| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
24 May 2007 09:09:03 AM |
| Object: |
Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017723.php
So corrupt it hurts
Although Jack Murtha currently occupies the center stage when it comes
to earmarks and, more generally, the culture of corruption in Congress,
we should not forget about Alan Mollohan, a West Virginia Democrat.
Mollohan, who until recently was the top Democrat on the House Ethics
Committee, has been under investigation for steering millions of dollars
into his district, much of which found its way into the hands of his
friends and supporters while his own net worth sky-rocketed.
One would hope that, as a side-effect, the money might at lesat benefit
Mollohan's district, however slightly. But even that does not appear
always to be the case. According to Roll Call, the town of Davis, West
Virginia is trying to undo their Congressman's "largesse" by taking back
land a local nonprofit bought with federal money provided by one of
Mollohan's earmarks. The town wants to condemn 6 acres of the portion of
land that the non-profit bought in 2002 for $7 million, money that came
from earmarks Mollohan attached to the budget for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It argues that the land in
question is perilously close to the reservoir that supplies the local
drinking water, so that construction within the area could foul the
water. Ironically, the project for which Mollohan earmarked funds is
supposed to be studying "watershed science" and conservation. Mollohan
has asked the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, to
intervene to prevent the comdemnation.
This isn't the only way in which Mollohan's earmarks may be hurting his
constituents, even as they appear to be enriching him. It seems that the
federal government has bought up so much property with Mollohan earmarks
that the county's property tax base is shrinking drastically. The mayor
of Davis told Roll Call that “probably 60 percent of the county
[produces] either no taxes or very little taxes” because it is either
held by federal agencies or by federally funded nonprofit groups.
Mollohan's office defended the congressman's efforts to prod the
Commerce Department into fighting the town of Davis' condemnation action
on the ground that "it’s important that NOAA consider its own stake in
the litigation, and make a decision on whether its interests require
that the agency become party to the case or take some other action.”
One would have thought that it's important for a legislator to stand up
for his constituents and their interest in clean water. But evidently
the people of Davis have less to offer Mollohan than the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 09:12:56 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Even John McCain supports the use of
waterboarding in certain circumstances.
WOW!
The very same guy who TWICE pretended to work
on legislation stopping Bush from using torture,
but in reality supported legislation allowing
torture?
He's not totally against torture?
| Under the deal, CIA interrogators would be given
| the same legal rights as currently guaranteed
| members of the military who are accused of
| breaking interrogation guidelines. Those rules
| say the accused can defend themselves by arguing
| it was reasonable for them to believe they were
| obeying a legal order.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690
Yup. That's McCain's idea of "Stopping" torture.
Oddly, as positively *Lame* as McCain's imaginary
anti-torture bill was, in reality it did nothing
but provide needed cover for Bush and the use of
torture. Yup. Everyone pretended that McCain's Bill
(which never stopped torture) had placed limits on
Bush, and then Bush turned around and issued a
signing statement saying that he wasn't going to
follow even THAT lame-***** fake effort:
| In a May 11 Los Angeles Times article, staff
| writer Julian E. Barnes reported that the White
| House had "accept[ed]" the limitations set out
| in an anti-torture bill, introduced by Sen.
| John McCain (R-AZ), over the objections of Vice
| President ***** Cheney. But Barnes failed to note
| that President Bush reserved the right to
| override those restrictions in a signing
| statement that accompanied the bill.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120002
That's McCain for you. He's AGAINST torture, unless
you're for it....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 12:40:01 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns994150A95BCECfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180553735.734715.228780@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 30, 8:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1180545981.291810.295470@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 30, 12:15 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-1B09B2.18553629052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993FAE92A2315freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180460348.409224.241380@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
On May 28, 4:27 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com>
wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-9A32DE.15550128052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-
state.edu:
In article <Xns993EC5A8F3237freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-1B557B.09360428052007@news-
server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993E561BB11B6freddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com>
wrote in
news:dfritzin-80E901.16173227052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-
state.edu:
<...>
No, Dave, he would not. The Attorney General works for
the President. The President can override him on
ANYTHING, at ANY TIME.
