Religions > Atheism > Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 01:58:59 AM |
| Object: |
Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
10 Jun 2005 12:11:58 PM |
|
|
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
10 Jun 2005 01:15:01 PM |
|
|
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support. Those who voted no were
subjected to calls of "TRAITOR!" and many have been voted out of office
since.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in
disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that
mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
10 Jun 2005 03:13:49 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall correctly !
Crazy !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 07:36:29 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall correctly !
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read* most of
the legislation that we pass..."?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 01:59:01 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:1wwqe.6858$q46.1520@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall
correctly !
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read* most
of the legislation that we pass..."?
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 06:16:05 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:1wwqe.6858$q46.1520@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall
correctly !
<piggybacking here>
I'm still pissed at the majority of Democrats in congress who signed
that piece of anti-American crap into law.
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read* most
of the legislation that we pass..."?
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
You're even more gullible than I thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 08:11:52 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:FTFqe.3926$2K4.511@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:1wwqe.6858$q46.1520@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the
first time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall
correctly !
<piggybacking here>
I'm still pissed at the majority of Democrats in congress who signed
that piece of anti-American crap into law.
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read*
most of the legislation that we pass..."?
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
You're even more gullible than I thought.
See this mirror?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 08:16:19 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:FTFqe.3926$2K4.511@trnddc08:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:1wwqe.6858$q46.1520@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the
first time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall
correctly !
<piggybacking here>
I'm still pissed at the majority of Democrats in congress who signed
that piece of anti-American crap into law.
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read*
most of the legislation that we pass..."?
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's video
of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a video of
Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed "We don't read
most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words? That is the only
way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers said.
You're even more gullible than I thought.
See this mirror?
Stop looking into it and thinking that you're looking at me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 12:50:04 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's video of
him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a video of Conyers,
morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed "We don't read most of
the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words? That is the only way that
Moore could've lied about what Conyers said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 01:11:49 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's video of
him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a video of Conyers,
morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed "We don't read most of
the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words? That is the only way that
Moore could've lied about what Conyers said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their children
in the military. Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael Moore blames
Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the Democrats...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 02:57:50 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08...
Katt wrote:
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their children
in the military. Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael Moore blames
Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the Democrats...
Yes! The look on that first guy's face is so revealing: he's obviously never
considered it as even a theoretical possibility that his own, lawmaker's
children should actually go off and fight for what he - of course!! - knows
the US military *really* gets sent off to fight for (and remember: it sure
as eggs *isn't* 'protecting freedom and democracy at home and around the
world....'!!). And I'm perfectly happy for Moore to apportion blame in a
non-partisan way when he does so: corruption, incompetence and
small-mindedness aren't party-political issues, after all...
Incidentally, it's been fascinating to see how Moore and Galloway are two
people who provoke the *maddest*, *most disproportionate* reactions in those
who can't stand dissent: both characters inspire a kind of 'moral panic'
which places them 'beyond the pale' in some curious sense... There are some
interesting articles on this very subject knocking about, by the way:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,951457,00.html (a year
old)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1483072,00.html (new)
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 11:40:44 AM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:OwNqe.7291$q46.3477@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08...
Katt wrote:
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.ht
ml
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military. Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael
Moore blames Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the
Democrats...
Yes! The look on that first guy's face is so revealing: he's obviously
never considered it as even a theoretical possibility that his own,
lawmaker's children should actually go off and fight for what he - of
course!! - knows the US military *really* gets sent off to fight for
(and remember: it sure as eggs *isn't* 'protecting freedom and
democracy at home and around the world....'!!).
Please be so kind as to explain how an individual can enlist *someone
else* in the military.
And I'm perfectly
happy for Moore to apportion blame in a non-partisan way when he does
so: corruption, incompetence and small-mindedness aren't
party-political issues, after all...
Incidentally, it's been fascinating to see how Moore and Galloway are
two people who provoke the *maddest*, *most disproportionate*
reactions in those who can't stand dissent: both characters inspire a
kind of 'moral panic' which places them 'beyond the pale' in some
curious sense...
Yes, it's not unusual to be rather disturbed by the presense of an
obviously morally challenged lunatic like Moore or Galloway.
