with an attorney) when they did, bob.

In the case we're talking about, you have an American citizen who committed acts of terrorism who has asked for an attorney several times while being questioned by federal agents, who delayed providing one under the Public Safety Exception.

The Public Safety Exception is a judgment call; there's no statute or court ruling that gives X number of hours for it. That exception covered investigators while they were getting information about other potential bombers or bombs planted, or other plotters ready to strike. Once that's established, the Public Safety Exception has expired.

They could not use the Public Safety Exception to obtain 'testimonial' information that doesn't lead to preventing an immediate danger - who his contacts in Chechnya/Russia/Bumfekistan might be, where they got the bomb making materials and plans, who (if anyone) trained them, etc. Anything of that nature uncovered by the investigators COULD lead to problems in prosecution of the suspect; the longer the exemption was claimed, the greater the potential for problems.

I want to see this guy make like McVeigh and go bye-bye dead, although I'd be satisfied with him becoming the Unabobmer's next door neighbor in a Supermax forever IF he actually does have any useful information (which I doubt he does). For that reason, I don't want this guy to have issues he can raise in court about his rights being violated..

So ... where's the wrong here, bob?

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publication...

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_vi...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161556 Apr 27, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Riiiiiight! Chris brought that up on numerous occasions of people in here trying to silence him. As I recall, you and the others told him often, he was "paranoid" or something.
I simply have NO intentions of shutting anyone up, and don't have the power or authority to accomplish it even if I did.
Chris tends to roar that he won't be silenced at people who disagree with him, just one of the many things he does rather than/to avoid responding to what they post.

As to what I was trying to say, well, I can only tell you what it looks like from here.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161557 Apr 27, 2013
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Omg, you're right. And it was mainly Willie who said he was paranoid, in a kind of fatherly superior way. Now I wonder what his response will be to the fact that he is doing the same thing. I imagine he'll say that "this" is different.
Of course I think it's different.

If I was doing it the way Chris does it, it would have happened a long time before now, with a frequency that would drive everyone nuts, and come in bursts where I accused anyone who disagreed with me of trying to silence me.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater, FL

#161558 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I think it's different.
If I was doing it the way Chris does it, it would have happened a long time before now, with a frequency that would drive everyone nuts, and come in bursts where I accused anyone who disagreed with me of trying to silence me.
Without talking about anything specific here my main gripe is that Pres Obama has a few times basically told people that don't agree with him to shut up. Did he use those exact words? No. In one speech he did say he didn't want certain people to ".... do a lot of talking" And a few times this Pres and some of his supporters have said they want certain people to shut up. Even if you disagree on that it blows my mind that one of the best things this nation has, the 1st amnd. donesn't seem too important to some. If Pres Bush or any Pres said he didn't want some people to do a lot of talking I would be just as pissed. But I get it. You dismiss that.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161559 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The Public Safety Exception is a judgment call; there's no statute or court ruling that gives X number of hours for it. That exception covered investigators while they were getting information about other potential bombers or bombs planted, or other plotters ready to strike. Once that's established, the Public Safety Exception has expired.

So ... where's the wrong here, bob?

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publication...

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_vi...
I'd hafta say the DOJ errored at least twice on this.
1) Gov't offices are closed on Sunday, and waiting until Monday AM
would've given the FBI a chance to glean additional info.

2) Communication. The FBI is PART of the DOJ, and as such it would've been "cleaner" to at least tell the interrogators that people were on their way (on a Sunday) to mirandize Dz-Jokar.
The magistrate appeared unannounced, where perhaps X more questions
may have been answered while she was enroute.

I'm aware there is no set number of hrs to question someone under
PSE, but apparently SOP is 48.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#161560 Apr 27, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Without talking about anything specific here my main gripe is that Pres Obama has a few times basically told people that don't agree with him to shut up. Did he use those exact words? No. In one speech he did say he didn't want certain people to ".... do a lot of talking" And a few times this Pres and some of his supporters have said they want certain people to shut up. Even if you disagree on that it blows my mind that one of the best things this nation has, the 1st amnd. donesn't seem too important to some. If Pres Bush or any Pres said he didn't want some people to do a lot of talking I would be just as pissed. But I get it. You dismiss that.
Yes, & I'm pretty sure that Limbaugh, Beck (maybe even Sarah Palin too) was the trigger for them to wanna reanimate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

But the left would NEVER accept the FD concept, calling for equal time so that BOTH sides could be aired during a particular radio or TV broadcast. And that's partly what sank Air America, and similar programs, despite all the $$Mil's Soros throws at them.

The left only wanted to USE the FD to silence people they strongly disagreed with AND who may have influence on large numbers of the population (dittoheads etc.).

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#161561 Apr 27, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Without talking about anything specific here my main gripe is that Pres Obama has a few times basically told people that don't agree with him to shut up. Did he use those exact words? No. In one speech he did say he didn't want certain people to ".... do a lot of talking" And a few times this Pres and some of his supporters have said they want certain people to shut up. Even if you disagree on that it blows my mind that one of the best things this nation has, the 1st amnd. donesn't seem too important to some. If Pres Bush or any Pres said he didn't want some people to do a lot of talking I would be just as pissed. But I get it. You dismiss that.
I believe in the First Amendment too, but somebody telling another person to shut up is an EXERCISE in free speech, not an attempt to stifle it. It doesn't matter whether it's me telling you to shut up, or the President of the United States saying he wishes some of his opponents would shut up.

If Obama proposed a law intended to prevent certain people from doing a lot of talking, then we'd have a First Amendment issue and I'd be right there with you objecting.

The President of the United States is a politician. They're running for office for a year and a half or two years before they get there, they're running for re-election (or keeping the option open) from the inaugural forward, and if they win again they're running to support their agenda, their party, and their legacy until the day they leave office. Many remain active politicians in support of their party until the day they die, some more than others.

I don't get upset when politicians act like politicians, whether they do it directly as Obama has done, or they do it more traditionally (what Nixon called unleashing the Vice President). It just doesn't make sense to do that.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#161562 Apr 27, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I think it's different.
If I was doing it the way Chris does it, it would have happened a long time before now, with a frequency that would drive everyone nuts, and come in bursts where I accused anyone who disagreed with me of trying to silence me.
You're a hoot!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Scaritual 88,463
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 31 min Truthiness 666
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 32 min Michael 665,571
News Goldman's Cohn Said to Be Preferred Candidate f... 33 min discocrisco 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 38 min OneMale OneChild 284,674
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr New Age Spiritual... 977,487
Queen Cleopatra was clearly Black. White people... (Aug '10) 2 hr gundee123 1,253
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 3 hr Scaritual 269
More from around the web