The president cannot break the law. Remember, that is
why Nixon had to resign. Nice try, but you are wrong,
again.
When the law says that the President has the authority to
make the determination, it's up to him, not you.
According to the Constitution, the Congress makes the
laws, the courts interpret the laws, and the executive
enforces the laws. The president does not have the right
to decide if a law is legal or not. If he doesn't believe
it is constitutional, he can go to the courts.
Read what I wrote, Dave and try again while paying
attention.
I did. You are wrong.
You did not. You lied about what I said, when it's right there.
You're a stupid liar, Dave.
Where is the lie, Fred.
Too bad you are totally immune to the truth. To Fred,
if Bush says it, it is the law, and all who disagree
shall be punished.
Nice strawman, Dave. That's not what I said and you know
it.
Sure seems to describe what you have been saying, Fred.
Read it again and pay attention this time.
Actually, that seems to describe exactly what you said.
Perhaps you need to learn to write better...
Which part of "When the law says that the President has the
authority" has you confused? The part about "The law says" or
the part about "The President has the authority"? Or maybe it
was the part about "it's up to him, not you", that confused
you?
It is the fact that the president doesn't have the authority to
make laws or interpret them. That is up to Congress and the
judicial branch, respectively.
So you're still lying about the specifics of this story about the
AG.
Again, where is the lie?
I already told you, dammit. National security law says that the
President has the authority to make the determination whether or not
to require warrants in specific cases of surveillance. When are you
going to start paying attention?
*****! FISA does not give him that power, and FISA is the law.
Or maybe you're upset that the Attorney General works for the
President?
No, I'm just upset that the AG is a political hack, who does
anything that he even thinks Bush may want him to do. That has
been amply shown in many ways, starting when he never found a
man on death row in Texas who didn't deserve to be killed, no
matter how poorly the trial was run.
David, you don't even understand Texas politics. The parole board
in Texas has all the authority there, the governor and the AG have
NO authority to pardon death row inmates unless the parole board
recommends them for pardon.
You are going to have to back that one up, Fred, because, quite
frankly, I don't believe you. Gonzales has been Bush's enabler for
years, from justifying the torturing of suspected terrorists, to
the breaking of the FISA law, to the death row inmates, Gonzales
has a history of telling Bush exactly what he wants to hear.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency upon
the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons, conditional
pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations of sentence, and
emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases, the Board considers
petitions for commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a
reprieve of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or reprieve. The
governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day reprieve of execution
in these cases.
***end of cited material***
From http://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death sentences,
they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used rarely, most
notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so DNA evidence could
be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In 2000, Bush said, "To the
extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence or guilt, I think we
need to use DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used because,
according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's the only
reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death
penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right," said Bush at a
2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to support the death
penalty is because it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for hate
crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of Pardons and
Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop to
tactics the terrorists would use. We could, but that would be wrong, and
would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time they
have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach of law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well have lied
to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get more
facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years* to get
the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not literate,
was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession. Think about it.
Perhaps you will understand.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 12:44:03 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency
upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons, conditional
pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations of sentence, and
emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases, the Board considers
petitions for commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a
reprieve of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or reprieve. The
governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day reprieve of
execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
From http://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used
rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so DNA
evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In 2000,
Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence
or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used because,
according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's the only
reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death
penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right," said Bush at
a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to support the
death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for
hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of Pardons
and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop to
tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in the
history of the United States under any circumstances whatsoever, applied
any of the methods in this article to any prisoner on orders from any
superior officer:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html
We could, but that would be wrong,
and would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
Nice slogan. I bet you've got a whole lot more where that one came from.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time
they have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach of
law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
You'll just have to, Dave.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well have
lied to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get
more facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years* to
get the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not literate,
was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession. Think about it.
