|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 379 of 404:
| 
Jan 26 04:10 UTC 2006 |
I don't know if it's *exactly* the same, but I agree that in neither
case is the retroactive attempt at justification successful.
|
bru
|
|
response 380 of 404:
|
Jan 26 05:04 UTC 2006 |
The thing is no matter what the government thought, they went in with
guns blazing, litteraly. Here again, as in Ruby ridge, they went after
the dogs first. Dogs are dangerous. Kill the dogs.
If they had merely wanted to arrest Koresh as they said, the sheriff
could have picked him up in town at any time. The sheriff had in fact
arrested him on murder charges a few years early, with no violence
involved.
But ATF was looking to make a point that they needed more money in
their budget, and a big raid, (with the TV crews parked out front
acting as a dead giveaway that something was up)was going to give them
proof that they could show congress.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 381 of 404:
|
Jan 26 18:54 UTC 2006 |
But here's the point that the vast majority of people get which some of you
just won't acknowledge: When government men show up at your door with guns,
you surrender. Or you will most likely die. End of story.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 382 of 404:
|
Jan 27 01:32 UTC 2006 |
>If they had merely wanted to arrest Koresh as they said, the sheriff
>could have picked him up in town at any time.
"If", sure--but they also had warrants to search the compound. Hard to
do that from town.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 383 of 404:
|
Jan 27 01:51 UTC 2006 |
Certainly, if he wanted to be riddled full of bullets.
|
bru
|
|
response 384 of 404:
|
Jan 27 05:43 UTC 2006 |
I also suspect if the sheriff had shown up at the compound with
deputies and a couple of ATF agents, that they would have been allowed
to search without incident.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 385 of 404:
|
Jan 27 14:13 UTC 2006 |
What do you base that on? The fact that he had a good 'in public'
relationship wtih the sheriff?
|
bru
|
|
response 386 of 404:
|
Jan 30 04:28 UTC 2006 |
The fact that they found no illegal weapons in the burned out complex.
|
gull
|
|
response 387 of 404:
|
Jan 30 04:57 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:371: I'm not defending either incident, just saying that they
prove that stockpiling civilian weapons won't protect you from the
government.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 388 of 404:
|
Jan 30 12:52 UTC 2006 |
You may be right David, but I still think they offer a deterence.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 389 of 404:
|
Jan 30 17:26 UTC 2006 |
It's hard to disprove that contention, but there seems to be just as much
evidence for the opposite, namely that having a stockpile of civilian
weapons is likely to get the attention of the government and make them
come after you.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 390 of 404:
|
Jan 30 17:30 UTC 2006 |
I guess it depends on your definition of stockpile.
|
cross
|
|
response 391 of 404:
|
Jan 31 00:44 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 392 of 404:
|
Jan 31 05:15 UTC 2006 |
I guess it all depends on what you consider an arsenal. Some people
would consider what I have as an arsenal. I certainly don't.
|
gull
|
|
response 393 of 404:
|
Feb 6 18:21 UTC 2006 |
The hearings started this morning, and within the first half hour I
already smelled whitewash. The Republicans on the committee voted
along party lines not to put the Attorney General under oath.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 394 of 404:
|
Feb 6 18:54 UTC 2006 |
What reason did they give for that?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 395 of 404:
|
Feb 6 19:11 UTC 2006 |
because he wouldn't be able to lie and get away with it?
OR USE WEASLEWORDS OR WHATEVER.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 396 of 404:
|
Feb 6 19:29 UTC 2006 |
If people are paying attention, he will not be able to lie and get away
with it anyway - just not be indicted for lying. However his reputation
would still be thoroughly soiled.
|
klg
|
|
response 397 of 404:
|
Feb 6 19:59 UTC 2006 |
Who puts the committee members under oath?? Or at least promise to act
civilized?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 398 of 404:
|
Feb 6 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I suppose that the Capitol Police would step in, but as far as I know we
haven't had such problems since before the civil war. With respect to
this particular witness I think it would be poetic for the committee to
"not torture" him into giving meaningful answers, using the definition
of "not torture" provided by the witness himself, but I don't think
we'll see anything that much fun.
|
other
|
|
response 399 of 404:
|
Feb 6 20:49 UTC 2006 |
That would indeed be a delightful irony.
|
gull
|
|
response 400 of 404:
|
Feb 6 22:27 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:394: Sen. Spector, the chair of the committee, argued that
lying to Congress is already a crime, so putting the witness under oath
was not necessary. Funny, no one ever argued that when Attorney
General Reno was being questioned, or even when baseball players were
being questioned about steroid use.
Another interesting moment came when a Senator (I forget which one -- I
was listening in the car) asked the Attorney General about dissenting
views inside the administration that had come to light about the NSA
spying program. The Attorney General said that he thought those
dissenting views weren't about the NSA program, but about "other
operations." That suggests to me that the NSA domestic spying that
we've heard about is only the tip of the iceburg.
|
priapo
|
|
response 401 of 404:
|
Feb 15 16:28 UTC 2006 |
Take a look at this joke about it:
http://www.carryabigsticker.com/images/sorry_we_missed_you-copy.gif
I bet it would scary a bit to find one of these notes in your mailbox :p
|
naftee
|
|
response 402 of 404:
|
Feb 16 02:29 UTC 2006 |
o man dat was FffUNNY
|
albaugh
|
|
response 403 of 404:
|
Feb 16 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Inspect your spice rack
|