There are some interesting articles on this very
subject knocking about, by the way:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,951457,00.html (a
year old)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1483072,00.html
(new)
Katt.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 02:03:17 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read
most of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words?
That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers
said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.htm
l
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military.
Which was, of course, disingenuous, because nobody can enlist someone
*else* in the military.
Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael
Moore blames Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the
Democrats...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 02:36:11 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read
most of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words?
That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers
said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.htm
l
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military.
Which was, of course, disingenuous, because nobody can enlist someone
*else* in the military.
Excellent point. So germane. For instance, not even Cheney could pull
it off himself, something about "deferments", whatever those are.
(Whatever all *five* of those are). Apparently, even when you
desperately want to enlist and to serve your country -- during wartime
-- it can be tough to find a spot. Ask Tom DeLay. They just can't
take everyone, even if there is a wartime draft.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 11:36:26 AM |
|
|
"D-word" <yank_ees_suck@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1118543771.221666.240370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being
true? You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't
read most of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's
words? That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what
Conyers said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.htm
l
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military.
Which was, of course, disingenuous, because nobody can enlist someone
*else* in the military.
Excellent point. So germane. For instance, not even Cheney could
pull it off himself, something about "deferments", whatever those are.
(Whatever all *five* of those are). Apparently, even when you
desperately want to enlist and to serve your country -- during wartime
-- it can be tough to find a spot. Ask Tom DeLay. They just can't
take everyone, even if there is a wartime draft.
And *YOU* are disingenuous as well. Though I must admit that you have it
right, they *won't* take just anyone, even if there is a wartime draft.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 07:07:24 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
<snip>
And *YOU* are disingenuous as well. Though I must admit that you have
it right, they *won't* take just anyone, even if there is a wartime
draft.
But they will take people with mental and physical disabilities that will
make them of little value.
I watched a Marine recruiter try to get such a student into his service in
the 80's.
I knew this kid because he was in the special ed classroom where I worked.
He had a good sized criminal record, liked to put cigarettes out on his arm
and had serious medical problems.
Gotta fill those quotas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 07:48:57 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:MJ%qe.190$NU5.141@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<snip>
And *YOU* are disingenuous as well. Though I must admit that you have
it right, they *won't* take just anyone, even if there is a wartime
draft.
But they will take people with mental and physical disabilities that
will make them of little value.
I watched a Marine recruiter try to get such a student into his
service in the 80's.
I don't doubt that there are unscrupulous recruiters, but even in WWII
people got rejected by their draft boards.
I knew this kid because he was in the special ed classroom where I
worked. He had a good sized criminal record, liked to put cigarettes
out on his arm and had serious medical problems.
Gotta fill those quotas.
Wouldn't such a recruit generally just wash right out?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 08:57:11 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:MJ%qe.190$NU5.141@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
<snip>
And *YOU* are disingenuous as well. Though I must admit that you
have it right, they *won't* take just anyone, even if there is a
wartime draft.
But they will take people with mental and physical disabilities that
will make them of little value.
I watched a Marine recruiter try to get such a student into his
service in the 80's.
I don't doubt that there are unscrupulous recruiters, but even in WWII
people got rejected by their draft boards.
I knew this kid because he was in the special ed classroom where I
worked. He had a good sized criminal record, liked to put cigarettes
out on his arm and had serious medical problems.
Gotta fill those quotas.
Wouldn't such a recruit generally just wash right out?
It does not matter. The military is all about looking good on the reports
they pass up the line.
Selling bonds, body counts, helicopter crashes ( a Vietnam era cover-up), or
PT tests. The army does what it can to look good on paper.
The person would be recruited, so the recruiter looks good on paper.
If there were problems he would be recycled until they could push him
through if at all possible.
If nothing else he could be a clerk or a cook.
As one of my upward bound kids said "If the Marines are so good, why is my
brother a Marine?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 03:43:51 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read
most of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words?
That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers
said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.htm
l
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military.
Which was, of course, disingenuous, because nobody can enlist someone
*else* in the military.
No, but the congressmen could ask their children to sign up.
