[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 6:18:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > sparaig@ writes:
> > 
> > Of  curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: 
should the  
> > president be 
> > allowed to ignore the law?
> > 
> > The law states that the law  enforcement types most get a warrant 
to monitor 
> > calls of the 
> > relevant kind  within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.
> > 
> > The President never  bothered to have his people do this. IN 
fact, since it 
> > is standard  
> > procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless 
told  
> > otherwise, someone 
> > must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the  law.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As I have now said in a couple of other posts, the issue as you 
state also  
> > involves presidential powers in a time of war when national 
security is  
> > involved. Presidential authority and powers can and has changed 
numerous times  
> > through out our history during wars.
> >
> 
> Show me the Constitutional basis for this "change in powers."

The administration argues that the Iraq war resolution
allows Bush to take whatever measures he thinks are
necessary.  According to Gonzales:

"Now, we do not have to decide whether, when we're at war
and there is a vital need for the terrorist surveillance
program, FISA unconstitutionally encroaches or places an
unconstitutional constraint upon the President's Article
II powers. We can avoid that tough question because
Congress gave the President the force resolution [i.e.,
to use force against Iraq], and that statute removes any
possible tension between what Congress said in 1978 in
FISA and the President's constitutional authority today."

Yes, by all means, let's try to find a way to avoid "tough
questions" over whether an action is constitutional or not.

(I said in an earlier post that FISA was passed in 1972;
it was actually 1978.)

Notice that Gonzales refers to warrantless wiretapping
here as "the terrorist surveillance program," as if the
FISA law already in place didn't provide for a perfectly
good terrorist surveillance program that doesn't
"encroach upon" the ability to wiretap terrorist suspects
in the slightest.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- kenwoodfx  wrote:
> > 
> > > If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> > > but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> > > in this important time in world history.
> > > People who wants to do good will not think like
> > > that.
> > > Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> > > and should come and do good for the world, not
> > > thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> > > his existence.
> > 
> > Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
> > thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
> > ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
> > drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
> > something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
> > pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
> > together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
> > for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
> > fops that have ruined the movement with there
> > sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
> > suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
> > original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
> > MMY's curse and you don't even know it.
> 
> Jeez, and people think *I'm* rude and harsh.


No, we think you're annoying.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- kenwoodfx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> > but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> > in this important time in world history.
> > People who wants to do good will not think like
> > that.
> > Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> > and should come and do good for the world, not
> > thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> > his existence.
> 
> Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
> thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
> ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
> drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
> something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
> pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
> together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
> for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
> fops that have ruined the movement with there
> sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
> suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
> original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
> MMY's curse and you don't even know it. 



Well said!

Yes, it is these horrible people that surround MMY and do NOT tell 
him like it is that has destroyed the Movement.

There are, indeed, MMY's curse.





> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Dominant force?

[cardemaister]

[...] just within the last three or four years we physicists
have been *shocked out of our minds* [not sure that's exactly
the phrase Kaku used; that's how I perceived it] to realize that
antigravity is the dominant force in the entire universe!

- physicist Michio Kaku in "The Virtual Magician".

http://www.virtualmagician.com/html/tv_series.html






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 6:29:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > sparaig@ writes:
> > 
> > Did you  miss the fact that the Pres can obtain the warrant 
> > within 48 hours AFTER the wiretap starts?
> > 
> > No not at all.
> 
> So you think that a congressional law passed during the "War on
> Terror" can be circumvented by the Pres because he disagrees with 
> Congress?

It wasn't passed during the "War on Terror."  It was
passed back in 1972 as part of the fallout from Watergate.

Notice that MDixon "forgot" to explain why the fact
that a warrant isn't required until 72 (not 48) hours
after the wiretap starts doesn't eliminate the need
for the administration to be able to wiretap without
a warrant.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 6:33:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > sparaig@ writes:
> > 
> > As I  mentioned earlier the date of your poll was in January or 
2006. The 
> > >  date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed 
their minds 
> > and  
> > > support the program in place once they heard the  debate.
> > >
> > 
> > Or had forgotten the debate in the first  place.
> > 
> > What do the polls show now about the President vs the  courts.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Spair, why do you think people in general are stupid and can't 
remember the  
> > debate? As for the polls now? I haven't seen any. I think most 
people want to  
> > wait and see what the courts say, even through the appeal. I 
personally don't 
> >  think many people are that informed on both sides of the issue, 
but I do 
> > think  most people want the NSA program in place since it has 
been so successful. 
> > You  never know how this is going to go down in the Supreme 
Court. They may 
> > agree  whole heartedly with this first judge and then again they 
may agree with 
> > the  president. Or they may say yeah its a good idea but the FISA 
laws need  
> > to  be tweaked one way or another to be able to leave it in  
place.
> >
> 
> Just how sucessful has this new program been, as compared to one
> that would have actually followed the law?

NOBODY KNOWS, or the public certainly doesn't, because
it's a national security matter, according to the
administration, and is therefore classified.

Just *imagine* that argument being proposed by
a Hillary Clinton administration.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:

> > > The poll didn't mention specifically warrantless wire taps but 
> > > that issue had been debated all Winter and Spring, even 
> > > mentioning it in the Democratic poll, so the public was quite 
> > > aware of what was going on and still 65% answered that they
> > > thought it was important enough even if it intruded on 
> > > their privacy.  Only that hard core 30+% absolutely rejected 
> > > any intrusion of privacy. After all  the poll clearly was about 
> > > what was going on in the NSA, not some fictitious scenario
> > > and the public has been very aware that warrants were  not 
> > > being asked for or issued on incoming calls from  terrorists.
> > 
> > It is a *VERY* weak argument, verging on desperation,
> > to claim everyone who took the poll not only understood
> > that the question meant this or that when it was not
> > mentioned at all, but that they went ahead and answered
> > based on that purported understanding.
> > 
> > Poll questions ask what they ask, not what you imagine
> > those polled mentally added to the questions.
>
> That's why poll questions are supposed to be concise and not just 
short.

It's not just that.  If the administration has been
using drowning as a method of execution, and there's
been a big debate about whether it's appropriate, and
you take a poll asking, "Do you approve of capital
punishment?" and a majority answers "Yes," you don't
report that a majority is in favor of including
drowning as a method of execution.

And if there has recently been a court ruling forbidding
drowning as a method, you don't say, "Most people want
the current methods of capital punishment in place and
it is still going on while it is appealed. So nothing
has really changed and probably won't till the Supreme
Court hears it."

That's just deliberately misleading, with intent to
deceive.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 6:30:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > com writes:
> > 
> > But that  didn't come up, did it?
> > 
> > As it was, it had one HUGE flaw with regard to  the
> > issue currently in the courts: It didn't even
> > mention  it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The poll didn't mention specifically warrantless wire taps but that 
> issue  
> > had been debated all Winter and Spring, even mentioning it in the 
> Democratic  
> > poll, so the public was quite aware of what was going on and still 
> 65% answered  
> > that they thought it was important enough even if it intruded on 
> their 
> > privacy.  Only that hard core 30+% absolutely rejected any 
> intrusion of privacy. 
> > After all  the poll clearly was about what was going on in the NSA, 
> not some  
> > fictitious scenario and the public has been very aware that 
> warrants were  not 
> > being asked for or issued on incoming calls from  terrorists.
> 
> It is a *VERY* weak argument, verging on desperation,
> to claim everyone who took the poll not only understood
> that the question meant this or that when it was not
> mentioned at all, but that they went ahead and answered
> based on that purported understanding.
> 
> Poll questions ask what they ask, not what you imagine
> those polled mentally added to the questions.
>

That's why poll questions are supposed to be concise and not just short.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:33:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> As I  mentioned earlier the date of your poll was in January or 2006. The 
> >  date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed their minds 
> and  
> > support the program in place once they heard the  debate.
> >
> 
> Or had forgotten the debate in the first  place.
> 
> What do the polls show now about the President vs the  courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spair, why do you think people in general are stupid and can't remember the  
> debate? As for the polls now? I haven't seen any. I think most people want to 
>  
> wait and see what the courts say, even through the appeal. I personally don't 
>  think many people are that informed on both sides of the issue, but I do 
> think  most people want the NSA program in place since it has been so 
> successful. 
> You  never know how this is going to go down in the Supreme Court. They may 
> agree  whole heartedly with this first judge and then again they may agree 
> with 
> the  president. Or they may say yeah its a good idea but the FISA laws need  
> to  be tweaked one way or another to be able to leave it in  place.
>

Just how sucessful has this new program been, as compared to one that would 
have 
actually followed the law?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our future is being drugged away

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "clucere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this Jeff.  My friends child is on ADHD drugs and he 
> is trying to find an alternative.  I will forward this article to him.

You mean beyond TM? 

BTW, Daniel Amit has been doing brain imaging on his potentially ADHD patients 
for many 
years and it is at least partly due to his clinicial experience with people who 
were NOT on 
ADHD medication when they were scanned, that has led to the current theories.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:31:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> "Silly  red tape" is one of the lies the Republicans
> have been pushing during the  "debate." Nobody is
> tied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA  requirements.
> The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly on
> incoming  phone calls that are a matter of national
> security.
> 
> So that argument  is a total crock.
> 
> 
> 
> I put that "silly red tape" line in there just for you Spair. I knew it  
> would get a rise out of you. Actually the courts will decide whether it is 
> silly  
> or not. The President and his legal advisors say there is enough wiggle room 
> in  the law that would allow him to bypass the warrants in time of war and 
> national  security. Phone calls can trickle in and then they can flood in at 
> rate 
> that it  would be necessary to have a judge 24/7 on site. Quite frankly while 
> you  obviously don't trust Bush  to be tapping only terrorist threats, I  
> personally don't trust a lot of federal judges and their sense of  judgement. 
> We 
> constantly see judges letting criminals off the hook that go  out and kill 
> somebody later. Do you really want a federal judge to determine  whether 
> Abdul 
> Hafsomjammi  calling from Teheran is not a threat or not thus  not allowing 
> the 
> NSA to tape his conversation or intercept more of his  calls?
>

Do you really want the Pres to be able to decide this? What about Pres Hillary?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:29:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Did you  miss the fact that the Pres can obtain the warrant within 48 hours 
> AFTER the  
> wiretap starts?
> 
> 
> 
> No not at all.
>

So you think that a congressional law passed during the "War on Terror" can be 
circumvented 
by the Pres because he disagrees with Congress?