Perhaps you will understand.
I understand that your BDS won't let you understand that Bush couldn't
affect the outcome of the case in the least.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
More of your BDS showing.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
Yep, you got the BDS real bad. Nothing Bush can do is OK with you, no
matter whether it's his fault or not.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 01:56:47 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency
upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons, conditional
pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations of sentence, and
emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases, the Board considers
petitions for commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a
reprieve of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or reprieve. The
governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day reprieve of
execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used
rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so DNA
evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In 2000,
Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence
or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used because,
according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's the only
reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death
penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right," said Bush at
a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to support the
death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for
hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of Pardons
and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop to
tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in the
history of the United States under any circumstances whatsoever, applied
any of the methods in this article to any prisoner on orders from any
superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is that
good enough?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html
We could, but that would be wrong,
and would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
Nice slogan. I bet you've got a whole lot more where that one came from.
I guess you can't deny the truth of what I said, so you have to resort
to that.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time
they have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach of
law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
You'll just have to, Dave.
So, you've got nothing. Thanks for the admission. It is what I
expected.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well have
lied to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get
more facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years* to
get the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not literate,
was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession. Think about it.
Perhaps you will understand.
I understand that your BDS won't let you understand that Bush couldn't
affect the outcome of the case in the least.
Unable to refute the facts, Fred resorts to the old dodge of BDS. It
won't work, Fred.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
More of your BDS showing.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Bush in this case. It has to do
with *you*, and your version of BDS, where Bush can do no wrong. That
is the real BDS.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
Yep, you got the BDS real bad. Nothing Bush can do is OK with you, no
matter whether it's his fault or not.
Gee, Fred, in another post, I put a lie to that claim. But, being the
liar you are, you have to bring it up again, since you have nothing
else.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 01:58:23 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency
upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons and
Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons, conditional
pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations of sentence, and
emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases, the Board considers
petitions for commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a
reprieve of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or reprieve. The
governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day reprieve of
execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used
rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so DNA
evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In 2000,
Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain innocence
or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used because,
according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's the only
reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death
penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right," said Bush at
a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to support the
death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for
hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of Pardons
and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop to
tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in the
history of the United States under any circumstances whatsoever, applied
any of the methods in this article to any prisoner on orders from any
superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is that
good enough?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html
We could, but that would be wrong,
and would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
Nice slogan. I bet you've got a whole lot more where that one came from.
I guess you can't deny the truth of what I said, so you have to resort
to that.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time
they have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach of
law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
You'll just have to, Dave.
So, you've got nothing. Thanks for the admission. It is what I
expected.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well have
lied to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get
more facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years* to
get the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not literate,
was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession. Think about it.
Perhaps you will understand.
I understand that your BDS won't let you understand that Bush couldn't
affect the outcome of the case in the least.
Unable to refute the facts, Fred resorts to the old dodge of BDS. It
won't work, Fred.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
More of your BDS showing.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Bush in this case. It has to do
with *you*, and your version of BDS, where Bush can do no wrong. That
is the real BDS.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
Yep, you got the BDS real bad. Nothing Bush can do is OK with you, no
matter whether it's his fault or not.
Gee, Fred, in another post, I showed this claim was a lie. But, being
the liar you are, you have to bring it up again, since you have
nothing else.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 08:05:18 PM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180637903.184972.98150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency
upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons
and Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons,
conditional pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations
of sentence, and emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases,
the Board considers petitions for commutation of sentence to
life in prison and for a reprieve of execution. If the Board
recommends clemency in a death penalty case, the governor may
grant commutation or reprieve. The governor can also grant a
one-time thirty-day reprieve of execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used
rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so
DNA evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In
2000, Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain
innocence or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty
cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used
because, according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's
the only reason to be for it. I don't think you should support
the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right,"
said Bush at a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to
support the death penalty is because it saves other people's
lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for
hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of
Pardons and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Under certain circumstances, yes, I would support waterboarding of
prisoners to extract information. It has been shown to be effective and
safe.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't
agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop
to tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in
the history of the United States under any circumstances whatsoever,
applied any of the methods in this article to any prisoner on orders
from any superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is that
good enough?
