BBO Discussion Forums: Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Propaganda SpinMasters At Work? Iran and its nuclear capability

#41 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-02, 08:38

Thought experiment

The US provides aid and assistance to all freedom loving peoples. They encourage brotherhood and religious expression everywhere. They open the immigration doors to any and all comers.

Are they still a target for terrorist attack? Is this the only way to win the war on terror? The current method seems to be a costly (in more than just dollars) failure.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#42 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,091
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2007-February-02, 08:50

Your thought experiment is quite realistic. The U.S. helped the freedom loving people of Iraq, Kuwait and Afganistan to get rid of their opressors. In Iraq, they took the side of the moslem opposition against their atheistic dictator. In Bosnia and Albania, they took the side of the Moslems while the Russians took the side of Christians and Western Europe kept neutral. In Afganistan, they first helped moslems against the Russians and later one group of Moslems against another.

So you might expect that the U.S. is not a popular target for moslem violence. In fact, it isn't. Most moslem violence is against other moslems: Kabyls vs Arabs, Sunnis vs Shias, Kurds vs everybody.
... I am not at all keen on arriving at the 4 level with no idea of where our fit(s) might be. --- Zelandakh
0

#43 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-02, 12:16

Quote

also, you can prevent a terrorist attack in many ways...


True....you could kill all Muslim babies at birth - and any other baby you might think of that might one day grow up to be a threat.

You notice the papers nor the president used the word "conspiracy" - this would be the legal term for someone in the act of planning a crime. If there was no conspiracy to act on the plot, then nothing was truly stopped other than a BS session.

Jimmy, you keep pointing out what the papers said - what about what the quoted counterterrorists, FBI, and CIA personel statements? Those are the quotes that stress that nothing of import was stopped.

And, of course, you did notice that the president did not mention the use of the Patriot Act to try to prevent a Seattle shopkeeper from selling a spin-off of Rubik's cube, the patent of which had expired, so no patent violation had been commited.
Now there's some serious terror plot action at work. ;)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#44 User is offline   pbleighton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,153
  • Joined: 2003-February-28

Posted 2007-February-02, 12:31

"The U.S. helped the freedom loving people of Iraq, Kuwait and Afganistan to get rid of their opressors. In Iraq, they took the side of the moslem opposition against their atheistic dictator."

Not to defend Saddam in any way, but this is a gross oversimplification.

Peter
0

#45 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,079
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-02, 12:43

The point being that when they act based upon their own fundamental ideals.....there can and will be no threat. Its when they allow those same ideals to be subverted and perverted (by big oil, etc.) that they get into trouble. Dwight was known as Ike , Milhous was known as Tricky but W will be known as Little Dick.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#46 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-02, 17:43

Winstonm, on Feb 2 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

Quote

also, you can prevent a terrorist attack in many ways...


True....you could kill all Muslim babies at birth - and any other baby you might think of that might one day grow up to be a threat.

well yes, i suppose that would work... it's a tad extreme eh? no, i was asking whether or not disrupting a plot during the planning stage counted... i say it does, what do you say?

Quote

You notice the papers nor the president used the word "conspiracy" - this would be the legal term for someone in the act of planning a crime.  If there was no conspiracy to act on the plot, then nothing was truly stopped other than a BS session.

true, they didn't use 'conspiracy'... they used 'plot'...

Quote

Jimmy, you keep pointing out what the papers said - what about what the quoted counterterrorists, FBI, and CIA personel statements?  Those are the quotes that stress that nothing of import was stopped.

i only pointed that out because it evidently held some importance for you... i, exactly like you, don't know what the truth is here... you are willing to believe anyone whose view or recollection of events differs from bush's, and you've given your (legitimate) reasons for it... i'm simply pointing out that even a stopped clock is right sometimes, and granting that bush might be the most stopped of clocks

Quote

And, of course, you did notice that the president did not mention the use of the Patriot Act to try to prevent a Seattle shopkeeper from selling a spin-off of Rubik's cube, the patent of which had expired, so no patent violation had been commited.

i must have missed this
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#47 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-02, 20:00

Quote

i was asking whether or not disrupting a plot during the planning stage counted... i say it does, what do you say?