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:29:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  funny, didn't see you answer the poll.
> 
> Nor did  I.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't direct my answer directly to Spair. It may have been to you. But I  
> did address the same poll earlier.
>


??? MY poll was my own invention. Are you now able to answer my posts before 
they are 
submitted?







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:17:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> The  administration *admits* it wasn't acting within
> the law as written. It  claims it has the right to
> disregard the law in this  case.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo. And that is where the courts come into play. Presidential powers  can 
> change in times of war and issues  of national  security.
>

Where in the Constitution does it say this?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:18:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Of  curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: should the  
> president be 
> allowed to ignore the law?
> 
> The law states that the law  enforcement types most get a warrant to monitor 
> calls of the 
> relevant kind  within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.
> 
> The President never  bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, since it 
> is standard  
> procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told  
> otherwise, someone 
> must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the  law.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have now said in a couple of other posts, the issue as you state also  
> involves presidential powers in a time of war when national security is  
> involved. Presidential authority and powers can and has changed numerous 
> times  
> through out our history during wars.
>

Show me the Constitutional basis for this "change in powers."





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Fun with Dick and Jane

[bob_brigante]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/fashion/20gender.html





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[jyouells2000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- kenwoodfx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> > but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> > in this important time in world history.
> > People who wants to do good will not think like
> > that.
> > Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> > and should come and do good for the world, not
> > thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> > his existence.
> 
> Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
> thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
> ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
> drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
> something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
> pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
> together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
> for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
> fops that have ruined the movement with there
> sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
> suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
> original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
> MMY's curse and you don't even know it. 


Great stuff, too bad there's almost no one left to hear it! 

"Next you'll be telling us that the
pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
together hard enough."

Truely a line for the Pundit Hall of Fame!

JohnY 
(Best laugh I've had all day - Thanks!) 






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[bob_brigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- kenwoodfx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> > but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> > in this important time in world history.
> > People who wants to do good will not think like
> > that.
> > Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> > and should come and do good for the world, not
> > thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> > his existence.
> 


> Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
> thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
> ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
> drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
> something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
> pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
> together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
> for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
> fops that have ruined the movement with there
> sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
> suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
> original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
> MMY's curse and you don't even know it. 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>



http://50.lycos.com/041604.asp





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- kenwoodfx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> > but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> > in this important time in world history.
> > People who wants to do good will not think like
> > that.
> > Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> > and should come and do good for the world, not
> > thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> > his existence.
> 
> Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
> thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
> ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
> drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
> something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
> pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
> together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
> for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
> fops that have ruined the movement with there
> sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
> suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
> original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
> MMY's curse and you don't even know it.

Jeez, and people think *I'm* rude and harsh.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: New new Poll

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sparaig wrote:

> >Should President GW Bush be allowed to violate a law set by
> >Congress if it is ruled a constitutional law?
> >
> >Yes, no, not sure.
> >
> >If the answer to the first question was yes, answer this question:
> >If she is elected president, should President Hillary Rodham 
> >Clinton be allowed to violate the law in the first question?
> >
> >Yes, no, not sure.
> >
> No.

I pointed out earlier that the risk with warrantless
wiretapping is that the administration can then have
NSA wiretap anybody they want, terrorist or not.

I was amused to see the Hillary Clinton argument being
made by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News's resident
legal expert, in a discussion with Bill O'Reilly on
The Radio Factor, with reference to President Hillary
Clinton.  Here's the transcript:

O'REILLY: ...The country's coming down 60-40, basically saying we 
want to be protected, we do not feel our rights are being violated by 
the NSA eavesdropping or the [USA] Patriot Act.

NAPOLITANO: Would you feel this way if Hillary [Clinton] were 
president?

O'REILLY: Yeah.

NAPOLITANO: Because then, you know, the pro-life and the pro-gun 
will -- they'll be targets of warrantless searches.

O'REILLY: No, but -- not unless they're dealing --

NAPOLITANO: And maybe conservative commentators will be targets of 
warrantless searches.

O'REILLY: Not unless we're dealing with Al Qaeda, correct? Aren't I 
correct?

NAPOLITANO: If she has to go to a judge, like FISA [Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act], she'd have to demonstrate the 
connection to Al Qaeda. If she doesn't have to go to a judge,
she can pick whoever she wants.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601130008

Generally speaking, the left would trust President
Hillary Clinton not to abuse warrantless wiretapping,
but not Bush; and the right would trust Bush but not
Hillary.

The point is: If you don't trust *both* of them, you
can't let *either* of them do it.



For takedowns of media distortion of the NSA
program, see the list on this page and following:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/domestic_spying







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[Peter]

--- kenwoodfx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If someone is rejected, there is a reason for that,
> but that is not a reason for not coming in the Dome
> in this important time in world history.
> People who wants to do good will not think like
> that.
> Everyone who is invited is invited with good reason,
> and should come and do good for the world, not
> thinking about what small ego says, being afraid for
> his existence.

Ken ,you mood making twit. Do you have an original
thought. Seems like you lost your balls a long time
ago. How's your yoni? MMY has been beating this silly
drum for decades (are you new canon fodder or
something?). Next you'll be telling us that the
pundits will come if we just squeeze our butt checks
together hard enough. Ahh. Wonderful rajasic outburst
for the day! I can't stand these mood-making, Capital
fops that have ruined the movement with there
sing-songy little girl voices wearing their light tan
suits and so terrified of aggression or asserting an
original thought. The greatest irony is that you are
MMY's curse and you don't even know it. 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Eckankar: Are the teachings true?

[Peter]

Freud's long lost brother?

--- battuta_maghreb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Explore the origins of the religion called Eckankar
> in this short video:
> 
> 
>  
>

> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:33:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> As I  mentioned earlier the date of your poll was in January or 
2006. The 
> >  date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed 
their minds 
> and  
> > support the program in place once they heard the  debate.
> >
> 
> Or had forgotten the debate in the first  place.
> 
> What do the polls show now about the President vs the  courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spair, why do you think people in general are stupid and can't
> remember the  debate? As for the polls now? I haven't seen any. I 
> think most people want to  wait and see what the courts say, even 
> through the appeal. I personally don't think many people are that 
> informed on both sides of the issue, but I do think  most people 
> want the NSA program in place since it has been so successful.

Nobody is against the NSA program, MDixon.  What they're
against is WARRANTLESS wiretapping.

And we have no idea whether WARRANTLESS wiretapping
has been successful, because the results of it are
classified.

It was not used, incidentally, in the recent arrests
in Great Britain.  All the wiretapping in that case
was done on the basis of warrants.


 
> You  never know how this is going to go down in the Supreme Court. 
They may 
> agree  whole heartedly with this first judge and then again they 
may agree with 
> the  president. Or they may say yeah its a good idea but the FISA 
laws need  
> to  be tweaked one way or another to be able to leave it in  place.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:31:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> "Silly  red tape" is one of the lies the Republicans
> have been pushing during the  "debate." Nobody is
> tied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA  requirements.
> The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly on
> incoming  phone calls that are a matter of national
> security.
> 
> So that argument  is a total crock.
> 
> I put that "silly red tape" line in there just for you Spair.

That's me, MDixon, not Lawson.

 I knew it  
> would get a rise out of you. Actually the courts will decide
> whether it is silly or not. The President and his legal advisors 
> say there is enough wiggle room in  the law that would allow him to 
> bypass the warrants in time of war and national  security. Phone 
> calls can trickle in and then they can flood in at rate 
> that it  would be necessary to have a judge 24/7 on site.

No, the whole point of warrantless wiretapping is
so a judge does not HAVE to approve it before the
fact.  They have 72 hours to make the case for the
need for the wiretap.

 Quite frankly while 
> you  obviously don't trust Bush  to be tapping only terrorist 
threats, I  
> personally don't trust a lot of federal judges and their sense of  
judgement.

Only a tiny handful of requests have been turned
down by the FISA judges, out of the hundreds 
(thousands, probably) that have been made.  And in
the case of an urgent request, that would be 72
hours after the wiretapping had begun.  If they
can't demonstrate that there's good reason to
suspect the folks they're wiretapping have
terrorist connections after 72 hours of
wiretapping, chances are excellent there isn't
any.

 We 
> constantly see judges letting criminals off the hook that go  out 
and kill 
> somebody later. Do you really want a federal judge to determine  
whether Abdul 
> Hafsomjammi  calling from Teheran is not a threat or not thus  not 
allowing the 
> NSA to tape his conversation or intercept more of his  calls?

Again, this has almost never happened.  Remember,
the judges who give the approval are members of
the FISA court, not just any old federal judges.
They were appointed to the FISA court specifically
for the purpose of approving wiretaps; they have
expertise in just that area.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] FISA (was Re: Something fishy)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- authfriend wrote:
> >
> > --- Gillam wrote:
> > > 
> > > What do the Bushies have against getting a court 
> > > order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
> > > Act? In all the kerfuffle, I've yet to hear why they 
> > > don't want to follow the process already set up 
> > > for such stuff.
> > 
> > They claim it takes too long, but that's a crock;
> > they're explicitly allowed to wiretap without a
> > warrant for 48 hours (or is it 72?) exactly so 
> > that getting a warrant won't impede an urgent
> > investigation.
> 
> Does anybody here listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch 
> Fox news or indulge in other conservative media? 
> MDixon? Shemp? Do those news sources give a reason
> why the Bush administration doesn't want to follow
> the established system for wiretap warrants?

Patrick, here it is from the horse's mouth, Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales, in a speech at Georgetown
University on January 24, 2006:

...I keep hearing, "Why not FISA? Why didn't the President get orders 
from the FISA court approving these N.S.A. intercepts of al-Qaeda 
communications?" We have to remember that we're talking about a 
wartime foreign intelligence program. It is an early warning system 
with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the 
United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is 
imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, 
immediately, and without delay whenever communications associated 
with al-Qaeda enter or leave the United States. 