No, Dave, it is not.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html
We could, but that would be wrong,
and would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
Nice slogan. I bet you've got a whole lot more where that one came
from.
I guess you can't deny the truth of what I said, so you have to resort
to that.
I deny the truth of what you said. So there.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time
they have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach
of law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
You'll just have to, Dave.
So, you've got nothing. Thanks for the admission. It is what I
expected.
Look them up yourself, Dave. You don't cite stuff for me, I won't cite
stuff for you. Hypocrite.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well
have lied to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended
for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get
more facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years*
to get the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get
real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not
literate, was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession.
Think about it. Perhaps you will understand.
I understand that your BDS won't let you understand that Bush
couldn't affect the outcome of the case in the least.
Unable to refute the facts, Fred resorts to the old dodge of BDS. It
won't work, Fred.
Hypocrite.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
More of your BDS showing.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Bush in this case. It has to do
with *you*, and your version of BDS, where Bush can do no wrong. That
is the real BDS.
Bush is a politician, Dave. Enough said.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
Yep, you got the BDS real bad. Nothing Bush can do is OK with you, no
matter whether it's his fault or not.
Gee, Fred, in another post, I showed this claim was a lie. But, being
the liar you are, you have to bring it up again, since you have
nothing else.
In *this* post, Dave, you have shown my claim to be nothing but the
truth. So there.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
31 May 2007 11:31:17 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9941DF865683Bfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180637903.184972.98150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive clemency
upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons
and Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons,
conditional pardons, pardons based on innocence, commutations
of sentence, and emergency medical reprieves. In capital cases,
the Board considers petitions for commutation of sentence to
life in prison and for a reprieve of execution. If the Board
recommends clemency in a death penalty case, the governor may
grant commutation or reprieve. The governor can also grant a
one-time thirty-day reprieve of execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush used
rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky McGinn so
DNA evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually executed. In
2000, Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can prove for certain
innocence or guilt, I think we need to use DNA [in death penalty
cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used
because, according to him, it is an effective deterrent. "That's
the only reason to be for it. I don't think you should support
the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right,"
said Bush at a 2000 presidential debate. "I think the reason to
support the death penalty is because it saves other people's
lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution for
hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of
Pardons and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Under certain circumstances, yes, I would support waterboarding of
prisoners to extract information. It has been shown to be effective and
safe.
It is torture, Fred. Nothing but. And, torture just doesn't work, no
matter how much your masters may have told you differently.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't
agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people who
wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should stoop
to tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in
the history of the United States under any circumstances whatsoever,
applied any of the methods in this article to any prisoner on orders
from any superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is that
good enough?
No, Dave, it is not.
Of course not. Nothing is ever good enough to show Fred that his gods
have feet of clay.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture7.html
We could, but that would be wrong,
and would ultimately mean the terrorists have won.
Nice slogan. I bet you've got a whole lot more where that one came
from.
I guess you can't deny the truth of what I said, so you have to resort
to that.
I deny the truth of what you said. So there.
Too bad you are wrong, and extremely misguided.
lawbreaking that breaks no
laws,
Odd, others have shown you are wrong.
Nine old guys in robes have shown that *YOU* are wrong, every time
they have been asked. And at no time have they found actual breach
of law.
Evidence? No, I'm not taking your word for it.
You'll just have to, Dave.
So, you've got nothing. Thanks for the admission. It is what I
expected.
Look them up yourself, Dave. You don't cite stuff for me, I won't cite
stuff for you. Hypocrite.
Actually, I have cited stuff for you. Besides, you are the one trying to
make a point. I'm sure not going to try to help you with your insanity.
