response 11 of 70:

Feb 6 12:31 UTC 2006

klg may listen with skepticism, but he doesn't listen very well.  The 
story he refers to is from the new edition of Newsweek:

"Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned 
whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had 
covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special 
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert 
work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, 
and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, 
according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

I guess that's *almost* like klg's assertion that "Federal Special 
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, it has been reported, never looked into 
the matter as to whether supposed CIA sleuth Valerie Plame Wilson was 
actually a covert agent."

response 13 of 70:

Feb 6 14:58 UTC 2006

Re 7: I do not belong to organizations that piss me off. I think that
pretty much sums up why I join/leave organizations. Besides, I'm already
a member of too many organizations...the NRA, AOPA, EAA, EFF, MCRGC, to
name 5.

One organization I used to be a member of before it began pissing me off
was MCRGO. Thats, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners. It is a
grass-roots organization supporting responsible, legal gun ownership.
However a few years ago it began aligning itself with some strange
organizations, namely the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters. The
organization began supporting candidates who did not have strong
histories of fighting for gun-rights over candidates who did. In fact,
MCRGO began endorsing only candidates who were pro-union...and not
necessarily pro-gun-rights. Well, you can imagine how fast I pulled my
money out of that place.

response 15 of 70:

Feb 6 17:17 UTC 2006

Thanks, JJ.  I guess we know that Newsweek (unlike CBS News, the New 
York Times, the Washington Post, etc, etc, etc) only report 100% 
accurately and truthfully.

Or is that just your naive, unskeptical opinion??

response 17 of 70:

Feb 6 17:39 UTC 2006

 re #10:
 > I just want to know when the ACLU types are going to file a brief in 
 > support of Scooter Libby, objecting to the use of state power to 
 > conduct an investigation and dragging people before the grand jury when 
 > it did not even bother to find out if a crime had been committed.

 Probably never.  You do understand that that's one of the MAIN FUNCTIONS
 of a grand jury, right?  To make a factual determination as to whether a
 crime has occurred and a specific person should be indicted..

 Note:  the above question is rhetorical, no substantive reply from klg is
 expected.  In fact, any such expectation would be foolish given the pattern
 we've seen so far, which goes something like:

   KLG:      I heard somewhere that {factually dubious assertion.}
   Grexer:   Nonsense.  X, Y, and Z contradict your assertion.
   KLG:      Your sources are biased and I prefer to believe my own,
             though I am unable to name them.  It's up to you to 
             disprove me, using only those sources that I deem
             acceptable, said determination to be made solely by me
             and on a case-by-case basis.

response 19 of 70:

Feb 6 18:17 UTC 2006

Re resp:6: I've listened to quite a bit of Rush Limbaugh over the 
years, though less in recent years because he's been a lot less funny 
since he lost his sense of humor. 
 
I'd be *very* interested to see a quote where he defends the ACLU.  
I've never heard him say anything nice about them. 

response 21 of 70:

Feb 7 00:46 UTC 2006

Re 19: "In an interview with Time magazine, Rush Limbaugh declares
himself a longtime fan of the ACLU after they filed an amicus brief on
his behalf in his prescription drug case: "In a situation like this, I
think it's safe to say I welcome its support, and I don't find it
hypocritical at all, because I am not anti-ACLU. If the ACLU wants to go
after, say, nativity scenes or this sort of thing, I may take issue, but
there are other areas where I've supported things it has done."
(http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/)

Re 20: I've never heard him tell an African-American to "take the bone
out of your nose". But anyway, I do not agree with everything Rush says.
I don't agree with everything you say. But for me not to listen to your
opinion just because I might disagree is ignorant.

response 23 of 70:

Feb 7 09:19 UTC 2006

<twenex chuckles like Muttley>

response 25 of 70:

Feb 7 12:01 UTC 2006

I read the transcript of Limbaugh & Time.  I didn't see where he 
declared he was a longtime ACLU fan.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rushwire/time_magazine_rush_limbau
gh_interview___entire_transcript.guest.html

response 27 of 70:

Feb 7 18:08 UTC 2006

Consulting your cited website -- all it debunks is the myth that *all* people
in foxholes are not atheists. It does nothing to the idea that *some* atheists
become religious when put under fire.

response 29 of 70:

Feb 7 18:13 UTC 2006

Re #27: Isn't that the cliche saying, "there are no atheists in foxholes"?
Why should they be refuting some different saying?

response 31 of 70:

Feb 7 18:15 UTC 2006

Probably many religionists become atheists in foxholes. They'd have good 
reason to do so since they are getting no help from their "god".

But it is just a stupid canard repeated by religionists to salve their own 
uncertainties. 

response 33 of 70:

Feb 7 18:23 UTC 2006

Marines use fighting holes and are intent on being the first to fight in Hell.
I guess that negates the idea of atheism but it also negates the idea
controlling the masses with religion.  Just like GW, religion is used as a
weapon instead of a restraint.