Goddamm, Cheney's got his head up his ass

[William Asher]

[email protected] wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> > Maybe this is overly restrictive. After all, cars kill more people
>> > than guns. If so, I suggest you talk to the NRA, hunters'
>> > organizations, and the Boy Scouts about revising their
>> > instructional materials.
>>
>> I'll bet that if you factored in the frequency of use, you would find
>> that on a per-use basis, guns are far more lethal than cars. Which
>> is why firearm safety is treated in a far more restrictive manner
>> than automobile safety.
>
> Also because the restrictions on firearm safety are part of the
> political bargain that keeps away legal restrictions on firearms.
> OTOH, for a variety of reasons, cars are tolerated in our society
> despite their obvious lethality. I won't get into that any further
> to avoid getting in a fight with the powerful car lobby.
>
> But to put what you're saying in terms even Robert Chung
> understands,
>
> (gun accidents / gun uses) > (car accidents / car uses).
>
> Clearly this disparity needs to be rectified. The simplest
> ways to bring these terms into equality are to increase the
> number of gun uses, and decrease the number of car uses.
>
> This is a matter of great public interest and I think the
> federal government has a role to play here. The Feds
> can start by deputizing and arming all bicycle messengers
> as Federal Transportation Safety Marshals. That should
> bring gun use up and car use down quite effectively.
>
> Ben
> It's not an accident if you mean to do it
>
>

Cars are tolerated because you can't put spinning hubcaps and blue led
underlights on a Browning Hi-Power.

I'm not sure your idea will work since it seems likely that increasing gun
use will increase gun "accidents" and armed messengers would be effective
in supressing car use only up to the point they were run down by a guy
driving an armored Ram 3500 (which would be a wash for the statistics since
the car accident would go up but so would the gun accidents since the
messenger is probably going to fire until he's out of ammo). Probably all
you really need to do is increase car accidents. A start might be to
require all automobiles to be manufactured without brakes and sticky
throttle linkages. People aren't smart enough to stop driving cars with no
brakes and sticky throttles, heck they might even like it. Given Americans
love of fashion, it would sort of be like Death Race 2000 crossed with Mad
Max crossed with Survivor: The Bronx Expressway crossed with Project
Runway. The funerals can be arranged by the fab five on a spin-off called
Queer Eye for the Dead Guy (QEFTDG's tag line would be: "they all look good
in the end").

Have your people call my people, I think there's an idea for a new hit
series in here if we can get an obnoxious Brit to be the host. Or Tom
Kunich. I'm sticking to the bike paths once the pilot airs.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 17 Feb 2006 17:49:15 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>A start might be to
>require all automobiles to be manufactured without brakes and sticky
>throttle linkages.

The turbo lag in my Saab 900 8 valve approximated the latter and it
only added to the fun in some curves. As to brakes, I drove an early
MGB and you could get a pretty good approximation there and most
drivers would only make it through the first parking experience.

More sporting would simply to make brakes lights driver operated. If
you had the same compliance as you do with turn signals, it will be
enough. I might not stick only to bike paths, but I would stay off of
U.S. 50 into DC during rush hour.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Bring up the MGB reminds me of the time when I owned a Alfa Romeo
1650 coupe and a MGB as my daily drivers - and how much more certain
the Prius is over the two combined. Hood lock pins were not an
accessory with a MGB, they were what kept you from driving in the dark
in the middle of the day - the general sensation of what happens when
the hood wraps around the windshield. I had my experience when I left
the cotter pins off when tuning the engine - ended up driving at 70 on
a bridge with vision only to the extreme left and right...]

 

[Tim Lines]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Another big difference is that Moore's message comes off as
> anti-America and anti-conservative.

Not synonymous.

> The other two have a message that
> is pro-America and anti-liberal.

Neither are those.

Depends a whole lot on what one means by pro or anti-American.

If I apologize for and support the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo
Bay, does that make me pro-American or anti-American? There is a
reasonable argument that supporting imprisonment at GB is anti-American.

 

[Tim Lines]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> ... The exact nature of the NSA program is secret ...

Then later:

>
> Then the issue would go to the courts
> and after a few appeals, it would end up in the Supreme Court. At
> that point, my guess is a 5 to 4 win for Bush.

