~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

On 6/20/2010 2:41 AM, harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

The Commiecrat Liberals always screamed that George Bush was going to
be a dictator and refuse to leave The White House, take over everything,
etc, etc. The reason I was against all of the anti-terrorism measures
installed by the last administration was the simple fact that Democrats
would use them against the citizenry. Especially any group of citizens
who opposed them. I hope I have some change left when our first and last
Affirmative Action President finishes his one and only term. I
shudder at the thought of how long it's going to take to repair the
damage those Democrat morons have done to my country.

TDD

On Jun 20, 6:11*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 2:41 AM, harry wrote:

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

The Commiecrat Liberals always screamed that George Bush was going to
be a dictator and refuse to leave The White House, take over everything,
etc, etc. The reason I was against all of the anti-terrorism measures
installed by the last administration was the simple fact that Democrats
would use them against the citizenry. Especially any group of citizens
who opposed them. I hope I have some change left when our first and last
Affirmative Action President finishes his one and only term. I
shudder at the thought of how long it's going to take to repair the
damage those Democrat morons have done to my country.

TDD

LOL, so you trust the Bushies to take our rights away but not Dems.
But Dems are the morons?

On 6/20/2010 9:48 AM, hibb wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:11 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 2:41 AM, harry wrote:

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

The Commiecrat Liberals always screamed that George Bush was going to
be a dictator and refuse to leave The White House, take over everything,
etc, etc. The reason I was against all of the anti-terrorism measures
installed by the last administration was the simple fact that Democrats
would use them against the citizenry. Especially any group of citizens
who opposed them. I hope I have some change left when our first and last
Affirmative Action President finishes his one and only term. I
shudder at the thought of how long it's going to take to repair the
damage those Democrat morons have done to my country.

TDD

LOL, so you trust the Bushies to take our rights away but not Dems.
But Dems are the morons?


I'm not a Republican, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special,
they horrify me. Republicans are evil, Democrats are wicked, I suppose
your preference depends on which end of your body you want some law
shoved into.

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote in news:hvlssp$hn3
:

I'm not a Republican, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special,
they horrify me. Republicans are evil, Democrats are wicked

I don't think either are wicked or evil. But they are nearly all greedy.
Both for power and money. Both you and I are looking for who is the least
evil and wicked. My ultra-rightist Republican friend always wants to vote
for Mickey Mouse, but I think that is just to get an argument going. Which
usually works.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 6/20/2010 4:37 PM, Han wrote:
The Daring wrote in news:hvlssp$hn3
:

I'm not a Republican, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special,
they horrify me. Republicans are evil, Democrats are wicked

I don't think either are wicked or evil. But they are nearly all greedy.
Both for power and money. Both you and I are looking for who is the least
evil and wicked. My ultra-rightist Republican friend always wants to vote
for Mickey Mouse, but I think that is just to get an argument going. Which
usually works.


My late father was a Southern Republican, one of many who make regular
Republicans look like sissies. When the Irish nuns at the Catholic
Parochial Gulag gave all the kids "Kennedy for President" bumper
stickers, me, not knowing any better stuck one on the bumper of Dad's
1951 Dodge. My father was an MP sergeant during WWII and I do believe
he got royalties from the military for curse words he invented. When
my father discovered the bumper sticker, he yelled all of those strange
words at me. I had no idea what he was saying, I just knew he was very
angry. Mom was a New York Democrat and of course I always got opposing
views. I wonder if that's why I don't much care for either party?

TDD

On 6/20/2010 8:35 PM, Joe Carthy wrote:
The Daring wrote in
:

On 6/20/2010 2:41 AM, harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...bama-given-rig
ht-shut-internet-kill-switch.html#ixzz0rM46RZps

The Commiecrat Liberals always screamed that George Bush was going to
be a dictator and refuse to leave The White House, take over
everything, etc, etc. The reason I was against all of the
anti-terrorism measures installed by the last administration was the
simple fact that Democrats would use them against the citizenry.
Especially any group of citizens who opposed them. I hope I have some
change left when our first and last Affirmative Action President
finishes his one and only term. I shudder at the thought of how long
it's going to take to repair the damage those Democrat morons have
done to my country.

TDD


What's this "my" country crap? It's all of ours. You can't take
ownership for yourself.

You can say it's MY country too. I explained it like this to a Liberal
wacko nut job once. You see that flag hanging from the flagpole at
the library? That's OUR American flag, it's public property. If you
tear down that flag and burn it, you're burning MY flag. If you want
to burn a flag as a demonstration of your right to political free speech
,you better go out and buy your own flag. It's the same way with OUR
country, when you tear it down, you're tearing down MY country. Is that
easy enough for you to grok?