But, your nonresponse to the Conyers clip is a response in and of itself.
Thanks for playing, Fred.
Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael
Moore blames Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the
Democrats...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
12 Jun 2005 11:53:46 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:XbOqe.2802$9a1.405@trnddc01:
Fred Stone wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:pZLqe.4340$2K4.2202@trnddc08:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being
true? You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read
most of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words?
That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers
said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911
_large.htm
l
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their
children in the military.
Which was, of course, disingenuous, because nobody can enlist someone
*else* in the military.
No, but the congressmen could ask their children to sign up.
But, your nonresponse to the Conyers clip is a response in and of
itself.
Sigh. Another moonbat with no sense of irony.
Thanks for playing, Fred.
Thanks for being so dense, Daniel.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Men of learning suspect it little, and ignore it mostly.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, "Hypnos"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
13 Jun 2005 05:05:03 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Katt wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:nEHqe.4262$gL4.3774@trnddc07...
Fred Stone wrote:
You take anything Moore put in that propaganda film as being true?
You're even more gullible than I thought.
So, the Congressman John Conyers *DIDN'T* say that "We don't read most
of the bills?"
If Moore says that he did, he probably did not.
Moore didn't say that he did. Conyers actually said it. There's
video of him saying it. Are you trying to say that Moore took a
video of Conyers, morphed his lips a la "Baby Geniuses" and dubbed
"We don't read most of the bills" fraudulently over Conyer's words?
That is the only way that Moore could've lied about what Conyers said.
Turns out the clip is *in the trailer*...!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/fahrenheit_911/f911_large.html
I still love how Moore tried to get congressmen to enlist their children
in the military. Plus, regarding the Patriot Act, Michael Moore blames
Democrats. Whodathunkit? Moore, blaming the Democrats...
And as usual, he was correct. This passed because good people were silent.
--
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 12:26:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:36:29 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall correctly !
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read* most of
the legislation that we pass..."?
Which lets them get away with anything.
I've never understood this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
15 Jun 2005 10:30:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:26:46 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:36:29 GMT, "Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net>
wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9671A51B7DD57hellward@216.196.109.145...
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:42A99255.6956DB34
@serv.net:
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
Can this be fillibustered? That seems to be the only frail
weapon the freedom-loving have.
Remember, the "Patriot" Act passed Congress overwhelmingly the first
time, which Dems in almost unanimous support.
Without anyone actually reading the damned thing, if I recall correctly !
Yes. What does that Congressman(?) say in 'Fahrenheit 911'?
Isn't it something like: "Sit down, son: we *don't actually read* most of
the legislation that we pass..."?
Which lets them get away with anything.
I've never understood this.
Lack of time and denial. Since Congress is exempt from the laws they
themselves pass it doesn't matter.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
10 Jun 2005 05:33:46 AM |
|
|
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 05:28:21 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you really
want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit China.
Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I. I am afraid
that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give it about 2
maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have legislated
everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes greed) Chutes and
ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the ladder is good), and
Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and diabetes). Even playing cards
will be legislated (promotes gambling which is psychologically addictive).
State run lotteries will be OK as it lines the coffers. Even language will
be legislated as some words are deemed offensive. The country is run by
perception not facts. When will it change? I doubt it will ever as I can
find no evidence of real rational thought given to any recent bill.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 07:05:14 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96724CA96FBFmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you really
want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit China.
Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I. I am
afraid
that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give it about 2
maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have legislated
everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes greed) Chutes and
ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the ladder is good), and
Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and diabetes). Even playing
cards
will be legislated (promotes gambling which is psychologically addictive).
State run lotteries will be OK as it lines the coffers. Even language
will
be legislated as some words are deemed offensive. The country is run by
perception not facts. When will it change? I doubt it will ever as I can
find no evidence of real rational thought given to any recent bill.
Can someone please let me know: *is this guy a fucking fruit-cake or not*?
Seriously: I'm new here. So far, he looks to me like a prize kook; but I'm
prepared to believe that he's just inarticulate and clueless.
What does his posting history tell you, people...?
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
11 Jun 2005 04:05:47 PM |
|
|
"Katt" <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:K2wqe.6775$q46.6542@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96724CA96FBFmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you
really want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit
China. Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I.
