OT - Even George Washington did it

Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where President
Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Rooselvelt have
all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale..."


I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack at the
mall?

In article <3JAGf.16220$vU2.15365@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where President
> Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Rooselvelt have
> all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale..."
>
>
> I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack at the
> mall?[/color]

President Washington and Lincoln are CB radios. I thought you knew
everything.
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore

Art wrote:[color=blue]
> Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
> President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
> Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
> broader scale..."
>
> I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
> at the mall?[/color]

You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney general
rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push is to make
bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover his *ss by making it
retroactive. If the president is above the law and this in useful in
preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too bad he didn't think of all
this sneaking around and law breaking *before* 9/11.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Art wrote:[color=green]
>> Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
>> President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
>> Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
>> broader scale..."
>>
>> I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
>> at the mall?[/color]
>
>You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney general
>rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push is to make
>bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover his *ss by making it
>retroactive. If the president is above the law and this in useful in
>preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too bad he didn't think of all
>this sneaking around and law breaking *before* 9/11.
>[/color]


You terrorist supporters really are fun to watch.

Too bad we can't let the terrorists bomb you guys only....then we
would hear you yelping about how we should have protected us....LOL

What a piece of work you libs are...

--

Scott in Florida

FanJet, 2/9/2006,8:53:32 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Art wrote:[color=green]
> > Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
> > President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
> > Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
> > broader scale..."
> >
> > I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
> > at the mall?[/color]
>
> You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney
> general rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push
> is to make bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover
> his *ss by making it retroactive. If the president is above the law
> and this in useful in preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too
> bad he didn't think of all this sneaking around and law breaking
> before 9/11.[/color]

The sneaking around was in precedent with Bobby Kennedy, Democrat US
Attorney General. Several Presidents have used the same powers since
then. Why are you harping on Bush when he's using these powers to save
Americans from a real threat? Is it because you think there really are
no terrorists trying to blow up America, or is it because you hate Bush
so much that you can't see past your nose?

--
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through
Congress today? It wouldn’t even get out of committee." ~ F. Lee Bailey

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> FanJet, 2/9/2006,8:53:32 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Art wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
>>> President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
>>> Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
>>> broader scale..."
>>>
>>> I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
>>> at the mall?[/color]
>>
>> You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney
>> general rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push
>> is to make bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover
>> his *ss by making it retroactive. If the president is above the law
>> and this in useful in preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too
>> bad he didn't think of all this sneaking around and law breaking
>> before 9/11.[/color]
>
> The sneaking around was in precedent with Bobby Kennedy, Democrat US
> Attorney General. Several Presidents have used the same powers since
> then. Why are you harping on Bush when he's using these powers to
> save Americans from a real threat? Is it because you think there
> really are no terrorists trying to blow up America, or is it because
> you hate Bush so much that you can't see past your nose?[/color]

You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought to think
about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over the law and the
constitution.

FanJet, 2/9/2006, 11:46:53 PM,
<43ec1abe$0$25081$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought
> to think about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over
> the law and the constitution.[/color]

I do believe I am safer because the lunatics are on the run and have to
spend more time hiding than preparing more attacks. I also don't
believe the law and Constitution are being broken.

--
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief
in freedom itself." ~ Milton Friedman

On 10 Feb 2006 03:39:13 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>FanJet, 2/9/2006,8:53:32 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Art wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
>> > President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
>> > Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
>> > broader scale..."
>> >
>> > I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
>> > at the mall?[/color]
>>
>> You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney
>> general rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push
>> is to make bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover
>> his *ss by making it retroactive. If the president is above the law
>> and this in useful in preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too
>> bad he didn't think of all this sneaking around and law breaking
>> before 9/11.[/color]
>
>The sneaking around was in precedent with Bobby Kennedy, Democrat US
>Attorney General. Several Presidents have used the same powers since
>then. Why are you harping on Bush when he's using these powers to save
>Americans from a real threat? Is it because you think there really are
>no terrorists trying to blow up America, or is it because you hate Bush
>so much that you can't see past your nose?[/color]


The latter would be my guess....

--

Scott in Florida

The lunatics are multiplying in Iraq because of the lunatic leading our
country to a needless war there.