Jimmy, I appreciate your input because I realize you are not taking sides - I would guess you are an attorney or had legal training?

Here is my answer to your question: it would depend totally on the ability of the plotters to carry out their plans. If a known terrorist who had a history of involvement in violent acts was caught planning an attack, I would think it reasonalbe to conclude it was a serious plan because he had proved before an ability to complete the plan; however, if it is four Arab students sitting around and talking about their hatred of the U.S. and tossing out ideas about terrorists attacks, I'd say no, there was no plot stopped as these 4 had no ability to complete their actions.

And I believe this ability to carry out the action is necessary to have a crime - which is, after all, what we are talkng about. We sometimes get lost in the euphamism of terrorist attack when what we are talking about is simply a crime.
For the crime of attempted murder, it is not enough to tell a policeman I am going to go kill Joe Blow; there has to be an attempt to carry through on the action.

Quote

true, they didn't use 'conspiracy'... they used 'plot'...


Regardless of what anyone says, these guys are not stupid or even close to it. They are shrewd to the max. If I am aware that the "technical" term for the actual crime would be conspiracy, then you know that they are aware also, and thus purposefully chose the word "plot" as to have deniability that they claimed they had prevented a crime. IMO, this way they were able to claim something heroic by chosing the word "plot", but in actuality prevented nothing else the word choice would have been "conspiracy".

Quote

i only pointed that out because it evidently held some importance for you... i, exactly like you, don't know what the truth is here...


Point taken. However, Jimmy, keep in mind the words of Vincent Bugliosi, the unbeaten LA prosecutor who brought Charles Manson to trial. He said about circumstantial evidence that it is not what the defendent's attorney would have you believe, that it is a chain and once any link is broken the chain falls apart. Circumstantial evidence is a rope, with many interwoven twines - even if one of those twines is cut, the rope is still strong.

Point being that even it the broken clock is right twice a day, it is wrong all the rest of the day. Would you bet the lives of 3000 more Americans that this just happens to be one of those two times? Or is the rope of disingiuousnous still too strong?

Quote

i must have missed this


If you want to amuse yourself sometime, Google "Abuses of the Patriot Act" and see what you find.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#48 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-03, 23:04

Winstonm, on Feb 2 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

I would guess you are an attorney or had legal training?

no, but i am a pisces... we tend to see both sides :rolleyes:

Quote

Here is my answer to your question: it would depend totally on the ability of the plotters to carry out their plans.

we'll just have to disagree here, i guess... not with your premise per se, but with the near impossibility of determining such a thing... for example, take the sad cases of high school students who have done such evil things over the past few years... some of those things started with 2 or 3 guys just tossing ideas around, with no real clue as to how to actually do what they conceived... but this talk led to that action, etc...

Quote

If a known terrorist who had a history of involvement in violent acts was caught planning an attack, I would think it reasonalbe to conclude it was a serious plan because he had proved before an ability to complete the plan; however, if it is four Arab students sitting around and talking about their hatred of the U.S. and tossing out ideas about terrorists attacks, I'd say no, there was no plot stopped as these 4 had no ability to complete their actions.

we can't know, but i'd guess there have been suicide bombings that have started in that very way... is it so difficult to imagine?

Quote

And I believe this ability to carry out the action is necessary to have a crime - which is, after all, what we are talkng about.

even if true, it seems hard to quantify what is meant by "ability"

Quote

Regardless of what anyone says, these guys are not stupid or even close to it.  They are shrewd to the max.  If I am aware that the "technical" term for the actual crime would be conspiracy, then you know that they are aware also, and thus purposefully chose the word "plot" as to have deniability that they claimed they had prevented a crime.

i see plot and conspiracy as two sides of the same coin... from dictionary.com:
con·spir·a·cy – noun, plural -cies
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

so plot and conspiracy are the same thing, in my view... as long as 2 or more people are involved, etc etc