How can you say that without knowing the nature of the program?

I'm pretty sure that for the court to decide, they'd have to be clued in
on a few details. Without knowing what those details might be, how do
you project a court decision with any feeling of accuracy?

 

[Tim Lines]

"Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people either. People kill
themselves by jumping in front of bullets."

As a bumper sticker, I don't think this one's gonna work.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:24:43 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Moore wasn't on any ballot that I know of. Yes, I know that you say
> >it's the association that's problematic, and I'm sure it is for many people. But
> >I don't think it is for so many people as you seem to. One could easily say that
> >there are many people who would suport a fiscally conservative GOP candidate but
> >won't because of the GOP's association with people like James Dobson or Ann
> >Coulter (something to think about: Moore was not an honored speaker at any
> >mainstream Dem. function that I know of, but Coulter frequently is, including
> >the recent CPAC - one of the Republican's most important events).
> >
> >>
>
> In terms of high profile, MM is miles ahead of either Dobson or
> Coulter.
>
> Another big difference is that Moore's message comes off as
> anti-America and anti-conservative. The other two have a message that
> is pro-America and anti-liberal.

MM is a big fat liar. His views are irrelevant. His kind
of movie is the kind that _Wag_The_Dog_ portrays. He only
damages any cause he supports.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:35:57 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I expect that, similarly, most homosexual men do not
> >support gay marriage. It is like bicycle advocacy groups.
> >How often do they demand some policy be enacted that you
> >oppose?
> >
> >Conspiracy theory of the week: Picking a fight over gay
> >marriage is meant to generate bad feeling toward
> >homosexuals.
>
> There are more than a few openly gay individuals in our UU Church and
> all of them are for gay marriage as a concept - more or less, if you
> could wave a hand and make gay marriage as legally accepted as
> straight marriages, you'd have no one against it. Most also see it
> brought up most often by oponents that use it like a tracer to tag its
> proponents whenever possible. Yes, in most areas that will cost the
> proponents votes - and that's in heavily Democratic Maryland.
>
> And there is concern about the interim period, where some gay
> relationships would lose ground. Some companies will decide that if
> gays can marry, there is no reason to maintain special benefit
> conditions for gay couples (which generally would be confidential, HR
> department only). Those couples that have at least one member that
> will not come out and marry could lose benefit status.
>
> So I agree with your last comment in part, but the 20 or so
> gay/lesbian couples I know don't match your first thesis.

Thank you. Noted

> Their biggest villain? Black church leaders that insist that being gay
> is a sin and not like being black, which you can't change. People that
> they marched with and all that...

Anyone, regardless of genotype, religion, sex, culture,
origin, social position, or wealth has a right to be
small-minded, petty, and oblivious; and to express it.
This is a great country.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bill C]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Bill, what the hell do you know about the circumstances?
>
> Three guys hunting quail. After some are shot one of them takes the
> birds back to the car. The other two continue hunting. They are on
> either side of each other which gives them a 180 range not counting any
> overlap. A covey is flushed and Cheney tracks them around and fires.
> And just as he does he sees 100 feet away the third man walking up
> behind them.
>
> That is a hunting accident if ever there were one. And ANYONE that has
> ever hunted would know that. Hell, every time you go deer hunting you
> take the chance that your bullet will continue on for a mile and kill
> someone you don't even know was there.
>
> When I was 8 years old I was knocked off of my bicycle by a spent round
> in the hip while riding through the orchards in San Jose at my great
> uncle's home. It was so far out on it's trajectory that it didn't
> penetrate but it HURT LIKE HELL! Just to show how lucky I was - the
> reason it didn't penetrate is because it hit me in the BELT. The
> chances of that happening were millions to one and yet it happened.
>
> Do you suppose we should have tracked that hunter down and taken away
> all his rights to hunt?
>
> I don't hunt because I don't like being around where accidents can
> happen. But others like that and it is THEIR business and not someone
> acting like a busybody.
For a little more feedback head over to rec.hunting and read this
thread:
Cheney Accidentally Shoots Hunter in Texas
I'll just toss in some samples here:

From: http://tinyurl.com/79xqd
``This is something that happens from time to time. You now, I've been
peppered pretty well myself,'' said Armstrong. (the owner of the
ranch where the accident took place)
Looks like it's time for some folks to take a Hunter Safety refresher
course!
<next>
Another part of the story really disturbed me: ' "It was just one of
those things that unfortunately happens quite often when hunting," said

Kathryn Garcia, who broke the news for the Caller-Times.'

So this happens quite often when hunting? Not in any group I've hunted

with. I've never been peppered with shot, don't intend to be, and if
someone were ever to hit me I'd be downright ******.
<next>
True, no one should rejoin a hunt in progress without making themselves

known before approaching the line. It's asking for trouble, and I'm
sure
Whittington is quite aware of that by now. However, if you don't know
for
a fact your shooting direction is a safe one, you don't pull the
trigger.
That doesn't mean "I think it's safe," it means knowing 100% it's safe.
A
small bird isn't worth the possibility of killing someone, especially
if
someone in your hunting party who had been in that general direction
isn't
in plain sight. I know I'm not the only one here who has passed up
shots,
even on days when that seemed the only possible shooting, because a
partner or dog walked off I wasn't sure where they were at. It's only
a
bird for crying out loud.

And it goes on and on. I guess none of these people know anything
about hunting either.
Tom, you do what a lot of people do, you let your politics overwhelm
your judgement.
Honest people evaluate a situation on it's merits. These may include
the persons past record, but the facts of the incident are what count.
Giving out free passes, or unjustified attacks are ********. I seem to
******** everybody pretty badly eventually. A big part of that is that
I don't cut anybody much slack, especially myself, and if it happened
or they did it they have to be accountable for it, no matter who it is.
Pointing out responsibility, and insisting people take responsibility
is a dead notion today unless you're insisting someone you disagree
with take it. It doesn't seem to apply to people themselves and their
friends, then it's always someone elses fault, especially in the
derense of criminals.
Bill C

 

[Raptor]

Dewey B wrote:
> Cheney is such an arrogant asshole. I can't believe he had the gall to
> sit there and say he made the "right decision" about not reporting it.
> He wouldn't know a "right decision" if it shot him in the head.
>

From some liberal blog:

'Finally, Hume suggested that since this was obviously a national story,
Cheney should have informed the national press and gotten the word out
sooner. Cheney's reply: "It isn't easy to do that. Are they going to
take my word for what happened?"'

Cheney has no credibility, and he recognizes it.


--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:


> Have your people call my people, I think there's an idea for a new hit
> series in here if we can get an obnoxious Brit to be the host. Or Tom
> Kunich.

So the obnoxious Brit has a choice of being the host or Tom Kunich? Talk
about damned if you do, damned if you don't...

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Dewey B wrote:
> > Cheney is such an arrogant asshole. I can't believe he had the gall to
> > sit there and say he made the "right decision" about not reporting it.
> > He wouldn't know a "right decision" if it shot him in the head.
> >
>
> From some liberal blog:
>
> 'Finally, Hume suggested that since this was obviously a national story,
> Cheney should have informed the national press and gotten the word out
> sooner. Cheney's reply: "It isn't easy to do that. Are they going to
> take my word for what happened?"'
>
> Cheney has no credibility, and he recognizes it.

Like Britt Hume was really going to ask him any tough questions. There's a
reason he went to Fox.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Tom Kunich]

So if I understand you correctly the more opinions you get from people that
weren't there the more correct you feel?

