|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 191 of 404:
| 
Jan 3 18:04 UTC 2006 |
klg is also quoting a wall street journal op-ed column, not a news
story but a column. There is a big difference. And a column from a
very conservative newspaper at that.
|
edina
|
|
response 192 of 404:
|
Jan 3 18:24 UTC 2006 |
Re 190 Would you suggest calling klg an illiberal as opposed to a
conservative?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 193 of 404:
|
Jan 3 20:07 UTC 2006 |
how about a theocratic corporatist?
|
klg
|
|
response 194 of 404:
|
Jan 3 20:10 UTC 2006 |
Richard Lies. The Wall Street Journal is a liberal newspaper with a
conservative editorial page.
|
cross
|
|
response 195 of 404:
|
Jan 3 21:06 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 196 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:13 UTC 2006 |
I am conservative. klg is a republican.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 197 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:25 UTC 2006 |
corporatist, not republican.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 198 of 404:
|
Jan 3 23:30 UTC 2006 |
Is there a difference anymore?
|
richard
|
|
response 199 of 404:
|
Jan 4 00:05 UTC 2006 |
klg is not a republican, he is a monarchist.
|
twenex
|
|
response 200 of 404:
|
Jan 4 00:09 UTC 2006 |
No, he's a theocrat. (Monarchists rule "by the grace of God". Theocrats think
they ARE God.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 201 of 404:
|
Jan 4 07:31 UTC 2006 |
Do you think maybe we could stop feeding the troll by talking about him all
the time?
|
slynne
|
|
response 202 of 404:
|
Jan 4 13:55 UTC 2006 |
I know! Especially when we could be talking about more important
things....LIKE ME!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 203 of 404:
|
Jan 4 18:44 UTC 2006 |
slynne is the monarcist of her house.
|
slynne
|
|
response 204 of 404:
|
Jan 4 19:36 UTC 2006 |
It's true!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 205 of 404:
|
Jan 4 20:20 UTC 2006 |
I guess she's free to wiretap her subjects, then. Do they ever plot
terrorist attacks, or most just fart?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 206 of 404:
|
Jan 4 22:55 UTC 2006 |
*just* fart?
hey...Operation Just Fart Mission Accomplished
|
slynne
|
|
response 207 of 404:
|
Jan 5 00:03 UTC 2006 |
I actually thought it might be fun to set up a web cam so I could spy on
my subjects while I was at work. Because you know, snoring is just so
thrilling.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 208 of 404:
|
Jan 5 02:23 UTC 2006 |
Just Fart : Far for Justice !
|
johnnie
|
|
response 209 of 404:
|
Jan 5 16:59 UTC 2006 |
An interesting development: There are reports/rumors that one of the
targets of Bush's unauthorized wiretaps was CNN reporter Christiane
Amanpour. Coincidentally or not, bugging her phones would also
necessarily involve bugging the phones of her husband, Jamie Rubin,
State Dept spokesman under Clinton, who also happened to be a senior
adviser to the Kerry presidential campaign.
Hmm...
|
klg
|
|
response 210 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:09 UTC 2006 |
An interesting note: The baseless innuendo of that wiretapping was
removed from the MSNBC website. Probably because it was totally
fictitious and without a shred of evidence to support it. (Other than,
perhaps, Danny Rather and Marla Mapes who used a 1990s IBM Selectric to
produce the "report"???) And, by the way, the wiretaps were
authorized. They just were without court order.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 211 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:19 UTC 2006 |
Anyone have a url for this "reports/rumor"? My keyword search found only
stuff from 2004.
|
klg
|
|
response 212 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:22 UTC 2006 |
Try entering Christane Amanpour into the search box in Google News.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 213 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:32 UTC 2006 |
Certainly sounds like there's not any public solid evidence for such a claim
at this time. I'd like to think that even klg would acknowledge that, if
the Bush admin actually did such a thing absent extremely compelling
evidence that Amanpour was a sleeper operative or something, that would
be very troubling.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 214 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:35 UTC 2006 |
Here is what I gathered:
"potential scandal that, if true"
There's a lot of that going around.
|
klg
|
|
response 215 of 404:
|
Jan 5 17:51 UTC 2006 |
A lot of "potential," perhaps, but a dearth of truth.
|