Quote

keep in mind the words of Vincent Bugliosi, the unbeaten LA prosecutor who brought Charles Manson to trial.  He said about circumstantial evidence that it is not what the defendent's attorney would have you believe, that it is a chain and once any link is broken the chain falls apart.  Circumstantial evidence is a rope, with many interwoven twines - even if one of those twines is cut, the rope is still strong.

yes, his analogy won the day... but that's all it was

Quote

Point being that even it the broken clock is right twice a day, it is wrong all the rest of the day.  Would you bet the lives of 3000 more Americans that this just happens to be one of those two times?  Or is the rope of disingiuousnous still too strong?

that's actually my point... it isn't hard for me to imagine the actions on 9/11 starting with 2 (or more) people talking about the idea... it isn't hard to imagine the plot (or conspiracy) being nipped in the bud, under the right circumstances... had that happened though, and had bush announced "a plot to fly airplanes into buildings in nyc by terrorists was foiled" we'd probably still be having this same discussion

the fact that an informant has provided inaccurate intel in the past doesn't preclude *this* intelligence from being accurate
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#49 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 07:43

Quote

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.


Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

Here is a little more on the L.A. plot.

Quote

According to US intelligence, the LA attack was actually called off by Osama bin Laden. Attempting simultaneous attacks on both coasts was deemed too risky. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad reportedly attempted to revive the plot on his own but the scheme was fatally squelched in early 2002 when an unidentified "Southeast Asian nation" arrested one of the four conspirators after he decided to back out of the plan.

On February 10, the LA Times asked a "US official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism" to assess the threat. Speaking anonymously, the terror official stated: "It didn't go. It didn't happen."

According to the Times, the official said he believed the Tower plot was "one of many Al Qaeda operations that had not gone much past the conceptual stage." The Times noted that the official "spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that those familiar with the plot feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan that that of the president."


Conceptual plan called off. President claims plot prevented. Insiders who know afraid to publicly rebuke president for fear of reprisal - now this has the "ring of truth" to it IMO.

We can debate all we want the definition of "plot". It seems the truth of the matter is there was never any "threat" of this occuring.

That said, the president also quoted the London water-bottle bombers plot - let me ask you if you believe this was a serious terrorist plot capable of being carried to conclusion? Was this a legitiamate threat?

And what about the anthrax plot he claimed was stopped?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#50 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-04, 13:24

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Quote

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.


Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

ok, just so i understand... if 3 guys so plot (or conspire) to blow up the white house, and if the fbi learns of this plot, they can't be said to "foil the plot" by arresting them prior to their renting of the truck, etc?

you seem to be speaking of conviction of a crime as if that is the same as bush's allegation of a plot having been foiled... i'm simply saying that plots can be foiled weekly, if not more often, by stopping them in the planning stages... you seem to be denying this
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#51 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 14:29

luke warm, on Feb 4 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Quote

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.


Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

ok, just so i understand... if 3 guys so plot (or conspire) to blow up the white house, and if the fbi learns of this plot, they can't be said to "foil the plot" by arresting them prior to their renting of the truck, etc?

you seem to be speaking of conviction of a crime as if that is the same as bush's allegation of a plot having been foiled... i'm simply saying that plots can be foiled weekly, if not more often, by stopping them in the planning stages... you seem to be denying this

Nope. I said technically agreement is conspiracy - but in practicality it cannot be presecuted. Has nothing to with Bush's claims. Your argument leaves out a point, IMO. What if the plotters abandon their plot or change their minds? Technically, the law would allow a prosecution because there had been agreement, but a conviction would be impossible.

And the other question is: how do you thwart a plot - by changing their thinking? I doubt that will happen. Or is it enough to let them know "we're on to their plan" so they will abandon it and try something else? In my estimation, you haven't thwarted a thing until it comes to the planning stage, where actual work is being done to carry out the act - and that also happens to be the time when you could get a conviction.

To ask us to believe that a plot has been thwarted simply because the president said it occured is asking us to accept this statement based on the president's credibility, which has been shown time and again to be unreliable.

