kallend 2,151
Trae 1
in reply to "quite frankly I don't think it will make one bit of difference if the Elephants or the Donkeys are running the Zoo. "
....................................
On telly recently heard Mrs Bush introduced as 'The First lady of the World.'
Something's gone to their heads looks like .
taking democracy to the world ??.....
....................................
On telly recently heard Mrs Bush introduced as 'The First lady of the World.'
Something's gone to their heads looks like .
taking democracy to the world ??.....
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html
Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped.
But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare.
Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed?
-
You approve of publishing nuclear primers for terrorists to use?
You mean like your demands that Bush disclose the methods of gathering intel?
-
No, I mean like showing terrorists how to make nukes.
But you are OK with publicly disclosing how we spy on them.
-
kallend 2,151
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOr is that NUKLER>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2436948,00.html
Yes, and it helped that congressional Republicans pushed to have the Administration publish a lot of nuclear weapons details on an open web site. That certainly helped.
But they'll still stop you carrying a bottle of shampoo onto a plane at O'Hare.
Aren't you the one always demanding open govrnment and getting upset when something is not disclosed?
-
You approve of publishing nuclear primers for terrorists to use?
You mean like your demands that Bush disclose the methods of gathering intel?
-
No, I mean like showing terrorists how to make nukes.
But you are OK with publicly disclosing how we spy on them.
-
I have made the point that we should not spy on US citizens without due process of law. You have already told us you think that is OK.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
kallend 2,151
QuoteQuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
I said that after it was revealed that Bush authorized snooping on US citizens without a warrant, after having previously denied doing it.
What has it to do with revealing nuclear secrets for terrorists and North Koreans to read?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
I forget but is sounds familiar from the congressional investigation to Impeach NIXON.
Is it Deja-Vu that Bush is pulling the same tricks? Or is this your way of telling SC that you support impeachment of President Bush?
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken
Ken
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
I forget but is sounds familiar from the congressional investigation to Impeach NIXON.
Is it Deja-Vu that Bush is pulling the same tricks? Or is this your way of telling SC that you support impeachment of President Bush?
Kallend made that statement not me, so I guess you will have to ask him. The answer will be no surprise.
mnealtx 0
Quote[Republicans - suppliers of nuclear intelligence to N. Korea and terrorists.
Democrats - suppliers of nuclear reactors to North Korea and missile technology to China.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,151
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
I forget but is sounds familiar from the congressional investigation to Impeach NIXON.
Is it Deja-Vu that Bush is pulling the same tricks? Or is this your way of telling SC that you support impeachment of President Bush?
Kallend made that statement not me, so I guess you will have to ask him. The answer will be no surprise.
GM, your stated position is:
It's OK for the Bush administration to spy on US citizens without a warrant.
It's OK for Bush to make a speech denying that it spys on US citizens without a warrant after he had authorized said spying.
It's OK for the US to torture anyone that Bush declares to be a terrorist.
It's OK for the Bush administration to publish nuclear secrets on the internet to obtain political "leverage".
MY position is the opposite of yours on all these issues.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThat would be the same documents that everyone was saying showed Saddam didn't have an effective nuke program, yes?
Having the theory to do something isn't the same as having an effective program.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.
Guess who said this?
I forget but is sounds familiar from the congressional investigation to Impeach NIXON.
Is it Deja-Vu that Bush is pulling the same tricks? Or is this your way of telling SC that you support impeachment of President Bush?
Kallend made that statement not me, so I guess you will have to ask him. The answer will be no surprise.
GM, your stated position is:
QuoteIt's OK for the Bush administration to spy on US citizens without a warrant.
Nope, I want them to get a warrant.QuoteIt's OK for Bush to make a speech denying that it spys on US citizens without a warrant after he had authorized said spying.
You are misrepresenting (as usual) what I've said. I've said I don't think the govt. should reveal it's sources of gathering intel. You otoh as we can see above, demand it.QuoteIt's OK for the US to torture anyone that Bush declares to be a terrorist.
Another pathetic misrepresentation. I've said that if the terrorists want to agree not to torture our guys, that we should agree not to torture them. I've also said I didn't equate waterboarding with cutting off peoples heads.QuoteIt's OK for the Bush administration to publish nuclear secrets on the internet to obtain political "leverage".
Wrong again. I've not yet taken a position and I challenge you to show where I have, but of course you can't because it's your usual tactic of distorting people's views for your own vanity reasons.
I will take a position now to prove how much you distort: I don't think the govt. should reveal any intel to our enemies. That includes how we gather it, analyse it, and what conclusions we draw from it. That includes posting nuclear secrets on the internet.QuoteMY position is the opposite of yours on all these issues.
Now go ahead and weasel out of that statement.
kallend 2,151
Quote
I will take a position now to prove how much you distort: I don't think the govt. should reveal any intel to our enemies. That includes how we gather it, analyse it, and what conclusions we draw from it. That includes posting nuclear secrets on the internet.QuoteMY position is the opposite of yours on all these issues.
Now go ahead and weasel out of that statement.
As long a there are positive assurances that the government follows due process in regard to intel gathering, which includes judicial oversight (which BUSH did NOT) I agree with you.
You have a long posting history on these topics which indicates clearly what your positions have been, and indicates your support for Bush's violations of constitutional protections and international law at every turn.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>suppliers of nuclear reactors to North Korea and missile technology to China.
Republicans - suppliers of billions of dollars of weapons to Islamic terrorists. Supplier of chemical weapons and helicopters to Saddam Hussein.
(could go on all day!)
Republicans - suppliers of billions of dollars of weapons to Islamic terrorists. Supplier of chemical weapons and helicopters to Saddam Hussein.
(could go on all day!)
mnealtx 0
Quote>suppliers of nuclear reactors to North Korea and missile technology to China.
Republicans - suppliers of billions of dollars of weapons to Islamic terrorists. Supplier of chemical weapons and helicopters to Saddam Hussein.
(could go on all day!)
Which, of course, is why OBL and AQ are all using M-16's and M249's...right?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,120
>Which, of course, is why OBL and AQ are all using M-16's and M249's...right?
??? No, they're using the AK-47's we shipped them. They got 400,000 of them from the CIA between 1979 and 1991; it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're popular over there.
??? No, they're using the AK-47's we shipped them. They got 400,000 of them from the CIA between 1979 and 1991; it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're popular over there.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Which, of course, is why OBL and AQ are all using M-16's and M249's...right?
??? No, they're using the AK-47's we shipped them. They got 400,000 of them from the CIA between 1979 and 1991; it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're popular over there.
Can you provide the link? My understanding is that they bought their weapons through Russia.
Please note I'm talking about *NOW*, not 20 years ago when they were fighting the Russians.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Are they running amok?
At every opportunity.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.