Also, it sems likely, based on
the testimony of people who worked for him, that he may well
have lied to Congress. That is breaking the law.
and not pardoning death row inmates who weren't recommended
for
pardons. Gee, what an enabler.
As I showed above, Bush could have delayed the execution to get
more facts.
By the time those cases got to Bush they had already had *years*
to get the facts. 30 more days wouldn't make a hill of beans. Get
real.
In one of these cases, a mentally impaired man, who was not
literate, was convicted on the basis of a *written* confession.
Think about it. Perhaps you will understand.
I understand that your BDS won't let you understand that Bush
couldn't affect the outcome of the case in the least.
Unable to refute the facts, Fred resorts to the old dodge of BDS. It
won't work, Fred.
Hypocrite.
Nope, truth. You are just too blinded to see it.
Nahh, you won't. Not if it reflects badly on Bush.
More of your BDS showing.
Actually, it has nothing to do with Bush in this case. It has to do
with *you*, and your version of BDS, where Bush can do no wrong. That
is the real BDS.
Bush is a politician, Dave. Enough said.
So, show me where you have ever said that Bush has been wrong, or done
something wrong.
Gonzales never recommended that he do so, even in cases where
there were serious doubts about the guilt of the executed party.
Gee, Fred. O for 3. You struck out again.
Not.
Yup.
Yep, you got the BDS real bad. Nothing Bush can do is OK with you, no
matter whether it's his fault or not.
Gee, Fred, in another post, I showed this claim was a lie. But, being
the liar you are, you have to bring it up again, since you have
nothing else.
In *this* post, Dave, you have shown my claim to be nothing but the
truth. So there.
Nope. The only one suffering from BDS is you. Only, yours works in just
the opposite way as you describe it.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
01 Jun 2007 06:47:11 AM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-0E6521.18311731052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941DF865683Bfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180637903.184972.98150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive
clemency upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons
and Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons,
conditional pardons, pardons based on innocence,
commutations of sentence, and emergency medical reprieves.
In capital cases, the Board considers petitions for
commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a reprieve
of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or
reprieve. The governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day
reprieve of execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush
used rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky
McGinn so DNA evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually
executed. In 2000, Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can
prove for certain innocence or guilt, I think we need to use
DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used
because, according to him, it is an effective deterrent.
"That's the only reason to be for it. I don't think you
should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't
think that's right," said Bush at a 2000 presidential debate.
"I think the reason to support the death penalty is because
it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution
for hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of
Pardons and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Under certain circumstances, yes, I would support waterboarding of
prisoners to extract information. It has been shown to be effective
and safe.
It is torture, Fred. Nothing but. And, torture just doesn't work, no
matter how much your masters may have told you differently.
Well then it can't be torture because it does work.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't
agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people
who wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should
stoop to tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in
the history of the United States under any circumstances
whatsoever, applied any of the methods in this article to any
prisoner on orders from any superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is
that good enough?
No, Dave, it is not.
Of course not. Nothing is ever good enough to show Fred that his gods
have feet of clay.
They're politicians, Dave, not gods. That is more than enough.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
01 Jun 2007 12:49:05 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 1:47 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote innews:dfritzin-0E6521.18311731052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
In article <Xns9941DF865683Bfreddyb...@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180637903.184972.98150@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 7:44 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-FF56DA.07400131052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html
WHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?
The governor has the authority to grant executive
clemency upon the
written recommendation of a majority of the Board of Pardons
and Paroles. Executive clemency includes full pardons,
conditional pardons, pardons based on innocence,
commutations of sentence, and emergency medical reprieves.
In capital cases, the Board considers petitions for
commutation of sentence to life in prison and for a reprieve
of execution. If the Board recommends clemency in a death
penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or
reprieve. The governor can also grant a one-time thirty-day
reprieve of execution in these cases.
***end of cited material***
Fromhttp://people.howstuffworks.com/election-issue2.htm
lthough Texas law prevents governors from commuting death
sentences, they can allow a 30-day reprieve, an option Bush
used rarely, most notably to delay the execution of Ricky
McGinn so DNA evidence could be tested. McGinn was eventually
executed. In 2000, Bush said, "To the extent that DNA can
prove for certain innocence or guilt, I think we need to use
DNA [in death penalty cases]."
Bush has indicated that the death penalty should be used
because, according to him, it is an effective deterrent.
"That's the only reason to be for it. I don't think you
should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't
think that's right," said Bush at a 2000 presidential debate.
"I think the reason to support the death penalty is because
it saves other people's lives."
Record:
152 prisoners executed while governor of Texas
Opposed hate crimes bill in Texas that would allow execution
for hate crimes
Granted clemency once, on recommendation from the Board of
Pardons and Paroles
Opposed efforts to simplify Texas' clemency process
So let's recap:
Torture that falls far short of torture,
Wrong. John McCain would certainly disagree with you on that.
Even John McCain supports the use of waterboarding in certain
circumstances.
In that case, John McCain is wrong.
So much for that one.
Why? Do you support torture? Waterboarding has certainly been put
under the definition of torture.
Under certain circumstances, yes, I would support waterboarding of
prisoners to extract information. It has been shown to be effective
and safe.
It is torture, Fred. Nothing but. And, torture just doesn't work, no
matter how much your masters may have told you differently.
Well then it can't be torture because it does work.
No, Fred. It doesn't. All it does is cause the prisoner to tell the
torturers anything they want to hear, just to stop the torture.
Waterboarding, etc. certainly are torture, even if you don't
agree.
You don't have the guts to fight a fucking war against people
who wouldn't hesitate to take a power drill to your head.
Unlike you, I believe in the USA, and I don't think we should
stoop to tactics the terrorists would use.
I challenge you to show evidence that ANY US soldier has *EVER* in
the history of the United States under any circumstances
whatsoever, applied any of the methods in this article to any
prisoner on orders from any superior officer:
Hey, Fred changes the subject. Hell, Gonzales wrote a brief for the
president, justifying *alternative interrogation techniques." Is
that good enough?
No, Dave, it is not.
Of course not. Nothing is ever good enough to show Fred that his gods
have feet of clay.
They're politicians, Dave, not gods. That is more than enough.
Your remarks above are in conflict with just about everything else you
have been posting in this newsgroup over the last few years. That
leads me to believe that you may say that they aren't gods, but you
secretly believe they are.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
01 Jun 2007 12:50:50 PM |
|
|
Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1180720145.199521.232500@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Jun 1, 1:47 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote
innews:dfritzin-0E6521.18311731052007@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
<...>
It is torture, Fred. Nothing but. And, torture just doesn't work,
no matter how much your masters may have told you differently.
Well then it can't be torture because it does work.
No, Fred. It doesn't. All it does is cause the prisoner to tell the
torturers anything they want to hear, just to stop the torture.
That's not what happened with Khalid Sheik Mohammad.
<...>
They're politicians, Dave, not gods. That is more than enough.
Your remarks above are in conflict with just about everything else you
have been posting in this newsgroup over the last few years. That
leads me to believe that you may say that they aren't gods, but you
secretly believe they are.
Dave, haven't you learned the difference between defending the truth and
worshiping a person? Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting, where you're coming
from you don't know what it means to defend the truth.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 07:19:55 AM |
|
|
On 26 May 2007 23:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993CD0CBCDF17freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
861FC5.12254926052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
Fred is getting desperate.
Dave and Matt are still dodging.
Dodging? Nope. I admit that I have not memorized the Federal criminal
statutes and the civil service laws. But I am more fascinated here by
your serious deep denial. You can't even allow my posts to go
unsnipped and you certainly can't respond to the content. So you have
thought up this new dodge, a demand that somehow people give you
specific legal citations. Never mind that the law has been discussed
in multiple places, you can't face it. But you were unable to face
that Scooter Libby is a criminal either, and that was after he was
convicted. Fred, your actions are one of the bright spots in the news.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 11:50:33 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:mkti53letbkid26ih4fa8ahnqr7oljkait@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 23:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993CD0CBCDF17freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
861FC5.12254926052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
Fred is getting desperate.
Dave and Matt are still dodging.
Dodging? Nope.
Yep, still dodging.
I admit that I have not memorized the Federal criminal
statutes and the civil service laws.
I gave you the reference. Aren't you able to use reference material,
Matt?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 11:20:26 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 16:50:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993D8B94BBA7Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:mkti53letbkid26ih4fa8ahnqr7oljkait@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 23:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993CD0CBCDF17freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
861FC5.12254926052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
Fred is getting desperate.
Dave and Matt are still dodging.
Dodging? Nope.
Yep, still dodging.
I admit that I have not memorized the Federal criminal
statutes and the civil service laws.
I gave you the reference. Aren't you able to use reference material,
Matt?
Wow, a link to the whole federal code, thanks so much.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
28 May 2007 06:41:27 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:k3mk53tdq5tca908j6b58g29qareolvgrj@4ax.com:
On 27 May 2007 16:50:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993D8B94BBA7Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:mkti53letbkid26ih4fa8ahnqr7oljkait@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 23:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993CD0CBCDF17freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
861FC5.12254926052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
Fred is getting desperate.
Dave and Matt are still dodging.
Dodging? Nope.
Yep, still dodging.
I admit that I have not memorized the Federal criminal
statutes and the civil service laws.
I gave you the reference. Aren't you able to use reference material,
Matt?
Wow, a link to the whole federal code, thanks so much.
I see that you're not capable of using a search engine either.
Why don't you just admit that you're wrong, Matt?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
29 May 2007 12:27:17 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 11:41:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993E572F93DBEfreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:k3mk53tdq5tca908j6b58g29qareolvgrj@4ax.com:
On 27 May 2007 16:50:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993D8B94BBA7Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:mkti53letbkid26ih4fa8ahnqr7oljkait@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 23:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993CD0CBCDF17freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in news:dfritzin-
861FC5.12254926052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
Fred is getting desperate.
Dave and Matt are still dodging.
Dodging? Nope.
Yep, still dodging.
I admit that I have not memorized the Federal criminal
statutes and the civil service laws.
I gave you the reference. Aren't you able to use reference material,
Matt?
Wow, a link to the whole federal code, thanks so much.
I see that you're not capable of using a search engine either.
Why don't you just admit that you're wrong, Matt?
Because I am not. Because unlike you I know that most government
employees are not political appointees. Because I know that most of
the people who work for the government, including even most DoJ
lawyers, are hired not appointed. Because I know of the history of the
civil service system and the Hatch Act and other such relevant
information. Would you care to put some money on your claim that no
law was broken in taking political affiliation into account when
hiring lawyers for the DoJ? (Again, that is hiring lawyers, not
appointing assistant federal prosecutors.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
26 May 2007 05:15:45 PM |
|
|
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
26 May 2007 06:31:02 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:tbch53th60bq0qcf2gu126q9jqao8musi6@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
I will remember that you're still dodging, Matt.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed
like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 04:31:55 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns993CCF716ADFBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:tbch53th60bq0qcf2gu126q9jqao8musi6@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
I will remember that you're still dodging, Matt.
Fred, your dishonest ability to face reality is truly amazing. You make
Bush's bubble seem almost like reality. Your bubble appears to be made
of tempered steel, such that no trace of reality can get through.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 04:32:30 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-9C4E3B.11315527052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993CCF716ADFBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:tbch53th60bq0qcf2gu126q9jqao8musi6@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
I will remember that you're still dodging, Matt.
Fred, your dishonest ability to face reality is truly amazing. You
make Bush's bubble seem almost like reality. Your bubble appears to be
made of tempered steel, such that no trace of reality can get through.
