You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   350-374   359-383   384-404   
 
Author Message
21 new of 404 responses total.
bru
response 384 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 04:28 UTC 2006

The fact that they found no illegal weapons in the burned out complex.
gull
response 387 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 12:52 UTC 2006

You may be right David, but I still think they offer a deterence.
marcvh
response 389 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Jan 30 17:30 UTC 2006

I guess it depends on your definition of stockpile.
cross
response 391 of 404: Mark Unseen   Jan 31 00:44 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

bru
response 392 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 6 18:54 UTC 2006

What reason did they give for that?
happyboy
response 395 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 6 20:49 UTC 2006

That would indeed be a delightful irony.
gull
response 400 of 404: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 16 02:29 UTC 2006

o man dat was FffUNNY
albaugh
response 403 of 404: Mark Unseen   Feb 16 18:16 UTC 2006

Inspect your spice rack
wilt
response 404 of 404: Mark Unseen   May 16 23:51 UTC 2006

HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   350-374   359-383   384-404   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss