Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart arrived at her sentencing packed for
prison. The 67-year-old, convicted of helping a jailed terrorist sheik
communicate with his disciples, smiled through tears as the judge
announced the sentence Monday.
Instead, Stewart walked out of the courtroom unshackled, free pending
appeal of a 28-month sentence after a judge took into account her
career of standing up for the most unpopular clients.
The judge said there was ample evidence she had smuggled messages
between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an
Egyptian-based terrorist organization — messages he said could have had
"potentially lethal consequences." But the judge noted no one was
harmed as a result.
In article <xn0eskl1c8hkenc000@news.readfreenews.net>,
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart arrived at her sentencing packed for
> prison. The 67-year-old, convicted of helping a jailed terrorist sheik
> communicate with his disciples, smiled through tears as the judge
> announced the sentence Monday.
>
> Instead, Stewart walked out of the courtroom unshackled, free pending
> appeal of a 28-month sentence after a judge took into account her
> career of standing up for the most unpopular clients.
>
> The judge said there was ample evidence she had smuggled messages
> between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an
> Egyptian-based terrorist organization — messages he said could have had
> "potentially lethal consequences." But the judge noted no one was
> harmed as a result.
>
> [more]
>
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061017/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial;_ylt=AnAXwQ[/url]
> YAh5HjNZpj3SP8B5hI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
>
> or
>
> [url]http://tinyurl.com/y2klso[/url][/color]
On 17 Oct 2006 11:28:03 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart arrived at her sentencing packed for
>prison. The 67-year-old, convicted of helping a jailed terrorist sheik
>communicate with his disciples, smiled through tears as the judge
>announced the sentence Monday.
>
>Instead, Stewart walked out of the courtroom unshackled, free pending
>appeal of a 28-month sentence after a judge took into account her
>career of standing up for the most unpopular clients.
>
>The judge said there was ample evidence she had smuggled messages
>between her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, and senior members of an
>Egyptian-based terrorist organization — messages he said could have had
>"potentially lethal consequences." But the judge noted no one was
>harmed as a result.[/color]
The best thing GWB can do for the court system is replace all these
liberal judges...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:56:18 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>A related article. This is hillarys deep pockes:
>
>[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502170843.asp[/url][/color]
It's out in the open too, unlike the behind-closed-doors support given
to so many Republican politicians.
I've seen a couple of interviews with Soros, and he's very sharp and
makes a lot of sense.
Stuart Krivis, 10/17/2006, 8:56:10 AM,
<sek9j2lf3k9r9dj653l1ocjhhd3cs81hr6@4ax.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:56:18 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> > A related article. This is hillarys deep pockes:
> >
> > [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502170843.asp[/url][/color]
>
>
> It's out in the open too, unlike the behind-closed-doors support given
> to so many Republican politicians.
>
> I've seen a couple of interviews with Soros, and he's very sharp and
> makes a lot of sense.[/color]
No, it just shows his hatred of President Bush constantly puts him on
the wrong side of the terror war. If he would use his "brilliant mind"
he would realize how his actions are making him look like he is against
America and gives comfort to the terrorist agenda.
--
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief
in freedom itself." ~ Milton Friedman
In article <sek9j2lf3k9r9dj653l1ocjhhd3cs81hr6@4ax.com>,
Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:56:18 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >A related article. This is hillarys deep pockes:
> >
> >[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502170843.asp[/url][/color]
>
>
> It's out in the open too, unlike the behind-closed-doors support given
> to so many Republican politicians.
>
> I've seen a couple of interviews with Soros, and he's very sharp and
> makes a lot of sense.[/color]
I doubt it's their choice to have out in the open. Soros also wants the
U.S. to ban guns. That will bubble up again with a democrat congress.
After all, he is a big supplier of money to the democrats. The dimmies
have prostituted themselves for big cash. Thankfully we have GWB who
will veto any such gun regulation. The dimmies won't have enough votes
to override the veto power of our great president.