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Bill, what the hell do you know about the circumstances?
>>
>> Three guys hunting quail. After some are shot one of them takes the
>> birds back to the car. The other two continue hunting. They are on
>> either side of each other which gives them a 180 range not counting any
>> overlap. A covey is flushed and Cheney tracks them around and fires.
>> And just as he does he sees 100 feet away the third man walking up
>> behind them.
>>
>> That is a hunting accident if ever there were one. And ANYONE that has
>> ever hunted would know that. Hell, every time you go deer hunting you
>> take the chance that your bullet will continue on for a mile and kill
>> someone you don't even know was there.
>>
>> When I was 8 years old I was knocked off of my bicycle by a spent round
>> in the hip while riding through the orchards in San Jose at my great
>> uncle's home. It was so far out on it's trajectory that it didn't
>> penetrate but it HURT LIKE HELL! Just to show how lucky I was - the
>> reason it didn't penetrate is because it hit me in the BELT. The
>> chances of that happening were millions to one and yet it happened.
>>
>> Do you suppose we should have tracked that hunter down and taken away
>> all his rights to hunt?
>>
>> I don't hunt because I don't like being around where accidents can
>> happen. But others like that and it is THEIR business and not someone
>> acting like a busybody.
> For a little more feedback head over to rec.hunting and read this
> thread:
> Cheney Accidentally Shoots Hunter in Texas
> I'll just toss in some samples here:
>
> From: http://tinyurl.com/79xqd
> ``This is something that happens from time to time. You now, I've been
> peppered pretty well myself,'' said Armstrong. (the owner of the
> ranch where the accident took place)
> Looks like it's time for some folks to take a Hunter Safety refresher
> course!
> <next>
> Another part of the story really disturbed me: ' "It was just one of
> those things that unfortunately happens quite often when hunting," said
>
> Kathryn Garcia, who broke the news for the Caller-Times.'
>
> So this happens quite often when hunting? Not in any group I've hunted
>
> with. I've never been peppered with shot, don't intend to be, and if
> someone were ever to hit me I'd be downright ******.
> <next>
> True, no one should rejoin a hunt in progress without making themselves
>
> known before approaching the line. It's asking for trouble, and I'm
> sure
> Whittington is quite aware of that by now. However, if you don't know
> for
> a fact your shooting direction is a safe one, you don't pull the
> trigger.
> That doesn't mean "I think it's safe," it means knowing 100% it's safe.
> A
> small bird isn't worth the possibility of killing someone, especially
> if
> someone in your hunting party who had been in that general direction
> isn't
> in plain sight. I know I'm not the only one here who has passed up
> shots,
> even on days when that seemed the only possible shooting, because a
> partner or dog walked off I wasn't sure where they were at. It's only
> a
> bird for crying out loud.
>
> And it goes on and on. I guess none of these people know anything
> about hunting either.
> Tom, you do what a lot of people do, you let your politics overwhelm
> your judgement.
> Honest people evaluate a situation on it's merits. These may include
> the persons past record, but the facts of the incident are what count.
> Giving out free passes, or unjustified attacks are ********. I seem to
> ******** everybody pretty badly eventually. A big part of that is that
> I don't cut anybody much slack, especially myself, and if it happened
> or they did it they have to be accountable for it, no matter who it is.
> Pointing out responsibility, and insisting people take responsibility
> is a dead notion today unless you're insisting someone you disagree
> with take it. It doesn't seem to apply to people themselves and their
> friends, then it's always someone elses fault, especially in the
> derense of criminals.
> Bill C
>

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> There WAS an autoptsy.

Got a link?

>The results were kept from the public. Reports
> from the coronors office did note that there was blood remains on Mary
> Jos dress. It couldn't have happened in the accident because unless the
> blood was dry it would have washed away. Also there wasn't any water in
> Mary Jos lungs so she died of asphixiation in the air bubble in the
> bottom of the car. Also the position that rigor set in showed that she
> had her head tilted back into the air bubble. It was estimated that she
> survived at least 30 minutes and perhaps as long as an hour. Can you
> imagine the horror of that?

Could have happened if she banged her nose (for example) in the crash,
and had an hour in an air bubble. Easy. Not by any means saying she
didn't live for however long, but somewhat doubtful, given that Teddy
got out, presumably through an open window or door.
>
> It would appear that Mary Jo was crying about something and Ted was
> smacking her. The blood dried on her dress while they argued, Teddy
> missed the turn and ended up in the drink. There was a house with it's
> lights on just up the road and Teddy carefully avoided that and spent
> the next 10 hours trying to manufacture an alibi! If he'd called the
> police immediately there's every reason to believe that woman would
> have survived as well.
>
> Massachusetts residents have voted in a cold blooded ******* to the
> Senate for life in reward for his cleverness in avoiding prosecution.

Or: Teddy panicked. He was very, very drunk, waited for the alcohol to
wear off, or maybe she was dead before the car went in the water (thus
no water in the lungs).

Wouldn't the water have washed away any "tear residue", TK? I
understand why the "smacking her" concept jumped up at you, though.