I am afraid
that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give it about 2
maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have legislated
everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes greed) Chutes
and ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the ladder is good),
and Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and diabetes). Even
playing cards
will be legislated (promotes gambling which is psychologically
addictive). State run lotteries will be OK as it lines the coffers.
Even language will
be legislated as some words are deemed offensive. The country is run
by perception not facts. When will it change? I doubt it will ever as
I can find no evidence of real rational thought given to any recent
bill.
Can someone please let me know: *is this guy a fucking fruit-cake or
not*?
Seriously: I'm new here. So far, he looks to me like a prize kook; but
I'm prepared to believe that he's just inarticulate and clueless.
What does his posting history tell you, people...?
Katt.
You will find that my postings are at times laced with sarcasm,
exaggeration, dry wit, and pure conjecture. Other postings could be
classed as a pure rant. Others are simply there to provoke thought but as
time goes on you will learn which is which. If you don't like what I
write I suggest you killfile me now if you find it disturbing. However,
if you care to discuss certain points I would be happy to oblige you.
What did you find disturbing? The original posting about getting our
constitution back? My comment about China or the most recent bills to go
through congress? Maybe it was prediction about the future?
have a nice one
Here is a little food for thought
1950s - Sex was dirty and the air clean
1970s - Sex was clean and the air dirty
1990s - Sex is dirty and so is the air.
2000s - Everything good is bad and everything bad is bad and unless you
are Xtian you are a lying godless ***** and the spawn of Satan. Don't
believe me? Ask a Xtian Fundie.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
13 Jun 2005 04:17:43 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns96724CA96FBFmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you really
want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit China.
Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I. I am afraid
that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give it about 2
maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have legislated
everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes greed) Chutes and
ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the ladder is good), and
Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and diabetes). Even playing cards
will be legislated (promotes gambling which is psychologically addictive).
State run lotteries will be OK as it lines the coffers. Even language will
be legislated as some words are deemed offensive. The country is run by
perception not facts. When will it change? I doubt it will ever as I can
find no evidence of real rational thought given to any recent bill.
I haven't heard about regulating board games. Do you have any references
for this?
rj
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
13 Jun 2005 10:33:37 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-2F024B.21174312062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns96724CA96FBFmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you
really want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit
China. Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I.
I am afraid that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give
it about 2 maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have
legislated everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes
greed) Chutes and ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the
ladder is good), and Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and
diabetes). Even playing cards will be legislated (promotes gambling
which is psychologically addictive). State run lotteries will be OK as
it lines the coffers. Even language will be legislated as some words
are deemed offensive. The country is run by perception not facts.
When will it change? I doubt it will ever as I can find no evidence of
real rational thought given to any recent bill.
I haven't heard about regulating board games. Do you have any references
for this?
Future tense, not past.
r
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Attempting to Make the so-called "Patriot" Act Constitutional |
15 Jun 2005 04:31:12 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9674B2A2EAC8Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-2F024B.21174312062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns96724CA96FBFmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-B92ECC.22334609062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <SYqdnZSAhYtCbjXfRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11125/index.php
It would be nice to get our Constitution back.
So many of our freedoms have slipped away it is quite sad. if you
really want to see what freedom used to be like here in the US, visit
China. Believe it or not they have a lot more freedom than you and I.
I am afraid that we are at the beginning of the end of the USA. I give
it about 2 maybe 3 generations and it will be gone. They will have
legislated everything including board games like Monopoly (promotes
greed) Chutes and ladders (Promotes capitalism. ie. Climbing up the
ladder is good), and Candyland (Increases risk of tooth decay and
diabetes). Even playing cards will be legislated (promotes gambling
which is psychologically addictive). State run lotteries will be OK as
it lines the coffers. Even language will be legislated as some words
are deemed offensive. The country is run by perception not facts.
When will it change? I doubt it will ever as I can find no evidence of
real rational thought given to any recent bill.
I haven't heard about regulating board games. Do you have any references
for this?
Future tense, not past.
r
Glad to hear that, but I'm sure that some politician somewhere is
probably thinking about it.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