You have got to be kidding, Dave. Tell me you're joking. Seriously,
you're off in liberal lala land where the Democrats' witch hunts are
actually meaningful and I have some sort of "hero-worship" going on for
some damn politicians and you talk about how I'm not facing reality?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 06:01:37 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns993DBB63A1A8Dfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-9C4E3B.11315527052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993CCF716ADFBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:tbch53th60bq0qcf2gu126q9jqao8musi6@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
I will remember that you're still dodging, Matt.
Fred, your dishonest ability to face reality is truly amazing. You
make Bush's bubble seem almost like reality. Your bubble appears to be
made of tempered steel, such that no trace of reality can get through.
You have got to be kidding, Dave. Tell me you're joking. Seriously,
you're off in liberal lala land where the Democrats' witch hunts are
actually meaningful and I have some sort of "hero-worship" going on for
some damn politicians and you talk about how I'm not facing reality?
Fred, the witch hunts were done by the Republicans, against Clinton.
And, after spending millions of dollars, they only found that he lied
about a *****. Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress is actually
providing oversight over the executive branch, which obviously scares
the living hell out of you. Now, if you want to talk about witch hunts,
show where the Congress is looking at Bush's private life, or any
financial transactions he did before he was president? If they start
doing that, you can claim a witch hunt. If they are only looking at how
the current administration is running the executive branch, they are
only doing what they are supposed to.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yang's Criminal Democrat Pals Add Insult to Injury |
27 May 2007 06:33:39 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-661823.13013727052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993DBB63A1A8Dfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-9C4E3B.11315527052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993CCF716ADFBfreddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:tbch53th60bq0qcf2gu126q9jqao8musi6@4ax.com:
On 26 May 2007 11:06:40 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns993C51428A8A6freddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:kdpf53t65v8k2e58dt7ure16g2n7qmu37c@4ax.com:
Show me the statute, Matt.
I will remember that you now have that standard Fred.
I will remember that you're still dodging, Matt.
Fred, your dishonest ability to face reality is truly amazing. You
make Bush's bubble seem almost like reality. Your bubble appears to
be made of tempered steel, such that no trace of reality can get
through.
You have got to be kidding, Dave. Tell me you're joking. Seriously,
you're off in liberal lala land where the Democrats' witch hunts are
actually meaningful and I have some sort of "hero-worship" going on
for some damn politicians and you talk about how I'm not facing
reality?
Fred, the witch hunts were done by the Republicans, against Clinton.
Oh here we go again. Clinton Clinton Clinton. And you complain about how
"right-wingers" have Clinton on the brain.
And, after spending millions of dollars, they only found that he lied
about a *****.
Dave, you silly *****, we just got done talking about that. He even got
*disbarred* for the charge of lying about the Paula Jones sexual
harrassment case. Maybe the politics wasn't right to convict him on the
impeachment charges, but that doesn't make him innocent.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress is actually
providing oversight over the executive branch, which obviously scares
the living hell out of you.
Oh right, like I'm soooo worried. Your heroic Democrats are so
incompetent they can't even railroad The Eeeeeevil Mastermind Hisself,
Karl Rove. *****.
If they had something, they'd trot out those articles of impeachment.
That would be such a circus and YOUR heroes the Democrats would be dead
meat for the rest of the century. I can just see it.
Here, chew on this for a while, Dave:
http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/05/24/lets-do-it-lets-impeach-bush/
Now, if you want to talk about witch
hunts, show where the Congress is looking at Bush's private life, or
any financial transactions he did before he was president? If they
start doing that, you can claim a witch hunt.
There's a little broader scope for witch hunts than just digging into
the President's personal life. You liberals sure do lack imagination,
Dave.
If they are only looking
at how the current administration is running the executive branch,
they are only doing what they are supposed to.
Suuuuuure Dave, keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that
the Congress is supposed to be spending all its time trying to ***** the
President. Keep telling yourself that while Nancy and Harry blame
Republicans for why none of their famous agenda is getting passed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