Convicted of being a Liberal by Judge Tom Kunich. --D-y

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill C wrote:
>
>
> Cheney's travel disclosure habits are nothing if not consistent; as
> Alex Knott, political editor at the nonpartisan Center for Public
> Integrity explained to me yesterday, "Cheney has not filled any
> disclosure forms about any group paying for any travel since he has
> entered office." Under the 1989 Ethics Reform Act, President Bush and
> other heads of agencies are supposed to file reports with the Office of
> Government Ethics detailing who is paying for their travel, food, and
> lodging. Cheney's office doesn't. Why? The Vice President's Office,
> according to the Center for Public Integrity, labels all trips
> "official travel." It then bills taxpayers rather than accept private
> funds.
>

Suckers!

 

[Carl Sundquist]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The real question in my mind is, howcome the Vice Pres
> hunts with a $5000 Italian shotgun? Whatever happened
> to Buy American?

Better warranty?

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> There WAS an autoptsy.
>
> Got a link?

The autoptsy wasn't released to the public so NO. Massacheusetts is the only
state in which autoptsy reports aren't in the public domain. Wonder why that
is.....

>>The results were kept from the public. Reports
>> from the coronors office did note that there was blood remains on Mary
>> Jos dress. It couldn't have happened in the accident because unless the
>> blood was dry it would have washed away. Also there wasn't any water in
>> Mary Jos lungs so she died of asphixiation in the air bubble in the
>> bottom of the car. Also the position that rigor set in showed that she
>> had her head tilted back into the air bubble. It was estimated that she
>> survived at least 30 minutes and perhaps as long as an hour. Can you
>> imagine the horror of that?
>
> Could have happened if she banged her nose (for example) in the crash,
> and had an hour in an air bubble.

She had dried blood on her dress according to a leak from the coroners
office. It was apparently in the autoptsy report. The air bubble was very
small in the pan of the floorboards in the inverted car. So, no, it couldn't
have happened that way. And witnesses at the party they left said that she
wasn't bleeding or stained at that time.

> Easy. Not by any means saying she
> didn't live for however long, but somewhat doubtful, given that Teddy
> got out, presumably through an open window or door.

We don't know if she could swim but in any case it was the dead of night,
the car was upside down, underwater and she had no way at all of knowing
what windows were open and if she could get out. What men are liable to do
can't be assumed to be what a woman would do. Their reactions are completely
different.

>> It would appear that Mary Jo was crying about something and Ted was
>> smacking her. The blood dried on her dress while they argued, Teddy
>> missed the turn and ended up in the drink. There was a house with it's
>> lights on just up the road and Teddy carefully avoided that and spent
>> the next 10 hours trying to manufacture an alibi! If he'd called the
>> police immediately there's every reason to believe that woman would
>> have survived as well.
>>
>> Massachusetts residents have voted in a cold blooded ******* to the
>> Senate for life in reward for his cleverness in avoiding prosecution.
>
> Or: Teddy panicked. He was very, very drunk, waited for the alcohol to
> wear off, or maybe she was dead before the car went in the water (thus
> no water in the lungs).

Of COURSE Teddy panicked! Whatever happened I'm certain that it was an
accident.

The questions are about what he did AFTER the accident and that was to try
and save his own ass instead of trying to save Mary Jo. Mind you, many
people might have reacted the same way.

But if he'd reacted by running the 100 yards up the road and knocking on the
door of the house, calling the cops and them coming out and trying to rescue
Mary Jo and failing - even with Ted drunk - it would have been a whole lot
less damning than what he did do - walk several miles and spend the next ten
hours fabricating an alibi.

And he was cognizant enough of his deeds that he called a lawyer first and
then after he explained everything to the guy and they drove out to
Chappaquidick, the lawyer dove in to try and do something. Then he told Ted
NOT to try to lie about anything except the drinking. Since it had been long
enough there wasn't any way they could measure the alcohol at the time of
the accident. And since his friend now knew everything about how it
happened, when the cops got there he introduced the friend AS HIS LAWYER.
This meant that everything he had said to the guy was now sealed by
client-attorney privilege.