Now, some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-
called emergency authorizations of surveillance for 72 hours without 
a court order. I think that there is a serious misconception about 
these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not 
approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive 
court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires me, the Attorney 
General, to determine in advance that a FISA application for that 
particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by 
the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. And that 
review process itself can take precious time. 

To initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is 
not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers 
alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the signoff of 
lawyers at the N.S.A. that all provisions of FISA have been 
satisfied. Then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be 
similarly satisfied. And finally, as Attorney General, I would have 
to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And 
then we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA 
application within the 72 hours. 

We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on 
our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in 
almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United 
States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was 
enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terror and one that 
we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al-Qaeda 
and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the 
terrorist surveillance program operated by the N.S.A. requires a 
maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make 
the difference between success and failure in preventing the next 
attack, and we cannot afford to fail. 

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/4071/26/

In other words: They don't want to have to worry
about whether there is sufficient justification 
to initiate a wiretap.



> 
> I really need to get back to reading the Wall Street 
> Journal. I felt the journalism was quite objective, 
> perhaps a bit liberal, but the editorial page was a
> bracing dose of conservative Kool-Aid.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:30:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com writes:
> 
> But that  didn't come up, did it?
> 
> As it was, it had one HUGE flaw with regard to  the
> issue currently in the courts: It didn't even
> mention  it.
> 
> 
> 
> The poll didn't mention specifically warrantless wire taps but that 
issue  
> had been debated all Winter and Spring, even mentioning it in the 
Democratic  
> poll, so the public was quite aware of what was going on and still 
65% answered  
> that they thought it was important enough even if it intruded on 
their 
> privacy.  Only that hard core 30+% absolutely rejected any 
intrusion of privacy. 
> After all  the poll clearly was about what was going on in the NSA, 
not some  
> fictitious scenario and the public has been very aware that 
warrants were  not 
> being asked for or issued on incoming calls from  terrorists.

It is a *VERY* weak argument, verging on desperation,
to claim everyone who took the poll not only understood
that the question meant this or that when it was not
mentioned at all, but that they went ahead and answered
based on that purported understanding.

Poll questions ask what they ask, not what you imagine
those polled mentally added to the questions.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[jyouells2000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, kenwoodfx  
> wrote:
> >
> > Do not listen these little voices thinking on who`s winning or 
> who`s loosing.
> > Everyone is winning when more and more people come to fly together 
> in the Dome.
> > This is time for open heart and mind for everyone, this is time 
> for togetherness, friendliness and broad and universal vision.
> > The world is asking us to do the most possible for the world peace.
> > We are those who know that, and we will do the best with our 
> knowledge which we got from our Master and our Holy Tradition.
> > Come everyone, and let us do the best what we can for our world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollow words to those that have, in the past, come to the door and 
> were greeted with a very, merry "Fuck off!".
> 
> 
Well and concisely said.

JohnY





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] FISA (was Re: Something fishy) Yuk!

[Robert Gimbel]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- authfriend wrote:
> >
> > --- Gillam wrote:
> > > 
> > > What do the Bushies have against getting a court 
> > > order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
> > > Act? In all the kerfuffle, I've yet to hear why they 
> > > don't want to follow the process already set up 
> > > for such stuff.
> > 
> > They claim it takes too long, but that's a crock;
> > they're explicitly allowed to wiretap without a
> > warrant for 48 hours (or is it 72?) exactly so 
> > that getting a warrant won't impede an urgent
> > investigation.
> 
> Does anybody here listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch 
> Fox news or indulge in other conservative media? 
> MDixon? Shemp? Do those news sources give a reason
> why the Bush administration doesn't want to follow
> the established system for wiretap warrants?
> 
> I really need to get back to reading the Wall Street 
> Journal. I felt the journalism was quite objective, 
> perhaps a bit liberal, but the editorial page was a
> bracing dose of conservative Kool-Aid.

Sounds like to me, it just gives then more freedom,
To tap whomever they wish.
And also with the 'data mining';
There might not be a specific target;
But a 'profile match' type thing.

We have to remember this computer stuff;
Travels at the speed of light...
So, I presume another main reason is speed.
Only one problem with that, though;

When speed was really required, to capture:
Osama bin Laden, at Tora Bora.
No troops ever arrived in time, to trap him.
Special Ops on the ground, were listening to him;
Telling his men, that he was sorry he led them into a trap.
As we know, because of lack of speed, for the requested additional 
forces;

Osama was never captured, and actually President Bush has said;
That the Osama released talk, the Friday before the election;
Helped to re-elect Bushie, to his second term.
I remember that day;
Feeling so tired...
"Something fishy is up";
I thought to myself.

Beside, Bush's attitude is so arrogant still;
I think quite similar in nature, in a strange way;
To the President of Iran.
Like weird reflections of one another's lust for power.
Just an observation...
So, I think Bush just thinks;
He is the 'War President';
We are at war;
And he is somewhat 'All-Powerful.
He talks to G*d, concerning invading Iraq;
Instead of his old man; who knew not to go in.
He's just the same old Texan Crazy George Bushie Jr.

So, whoever voted for him;
Not sure what they think;
They must be really confused.
Or think we just got fooled again.
R.G.  Seattle.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[Bhairitu]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
>In a message dated 8/19/06 6:04:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>I Have  to stand by the Poll as it is. People have known from the get go that 
>  
>
>> the calls in question, that are tapped with out a warrant, are calls 
>>
>>
>coming  
>  
>
>>into the US from suspected terrorists and most people don't care if  they 
>>
>>
>are 
>  
>
>>tapped without a warrant. Tapping citizens on domestic calls  without a 
>>warrant is an entirely different  situation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So you believ e that the President of teh USA  doesn't have to follow a law 
>set by Congress?
>
>
>
>
>I didn't say that at all. I think the more appropriate question is does the  
>president have the authority to wire tap without a warrant involving  national 
>security in a time of war. Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, FDR did a  number 
>of things that would make the hair stand on end of democrats today, one  of 
>them was interring Japanese Americans in camps.
>
What exactly is wrong with him getting a warrant?  The country isn't 
exactly crawling with terrorists.   Terrrorism is just an excuse they 
use to take away our rights that they don't like we peons having.  
That's part of the NeoCon doctrine.  We need to fight them every step of 
the way just as if they are terrorists which they are in my book whether 
YOU like it or not.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] New new Poll

[Bhairitu]

sparaig wrote:

>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>And as somebody pointed out awhile back, for
>>those who *do* trust Bush, there is one absolutely
>>ironclad rebuttal to their argument that the
>>administration should be able to wiretap anyone it
>>pleases without a warrant:
>>
>>President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Should President GW Bush be allowed to violate a law set by Congress if it is 
>ruled a 
>constitutional law?
>
>Yes, no, not sure.
>
>If the answer to the first question was yes, answer this question:
>If she is elected president, should President Hillary Rodham Clinton be 
>allowed to violate 
>the law in the first question?
>
>Yes, no, not sure.
>
No.



To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:33:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I 
  mentioned earlier the date of your poll was in January or 2006. The > 
  date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed their minds and 
  > support the program in place once they heard the 
  debate.>Or had forgotten the debate in the first 
  place.What do the polls show now about the President vs the 
  courts.

Spair, why do you think people in general are stupid and can't remember the 
debate? As for the polls now? I haven't seen any. I think most people want to 
wait and see what the courts say, even through the appeal. I personally don't 
think many people are that informed on both sides of the issue, but I do think 
most people want the NSA program in place since it has been so successful. You 
never know how this is going to go down in the Supreme Court. They may agree 
whole heartedly with this first judge and then again they may agree with the 
president. Or they may say yeah its a good idea but the FISA laws need  to 
be tweaked one way or another to be able to leave it in 
place.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our future is being drugged away

[clucere]