"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eib5rnclcv29002@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> FanJet, 2/9/2006, 11:46:53 PM,
> <43ec1abe$0$25081$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought
>> to think about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over
>> the law and the constitution.[/color]
>
> I do believe I am safer because the lunatics are on the run and have to
> spend more time hiding than preparing more attacks. I also don't
> believe the law and Constitution are being broken.
>
> --
> "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief
> in freedom itself." ~ Milton Friedman[/color]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:46:53 -0500, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>badgolferman wrote:[color=green]
>> FanJet, 2/9/2006,8:53:32 AM, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Art wrote:
>>>> Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
>>>> President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
>>>> Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
>>>> broader scale..."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
>>>> at the mall?
>>>
>>> You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney
>>> general rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push
>>> is to make bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover
>>> his *ss by making it retroactive. If the president is above the law
>>> and this in useful in preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too
>>> bad he didn't think of all this sneaking around and law breaking
>>> before 9/11.[/color]
>>
>> The sneaking around was in precedent with Bobby Kennedy, Democrat US
>> Attorney General. Several Presidents have used the same powers since
>> then. Why are you harping on Bush when he's using these powers to
>> save Americans from a real threat? Is it because you think there
>> really are no terrorists trying to blow up America, or is it because
>> you hate Bush so much that you can't see past your nose?[/color]
>
>You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought to think
>about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over the law and the
>constitution.
>
>
>
>[/color]

Who the hell says we are not safer?

Demorats?

ROFLMAO

I am safer....therefore you are safer.

Thanks George W. Bush...

Oh you could vote for the Hillary. She is talking tough now...

That same traitor that had her hubby pardon TERRORISTS on his last day
in office.

That Hillary...

--

Scott in Florida

On 10 Feb 2006 12:31:50 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>FanJet, 2/9/2006, 11:46:53 PM,
><43ec1abe$0$25081$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought
>> to think about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over
>> the law and the constitution.[/color]
>
>I do believe I am safer because the lunatics are on the run and have to
>spend more time hiding than preparing more attacks. I also don't
>believe the law and Constitution are being broken.[/color]

Also the lunatics are out of office making outrageous claims.

They need to be out of office....

--

Scott in Florida

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:47:03 GMT, "Art"
<begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The lunatics are multiplying in Iraq because of the lunatic leading our
>country to a needless war there.[/color]

Oh?

You mean you Democrats are going over to Iraq?


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Art wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Gonzales: "I gave in my opening statement similar examples where
>>>President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President
>>>Rooselvelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far
>>>broader scale..."
>>>
>>>I wonder where President Washington got his equipment? Radio Shack
>>>at the mall?[/color]
>>
>>You expected truth and/or rationality? Here we have the attorney general
>>rationalizing breaking US law by the president. Now, the push is to make
>>bush's felonious activities legal and, of course, cover his *ss by making it
>>retroactive. If the president is above the law and this in useful in
>>preventing terrorist attacks, it's really too bad he didn't think of all
>>this sneaking around and law breaking *before* 9/11.
>>[/color]
>
>
>
> You terrorist supporters really are fun to watch.
>
> Too bad we can't let the terrorists bomb you guys only....then we
> would hear you yelping about how we should have protected us....LOL
>
> What a piece of work you libs are...
>[/color]
The problem is those dumbshits wouldn't know a terrorist if it bit them
on the ass. They cannot even say if the illegal wiretapping has netted
ANY suspects. I would guess they probably have not, just like George
and his boys were so sure that Saddam had WMD. Even after searching
more than 500 sites suspected by the military, none were found.

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> FanJet, 2/9/2006, 11:46:53 PM,
> <43ec1abe$0$25081$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You're not any safer now than you were before 9/11. Maybe you ought
>> to think about that before you defend bush's running roughshod over
>> the law and the constitution.[/color]
>
> I do believe I am safer because the lunatics are on the run and have
> to spend more time hiding than preparing more attacks. I also don't
> believe the law and Constitution are being broken.[/color]

Of course you do because that's what bush tells you. In reality, 3 years and
hundreds of billions of dollars later, the entire US military (Army,
Air-force, Marines, Specials) can't secure Baghdad (ONE city) in a
third-world, blown-up, country. The ferocity of the attacks increases even
as more terrorist are being trained. Doesn't sound like they're running or
hiding to me. Maybe you'd care to explain the running and hiding thing to
the next victim of a road-side bomb? Responding to the likes of you about
the law or the Constitution is waste of bits

Carroll Boardway, 2/10/2006,7:03:28 PM, wrote:[color=blue]
> just like
> George and his boys were so sure that Saddam had WMD. Even after
> searching more than 500 sites suspected by the military, none were
> found.[/color]

So what happened to them? He did have biological and chemical weapons
as evidenced by the Iran-Iraq war. He never destroyed them after the
first Gulf War since he couldn't produce any evidence for the UN.
Since none were found there can only be two explanations. They are
still hidden very well or they were moved out of the country into a
different one. What is your explanation?

--
"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by
making other bastards die for their country." ~ George Smith Patton