These are accused....not convicted, correct?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Show me the post I wrote where I claimed to have *inside info on rapture. She said so* as you accused me of in your post above. Just copy and paste it and show me where I said I have inside info on the rapture.

of being an alcoholic (and there wasn't even a STORY written about her). You do this kind of thing to posters on this board on a daily basis. And you're doing it again to GT. She has said point blank that she DOESN'T wish that on him, but that doesn't coincide with your lying attack against her so once again the truth doesn't count.

Neocons Accuse �Liberal� New York Times of Treason

Monday June 26th 2006, 8:05 am

Michelle Malkin, neocon blogger and concentration camp advocate, has posted a spate of converted WWII posters on her site, taking the New York Times to task for reporting the news, albeit a year late.

According to Malkin and New York representative Peter King, the New York Times stands accused of treason �for reporting last week about a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace alleged terrorists� and disclosing �a secret domestic wiretapping program,� according to CBC News, never mind both programs violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. �No one elected The New York Times to do anything,� King told the New York Daily News. �They�re breaking the law to satisfy their own arrogant, liberal agenda.�

In Bushzarro world, newspapers are �elected� to report the news. If newspapers report the trashing of the Constitution, this is treason. In Malkin�s world, it follows that traitors should be thrown in concentration camps, especially if they resemble in any way Arabs or Muslims.

It would seem Mr. King and Malkin suffer from memory loss. It was Judith Miller�s �arrogant, liberal agenda� that brought us the neocon lies about illusory Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As Antony Loewenstein writes for the Sydney Morning Herald, the �vast majority of [Miller�s] WMD claims came through Ahmed Chalabi, an indicted fraudster and one of the leading figures in the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the group keen to militarily overthrow Saddam. Miller relied on untested defectors� testimonies (usually provided by Chalabi) to write several front-page stories on this information,� stories that did not pass the smell test at the time and have found the memory hole since.

Ahmed Chalabi, convicted bank fraudster installed as a deputy prime minister in Iraq, was a neocon darling. His Iraqi National Congress, created by the CIA, was the primary source of Judith Miller�s �journalism.� In short, Judith Miller was a hack for the neocons, thus making the New York Times a neocon conduit for lies and propaganda.

Even though the New York Times serves as a shameless shill for the �arrogant, liberal agenda� of the neocons, this does not change the fact the newspaper is protected under both the First Amendment and statutory procedure (see the Supreme Court case, Bartnicki v. Vopper). In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in a per curiam decision that prior restraint (censorship) was not warranted in a government effort to stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. �There�s a tone of gleeful relish in the way they [the Bush neocons] talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public�s business risk being branded traitors,� Bill Keller, New York Times Executive Editor, told the Washington Post.

King and Malkin, of course, have nothing but contempt for Supreme Court rulings. It is irrelevant that NSA whistleblower Russell Tice (the source behind revelations published in the New York Times) is protected by federal law. King and Malkin believe the unitary decider and his Machiavellian operatives have the right to look through your financial, medical, and library records, listen in on your telephone calls, read your email, and sneak and peek your computer hard drive and while they�re at it rifle through your underwear drawer because �we are at war� with an enemy never sufficiently documented or designated, an enemy who worked for the CIA in Afghanistan and is not specifically �wanted in connection� with the nine eleven attacks, as his FBI wanted poster reveals.

Obviously, King and Malkin, and the whole of the neocon choir, believe the phony �war on terror,� rechristened the �long war��i.e., it will last a century or more, or long enough to provide obscene profits for the death merchants�gives the �permanent revolution� Jacobins the right to trash the Constitution.

Quite naturally, this brings to mind Hitler�s Erm�chtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act, an element of the Reichstag Fire Decree nullifying the civil liberties of German citizens after the Reichstag was torched (a fire planned by Goebbels and executed by G�ring, according to SA man Karl Ernst).

Bush, not unlike Hitler, feels he has the authority to by-pass Congress (mostly corporate purchased whores, so this is a moot point) and use the Constitution as a doormat where the unitary decider wipes off his shoes, mucky with the blood a few hundred thousand Iraqis.

No, I wasn't being all that serious. I just don't see how people can preach about an unborn baby's life being the "will of God", but the life of somebody on a battlefield is not the "will of God", the life of all animals euthanized daily in pet shelters is not the "will of God", the life of the chicken in that sandwich you ate for lunch is not the "will of God".

Either all life is sacred (bugs and trees included) or its OK to kill things. According to the Bible, there's times he's really into it, so obviously he thinks sometimes its OK. People who claim to know when its OK (or not) are claiming to know the mind of God and speaking for him, which is presumptuous and egotistical, IMHO.

So, please, find her racist quotes, copy and paste them because I'd love to see them. My guess is you won't find any.

Police in this New Orleans suburb arrested Merlene Maten (search) the day after the hurricane on charges she took $63.50 in goods from a looted deli. Though never before in trouble with the law, her bail was set at a stiff $50,000 and she was shipped away to a state penitentiary.

Family and eyewitnesses insist Maten's prison odyssey was unwarranted, claiming she only had gone to her car to get some sausage to eat when officers cuffed her in frustration, unable to catch younger looters at a nearby store.

Despite intervention from the nation's largest senior lobby, volunteer lawyers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (search) and even a private attorney, the family fought a futile battle for 16 days to get her freed.

Then, hours after her plight was featured in an Associated Press story, a local judge on Thursday ordered Maten freed on her own recognizance, setting up a sweet reunion with her daughter, grandchildren and 80-year-old husband.

Thousands are rallying behind this guy as the story makes its way around the web. The story is just below the picture.

However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.

My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.

By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!

There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.

assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.

The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.

Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.

People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."

Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.

If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.

However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget. The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us. Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens.

Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century. And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves. Why didn't we get involved? Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades. Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us.

And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance? Like Ghostbusters: Who ya gonna call? And we are expected to step up and take care of it.

I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered. Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.

and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will. This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation. That's not the case now. They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger). They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay. It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.

Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics. It's not like that's been kept a secret. Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.

only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.

It didn't happen here.....yet. But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN. And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.

As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue. I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.

The others that you mention -- they are correct, too (about being on to me). Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by leaving them out.