TDD

"harry" wrote in message
...
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps


Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty much
evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed by Joe
Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike Obama, I
don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I suspect
this one will be also.

On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps



Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.

On Jun 20, 8:01*am, Frank wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:







"harry" wrote in message
....
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri....

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. *Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone gets their shorts up in a knot over this proposed law,
it would be a good idea to think about what the law would be intended
to do instead of blindly taking the abuse of power, worse case
scenario.

Let's say that a terrorist like the recent Times Square bomber is
captured and during interrogation, discloses a plan by other
terrorists to create a massive cyber attack on the US internet system
tomorrow. Searching his computers backs up his claim, but all that
can be determined is that they are planning on using internet service
provider X to do it. Would you not want the president to be able to
tell provider X to temporarily suspend it's service until measures
could be taken to prevent the attack from working? You could argue
that any reasonable service provider would voluntarily take such
action once contacted. However, doing so would potentially open them
to all sorts of legal liability from ****ed off customers, especially
if it later turned out that the attack wasn't real and the
administration starts back-pedalling on what they actually asked the
ISP to do. If the president orders them to do it, then you have
assurance that not only will they comply, but they will be relieved of
liability.

And what kind of illegitimate stunt using this law do you think a
president could pull without being impeached?

On 6/20/2010 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:01 am, wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:







wrote in message
...
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone gets their shorts up in a knot over this proposed law,
it would be a good idea to think about what the law would be intended
to do instead of blindly taking the abuse of power, worse case
scenario.

Let's say that a terrorist like the recent Times Square bomber is
captured and during interrogation, discloses a plan by other
terrorists to create a massive cyber attack on the US internet system
tomorrow. Searching his computers backs up his claim, but all that
can be determined is that they are planning on using internet service
provider X to do it. Would you not want the president to be able to
tell provider X to temporarily suspend it's service until measures
could be taken to prevent the attack from working? You could argue
that any reasonable service provider would voluntarily take such
action once contacted. However, doing so would potentially open them
to all sorts of legal liability from ****ed off customers, especially
if it later turned out that the attack wasn't real and the
administration starts back-pedalling on what they actually asked the
ISP to do. If the president orders them to do it, then you have
assurance that not only will they comply, but they will be relieved of
liability.

And what kind of illegitimate stunt using this law do you think a
president could pull without being impeached?

OH! Like we need a law so The President can order an oil well to shut
down and stop leaking? 8-)

TDD

On Jun 20, 10:06*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
On 6/20/2010 8:44 AM, wrote:





On Jun 20, 8:01 am, *wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

*wrote in message
....
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri....

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. *Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone gets their shorts up in a knot over this proposed law,
it would be a good idea to think about what the law would be intended
to do instead of blindly taking the abuse of power, worse case
scenario.

Let's say that a terrorist like the recent Times Square bomber is
captured and during interrogation, discloses a plan by other
terrorists to create a massive cyber attack on the US internet system
tomorrow. * Searching his computers backs up his claim, but all that
can be determined is that they are planning on using internet service
provider X to do it. * Would you not want the president to be able to
tell provider X to temporarily suspend it's service until measures
could be taken to prevent the attack from working? * You could argue
that any reasonable service provider would voluntarily take such
action once contacted. *However, doing so would potentially open them
to all sorts of legal liability from ****ed off customers, especially
if it later turned out that the attack wasn't real and the
administration starts back-pedalling on what they actually asked the
ISP to do. *If the president orders them to do it, then you have
assurance that not only will they comply, but they will be relieved of
liability.

And what kind of illegitimate stunt using this law do you think a
president could pull without being impeached?

OH! Like we need a law so The President can order an oil well to shut
down and stop leaking? 8-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, at least the leaders around the Gulf Coast are finally taking it
upon themselves to shut down the leak. They are issuing a day of
prayer to stop the leak. They are going over BP and Obama's head and
asking for Divine Intervention. So we can expect that the oil leak
will be shut down by midnight tonight.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 6/20/2010 8:44 AM, wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:01 am, wrote:
On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:







wrote in message
...
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was
proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone gets their shorts up in a knot over this proposed law,
it would be a good idea to think about what the law would be intended
to do instead of blindly taking the abuse of power, worse case
scenario.

Let's say that a terrorist like the recent Times Square bomber is
captured and during interrogation, discloses a plan by other
terrorists to create a massive cyber attack on the US internet system
tomorrow. Searching his computers backs up his claim, but all that
can be determined is that they are planning on using internet service
provider X to do it. Would you not want the president to be able to
tell provider X to temporarily suspend it's service until measures
could be taken to prevent the attack from working? You could argue
that any reasonable service provider would voluntarily take such
action once contacted. However, doing so would potentially open them
to all sorts of legal liability from ****ed off customers, especially
if it later turned out that the attack wasn't real and the
administration starts back-pedalling on what they actually asked the
ISP to do. If the president orders them to do it, then you have
assurance that not only will they comply, but they will be relieved of
liability.