--
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:25:04 GMT, Scott in Florida
<askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>The best thing GWB can do for the court system is replace all these
>liberal judges...[/color]
On 17 Oct 2006 13:33:35 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Stuart Krivis, 10/17/2006, 8:56:10 AM,
><sek9j2lf3k9r9dj653l1ocjhhd3cs81hr6@4ax.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:56:18 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > A related article. This is hillarys deep pockes:
>> >
>> > [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200502170843.asp[/url][/color]
>>
>>
>> It's out in the open too, unlike the behind-closed-doors support given
>> to so many Republican politicians.
>>
>> I've seen a couple of interviews with Soros, and he's very sharp and
>> makes a lot of sense.[/color]
>
>No, it just shows his hatred of President Bush constantly puts him on
>the wrong side of the terror war. If he would use his "brilliant mind"
>he would realize how his actions are making him look like he is against
>America and gives comfort to the terrorist agenda.[/color]
You guys keep trying to make anyone who opposes Bush or his policies
appear to be a traitor.
It isn't any more true now than it was when yiou first said it.
Looking at it the other way, Bush's policies have created _more_
terrorists, so anyone that opposes GWB is actually fighting terrorism.
Hey, I saw a mention last night about how Bush Sr. barfed on the
Japanese Prime Minister in '92. These Bushes, you just can't take them
anywhere. :-)
I remember Dianne Feinstein showing that terrible assault weapon in a
hearing to ban guns some years ago.
The gun was a Barrett .50 with a tripod, well over 4' long and probably 40
pounds are so. She was standing there saying how it was "assault rifles"
such as this that were being used in everyday shootings and drive by's!
This is the Dem mentality. I sure wish Nacy and Harry were on more of the
talk shows. I wonder why the media isn't showing them?
In article <u20aj2lmm1od7ami78ir0uv2k6b94f466r@4ax.com>,
Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You guys keep trying to make anyone who opposes Bush or his policies
> appear to be a traitor.[/color]
You guys make yourselves look like traitors by your venomous attacks on
the president. There is a difference between critical opposition and
downright viciousness.
--
In article <SV7Zg.11872$TV3.6696@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
"ron" <randus3@pacbell.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I remember Dianne Feinstein showing that terrible assault weapon in a
> hearing to ban guns some years ago.
>
> The gun was a Barrett .50 with a tripod, well over 4' long and probably 40
> pounds are so. She was standing there saying how it was "assault rifles"
> such as this that were being used in everyday shootings and drive by's!
>
> This is the Dem mentality. I sure wish Nacy and Harry were on more of the
> talk shows. I wonder why the media isn't showing them?[/color]
After they take control the first firearm and so called assault
weapons, the definition of that isn't clear, but they will work at it.
they'll also go after is handguns. Registration, limit number of
purchases in a given time frame for starters. Eventually if they gain
enough power, limit ammunition in some goofy way or make it difficult or
too expensive to purchase. Go after gun manufactures like big tobbaco.
The list goes on and on until a down right ban on all firearms, this is
their ultimate goal.
--
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:02:20 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <u20aj2lmm1od7ami78ir0uv2k6b94f466r@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> You guys keep trying to make anyone who opposes Bush or his policies
>> appear to be a traitor.[/color]
>
>
>You guys make yourselves look like traitors by your venomous attacks on
>the president. There is a difference between critical opposition and
>downright viciousness.[/color]
Verbal attacks, venemous or not, are not traitorous.
Besides that, nobody is attacking the office of the President. They're
attacking GWB. You know, just like all of you Repugnicans did during
Clinton's time in office.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:55:14 GMT, "ron" <randus3@pacbell.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The gun was a Barrett .50 with a tripod, well over 4' long and probably 40
>pounds are so. She was standing there saying how it was "assault rifles"
>such as this that were being used in everyday shootings and drive by's![/color]
Those gangbangers must be some big boys if they can pack the
equivalent of an anti-tank rifle. :-)
"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
news:howardyno-B381BC.12353917102006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <SV7Zg.11872$TV3.6696@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ron" <randus3@pacbell.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I remember Dianne Feinstein showing that terrible assault weapon in a
>> hearing to ban guns some years ago.