Thanks for posting this Jeff.  My friends child is on ADHD drugs and he 
is trying to find an alternative.  I will forward this article to him.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Testimony to the State of Georgia Senate
> Re: Senate Bill 430—TeenScreen
> by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
> August 16, 2006
>  
> Whether you speak of teen-screen, infant-screen, toddler-screen or 
> elder-screen (they are all on their way to the nearest school), 
> there is one thing you need to know about psychiatric diagnosis: 
> there is no such thing as a psychiatric "disorder," "disease," 
> or, "chemical imbalance."  And yet, psychiatry, Big Pharma, the 
> House, Senate and White House, drunk on money and power, insist that 
> all psychiatric diagnoses are "diseases" which must be treated, if 
> even by court order; if even they have to call you a "negligent" 
> parent and make the court your child's parent.  
>  
> We continue to accept the "chemical imbalance" lie at our own 
> peril.  Infinite damage has already been done.  Think Columbine, 
> think Conyers, Georgia, where  T.J. Solomon shot six, think Haditha, 
> Iraq, and think of the Armed Forces recruiting shortfalls due to the 
> burgeoning psychiatric epidemic in the nation's schools.  Think of 
> the accumulative toll of our believing in this brazen, 
> Machiavellian, lie.  Think of a child in your own family (like 
> classrooms, every family has one—or more).  
>  
> In 1948, psychiatry and neurology were made into separate 
> specialties—neurology, my specialty, to diagnose and treat actual 
> diseases of the brain; psychiatry to address the emotional and 
> behavioral (psychological) problems in normals, and, in the 
> physically ill as well—none of them diseases. [1]
>  
> In the fifties, chlorpromazine/Thorazine, the first antipsychotic 
> drug was synthesized.  Other psychotropic drugs followed.  Today, 
> 91% of children who see a child psychiatrist are put on a drug, 18% -
> -most of them normal--on a dangerous, deadly, antipsychotic.  
>  
> In 1960, when I graduated from the NYU School of Medicine, no such 
> thing as a psychiatric disease existed. 
>  
> In 1963 when I was the first to analyze the chromosomes of cancer 
> cells from the spinal fluid [2] and in 1969 when I was the first to 
> describe glioma-polyposis syndrome (another word for disease) [3] 
> there was still no such thing as a psychiatric disease—a disease 
> being a demonstrable macroscopic,  microscopic, or chemical 
> abnormalities—a palpable or visible tumor, a positive "Pap" smear or 
> biopsy, or, an elevated blood sugar as in diabetes mellitus or 
> phenylalanine level, in PKU.  
>  
> Little did I know that Psychiatry, Big Pharma and the Federal 
> Government were well along with their "big lie," marketplace 
> strategy--to tell the public—all patients at one time or another, 
> that emotional and behavioral problems were not due to their 
> upbringing, environment, circumstances, but that—eureka!--they 
> were  "disorders"/ "diseases"/ "abnormalities" /"chemical 
> imbalances" of the brain, each needing, or requiring, a  chemical 
> balancer--pill.  
>  
> On September 29, 1970, Representative Cornelius Gallagher of New 
> Jersey launched the Congressional hearing, Federal Involvement in 
> the Use of Behavior Modification Drugs on Grammar School Children:  
> Behavior Modification Drugs in School Children, saying:  "I have 
> received letters critical of minimal brain dysfunction, one of 
> thirty-eight names attached to this condition."
>  
> But, clearly, the "chemical imbalance" strategy was in place.   Dr. 
> Ronald Lipman, Chief of the Clinical Studies Section, FDA, 
> testified:  "…hyperkinesis is a medical syndrome.  It should be 
> properly diagnosed by a medical doctor."   
> 
> In the DSM-III of 1980 it was ADD; in the DSM-III-R of 1987, ADHD; 
> in the DSM-IV of 1994, it was ADHD of another sort.  No science to 
> get in the way. 
>  
> On December 22, 1994, Paul Leber, MD, Director, Division of 
> Neuropharmacological Drug Products of the FDA, wrote to me: "… no 
> distinct pathophysiology for the disorder (ADHD) has been 
> delineated."  
>  
> On May, 13, 1998, F. Xavier Castellanos of the NIMH wrote to me: "… 
> we have not yet met the burden of demonstrating the specific 
> pathophysiology that we believe underlies this condition."
>  
> At the November 16-18, 1998 Consensus Conference, William B Carey 
> [4], speaking on the subject: "Is ADHD a Valid Disorder?" 
> concluded: "What is…described as ADHD in the United States appears 
> to be a set of normal behavioral variations..."
>  
> James M. Swanson and F. Xavier Castellanos [5] reviewed the 
> structural/anatomic MRI research [5-18] concluding:  "… ADHD 
> subjects have on-average 10% brain atrophy."  
>  
> From a floor microphone I (Baughman) challenged Swanson: "Why didn't 
> you mention that virtually all of the ADHD subjects were on 
> stimulant (Ri

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:31:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Silly 
  red tape" is one of the lies the Republicanshave been pushing during the 
  "debate." Nobody istied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA 
  requirements.The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly onincoming 
  phone calls that are a matter of nationalsecurity.So that argument 
  is a total crock.

I put that "silly red tape" line in there just for you Spair. I knew it 
would get a rise out of you. Actually the courts will decide whether it is silly 
or not. The President and his legal advisors say there is enough wiggle room in 
the law that would allow him to bypass the warrants in time of war and national 
security. Phone calls can trickle in and then they can flood in at rate that it 
would be necessary to have a judge 24/7 on site. Quite frankly while you 
obviously don't trust Bush  to be tapping only terrorist threats, I 
personally don't trust a lot of federal judges and their sense of 
 judgement. We constantly see judges letting criminals off the hook that go 
out and kill somebody later. Do you really want a federal judge to determine 
whether Abdul Hafsomjammi  calling from Teheran is not a threat or not thus 
not allowing the NSA to tape his conversation or intercept more of his 
calls?
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] FISA (was Re: Something fishy)

[Patrick Gillam]

--- authfriend wrote:
>
> --- Gillam wrote:
> > 
> > What do the Bushies have against getting a court 
> > order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
> > Act? In all the kerfuffle, I've yet to hear why they 
> > don't want to follow the process already set up 
> > for such stuff.
> 
> They claim it takes too long, but that's a crock;
> they're explicitly allowed to wiretap without a
> warrant for 48 hours (or is it 72?) exactly so 
> that getting a warrant won't impede an urgent
> investigation.

Does anybody here listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch 
Fox news or indulge in other conservative media? 
MDixon? Shemp? Do those news sources give a reason
why the Bush administration doesn't want to follow
the established system for wiretap warrants?

I really need to get back to reading the Wall Street 
Journal. I felt the journalism was quite objective, 
perhaps a bit liberal, but the editorial page was a
bracing dose of conservative Kool-Aid.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:30:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that 
  didn't come up, did it?As it was, it had one HUGE flaw with regard to 
  theissue currently in the courts: It didn't evenmention 
it.

The poll didn't mention specifically warrantless wire taps but that issue 
had been debated all Winter and Spring, even mentioning it in the Democratic 
poll, so the public was quite aware of what was going on and still 65% answered 
that they thought it was important enough even if it intruded on their privacy. 
Only that hard core 30+% absolutely rejected any intrusion of privacy. After all 
the poll clearly was about what was going on in the NSA, not some 
fictitious scenario and the public has been very aware that warrants were 
not being asked for or issued on incoming calls from 
terrorists. 
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:29:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did you 
  miss the fact that the Pres can obtain the warrant within 48 hours AFTER the 
  wiretap starts?

No not at all.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:16:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  Even if she is right, how does that justify her continually and 
> >  constantly calling people "liars"?
> 
> Judy has her own style. If I lie and  she notices, I rather expect 
she'll 
> call me on it. I can 
> either say  "you're right, sorry," or "you're wrong, sorry," and 
give my 
> reasons why I  think 
> she's wrong.
> 
> If I say "you're wrong, sorry," and don't bother  to explain WHY I 
think 
> she's wrong about 
> my lying, then she's perfectly  justified in assuming that I'm 
deliberately 
> lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Spair I have never thought of you as having lied. But you seem to 
think  that 
> if you are wrong on something or your facts are not accurate that 
you are  
> lying. I would much rather look at that as being wrong and stubborn 
than calling 
>  you a liar, unless you deliberately tried to deceive.

So would I.  And I've never known Lawson to lie.

You, in contrast, deliberately misrepresented a poll.
As far as I'm concerned, that was a lie.








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:17:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> The  administration *admits* it wasn't acting within
> the law as written. It  claims it has the right to
> disregard the law in this  case.
> 
> Bingo. And that is where the courts come into play. Presidential
> powers  can change in times of war and issues  of national  security.

Not according to the latest court decision.

But you make *my* point.  It's perfectly legitimate
for a poll to ask if it's OK for the president to
break the law under specific circumstances.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:18:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Of  curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: 
should the  
> president be 
> allowed to ignore the law?
> 
> The law states that the law  enforcement types most get a warrant 
to monitor 
> calls of the 
> relevant kind  within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.
> 
> The President never  bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, 
since it 
> is standard  
> procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told  
> otherwise, someone 
> must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the  law.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have now said in a couple of other posts, the issue as you 
state also  
> involves presidential powers in a time of war when national 
security is  
> involved. Presidential authority and powers can and has changed 
numerous times  
> through out our history during wars.

At the very least, the president needs a damn good
reson to break the law, even in time of war.

There is *no* reason for Bush to break the law in
this case.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:01:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> As one  blogger pointed out, the question, as it was asked, was NOT 
a good 
> figure for  
> Bush: why wasn't the figure 99+% in favor of wiretapping terrorists 
and  the 
> people they 
> talk to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very easy to see, but I'm sure you won't. There is so much 
hatred for  
> Bush generated by about 20 to 30% of the electorate that they would 
hate to see 
>  him have any success in anything. As Limbaugh put it, good news 
for America  
> while Bush is in office is bad news for the Democrats and Bad news 
for 
> America  while Bush is in office is good news for the Democrats. 
They couldn't stand 
> him  being elected the first time.

He wasn't elected the first time.

> They couldn't stand his poll numbers after 
> 911.

Actually most of us were willing to give him a shot.
That's why he had the high poll numbers, you see.

  When Bush's poll numbers were at their highest and people expressed 
> complete  trust in him the Democrats had to do something to destroy 
that trust so 
> they  went from focusing in on him as a moron to calling him a liar,

Uh, actually it was Bush who destroyed that trust
by lying, repeatedly.  And he's still doing it.




 as I was  
> called one today, twice! And the Democrats absolutely couldn't 
stand him 
> being  re-elected. The attacks on Bush have gone from just being 
political to  
> being very personal and ugly and quite frankly there are a few 
Independents  that 
> are just tired of it and wished it would all stop, at any cost.  
November 
> will tell how many independents will change to hopefully quiet 
things  down.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:29:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
  funny, didn't see you answer the poll.Nor did 
I.

I didn't direct my answer directly to Spair. It may have been to you. But I 
did address the same poll earlier.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:18:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of 
  curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: should the 
  president be allowed to ignore the law?The law states that the law 
  enforcement types most get a warrant to monitor calls of the relevant kind 
  within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.The President never 
  bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, since it is standard 
  procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told 
  otherwise, someone must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the 
  law.

As I have now said in a couple of other posts, the issue as you state also 
involves presidential powers in a time of war when national security is 
involved. Presidential authority and powers can and has changed numerous times 
through out our history during wars.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:17:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The 
  administration *admits* it wasn't acting withinthe law as written. It 
  claims it has the right todisregard the law in this 
case.

Bingo. And that is where the courts come into play. Presidential powers 
can change in times of war and issues  of national 
security.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:16:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >  Even if she is right, how does that justify her continually and 
> >  constantly calling people "liars"?
> 
> Judy has her own style. If I lie and  she notices, I rather expect she'll 
> call me on it. I can 
> either say  "you're right, sorry," or "you're wrong, sorry," and give my 
> reasons why I  think 
> she's wrong.
> 
> If I say "you're wrong, sorry," and don't bother  to explain WHY I think 
> she's wrong about 
> my lying, then she's perfectly  justified in assuming that I'm deliberately 
> lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Spair I have never thought of you as having lied. But you seem to think  that 
> if you are wrong on something or your facts are not accurate that you are  
> lying. I would much rather look at that as being wrong and stubborn than 
> calling 
>  you a liar, unless you deliberately tried to deceive.
>


But if I didn't try to clarify my position, then the person calling me a liar 
would be perfectly 
justified in assuming I WAS lying. You, Barry and Shemp appear to: enjoy lying, 
or enjoy 
bating Judy, or both.