And what kind of illegitimate stunt using this law do you think a
president could pull without being impeached?

OH! Like we need a law so The President can order an oil well to shut
down and stop leaking? 8-)

TDD

Interesting. You don't want government to intervene with capitalism, now
you want the government to protect you from it.

On Jun 20, 2:44*pm, wrote:
On Jun 20, 8:01*am, Frank wrote:





On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
....
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri....

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. *Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Before everyone gets their shorts up in a knot over this proposed law,
it would be a good idea to think about what the law would be intended
to do instead of blindly taking the abuse of power, worse case
scenario.

Let's say that a terrorist like the recent Times Square bomber is
captured and during interrogation, discloses a plan by other
terrorists to create a massive cyber attack on the US internet system
tomorrow. * Searching his computers backs up his claim, but all that
can be determined is that they are planning on using internet service
provider X to do it. * Would you not want the president to be able to
tell provider X to temporarily suspend it's service until measures
could be taken to prevent the attack from working? * You could argue
that any reasonable service provider would voluntarily take such
action once contacted. *However, doing so would potentially open them
to all sorts of legal liability from ****ed off customers, especially
if it later turned out that the attack wasn't real and the
administration starts back-pedalling on what they actually asked the
ISP to do. *If the president orders them to do it, then you have
assurance that not only will they comply, but they will be relieved of
liability.

And what kind of illegitimate stunt using this law do you think a
president could pull without being impeached?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All sounds pretty Stalinist to me.

Frank wrote in
:

On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"harry" wrote in message

...
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri
ght-shut-internet-kill-switch.html#ixzz0rM46RZps



Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was
proposed by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I
dislike Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.


Lieberman is still a "democrat",just not as radical as the rest of them.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 6/20/2010 5:01 AM Frank spake thus:

On 6/20/2010 7:53 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Interesting that people are up in arms against Obama for this. Pretty
much evidence that they don't read and comprehend. The law was proposed
by Joe Lieberman, a usually conservative Democrat. Much as I dislike
Obama, I don't think he had anything to do with this.

Another bill like this was proposed and knocked down quickly as I
suspect this one will be also.

Lieberman is not conservative but very liberal. Where he differs from
the Democrats is his strong support of Israel and our military.
Unlike Democrats, he's a man of principal.

You mean he runs a school? Or he makes loans?

But getting back to your first comment: Joe Lieberman a liberal? Just
what planet did you say you come from: Snorlax?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Well, we finally got the "change" that was promised.

We can call Obama incompetent without being dubbed a racist.

On 6/20/10 11:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Well, we finally got the "change" that was promised.

We can call Obama incompetent without being dubbed a racist.


After seeing your recent estimate of the amount of water in a house, I
would call you the incompetent one. Probably not competent enough to be
judging Obama.

John Karl wrote:
On 6/20/10 11:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Well, we finally got the "change" that was promised.

We can call Obama incompetent without being dubbed a racist.


After seeing your recent estimate of the amount of water in a house, I
would call you the incompetent one. Probably not competent enough to
be judging Obama.

I know maths is hard, but if you have some disagreement, I'd be glad to
review your alternative calculations.

On 6/20/10 3:29 PM, HeyBub wrote:
John Karl wrote:
On 6/20/10 11:12 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Well, we finally got the "change" that was promised.

We can call Obama incompetent without being dubbed a racist.


After seeing your recent estimate of the amount of water in a house, I
would call you the incompetent one. Probably not competent enough to
be judging Obama.

I know maths is hard, but if you have some disagreement, I'd be glad to
review your alternative calculations.


The problem arose when you assumed that a cup of water vapor was the
same as a cup of water.

John Karl wrote:

I know maths is hard, but if you have some disagreement, I'd be glad
to review your alternative calculations.


The problem arose when you assumed that a cup of water vapor was the
same as a cup of water.

You are absolutely correct. I made a glaring blunder. Thank you for politely
pointing out the error.

I'm going to sit in the corner for thirty minutes and feel shame.

harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

That's Joe Lieberman, the least popular senator, with an approval rating
of 25%. Democratic voters defeated him in the primary in 2006. He
considers himself a Republican on foreign policy and defense. He calls
himself a Democrat because that's how he's registered as a voter.

I agree with Joe on this one. Some say the US should keep Mexican
trucks off US highways because of safety violations. Shouldn't the US
keep the British off the US internet because most of them seem to have
nothing better to do than launch trolling attacks? (see above)

On Jun 21, 2:03*am, J Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

That's Joe Lieberman, the least popular senator, with an approval rating
of 25%. *Democratic voters defeated him in the primary in 2006. *He
considers himself a Republican on foreign policy and defense. *He calls
himself a Democrat because that's how he's registered as a voter.