The Bush claims and counterclaims are anecdotal evidence - from the mass of refutations, it seems Bush is claiming prevention of a terrorist attack when the indications are that what happened was the so-called plot - if it ever existed - had been abandoned before the U.S. learned of it.

And I don't remember - and the president doesn't claim - anyone was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. To claim an al-Qaeda plot is so vague as to be worthless - how do we know it was al-Qaeda if we do not know the names of the plotters? And if we know the plotters, why weren't they arrested for conspiracy? To claim al-Qaeda plot is somewhat like claiming a Baptist plot or a Methodist plot - it is an all-encompassing claim without having to rely on details - denialbly vague.

Keep in mind, also, that this claim is old and was dug up again for the State of the Union speech - it was originally used to show the need for warrantless surviellance and un-genova-convention interrogation tactics.

If you torture someone long enough and he knows you want to hear an al-Qaeda conspiracy theory, he'll make one up simply to stop the torture - Now you could claim you had a bad guy in prison who told you of an al-Qaeda plot and the fact that the news was made public halted the plot - but have you done anything, really?

I won't be impressed by this president's claims until they bring to court a group of terrorists with passports, airline tickets, and bomb fuses hanging out their butts.

All else is Bill Murphy and "Stripes"; "Razzle. Dazzle."
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#52 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,709
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2007-February-04, 15:02

I seem to recall one of Aesop's fables from when I was growing up: It had something to do with a young shepard boy who cried wolf one too many times...

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious. Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened. What I do know is the following:

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions.
I don't trust a damn thing that they say.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#53 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 17:31

Quote

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions.
I don't trust a damn thing that they say.


Once again Richard cuts to the chase. This has been my point - and it seems again in the State of the Union that the president inflated the success of terror-fighting - and it is perplexing to me why only Keith Olbermann in the MSM called him out on it. Of course, I'm still wondering why Congress has not called for investigation into the intelligence quoted to initiate the war - among other things.

The bottom line is this: Bush has lost his credibility and nothing he says should be accepted as blanket fact - to go to war without forcing him to conclusively prove his case is ludicrous.

The latest is there is trouble finding proof of complicity that Iran is supporting the insurgents - who needs proof? Bush said it was so, didn't he?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#54 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:10

hrothgar, on Feb 4 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious. Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened.

and that's all i've been saying

Quote

What I do know is the following:
The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions. I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

right, that's also (if i understand it) winston's point... i have a healthy disrespect of him and his administration also, but it still does not follow that he's lying *this* time
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#55 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:13

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.
0

#56 User is offline   macaw 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 1,981
  • Joined: 2003-February-14
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:20

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

#57 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:26

macaw, on Feb 4 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)
0

#58 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:34

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

macaw, on Feb 4 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)

It is disheartening - vote in change and all you seem to get is a change in the tone of the rhetoric - nothing of import actually changes.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#59 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:39

luke warm, on Feb 4 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 4 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious.  Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened.

and that's all i've been saying

Quote

What I do know is the following:
The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions. I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

right, that's also (if i understand it) winston's point... i have a healthy disrespect of him and his administration also, but it still does not follow that he's lying *this* time

That pretty much sums it up - and to end the debate over he/said she/said, let me just say that if the best he could do was dig up old and debatable cases of how terrorists were stopped then his claims were not convincing.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

#60 User is online   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,937
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2007-February-04, 21:51

mike777, on Feb 4 2007, 10:26 PM, said:

macaw, on Feb 4 2007, 10:20 PM, said:

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)

Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges? Of course, if it did the WH would claim executive priveledge, and the SC would have to step in to solve a constitutional crises.

Which of the scores of Watergate-like investigation themes that are available will actually be investigated? My bet is zero.

Hey, but at least we got the minimum wage raised to 7.50 an hour unless bush vetoes his first bill - yep, that ought to do it.

No wonder everyone is sitting around, numbed, and watching American Idol - what channel was that on, anyway?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter.
0

Share this topic:


  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users