Otherwise, you'd deal with her entirely differently.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:04:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> I Have  to stand by the Poll as it is. People have known from the get go that 
> >  the calls in question, that are tapped with out a warrant, are calls 
> coming  
> > into the US from suspected terrorists and most people don't care if  they 
> are 
> > tapped without a warrant. Tapping citizens on domestic calls  without a 
> > warrant is an entirely different  situation.
> >
> 
> So you believ e that the President of teh USA  doesn't have to follow a law 
> set by Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that at all. I think the more appropriate question is does the  
> president have the authority to wire tap without a warrant involving  
> national 
> security in a time of war. Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, FDR did a  number 
> of things that would make the hair stand on end of democrats today, one  of 
> them was interring Japanese Americans in camps.
>


Congress has set up a law requiring him to get a warrant after-the-fact. Are 
you saying 
that, in the day and age of instant communcations, the President doesn't have 
to follow 
the law because Lincoln didn't?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:10:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Spair, I  had no problem answering your poll. Your poll as I read it only 
> > asked  about warrentless wire taps in general. Not about issues of national 
> >  security involving foreign terrorists calling people within the  country.
> >
> 
> funny, didn't see you answer the  poll.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you missed it. The post may have been in response to something  
> Judy had said but it answered the same issue.
>

So, go back to the thread I started called "New Poll" and answer the question.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:16:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
  Even if she is right, how does that justify her continually and > 
  constantly calling people "liars"?Judy has her own style. If I lie and 
  she notices, I rather expect she'll call me on it. I can either say 
  "you're right, sorry," or "you're wrong, sorry," and give my reasons why I 
  think she's wrong.If I say "you're wrong, sorry," and don't bother 
  to explain WHY I think she's wrong about my lying, then she's perfectly 
  justified in assuming that I'm deliberately lying.

Spair I have never thought of you as having lied. But you seem to think 
that if you are wrong on something or your facts are not accurate that you are 
lying. I would much rather look at that as being wrong and stubborn than calling 
you a liar, unless you deliberately tried to deceive.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:10:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spair, I 
  had no problem answering your poll. Your poll as I read it only > asked 
  about warrentless wire taps in general. Not about issues of national > 
  security involving foreign terrorists calling people within the 
  country.>funny, didn't see you answer the 
poll.

Obviously, you missed it. The post may have been in response to something 
Judy had said but it answered the same issue. 
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:04:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I Have 
  to stand by the Poll as it is. People have known from the get go that > 
  the calls in question, that are tapped with out a warrant, are calls coming 
  > into the US from suspected terrorists and most people don't care if 
  they are > tapped without a warrant. Tapping citizens on domestic calls 
  without a > warrant is an entirely different 
  situation.>So you believ e that the President of teh USA 
  doesn't have to follow a law set by Congress?

I didn't say that at all. I think the more appropriate question is does the 
president have the authority to wire tap without a warrant involving 
national security in a time of war. Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, FDR did a 
number of things that would make the hair stand on end of democrats today, one 
of them was interring Japanese Americans in camps.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:01:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> As one  blogger pointed out, the question, as it was asked, was NOT a good 
> figure for  
> Bush: why wasn't the figure 99+% in favor of wiretapping terrorists and  the 
> people they 
> talk to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very easy to see, but I'm sure you won't. There is so much hatred for  
> Bush generated by about 20 to 30% of the electorate that they would hate to 
> see 
>  him have any success in anything. As Limbaugh put it, good news for America  
> while Bush is in office is bad news for the Democrats and Bad news for 
> America  while Bush is in office is good news for the Democrats. They 
> couldn't stand 
> him  being elected the first time.They couldn't stand his poll numbers after 
> 911.  When Bush's poll numbers were at their highest and people expressed 
> complete  trust in him the Democrats had to do something to destroy that 
> trust so 
> they  went from focusing in on him as a moron to calling him a liar, as I was 
>  
> called one today, twice! And the Democrats absolutely couldn't stand him 
> being  re-elected. The attacks on Bush have gone from just being political to 
>  
> being very personal and ugly and quite frankly there are a few Independents  
> that 
> are just tired of it and wished it would all stop, at any cost.  November 
> will tell how many independents will change to hopefully quiet things  down.
>


So, you think that a substantial number of Americans would respond in the 
negative to 
this  question?


Does the  President have the right to conduct wiretaps in the war on terror as 
long as he 
follows the constitutionally valid laws and procedures set by Congress?

Yes, no, not sure.

What about to THIS question?

SHOULD the President conduct wiretaps in pursuit of the War on Terror as long 
as he 
follows the constitutionally valid laws and procedures set by Congress?

Yes, no, not sure.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 6:02:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Then why  hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose in order 
> > to  "clarify " it.
> 
> How do you know it  wasn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the Democrats would not publish such a poll if the had  anything 
> to do with it?
>


How do you know they didn't?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:02:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why 
  hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose in order > to 
  "clarify " it.How do you know it 
wasn't?

Do you think the Democrats would not publish such a poll if the had 
anything to do with it?
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 6:01:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As one 
  blogger pointed out, the question, as it was asked, was NOT a good figure for 
  Bush: why wasn't the figure 99+% in favor of wiretapping terrorists and 
  the people they talk to?

It's very easy to see, but I'm sure you won't. There is so much hatred for 
Bush generated by about 20 to 30% of the electorate that they would hate to see 
him have any success in anything. As Limbaugh put it, good news for America 
while Bush is in office is bad news for the Democrats and Bad news for America 
while Bush is in office is good news for the Democrats. They couldn't stand him 
being elected the first time.They couldn't stand his poll numbers after 911. 
When Bush's poll numbers were at their highest and people expressed complete 
trust in him the Democrats had to do something to destroy that trust so they 
went from focusing in on him as a moron to calling him a liar, as I was 
called one today, twice! And the Democrats absolutely couldn't stand him being 
re-elected. The attacks on Bush have gone from just being political to 
being very personal and ugly and quite frankly there are a few Independents 
that are just tired of it and wished it would all stop, at any cost. 
November will tell how many independents will change to hopefully quiet things 
down.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > >  
> > > In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > > shempmcgurk@ writes:
> > > 
> > > Plus,  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased  Liberal.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Well, usually so is the Washington  Post.
> > >
> > 
> > BTW, the poll was an ABC/FOX poll, IIRC.
> 
> The one about impeachment was Zogby.
>

Right. But the one mentioned in the "usually liberal" Washington Post was an 
ABC/Fox poll. 
No matter how liberal a newspaper's editors, I would HOPE that it would report 
the fact of 
the existence of the poll without modification, regardless of what they thought 
of the 
question and answer.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] New new Poll

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> And as somebody pointed out awhile back, for
> those who *do* trust Bush, there is one absolutely
> ironclad rebuttal to their argument that the
> administration should be able to wiretap anyone it
> pleases without a warrant:
> 
> President Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>

Should President GW Bush be allowed to violate a law set by Congress if it is 
ruled a 
constitutional law?

Yes, no, not sure.

If the answer to the first question was yes, answer this question:
If she is elected president, should President Hillary Rodham Clinton be allowed 
to violate 
the law in the first question?

Yes, no, not sure.










To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > shempmcgurk@ writes:
> > 
> > Plus,  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased  Liberal.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Well, usually so is the Washington  Post.
> >
> 
> BTW, the poll was an ABC/FOX poll, IIRC.

The one about impeachment was Zogby.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:58:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Back  when the issue was fresh, when the warrantless
> aspect was being reported  prominently, before the
> administration and the Republicans had had a chance  to
> confuse things, a majority was quite clear that they
> did not approve  of warrantless wiretapping.
> 
> 
> 
> Oy vay! who was trying to confuse who? The polls you sited were 
from  
> January. And the one that asked if impeachment proceedings should 
proceed  against 
> Bush only mentioned if he were tapping people without a warrant. A 
very  general 
> and vague question which even I would agree with. The Democratic 
poll  never 
> mentioned national security and warrantless wiretapping of phone 
calls  coming 
> into the US from Terrorists. However that was explained to the 
public  over 
> the course of the debate and the public sides with the president on 
the  issue, 
> at least as of May 11 2006.

Only because of the way it's been framed by
dishonest Republicans--including the administration--
as I said.  And even then, we don't know what the
numbers would have been had the Post been honest
enough to ask about WARRANTLESS wiretapping,
instead of pretending the issue was wiretapping
in general.

As Lawson pointed out, it's likely the high
percentage of negative responses to the Post's
poll reflects the opinions of people who still
remember that the issue is WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
Hardly anybody opposes the idea of wiretapping
terrorist suspects WITH a warrant.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue:
> should the president be allowed to ignore the law?

Right.  None of them makes the point that not getting
a warrant involves breaking the law.



> The law states that the law enforcement types most get a warrant to 
monitor calls of the 
> relevant kind within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.
> 
> The President never bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, 
since it is standard 
> procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told 
otherwise, someone 
> must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the law.
>






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:36:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Yes,  they do. When you ask explicitly about WARRANTLESS
> wiretapping, a majority  oppose it.
> 
> From my earlier post:
> 
> Associated Press, 1/3-5/2006  
> 
> Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a  
> judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between  
> American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or  
> should the government be allowed to monitor such communications  
> without a warrant?
> 
> Required to get warrant, 56%
> Monitor without  a warrant, 42%
> Unsure, 2%
> 
> _http://www.ap-http://www.aphttp_ (http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/) 
> 
> >  Tapping citizens on domestic calls without a 
> > warrant is an entirely  different situation.
> 
> I was pretty sure you'd try to bluff your  way
> through this one once you'd been called on it.
> Very  disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier the date of your poll  was in January or 2006.  The 
> date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed their minds  
> and 
> support the program in place once they heard the  debate.
>

Or had forgotten the debate in the first place.