>>
>> The gun was a Barrett .50 with a tripod, well over 4' long and probably
>> 40
>> pounds are so. She was standing there saying how it was "assault rifles"
>> such as this that were being used in everyday shootings and drive by's!
>>
>> This is the Dem mentality. I sure wish Nacy and Harry were on more of
>> the
>> talk shows. I wonder why the media isn't showing them?[/color]
>
> After they take control the first firearm and so called assault
> weapons, the definition of that isn't clear, but they will work at it.
> they'll also go after is handguns. Registration, limit number of
> purchases in a given time frame for starters. Eventually if they gain
> enough power, limit ammunition in some goofy way or make it difficult or
> too expensive to purchase. Go after gun manufactures like big tobbaco.
> The list goes on and on until a down right ban on all firearms, this is
> their ultimate goal.[/color]
That would work for me. I'd gladly surrender my gun if I knew that no one
else had one.
The 2nd Amendment was just swell, when we needed to hunt for our food and
there were hostile "injuns" outside the cabin door, but it's way overdue to
be repealed. Think also that when the 2nd was enacted, our 'arms'
consisted solely of single shot muzzle loaders. No revolvers, no
automatics, no "streetsweepers", no AK-47s, no .223s, nothing of the kind.
It's like keeping alive a law that allows explosives of the kind in M-80
firecrackers, when we now have RPGs and bunkerbusters...and nitrate bombs
from fertilizer.
(And for you survivalists and conspiracy theorists who say that if the
citizenry give up their guns, there won't be anything to stop totalitarian
government...think for a moment about the folks in Waco. They had lots of
small arms, supposedly, but the popguns they had didn't make a dent in the
tank that the feds employed. So how does a .38 in the nightstand make you
safe from totalitarian government?
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:03:19 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
>news:howardyno-B381BC.12353917102006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=green]
>> In article <SV7Zg.11872$TV3.6696@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "ron" <randus3@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I remember Dianne Feinstein showing that terrible assault weapon in a
>>> hearing to ban guns some years ago.
>>>
>>> The gun was a Barrett .50 with a tripod, well over 4' long and probably
>>> 40
>>> pounds are so. She was standing there saying how it was "assault rifles"
>>> such as this that were being used in everyday shootings and drive by's!
>>>
>>> This is the Dem mentality. I sure wish Nacy and Harry were on more of
>>> the
>>> talk shows. I wonder why the media isn't showing them?[/color]
>>
>> After they take control the first firearm and so called assault
>> weapons, the definition of that isn't clear, but they will work at it.
>> they'll also go after is handguns. Registration, limit number of
>> purchases in a given time frame for starters. Eventually if they gain
>> enough power, limit ammunition in some goofy way or make it difficult or
>> too expensive to purchase. Go after gun manufactures like big tobbaco.
>> The list goes on and on until a down right ban on all firearms, this is
>> their ultimate goal.[/color]
>
>That would work for me. I'd gladly surrender my gun if I knew that no one
>else had one.
>The 2nd Amendment was just swell, when we needed to hunt for our food and
>there were hostile "injuns" outside the cabin door, but it's way overdue to
>be repealed. Think also that when the 2nd was enacted, our 'arms'
>consisted solely of single shot muzzle loaders. No revolvers, no
>automatics, no "streetsweepers", no AK-47s, no .223s, nothing of the kind.
>It's like keeping alive a law that allows explosives of the kind in M-80
>firecrackers, when we now have RPGs and bunkerbusters...and nitrate bombs
>from fertilizer.
>
>(And for you survivalists and conspiracy theorists who say that if the
>citizenry give up their guns, there won't be anything to stop totalitarian
>government...think for a moment about the folks in Waco. They had lots of
>small arms, supposedly, but the popguns they had didn't make a dent in the
>tank that the feds employed. So how does a .38 in the nightstand make you
>safe from totalitarian government?
>[/color]
Come to my house as a hostile government and find out....
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
ToyotaNation.com is an independent Toyota/Lexus enthusiast website. ToyotaNation.com is not sponsored by or in any way affiliated with Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. The Toyota, Lexus and Scion names and logos are trademarks owned by Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Linear Mode