I agree with Joe on this one. *Some say the US should keep Mexican
trucks off US highways because of safety violations. *Shouldn't the US
keep the British off the US internet because most of them seem to have
nothing better to do than launch trolling attacks? *(see above)

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
My trolls are interesting. Just look at this one. Everyone responds &
we all have an interesting discussion.

On 6/20/2010 11:51 PM harry spake thus:

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Again with the Wikipedia.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the internets and the
World Wide Web.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:51 PM harry spake thus:

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Again with the Wikipedia.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the internets and the
World Wide Web.


So if ISPs are dropping USENET access in favor of Google Groups, it's
the result of British scheming dating back to 1980? No wonder Joe
Lieberman is concerned about national security!

On Jun 21, 10:35*pm, J Burns wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 11:51 PM harry spake thus:

We invented the internet therefore it belongs to us.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Again with the Wikipedia.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the internets and the
World Wide Web.

So if ISPs are dropping USENET access in favor of Google Groups, it's
the result of British scheming dating back to 1980? *No wonder Joe
Lieberman is concerned about national security!

You need to be. A mad Brit hacker has been into every military
computer and also the Pentagons and NASA's looking for pix of flying
saucers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ion-to-US.html

Yes y'all are that good with computers in America. Even our nutters
can breeze through your security. You need to offer him a job.

On 6/20/2010 12:41 AM harry spake thus:

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz0rM46RZps

Any ****ing idiot with two brain cells to rub together can figure out
that this is all about Joe Lieberman, and not at all about Obama. Hell,
the title of the article is "Obama to be *given* the right to shut down
the internet", not "Obama asks for the right ...".

And anyone with any sense, regardless of how they identify themselves
politically, should agree that this (the idea of a "kill switch" for the
internet) is a very very bad idea that flies in the face of any idea of
freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., etc.

And who thinks that Obama is a "liberal"? Sheesh. Just shows how
absolutely tilted to the right the world has become.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Jun 20, 10:14*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 12:41 AM harry spake thus:

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...

Any ****ing idiot with two brain cells to rub together can figure out
that this is all about Joe Lieberman, and not at all about Obama. Hell,
the title of the article is "Obama to be *given* the right to shut down
the internet", not "Obama asks for the right ...".

And anyone with any sense, regardless of how they identify themselves
politically, should agree that this (the idea of a "kill switch" for the
internet) is a very very bad idea that flies in the face of any idea of
freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., etc.

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?




And who thinks that Obama is a "liberal"? Sheesh. Just shows how
absolutely tilted to the right the world has become.

I'd say it shows how deranged you are. But keep thinking that way.
The more dissatisfaction with Obama the better. That justs puts us
closer to blocking him from doing any more damage and being rid of him
in 2 1/2 years.




--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:14 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/20/2010 12:41 AM harry spake thus:

~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...Obama-given-ri...
Any ****ing idiot with two brain cells to rub together can figure out
that this is all about Joe Lieberman, and not at all about Obama. Hell,
the title of the article is "Obama to be *given* the right to shut down
the internet", not "Obama asks for the right ...".

And anyone with any sense, regardless of how they identify themselves
politically, should agree that this (the idea of a "kill switch" for the
internet) is a very very bad idea that flies in the face of any idea of
freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., etc.

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?



Guess what? He mostly already does, under the various overlapping and
contradicting laws and EOs already in place. If the head of NSA called
up ATT and the others who own all the pipes coming in to CONUS, I tend
to believe there would indeed be a sudden loss of connectivity. Canada
would likely go dark too, since their lines are so intertwined.

More usefully, FedGov is finally starting to wall themselves off from
civilian internet- down to a few hundred interfaces, versus the
thousands that used to exist. Government and critical infrastructure
never shoulda been on the same network as civilians anyway.
And POTUS for damn sure can order those interfaces shut down, so the
whole government is not dead in the water.

--
aem sends...

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:44:25 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?



Guess what? He mostly already does, under the various overlapping and
contradicting laws and EOs already in place. If the head of NSA called
up ATT and the others who own all the pipes coming in to CONUS, I tend
to believe there would indeed be a sudden loss of connectivity. Canada
would likely go dark too, since their lines are so intertwined.

More usefully, FedGov is finally starting to wall themselves off from
civilian internet- down to a few hundred interfaces, versus the
thousands that used to exist. Government and critical infrastructure
never shoulda been on the same network as civilians anyway.
And POTUS for damn sure can order those interfaces shut down, so the
whole government is not dead in the water.

When IP6 is given to the local user, we will have an IP number, Social
Security number issued at birth...one IP number for every square foot
of earth?