What do the polls show now about the President vs the courts.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> A clever  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA 
> tapping 
> >  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected 
> terrorists  
> > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't  
> state that. It 
> > just asks if people would approve of impeachment  if Bush 
approved 
> of wire taps 
> > without a warrant, which could be a  call between any two 
American 
> citizens 
> > within the country and  that is not what the NSA is doing. It has 
> been known 
> > and common  knowledge since the story broke that the calls being 
> tapped are 
> >  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.
> 
> The point is  that if there's no judicial oversight,
> they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
> says is that the American people don't trust Bush
> to  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
> calling into the U.S. from  abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the 
> issue and scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in 
> on their private conversations. But as the debate went on through 
> the spring, it didn't work.  People realized Bush has much more 
> important things to do than listen in on  their personal 
> conversations and would much rather have him be able to implement  
> the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape 
> when the NSA has  to be able to move quickly on incoming phone 
> calls that are a matter of national  security.

"Silly red tape" is one of the lies the Republicans
have been pushing during the "debate."  Nobody is
tied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA requirements.
The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly on
incoming phone calls that are a matter of national
security.

So that argument is a total crock.

The point, once again, is that without judicial
oversight, the NSA is not required to have a well-
founded suspicion to listen in on a phone call.
Why should the administration be afraid of that
requirement?  The very fact that Bush doesn't want
to have to get warrants arouses suspicion that the
NSA will not be selective about who they listen to.

A majority of the American people DO NOT TRUST the
Bush administration to operate freely without
judicial oversight.

And as somebody pointed out awhile back, for
those who *do* trust Bush, there is one absolutely
ironclad rebuttal to their argument that the
administration should be able to wiretap anyone it
pleases without a warrant:

President Hillary Rodham Clinton.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Plus,  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased  Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, usually so is the Washington  Post.
>

BTW, the poll was an ABC/FOX poll, IIRC.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> A clever  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA 
> tapping 
> >  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected 
> terrorists  
> > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't  
> state that. It 
> > just asks if people would approve of impeachment  if Bush approved 
> of wire taps 
> > without a warrant, which could be a  call between any two American 
> citizens 
> > within the country and  that is not what the NSA is doing. It has 
> been known 
> > and common  knowledge since the story broke that the calls being 
> tapped are 
> >  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.
> 
> The point is  that if there's no judicial oversight,
> they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
> says is that the American people don't trust Bush
> to  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
> calling into the U.S. from  abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the issue and  
> scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in on their private  
> conversations. But as the debate went on through the spring, it didn't work.  
> People realized Bush has much more important things to do than listen in on  
> their 
> personal conversations and would much rather have him be able to implement  
> the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape when the NSA 
> has  to be able to move quickly on incoming phone calls that are a matter of 
> national  security.
>

Did you miss the fact that the Pres can obtain the warrant within 48 hours 
AFTER the 
wiretap starts?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 3:42:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > sparaig@ writes:
> > 
> > Actually, Judy is closer to being right on this than you and 
MDixon.  Answer 
> > MY poll 
> > honestly, if you dare.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Spair, I had no problem answering your poll. Your poll as I read 
it only  
> > asked about warrentless wire taps in general. Not about issues of 
national  
> > security involving foreign terrorists calling people within the  
country.
> >
> 
> funny, didn't see you answer the poll.

Nor did I.

>






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:54:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Well,  usually so is the Washington Post.
> 
> Yeah, that must have been why they  didn't ask about
> WARRANTLESS  wiretapping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judy, something tells me that had the Washington Post specifically  
mentioned 
> warrantless wiretapping as a method of receiving suspected 
terrorist  calls 
> coming into the country and the poll had similar numbers you still  
wouldn't 
> accept it. There would have been another excuse as to why the poll 
was  flawed.

If there was a good reason to say it was flawed, sure.

But that didn't come up, did it?

As it was, it had one HUGE flaw with regard to the
issue currently in the courts: It didn't even
mention it.


 
> That is why I told Shemp in that one post,I'm not holding my breath.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is MDixon still a liar, Judy?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Judy, you've now had many back and forths with MDixon on this issue.
> 
> Is he still the horrible liar that you claimed him to be

Please rephrase to reflect my *actual* claim.



 (he didn't 
> retract as you asked him to, so he must be a liar, according to 
> you)...
> 
> ...or...
> 
> ...would you say that he makes valid points that, although you 
don't 
> necessarily agree with him, are rationale and are not within the 
> realm of "lying"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > jstein@ writes:
> > 
> > A clever  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the 
> NSA 
> > tapping 
> > >  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected 
> > terrorists  
> > > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll 
doesn't  
> > state that. It 
> > > just asks if people would approve of impeachment  if Bush 
> approved 
> > of wire taps 
> > > without a warrant, which could be a  call between any two 
> American 
> > citizens 
> > > within the country and  that is not what the NSA is doing. It 
> has 
> > been known 
> > > and common  knowledge since the story broke that the calls 
being 
> > tapped are 
> > >  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.
> > 
> > The point is  that if there's no judicial oversight,
> > they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
> > says is that the American people don't trust Bush
> > to  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
> > calling into the U.S. from  abroad.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the 
> issue and  
> > scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in on their 
> private  
> > conversations. But as the debate went on through the spring, it 
> didn't work.  
> > People realized Bush has much more important things to do than 
> listen in on  their 
> > personal conversations and would much rather have him be able to 
> implement  
> > the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape 
> when the NSA 
> > has  to be able to move quickly on incoming phone calls that are 
a 
> matter of 
> > national  security.
> >
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:58:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Back 
  when the issue was fresh, when the warrantlessaspect was being reported 
  prominently, before theadministration and the Republicans had had a chance 
  toconfuse things, a majority was quite clear that theydid not approve 
  of warrantless wiretapping.

Oy vay! who was trying to confuse who? The polls you sited were from 
January. And the one that asked if impeachment proceedings should proceed 
against Bush only mentioned if he were tapping people without a warrant. A very 
general and vague question which even I would agree with. The Democratic poll 
never mentioned national security and warrantless wiretapping of phone calls 
coming into the US from Terrorists. However that was explained to the public 
over the course of the debate and the public sides with the president on the 
issue, at least as of May 11 2006.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2006, at 5:15 PM, shempmcgurk wrote:
> 
> > I had a fantasy about the story told here a week or so ago about the
> > fellow who was in the Dome but the security guards came and, without
> > incident, escorted him out.  Remember that one?
> 
> Yep.
> >
> > Well, in my fantasy, when the guards come up to him (he's already in
> > full lotus position with his eyes closed), he says to the
> > guards: "well, I'm in here now and I'm not leaving.  If you'd like
> > to talk with me outside after program and tell me why I won't be
> > allowed back in in the future, that's fine.  But I ain't budging
> > now...and if you want a very ugly incident, just try laying a finger
> > on me.  Now, I'm in bliss so kindly fuck off!"
> 
> If he'd had any guts, that's what he would have said.


Been there, done that, eh?

BTW, last night was wonderful






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aug 15 - A day of victory - Letter from Raja John Konhaus

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "chaim_laib"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nablus108"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > We are still TM-teachers.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > No, we're not.
> > > > 
> > > > JohnY
> > > 
> > > Of course we are. We are just temporarily not allowed to teach 
> with 
> > > the new prices.
> > >
> > 
> > I disagree. We can, as *freedom loving Americans,* do anything we
> > want. We might not be able to call it Transcendental Meditation, 
> but
> > we can teach it. Mike Scozzari, in Florida, is now teaching what is
> > called Transcendental Stress Management-this is how he legally 
> settled
> > with the TM organization. Paul Brown, is and has been teaching 
> lots of
> > people TM. I'm not sure what he is calling it, but people who he
> > teaches knows they are learning TM.
> > 
> > Maharishi himself sanctioned this in an off-hand way about a year 
> ago
> > in a press conference. Someone here in the know would know how to 
> find
> > the text from his press conference where he said this.
> > 
> > Chaim L>
> 
> From FFL message #78095:
> 
> In the press conference of 14May2003, Maharishi said that he did not
> care if TM teachers taught the practice outside of the TM
> bureaucracy: "What I have taught, because it has it's eternal
> authenticity in the vedic literature and you should know that, how
> many? 30 - 40 thousand teachers of TM I have trained and many of
> them have gone on their own and they may not call it Maharishi's TM
> but they are teaching it in some different name here and there. So
> there's a lot of these, artificial things are going on, doesn't
> matter, as long as the man is getting something useful to make his
> life better, we are satisfied."

The QUESTION was: "should I swtich?" not: "should I learn?"





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> 
> > By the time this poll was taken it was common knowledge that
> > warrants for wire tapping calls coming in to the US  from
> > suspected terrorists were not asked for by the NSA nor given
> > by the courts. > Washington Post Poll that the overwhelming majority of  Americans 
> > stand by the program that the NSA had in place which included
> > warrantless wire taps on calls from suspected terrorists coming 
> > into the US. Now  if you would like to show me another poll taken 
> > by a major news paper or polling  firm that says Americans are 
> > against warrantless wiretaps in the case of intercepting terrorist 
> > phone calls coming into the US, I'll be happy to  listen.
> 
> CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 1/20-22/2006
> 
> As you may know, the Bush Administration has been wiretapping 
> telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United 
> States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without 
> getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been 
> following the news about this: very closely, somewhat closely, not 
> too closely, or not at all?
> 
> 69% are either following it Very Closely (31%) or Somewhat Closely 
> (38%).
> 
> Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in 
> wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?" 
> N=506, MoE ± 5 (Form A)
> 
> 46% Right, 51% Wrong, 3% Unsure
> 
> Do you think a special prosecutor should or should not be appointed 
> to investigate this matter? N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B)
> 
> 58% (Should), 39% (Should Not), 2% (Unsure).
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-23-poll.htm
> 
> 
> Associated Press, 1/3-5/2006 
> 
> Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a 
> judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between 
> American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or 
> should the government be allowed to monitor such communications 
> without a warrant?
> 
> Required to get warrant, 56%
> Monitor without a warrant, 42%
> Unsure, 2%
> 
> http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/
> 
> 
> Zogby Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for [Warrantless] 
> Wiretapping, January 9-12, 2006
> 
> If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval 
> of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider 
> holding him accountable through impeachment?
> 
> 52% agree, 43% disagree, 6% n/a, moe 2.9%
> 
> http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12530
> 
> 
> NBC News/Wall Street Journal, January 26-29, 2006
> 
> Do you think that the Bush administration should conduct wiretaps of 
> American citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists 
> without a court order, or do you think that the Bush administration 
> should be required to get a court order before conducting these 
> wiretaps?
> 
> Should be able to wiretap without court order, 41%
> Should be required to get a court order before wiretapping, 53%
> Depends 4%
> Not sure 2%
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20060131.pdf
>

Of curse, none of these polls quite asks about the real issue: should the 
president be 
allowed to ignore the law?