The idea that someone like that is "leading" this nation sickens me.

http://www.ytedk.com/chappindex.htm

This stuff is pretty hard to read if you have a soul.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 17 Feb 2006 08:54:15 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> In terms of high profile, MM is miles ahead of either Dobson or
>> Coulter.
>
>Profile, yes. Influence (or better, thought control), no.
>
>> Another big difference is that Moore's message comes off as
>> anti-America and anti-conservative. The other two have a message that
>> is pro-America and anti-liberal.
>
>Moore is pro-America, anti-neocon. "The other two" are rabble-rousing
>hate/fear mongers. Just stating the "truth" from _my_ standpoint
>(maybe).
>
>> Was it Bill Clinton's fault? What did he do to turn off
>> so many voters? One of the first things he did as President was to
>> pay off the gay lobby with a failed attempt to change the military's
>> policy on gays.
>
>Fear/hate of gays exploited to the max. See above.


Sounds like you're a liberal, so this is what I would expect. In any
case, my point is not to argue the pros and cons of any of these
issues, but rather to point out that people like Michael Moore and the
other issues are hurting the Democrats with the swing voters.

In previous times, white working class voters would swing over and
vote for a Republican presidential candidate from time to time, but
they were still Democrats who voted for Democratic Senators and House
members. Something happened after 1992 and by 1994, they started to
vote Republican down the line and control of Congress moved to the
Republicans.

I was just speculating on what made them move away from the Democrats.
I could be wrong, but whatever it was, it was something.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 17 Feb 2006 08:54:15 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> He fired
>> the White House travel staff, who are not political appointees,
>
>The Air Traffic Controllers weren't political appointees, either.

The White House Travel staff weren't engaging in an illegal strike.
Fact is, Reagan gave them a chance to come back to work before they
were fired. So all of them who lost their job did so due to their own
actions. I still look back to the that as one of Reagan's best days.

If only Mike Bloomberg could have done that to the TWU people in NY
last December.

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Fear/hate of gays exploited to the max. See above.

Gays compose some 2% of the population. Yet they compose 40% of
pedophiliacs, something like half of all serial murderers, 100% of prison
rapists and on and on. I have no idea whether this is because of the disgust
that society addresses to homosexuality or what and it really doesn't
matter.

And in case you aren't aware of it, though it's seldom shown in public,
lesbians hate homosexuals (and vice versa) a GREAT deal more than heteros do
either. The fact is that the vast majority of heterosexuals couldn't care
less about the sexual preferences of someone as long as it isn't pushed in
their faces.

Moreover, in my experience there is a basic difference in lesbians and
homosexual men - Men are homosexual usually because they love other men.
Women are usually lesbian because they hate men and haven't any other sexual
outlet. This has a certain effect on these relationships. For instance, I
read a report that said that the average length of a homosexual relationship
is 4 months for men and 2 years for women.

This makes for extremely complicated psychological conditions in homosexuals
that show up as far higher rates of suicide, criminality and general
psychological problems completely outside of their relationships with
heterosexuals.

To imply that normal people don't have good reasons to fear/hate homosexuals
is stupid on the face of it.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:11:40 -0800, Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Then the issue would go to the courts
>> and after a few appeals, it would end up in the Supreme Court. At
>> that point, my guess is a 5 to 4 win for Bush.
>
>How can you say that without knowing the nature of the program?


The program is described as monitoring calls coming into, or going out
of, the country where the party outside the country is a known or
suspected terrorist.

Congress authorized the use of military force against terrorism, which
gives the President the right to monitor the communications of enemy
forces without a warrant. It would seem pretty absurd if the military
can, at their own discretion, fly armed unmanned planes that shoot
missiles at terrorists but not be able to monitor their telephones
without a court warrant.

In any case, if it gets to the USSC, which is unlikely, I bet the
President wins.

My guess is that Congress will pass some kind of amendment that
requires some type of oversight by the judicial branch. This is
saying to the President, you cut us out of the loop, so show a bit of
respect and you can go on with what you're doing. If the legislation
is agreeable to Bush he'll comply. If it's not agreeable, he'll dig
in his heals with the knowledge that he will most likely win in the
end if it goes to the SC. And even if he loses, it will have delayed
Congressional oversight for however long it will take to resolve the
issue.