Feds have been on Intranet's for many years. One Internet portal, is
called "gatekeeper".

wrote in message news:4a540190-b519-4bc0-bc5a-

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?

Don't we just send Jack Bauer to take care of it? These "what if" scenarios
are beginning to sound a little like the "A Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister"
jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.

If a soldier or cop or CIA agent tortured someone and got the codes to shut
down a dirty bomb, no one would be able to successfuly prosecute that person
for saving millions of lives. Yet that was the scenario used to justify
torturing a whole lot of people who didn't know anything about ANY bombs,
dirty, clean, wet, dry or otherwise. Oh! they cried, if we can't legally
torture then the whole system is at risk. Nonsense.

Wouldn't YOU donate $10 to the defense fund of a person who saved Washington
from a dirty bomb? So would about 10 million other people. Doesn't the
President have the absolute power to pardon anyone from any offense?
Certainly. So the whole "legalize torture" exercise was really all about
seeing how much BS could be shoveled into the average citizen before their
eyes turned brown.

Apparently, it's a boat load.

--
Bobby G.

On Jun 21, 11:04*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message news:4a540190-b519-4bc0-bc5a-

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?

Don't we just send Jack Bauer to take care of it? *These "what if" scenarios
are beginning to sound a little like the "A Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister"
jokes. *The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. *It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. *If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.

It may not be a non-issue if a president shuts down part of the
internet and then gets accused of abuse of power and his political
opponents call for his impeachment.



If a soldier or cop or CIA agent tortured someone and got the codes to shut
down a dirty bomb, no one would be able to successfuly prosecute that person
for saving millions of lives. *Yet that was the scenario used to justify
torturing a whole lot of people who didn't know anything about ANY bombs,
dirty, clean, wet, dry or otherwise. *Oh! *they cried, if we can't legally
torture then the whole system is at risk. *Nonsense.

Wouldn't YOU donate $10 to the defense fund of a person who saved Washington
from a dirty bomb? *So would about 10 million other people.


That is a totally specious argument which looks back AFTER the fact.
It would be rare indeed to know for sure exactly what the results of
any action taken upfront would be. In your hypothetical case, the
information obtained through enhanced interrogation saved a city.
But what about if they believed the person had info, but it turned out
they did not. Then plenty of liberal loons would be donating money
for his defense and demanding the prosecution of those that
interrogated him.



*Doesn't the
President have the absolute power to pardon anyone from any offense?
Certainly. *So the whole "legalize torture" exercise was really all about
seeing how much BS could be shoveled into the average citizen before their
eyes turned brown.

I see. So, the process should be interrogators should do what they
want, with no guidelines or laws as to what is legal. Then, if they
get arrested, they should use their life savings defending themselves
and if convicted, rely on a presidential pardon. Makes no sense to
me. And we almost had this play out a year ago. Only it was the
president and his attorney general that were on the path to
prosecuting those involved with enhanced interrogation from the Bush
administration. And you think Obama was gonna pardon them?







Apparently, it's a boat load.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 11:04 pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message news:4a540190-b519-4bc0-bc5a-

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?

Don't we just send Jack Bauer to take care of it? These "what if"
scenarios
are beginning to sound a little like the "A Priest, a Rabbi and a
Minister"
jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.

It may not be a non-issue if a president shuts down part of the
internet and then gets accused of abuse of power and his political
opponents call for his impeachment.

No one impeached Bush for tapping phone lines without FISA clearing it
first. Since when have a president's opponents NOT called for his
impeachment from everything from a hummer to a torture memo? Few people
realize how damn many insane laws we already have on the books. The tax
codes are similarly grown into Babel-like dimensions. I read somewhere that
the average person in the US commits at least three potential felonies a
day, most without ever realizing it. The laws and the tax codes need
constant review to throw out the crud that builds up, just like any other
sewer pipe. (-: We certainly don't need to add torturing laws to our
panoply of pernicious penal codes.

If a soldier or cop or CIA agent tortured someone and got the codes to
shut
down a dirty bomb, no one would be able to successfully prosecute that
person
for saving millions of lives. Yet that was the scenario used to justify
torturing a whole lot of people who didn't know anything about ANY bombs,
dirty, clean, wet, dry or otherwise. Oh! they cried, if we can't legally
torture then the whole system is at risk. Nonsense.

Wouldn't YOU donate $10 to the defense fund of a person who saved
Washington
from a dirty bomb? So would about 10 million other people.

That is a totally specious argument which looks back AFTER the fact.

Totally specious? Nothing in politics is ever totally anything. "Specious"
is a fun, hi-falutin' claim to throw around, but can you back it? Let's
analyze: If the argument is without merit does that mean you *wouldn't*
donate ten bucks to back up your beliefs and help defend an "enhanced
interrogator?" (-: I'm surprised you don't recognize the "dirty bomb"
argument. I picked it because it's the one most often used to justify
torture. Minus two points for refuting your own charges.

It would be rare indeed to know for sure exactly what the results of
any action taken upfront would be.

Yes! That's exactly right!!! And that's why your torture case makes no
sense. If you can't be sure that you're not torturing an innocent
schoolteacher, why should you be allowed to torture anyone as a sanctioned
government activity? Obviously, you shouldn't, because you can't know
whether he's innocent or not. Are you old enough to remember how incensed
we were as a nation to see our pilots and soldiers put in tiger cages in
'Nam and tortured? If so, how do you square the wildly different attitudes?

Long ago in this country our Founders, after escaping serious British
persecution, decided that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than to
put an innocent man in jail. Our laws are based on this convention.
Torturing suspects turns that basic American precept on its ears. By your
own words, it would be rare indeed to know a) if we got the right suspect
and b) we got the right information and c) if in wasting time torturing the
wrong people, the bad men were able to activate their plot unmolested.

We already know intelligence sources in the government are finite. Yet we
spent an awful lot of time looking for Clinton's semen on a dress while
terrorists planned their attack under our noses. That was unwise as are
most impeachment attempts based on political rather than criminal motives.

Many try, but few actually get the impeachment they seek. Instead, they
deliberately divert precious and limited resources into bitch fights that
just weaken the country and prevent government from doing its business.
Most importantly, it makes us look weak in the face of our *real* enemies.
Especially when after eight years of fighting goat herders, we still can't
win.

No one on either side of the Great American Divide thinks about how
delicious this makes us look to the many credible enemies that still face
us. Some people actually believe we ended the Soviet Union. Where did it
go? To Mars? Did they tank their tanks and nukes? They were once our
ally, then after WWII, they became our enemy. Same with China. The
pendulum always swings. Either could easily be our enemy again and if that
happens, they both have the military muscle to bloody us good, even if we
can wipe them off the earth. It might even be that if Russia and China
combine forces, we won't survive.

In your hypothetical case, the information obtained through enhanced
interrogation saved a city. But what about if they believed the person had
info, but it turned out they did not.

Yes, well, there's the rub. And my entire point. Our entire system of
justice is based on not dragging people in wily nily to torture them. In
fact, our systems demands that information obtained by coercion be thrown
out. So torturing is just as likely to impede justice as achieve it. The
bottom line is that you have to be pretty damn sure you're torturing the
right person and not just dozens of "likely" suspects. That situation is
known as a "police state" and not a democracy. That's why we have a Bill
of Rights and why we utterly rejected the British "Star Chamber" method of
jurisprudence (charitable to call it that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

You'd certainly not want any members of your family tortured because some
moron, as a prank, called the FBI and said your brother was about to bomb
Times Square. Can't happen? The police often act on stale, iffy and even
plain wrong information:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...nocks_dow.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/26083024.html

Do you think it's impossible for someone to gave them very persuasive but
utterly untrue information about your brother that could seriously implicate
him in a terrorist act? Do you truthfully believe that it would be OK to
torture your brother under those circumstances?

That's PRECISELY what we were doing in Iraq. Guilty people, in order to
throw suspicion away from themselves "turned in" anyone they could think of
who then got picked up and tortured (and waterboarding IS torture, no
euphemism like "enhanced interrogation" can change that). The same terrible
thing happens wherever people are treated inhumanely from the Warsaw Ghetto
to Stalinist Russia to the Gaza Strip.

The biggest problem with torture? Things like the Abu Ghirab photos. That,
my military buds tell me, really set back the war effort in Iraq.

Then plenty of liberal loons would be donating money
for his defense and demanding the prosecution of those that
interrogated him.

There are plenty of loons on both sides of the fence. Conservatives were
willing to tie the FBI and other agencies into knots trying to prove Clinton
'lawyer lied' about a blow job. You obviously fear something like that
happen because you've seen it used by Republicans. Yet "cursed" Obama
*refused* to prosecute people his own AG thought had committed crimes. Can
you explain how that concrete action fits in with your theories? The idea
of dragging a sitting president of ANY party through sex offense trials is
not a good one. It's up to well-balanced citizens not to give into lunacy
on either side of the aisle.

If you're familiar with the writings of our founding Fathers, you'd know
that they were rolling in their graves over our torture debate. They
founded America precisely to put an end to torture and secret legal
proceedings and all that sort of nonsense. We fought a war and thousands of
Americans died precisely because we despised the Nazis, their Gestapo and
their horrific treatment of other human beings. And suddenly we threw that
all away because we got scared of a terrorist attack that was we could have
prevented by locking cabin doors and not insisting that people let hijackers
have their way during a hijack. It's a good thing at least some heroic
Americans decided to nullify that last bit of bad advice over Pennsylvania
farmland and saved God knows how many lives.

Your objection is based on the fear that average citizens (loony liberals, I
believe you said) won't know what the right thing is to do. Those people in
the plane, some of them quite liberal I am sure, knew what they had to do
and they did it. To say you're afraid that someone who tortured a man AND
got the codes that stopped a holocaust would lose his fortune or liberty
insults the memory of those people on Flight 93 who died doing the right
thing. So please, find another more credible reason to legalize torture
other than Americans don't know when it's time to say "Let's roll."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

The Constitution, which has been under outrageous attack lately, and the
follow-on Bill of Rights are pretty clear about "Cruel and Unusual
Punishment" even if the last administration was able to find a lawyer to
stand that premise on its ear. That was about the only time I can remember
Republicans liking lawyers for anything. Usually, the party line is that
America is being destroyed by lawyers. Odd that in this case, they happened
to be right.

Doesn't the
President have the absolute power to pardon anyone from any offense?
Certainly. So the whole "legalize torture" exercise was really all about
seeing how much BS could be shoveled into the average citizen before their
eyes turned brown.

I see. So, the process should be interrogators should do what they
want, with no guidelines or laws as to what is legal.

Fascinating how you got to that point from what I wrote and what is well
known fact. Interrogation techniques have been precisely spelled out for a
long time. Bush & Co. simply wanted to add torture to them in direct
contravention to the spirit of the Constitution they profess to revere so
dearly. And the Geneva Convention. And the very precise Army regulations
regarding interrogation. If we legalize torture, what's left to separate
us from the nations we held up as the enemies of freedom and democracy?

If you read *carefully* what I said, it was that no one will convict anyone
of torture if torture gets them the codes that stop the attack. That means
if you are going to go outside the regs, you HAVE to be sure. A hunch or
the word of a prankster, a disgruntled neighbor, a truly guilty terrorist
trying to misdirect authorities are NOT sufficient reasons to torture
people. If, however, an investigator had information that was SO persuasive
that a reasonable man might have done the same, then no one would convict
him. No on got convicted for concocting the story about WMD's that lead to
the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, did they?

Then, if they get arrested, they should use their life savings defending
themselves and if convicted, rely on a presidential pardon.

If they break the law, that's what happens. The law was pretty clear until
Bush, Cheney and Co. decided to make it legal to torture people and stand
two hundred years of precedent on its ear. The law stands as a barrier to
cowboyism. The law stands to protect you, me and every citizen from being
dragged somewhere, branded an enemy combatant and tortured (some to death)
because someone, without review by a judge or competent legal authority,
believes they "know something." Isn't that what they call a police state?
Isn't that what we both grew up believing was wrong and what commies and
Nazis did?

Makes no sense to me. And we almost had this play out a year ago. Only it
was the president and his attorney general that were on the path to
prosecuting those involved with enhanced interrogation from the Bush
administration.

But they didn't. So that effectively scales, guts and fries that red
herring. Got more? It's a tasty fish when well prepared. I'll fry all
the "talking point red herrings" you can sling at me. I'll admit I am
impressed that you've turned Obama declining to prosecute people that you're
afraid will be prosecuted by loony liberals into a negative.

Despite what you're claiming, sensible people don't prosecute people if they
believe they were operating within the law, even if the law is bad.
Similarly, they wouldn't prosecute a hero that beat some guy to mush to get
the abort codes for a dirty bomb. They would give him a parade. Any
contentions concerning loony liberals conspiring to criminalize such a hero
are not credible. Especially since Obama's disproved your theory but not
prosecuting anyone from the torture scandal, instead choosing to let the
nation heal.

And you think Obama was gonna pardon them?

Doesn't his refusal to prosecute the people involved in demonstrable acts of
torture put the lie to your contention?. He didn't HAVE to pardon them
because he DECLINED to prosecute them. That's even a step shorter than
you're positing and soundly proves my belief that no one would be prosecuted
for torturing someone and getting life-saving information. If the torturer
can't provide irrefutable proof that torture was called for, then he might
be in trouble. The difference here is codifying inhuman behavior versus
excusing it if it works and no other options would have. Those are very
disparate positions.

I didn't think Obama was going to send more troops to Afghanistan, did you
(or any other conservative?). But he did. So I take folks who think a hero
who saves a city would be prosecuted by liberal loonies as a beyond
specious. Specious is an adjective that means plausible, but deceptive;
apparently, but not actually true; superficially attractive. I find nothing
attractive at all in assuming Americans are too stupid to pardon a man that
had saved a city from a terrorist attack by torture.

--
Bobby G.