The law states that the law enforcement types most get a warrant to monitor 
calls of the 
relevant kind within 48 hours AFTER the monitoring starts, IIRC.

The President never bothered to have his people do this. IN fact, since it is 
standard 
procedure for law enforcement agents to follow the law unless told otherwise, 
someone 
must have ordered these agents NOT to follow the law.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:28:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Then why  hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose
> > in order to  "clarify " it.
> 
> You mean, why hasn't the so-called liberal  media
> conducted such a poll? Gee, I really wonder.
> 
> Not.
> 
> Some  of them have come pretty close (see previous
> post), but none so far has had  the guts or the
> integrity to ask straight out, Do you approve  of
> President Bush breaking the law by conducting
> warrantless  wiretapping?
> 
> 
> 
> Judy, most polling firms and news papers would never ask a loaded 
question  
> like that. They wouldn't expect a straight answer. Besides, what 
would that do  
> to their journalistic integrity should the courts actually end up 
ruling in  
> Bush's favor? Only one judge has given their opinion on this matter 
through  a 
> ruling and it's not like judges never get over turned. That is why 
I stated 
> in  my original post concerning this matter that it doesn't mean a 
lot to  the 
> media till it gets to the Supreme Court and they make a final  
ruling.

The administration *admits* it wasn't acting within
the law as written.  It claims it has the right to
disregard the law in this case.

>






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > In a message dated 8/19/06 10:13:26 A.M. Central Daylight 
> Time,  
> > > > > shempmcgurk@ writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ,  
> > > > > MDixon6569@,  MDi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In a message dated 8/18/06  6:07:33 P.M. Central Daylight 
> > > Time, 
> > > > > > jstein@ writes:
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > --- In _FairfieldLife@ --- In _Fairfiel
> > > > > (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > > (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) )  
> > > > > > , MDixon6569@, MDi
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No , not at all.  Most people want the current NSA 
> program in
> > > > > > > place and it is  still going on while it is appealed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Wrong. A majority do NOT want warrantless wiretapping.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  _Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts_ 
> > > > > > (_http://www.washingthttp://www.htt_ 
> > > > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-) 
> > > > > dyn/content/dyn/content/dyn/content/ > > > > 
> > > > > Gee.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I  wonder if Judy will say: "I stand corrected."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hell, frozen  over...NOT.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Shemp, I'm not holding my breath.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course you're not holding your breath.  You know and I
> > > > know (although Shemp probably doesn't) that the poll you
> > > > cite did not find what you misleadingly imply it found.
> > > > 
> > > > The relevant words are all in what you've quoted above
> > > > from your post and my post, MDixon.  There's no way for
> > > > you to wiggle out of it.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm going to give you a chance to amend your assertion
> > > > to reflect the facts.  If you don't, I'll expose you as
> > > > a liar.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's his choice?
> > > 
> > > He's either a liar or he's wrong and has to amend his assertion?
> > > 
> > > Even when it's quite clear to virtually any sane person who 
> reads 
> > > this debate that he's right and you're wrong?
> > > 
> > > There's no middle ground?
> > > 
> > > It's not even possible that MDixon made an innocent 
> mistake...he's 
> > > just a flat out liar?
> > > 
> > > What is it in you, Judy, that makes you fill this forum with 
> such 
> > > hate?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Actually, Judy is closer to being right on this than you and 
> MDixon. Answer MY poll 
> > honestly, if you dare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if she is right, how does that justify her continually and 
> constantly calling people "liars"?

Judy has her own style. If I lie and she notices, I rather expect she'll call 
me on it. I can 
either say "you're right, sorry," or "you're wrong, sorry," and give my reasons 
why I think 
she's wrong.

If I say "you're wrong, sorry," and don't bother to explain WHY I think she's 
wrong about 
my lying, then she's perfectly justified in assuming that I'm deliberately 
lying.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  
> wrote:
> >
> > Rick, I had a friend who almost did that, a number of years ago.  
> She 
> > got to the Dome a few minutes late, had gone to a lot of trouble 
> to get 
> > there, and was seriously ticked.  So she stood outside the doors, 
> > yelling, "Open up, you b*tches, open up!"  It worked. :)
> > 
> > Boy, would I have loved to have been there for that one.  Talk 
> about 
> > vicarious thrills.
> > 
> > Sal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a fantasy about the story told here a week or so ago about the 
> fellow who was in the Dome but the security guards came and, without 
> incident, escorted him out.  Remember that one?
> 
> Well, in my fantasy, when the guards come up to him (he's already in 
> full lotus position with his eyes closed), he says to the 
> guards: "well, I'm in here now and I'm not leaving.  If you'd like 
> to talk with me outside after program and tell me why I won't be 
> allowed back in in the future, that's fine.  But I ain't budging 
> now...and if you want a very ugly incident, just try laying a finger 
> on me.  Now, I'm in bliss so kindly fuck off!"
> 
> 

Ah yes, that's an enlightened response...

> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 19, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> > 
> > > on 8/19/06 4:01 PM, kenwoodfx at kenwoodfx@ wrote:
> > >
> > >  not a 
> > > reason for not coming in the Dome in this important time in 
> world 
> > > history.
> > >
> > > "Rejected" means you can't go in the dome. What are they 
> supposed to 
> > > do, break down the door?  __._,_.
> >
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Madonna Urged To Avoid Arrest in Germany'

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reality check:
> > > 
> > > 1) This is all for publicity.  Madonna would pay $5 million to 
> > > guarantee that they would arrest her.  Like Tommy Chong's stint 
> in 
> > > jail, it's the best thing that could happen to her at this point 
> in 
> > > her career.
> > > 
> > > 2) She's a fucking hypocrite.  Don't you remember her negative 
> > > comments against Sinead O'Conner when she tore up that 
> photograph of 
> > > the Pope on Saturday Night Live a decade or so ago?  The flac 
> she 
> > > got from all quarters pretty much put O'Conner's career into a 
> > > tailspin that she never quite recovered from.
> > 
> > So you believe that it is blasphemous for her to be up on a cross?
> 
> 
> I don't really care one way or another.
>

So why do you think it hypocritical? Was she criticizing the Pope? Was she 
criticizing Jesus? 
Was she even criticizing the Roman Church?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:54:09 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, 
  usually so is the Washington Post.Yeah, that must have been why they 
  didn't ask aboutWARRANTLESS 
wiretapping.

Judy, something tells me that had the Washington Post specifically 
mentioned warrantless wiretapping as a method of receiving suspected terrorist 
calls coming into the country and the poll had similar numbers you still 
wouldn't accept it. There would have been another excuse as to why the poll was 
flawed. That is why I told Shemp in that one post,I'm not holding my breath. 

__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:42:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Actually, Judy is closer to being right on this than you and MDixon.  Answer 
> MY poll 
> honestly, if you dare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spair, I had no problem answering your poll. Your poll as I read it only  
> asked about warrentless wire taps in general. Not about issues of national  
> security involving foreign terrorists calling people within the  country.
>

funny, didn't see you answer the poll.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: : "All applicants come NOW."--Maharishi /& Guidelines?

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nablus108"  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Tonight there now seems to be a phone campaign on at least 
> here 
> > > in 
> > > > > FF to get wayward friends to register for the dome programs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hagelin's 'office' had told Shivama that the old guidelines 
> stand 
> > > > > and have instead been enlarged to also include just regular 
> > > citizen 
> > > > > sidhas as part of a ban on people having seen other holy 
> saints 
> > > and 
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any real progress on amending the participation guidelines 
> of the 
> > > > > TMorg with this new earnest initiative?  
> > > > 
> > > > Apparently not. Thats why we need to create new rules, a new 
> > > paradigm,
> > > > appropriate for the current times -- not the past command and 
> > > control
> > > > structures of "kali-yuga".
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/535780035
> > > > 
> > > > We can thrash about and gnash our teeth about how the TMO 
> should be
> > > > less anal, more humane, more accountable etc. Or we can do 
> something
> > > > mature and responsible about it.
> > > > 
> > > > Create our own foundation to: 
> > > > 
> > > > - Control donations, accountability and management of to any 
> ME or 
> > > TMO
> > > > project
> > > > 
> > > > - provide a power block to negotiate contracts and new "rules" 
> with
> > > > the TMO
> > > > 
> > > > - create new group-consciousness-for-peace facilities, 
> programs, 
> > > rules
> > > > (and perhaps worldwide "synchtimes" via wedsites, alerts, etc.)
> > > 
> > > Your idealism comes forth (perhaps, haven't made up my mind 
> yet :-)) 
> > > as something good. But you miss one central point; what happens 
> > > within/outside the TMO, the effects, the frustration, the 
> success and 
> > > the failure is all Maharishis Lila.
> > > 
> > > What is happening now is a great drama which Maharishi is 
> > > orchestrating. He is at the helm.
> > > 
> > > Establishing a new organisation or foundation to try 
> to "balance" 
> > > this cosmic force, without that cosmic intelligence, will, I'm 
> sorry 
> > > to say, be a dry and fruitless matter.
> > >
> > 
> > Isn't this Chopra's goal? He's rumored to be on the verge of 
> offring the sidhis instruction 
> > anyway.
> 
> 
> I remember seeing his website about 5 years ago and he was offering 
> sidhis then.  I think also flying.
>

How's that group practice thing going? Hundreds or even thousands of people 
meeting on 
a daily basis anywhere?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Is MDixon still a liar, Judy?

