"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:040920051103460881%dbarnes@aol.com...

I posted it two minutes after it happened.

Most didn't know it, you idiot.

You think people can't read a newspaper?

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:040920051103460881%dbarnes@aol.com...

In article <wuednbMgH7R-qYbeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dffbho$cau$1@bolt.sonic.net...

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

And?

It takes a special kind of moron to wonder what the significance of
Renquist's death might be.

No, it's just that we can read the news...wondering why barnes thinks he
must re-announce what most of us already knew.
That's something you would do.

I posted it two minutes after it happened. Most didn't know it, you
idiot.

You think people can't read a newspaper?

Are you going to make your next
claim that you are a reporter?

Why not? You have claimed to be so many different things.

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message

osprey

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

And?

It takes a special kind of moron to wonder what the significance of
Renquist's death might be.

No, it's just that we can read the news...wondering why barnes thinks he
must re-announce what most of us already knew.
That's something you would do.

I posted it two minutes after it happened. Most didn't know it, you
idiot.

You think people can't read a newspaper?

"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1125860116.727514.276150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

osprey wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dffbho$cau$1@bolt.sonic.net...

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

And?

It takes a special kind of moron to wonder what the significance of
Renquist's death might be.

No, it's just that we can read the news...wondering why barnes thinks he
must re-announce what most of us already knew.

I first found out about it last night from Barnes, at about 11 PM
Central. At a time when most people did NOT know about it. I just did
not see any reason to comment on it, since there was nothing much to
say yet that people did not already know.

When did you find out that Renquist had died?

Last night around 1:30 a.m.

That's something you would do.

Inform people?

Well, you have to know Barne's history. He claims to have been a police
officer, military officer, lawyer, and even a teacher.

Yet...get this.

As a police officer he claims that anytime a police officer has to pull out
his or her firearm, they have lost control of the situation.

As a military officer who also claims to have been a pilot, he didn't know
where OTS was located (Officer Training School).

And as a pilot, he didn't
know some basics...like what is a APU, what is a MEGP, what is MADAR

As far as being a lawyer, do you know many lawyers that sit in newsgroups
behaving like Barnes?

As far as his claim on being a teacher in Criminal Justice, I asked him
several BASIC questions on Criminal Justice and he didn't know the answer to
any of them.

1) What are the four functions of a prison
2) What are the four roles of a Correctional Officer
3) What is the difference between a jail and a prison
4) Why doesn't Delaware have any jails
5) What are the three parts of the Criminal Justice system and how do they
work
6) What is the Panopticon? Who designed it? What was it's purpose? Is it's
concept still used today? Where and why?

Those are basics that any Criminal Justice student in his or her first year
would know.

He didn't.

There is nothing wrong with that. Besides, he states

that he is a lawyer, so naturally he would be interested in the status
of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice, since they could greatly
affect how he does his job, and how well he can do his job.

If you want to believe he is a lawyer, you go right ahead and believe it.
But I do think you have a little more intelligence than to fall for it.

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in
news:050920051847424915%dbarnes@aol.com:

In article <Xns96C8DC51055C1keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:yrSdnXerfcrD7IHeRVn-vw@comcast.com:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@-=Citlink=-.net> wrote in message
news:nYYSe.265$am.247@news01.roc.ny...

David W. Barnes wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

I find it interesting that Bush has chosen to nominate Roberts for
Rehnquist's chair. O'Connor has stated that she'll retire when her
successor has been confirmed, so technically, she's still on the
bench for the next session.
I figured that if Bush was that interested in tilting the court,
he would have appointed someone else for Rehnquist's position and
tried to get Roberts in O'Connor's seat, pushing her out.
Now he has to come up with a new replacement for O'Connor, which
almost has to be a moderate in order to get through the Senate.

I think Bush will come up with a moderate.

I have a feeling that in the next day or so, someone like keegan is
going to start posting propaganda about Bush and this next
replacement. I give him 2 days.

But on the serious side, I think Bush will nominate someone more
moderate.

i think bush will do the opposite: i expect his handlers to have him
nominate a crazed right-wing neocon with little or no hope of being
confirmed. when the ugly confirmation hearings finally end and the
crazed neocon is rejected, bush's handlers will move the roberts
hearings and everyone will be so emotionally drained from the ugly
battle that just ended that robers will fly through confirmation
hearings as will whomever bush's handlers select for the other
opening.

Bush is very weak right now. People are beginning to realize what a
poor President he is. We have a weak economy, gas prices are through
the roof and continuing upward, and we have recently seen that the
White House doesn't care about the people in New Orleans. Further,
people are beginning to realize that what Cheney said during the
campaign, that Bush and his buffoons can protect America against
terrorism better than Kerry, was *****. The whole New Orleans
fiasco was botched from day one, Rice was whooping it up with Monty
Python the day after the disaster, and had it been another terrorism
attack, the people of this country would be just as screwed as when
terrorists attacked the World Trade Center.

Bush may need to make a concession to the Democrats. Even Republicans
are now distancing themselves from him. All I can say is, "People of
America, we got what we deserved. Next time, get off your asses and
keep the Republicans from taking control. - This was to be expected."

david, your post suggests you think bush is making decisions. i don't
think he is, nor do i think he has.

i doubt his popularity is relevant in
terms of the supreme court vacancies. the opportunity to load the court
is something that right-wing wackos have salivated about for a long time
and i don't think they'll let this opportunity pass.

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <Xns96C8DC51055C1keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:yrSdnXerfcrD7IHeRVn-vw@comcast.com:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@-=Citlink=-.net> wrote in message
news:nYYSe.265$am.247@news01.roc.ny...

David W. Barnes wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

I find it interesting that Bush has chosen to nominate Roberts for
Rehnquist's chair. O'Connor has stated that she'll retire when her
successor has been confirmed, so technically, she's still on the
bench for the next session.
I figured that if Bush was that interested in tilting the court, he
would have appointed someone else for Rehnquist's position and tried
to get Roberts in O'Connor's seat, pushing her out.
Now he has to come up with a new replacement for O'Connor, which
almost has to be a moderate in order to get through the Senate.

I think Bush will come up with a moderate.

I have a feeling that in the next day or so, someone like keegan is
going to start posting propaganda about Bush and this next
replacement. I give him 2 days.

But on the serious side, I think Bush will nominate someone more
moderate.

i think bush will do the opposite: i expect his handlers to have him
nominate a crazed right-wing neocon with little or no hope of being
confirmed. when the ugly confirmation hearings finally end and the crazed
neocon is rejected, bush's handlers will move the roberts hearings and
everyone will be so emotionally drained from the ugly battle that just
ended that robers will fly through confirmation hearings as will whomever
bush's handlers select for the other opening.

Bush is very weak right now. People are beginning to realize what a
poor President he is. We have a weak economy,

Unemployment at it's lowest in four years
Housing sales through the roof.

Where is this weak economy?

gas prices are through
the roof and continuing upward,

Not Bush's fault

and we have recently seen that the

White House doesn't care about the people in New Orleans.

You are falling for that propaganda.

Further,

people are beginning to realize that what Cheney said during the
campaign, that Bush and his buffoons can protect America against
terrorism better than Kerry, was *****.

American public doesn't agree with that. While most Americans think
that we need to get out of Iraq, most will not agree that Kerry could
have handled it better.

The whole New Orleans

fiasco was botched from day one,

Having FEMA become a part of Homeland Security was a big mistake

Rice was whooping it up with Monty

Python the day after the disaster, and had it been another terrorism
attack, the people of this country would be just as screwed as when
terrorists attacked the World Trade Center.

Bush may need to make a concession to the Democrats. Even Republicans
are now distancing themselves from him.

Not hardly.

All I can say is, "People of

America, we got what we deserved. Next time, get off your asses and
keep the Republicans from taking control. - This was to be expected."

You keep repeating that, but the American public continues to disagree
with you.

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <Xns96C8DC51055C1keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:yrSdnXerfcrD7IHeRVn-vw@comcast.com:

"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@-=Citlink=-.net> wrote in message
news:nYYSe.265$am.247@news01.roc.ny...

David W. Barnes wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/03/rehnquist.obit/index.html

I find it interesting that Bush has chosen to nominate Roberts for
Rehnquist's chair. O'Connor has stated that she'll retire when her
successor has been confirmed, so technically, she's still on the
bench for the next session.
I figured that if Bush was that interested in tilting the court, he
would have appointed someone else for Rehnquist's position and tried
to get Roberts in O'Connor's seat, pushing her out.
Now he has to come up with a new replacement for O'Connor, which
almost has to be a moderate in order to get through the Senate.

I think Bush will come up with a moderate.

I have a feeling that in the next day or so, someone like keegan is
going to start posting propaganda about Bush and this next
replacement. I give him 2 days.

But on the serious side, I think Bush will nominate someone more
moderate.

i think bush will do the opposite: i expect his handlers to have him
nominate a crazed right-wing neocon with little or no hope of being
confirmed. when the ugly confirmation hearings finally end and the crazed
neocon is rejected, bush's handlers will move the roberts hearings and
everyone will be so emotionally drained from the ugly battle that just
ended that robers will fly through confirmation hearings as will whomever
bush's handlers select for the other opening.

Bush is very weak right now. People are beginning to realize what a
poor President he is. We have a weak economy,

Unemployment at it's lowest in four years

Housing sales through the roof.

Where is this weak economy?

gas prices are through
the roof and continuing upward,

Not Bush's fault

and we have recently seen that the

White House doesn't care about the people in New Orleans.

You are falling for that propaganda.

Further,

people are beginning to realize that what Cheney said during the
campaign, that Bush and his buffoons can protect America against
terrorism better than Kerry, was *****.

American public doesn't agree with that.

While most Americans think
that we need to get out of Iraq,

most will not agree that Kerry could
have handled it better.

The whole New Orleans

fiasco was botched from day one,

Having FEMA become a part of Homeland Security was a big mistake

Rice was whooping it up with Monty

Python the day after the disaster, and had it been another terrorism
attack, the people of this country would be just as screwed as when
terrorists attacked the World Trade Center.

Bush may need to make a concession to the Democrats. Even Republicans
are now distancing themselves from him.

Not hardly.

All I can say is, "People of

America, we got what we deserved. Next time, get off your asses and
keep the Republicans from taking control. - This was to be expected."

You keep repeating that, but the American public continues to disagree
with you.