On Jun 22, 9:44*am, wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:04*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message news:4a540190-b519-4bc0-bc5a-

So, if a president has information obtained from multiple captured
terrorists and other sources that appears highly likely to be valid
and it indicates that a massive internet attack against the US is
going to be launched tonight using internet service provider X, you
don't want the president to have the authority to temporarily shut
down that ISP?

Don't we just send Jack Bauer to take care of it? *These "what if" scenarios
are beginning to sound a little like the "A Priest, a Rabbi and a Minister"
jokes. *The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. *It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. *If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.

It may not be a non-issue if a president shuts down part of the
internet and then gets accused of abuse of power and his political
opponents call for his impeachment.



If a soldier or cop or CIA agent tortured someone and got the codes to shut
down a dirty bomb, no one would be able to successfuly prosecute that person
for saving millions of lives. *Yet that was the scenario used to justify
torturing a whole lot of people who didn't know anything about ANY bombs,
dirty, clean, wet, dry or otherwise. *Oh! *they cried, if we can't legally
torture then the whole system is at risk. *Nonsense.

Wouldn't YOU donate $10 to the defense fund of a person who saved Washington


Heh Heh Heh. You see what I mean about Hollywood education! I'm sure
this is from the plot of a Hollywood film. "The codes to shut down
a dirty bomb"
I call it cloud cuckoo land. Paranioa.
If I had a dirty bomb, there would be no little flashing lights with
numbers going to zero. There would be no way of shutting it down. I'd
get a suicide bomber to press the big red button. Boom!
We hung people after WW2 for torture. Bush and Bliar are war
criminals. They both need hanging.
Depressing that morals in the USA have sunk so low.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.
No, but the Secretary of Transportation has thought authority and
it was Minetta who ordered the planes down. According to the book on the
subject from Bob Woodward, Mineta did that all by his lonesome.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Jun 22, 8:11*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:



jokes. *The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened after
9/11. *It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. *If it needs doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.

* * * *No, but the Secretary of Transportation has thought authority and
it was Minetta who ordered the planes down. According to the book on the
subject from Bob Woodward, Mineta did that all by his lonesome.

Assuming Mineta did have the authority (to do what he did), that
authority came from the President. Cabinet members only have the
powers they are delegated by the President.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to
order the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what
happened after 9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture
business. If it needs doing, there's always a way to get it done in
America.
No, but the Secretary of Transportation has thought authority
and it was Minetta who ordered the planes down. According to the book
on the subject from Bob Woodward, Mineta did that all by his lonesome.

Sorry, it was not Mineta.

1010 Cleveland AFSS (Automated Flight Service Station) orders ATC-0 for the
Cleveland Sector.

1024 All inbound flights from Europe diverted to Canada.

Shortly thereafter, New York Air Traffic Control Center, Air Traffic
Management, OMIC (Ops Manager in Charge) orders nation-wide ATC-0. In the
words made famous by the FAA director: "This **** stops NOW! ATC-0
nationwide. All planes aloft to land at the nearest airport."

Sometime after that, Leon Mineta awakend.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


jokes. The President doesn't have specific legislative authority to
order
the cessation of all air flights, but that's precisely what happened
after
9/11. It's a non-issue, just like the torture business. If it needs
doing,
there's always a way to get it done in America.
No, but the Secretary of Transportation has thought authority and
it was Minetta who ordered the planes down. According to the book on the
subject from Bob Woodward, Mineta did that all by his lonesome.

And remember Al Haig's "Don't worry, I am in charge!" press conference?
There's no accounting for delusional underlings in either party and no
shortage of them at any time.

What interested me much more were the statements that flight 93 had been
brought down by US fighter jets and not cockpit chaos. Knowing just a
little about how the chain of command works, I doubt at that point in time
there was any realistic way to get that to happen within the allotted time
frame. Grounding planes is one thing; shooting them down (especially one
of our own civil air liners) is quite another.

It's very likely that there's now a streamlined policy at work that *could*
manage to shoot down a plane heading for a suicide strike but it's much more
likely they would try to force it down or divert it. I'm not a pilot, but I
believe the Saudi terrorists that were at the controls would have lost
"mission focus" having to contend with fighter jets messing with them. I'll
even bet that Rand or the IDA have war-gamed 100's of 9/11 scenarios for the
government and there are a lot of contingency plans in place. Let's hope
they are better plans than the "Walrus" plans MMS approved for BP's "Big
Dump" deepsea well (which is falling in rank in the headlines just as I
predicted - another two months and days will go by without a BP story).

--
Bobby G.

On Jun 20, 5:41*am, harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287695/Obama-given-ri...

harry wrote:
~Interesting link for y'all.
I thought Obama was supposed to be a "liberal"/

I thought this was supposed to be a forum on home repair.