[shempmcgurk]

Judy, you've now had many back and forths with MDixon on this issue.

Is he still the horrible liar that you claimed him to be (he didn't 
retract as you asked him to, so he must be a liar, according to 
you)...

...or...

...would you say that he makes valid points that, although you don't 
necessarily agree with him, are rationale and are not within the 
realm of "lying"?








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> A clever  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the 
NSA 
> tapping 
> >  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected 
> terrorists  
> > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't  
> state that. It 
> > just asks if people would approve of impeachment  if Bush 
approved 
> of wire taps 
> > without a warrant, which could be a  call between any two 
American 
> citizens 
> > within the country and  that is not what the NSA is doing. It 
has 
> been known 
> > and common  knowledge since the story broke that the calls being 
> tapped are 
> >  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.
> 
> The point is  that if there's no judicial oversight,
> they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
> says is that the American people don't trust Bush
> to  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
> calling into the U.S. from  abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the 
issue and  
> scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in on their 
private  
> conversations. But as the debate went on through the spring, it 
didn't work.  
> People realized Bush has much more important things to do than 
listen in on  their 
> personal conversations and would much rather have him be able to 
implement  
> the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape 
when the NSA 
> has  to be able to move quickly on incoming phone calls that are a 
matter of 
> national  security.
>







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 8/18/06 6:07:33 P.M. Central Daylight 
> Time,  
> > > > > jstein@ writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > No , not at all. Most  people want the current NSA 
> program 
> > > > > > > in place and it is still going on  while it is appealed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong. A majority do NOT want warrantless  wiretapping.
> > > > >
> > > > > _Poll:  Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts_ 
> > > > >
> > > > > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> > > > dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375_pf.html)
> > > > 
> > > > I gave MDixon a chance to present these facts
> > > > himself or be exposed as a liar.
> > > 
> > > This isn't a star chamber or inquisition, Judy, other than in 
> your 
> > > own head.
> > 
> > The reason this is so important, by the way, is it's
> > an example of the kind of Republican dishonesty
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.  That old canard.
> 
> Yes.  Evil Republicans.  Good Democrats.


in general, Democratic dishonesty: I never got a blowjob from her.
in general, Republican dishonesty: I never violated a federal law.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:40:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> _http://www.democrathttp://www.http://www_ 
> (http://www.democrats.com/node/7416/print) 
> >  
> > 1]For Release: January 16, 2006
> > 
> > New Zogby Poll Shows  Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush > 
> for  Wiretapping
> 
> *Warrantless* wiretapping.
> 
> I pointed this out to  MDixon, to absolutely no effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judy the poll here by the Democrats as I read it doesn't stipulate  between 
> American citizens having a private conversation and Terrorist  suspects from 
> out side the country calling into the US and having conversation.  Try asking 
> the question in a poll" would you be in favor of impeachment  proceedings 
> against Bush if he tapped, without a warrant, conversations coming  into the 
> United 
> States from a foreign country made by a terrorist  or  terrorist suspect to 
> an 
> American citizen or a guest in our country?" Chances are  you're going to get 
> something closer to the Washington Post  Poll.
>

How about this one: would you favor impeaching the President if he knowingly 
and 
deliberately ordered someone to violae the law, simply because he didn't want 
to be 
bothered to follow the law?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:33:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> The poll  didn't mention WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
> 
> When people are asked  specifically whether they
> approve of WARRANTLESS wiretapping-approve of WARRAN
> the court case--a majority does NOT approve.
> 
> The scam the  Republicans are trying to perpetrate
> is utterly shameless. And the  "liberal" Washington
> Post went dutifully right along with it.
> 
> So,  unfortunately, did MDixon.
> 
> 
> 
> I Have to stand by the Poll as it is. People have known from the get go  that 
> the calls in question, that are tapped with out a warrant, are calls coming  
> into the US from suspected terrorists and most people don't care if they  are 
> tapped without a warrant. Tapping citizens on domestic calls without a  
> warrant is an entirely different situation.
>

So you believ e that the President of teh USA doesn't have to follow a law set 
by Congress?





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A clever 
  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA tapping > 
  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected terrorists 
  > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't 
  state that. It > just asks if people would approve of impeachment 
  if Bush approved of wire taps > without a warrant, which could be a 
  call between any two American citizens > within the country and 
  that is not what the NSA is doing. It has been known > and common 
  knowledge since the story broke that the calls being tapped are > 
  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.The point is 
  that if there's no judicial oversight,they can wiretap anyone they want. 
  What this pollsays is that the American people don't trust Bushto 
  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists calling into the U.S. from 
  abroad.

What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the issue and 
scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in on their private 
conversations. But as the debate went on through the spring, it didn't work. 
People realized Bush has much more important things to do than listen in on 
their personal conversations and would much rather have him be able to implement 
the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape when the NSA has 
to be able to move quickly on incoming phone calls that are a matter of national 
security. 
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[shempmcgurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote:
> >
> >  
> > In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> > shempmcgurk@ writes:
> > 
> > Plus,  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased  Liberal.
> > 
> > Well, usually so is the Washington  Post.
> 
> Yeah, that must have been why they didn't ask about
> WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
> 
> 


Pigs snort.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:22:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Most  Americans obviously don't understand the issue. The issue is not 
> between  having 
> wiretaps and not-having wiretaps, but between asking for a judges  permission 
> within 48 
> hours AFTER the start of the wiretap, and simply  ignoring the law.
> 
> If the poll were correct in its conclusion, the  American people would be 
> saying that they 
> want the President to ignore the  law for no reason since it is always 
> possible to obtain the 
> judge's  permission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose in order  
> to "clarify " it.


How do you know it wasn't?









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 2:21:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> And what  question did they ask them? That's not in the article is it? 
> I would like  to see a survey of Americans with the question: "Do you 
> believe President  Bush is above the law?" I bet that would get way 
> different results. That's  what the issue is here anyway. He has broken 
> existing laws and should be  prosecuted for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time this poll was taken it was common knowledge that warrants for  
> wire tapping calls coming in to the US  from suspected terrorists were not  
> asked for by the NSA nor given by the courts. comment and by the Washington Post Poll that the overwhelming majority of  
> Americans 
> stand by the program that the NSA had in place which included  warrantless 
> wire taps on calls from suspected terrorists coming into the US. Now  if you 
> would like to show me another poll taken by a major news paper or polling  
> firm 
> that says Americans are against warrantless wiretaps in the case of  
> intercepting terrorist phone calls coming into the US, I'll be happy to  
> listen.
>

As one blogger pointed out, the question, as it was asked, was NOT a good 
figure for 
Bush: why wasn't the figure 99+% in favor of wiretapping terrorists and the 
people they 
talk to?






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Aug 15 - A day of victory - Letter from Raja John Konhaus

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "chaim_laib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nablus108"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > 
> > > > We are still TM-teachers.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > No, we're not.
> > > 
> > > JohnY
> > 
> > Of course we are. We are just temporarily not allowed to teach with 
> > the new prices.
> >
> 
> I disagree. We can, as *freedom loving Americans,* do anything we
> want. We might not be able to call it Transcendental Meditation, but
> we can teach it. Mike Scozzari, in Florida, is now teaching what is
> called Transcendental Stress Management-this is how he legally settled
> with the TM organization. Paul Brown, is and has been teaching lots of
> people TM. I'm not sure what he is calling it, but people who he
> teaches knows they are learning TM.
> 
> Maharishi himself sanctioned this in an off-hand way about a year ago
> in a press conference. Someone here in the know would know how to find
> the text from his press conference where he said this.
> 
> Chaim L>
>

Like all poll questions, it has interpretation issues. For instance, what if 
someone had 
asked:

Maharishi, I can learn your technique for $2500 from your organization or I can 
learn it for 
1/10 the price from someone who teaches outside your organization. Where should 
I learn 
it?


Remember, this was a question about someone who had ALREADY learned meditation 
from what MMY assumed was a non-recerted TM teacher and should they switch, not 
a 
question about whether or not they SHOULD learn from one.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:36:30 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, 
  they do. When you ask explicitly about WARRANTLESSwiretapping, a majority 
  oppose it.From my earlier post:Associated Press, 1/3-5/2006 
  Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a 
  judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between 
  American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or 
  should the government be allowed to monitor such communications 
  without a warrant?Required to get warrant, 56%Monitor without 
  a warrant, 42%Unsure, 2%http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/> 
  Tapping citizens on domestic calls without a > warrant is an entirely 
  different situation.I was pretty sure you'd try to bluff your 
  waythrough this one once you'd been called on it.Very 
  disappointing.

As I mentioned earlier the date of your poll  was in January or 2006. 
The date of my poll is May 11 2006. Evidently people have changed their minds 
and support the program in place once they heard the 
debate.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:28:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then why 
  hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose> in order to 
  "clarify " it.You mean, why hasn't the so-called liberal 
  mediaconducted such a poll? Gee, I really wonder.Not.Some 
  of them have come pretty close (see previouspost), but none so far has had 
  the guts or theintegrity to ask straight out, Do you approve 
  ofPresident Bush breaking the law by conductingwarrantless 
  wiretapping?

Judy, most polling firms and news papers would never ask a loaded question 
like that. They wouldn't expect a straight answer. Besides, what would that do 
to their journalistic integrity should the courts actually end up ruling in 
Bush's favor? Only one judge has given their opinion on this matter through 
a ruling and it's not like judges never get over turned. That is why I stated in 
my original post concerning this matter that it doesn't mean a lot to 
the media till it gets to the Supreme Court and they make a final 
ruling. 
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Judy, did you notice the dates of the polls you sited above? They 
are all  in 
> January of this year, most within  an 11 day period. The debate 
about  this 
> matter went on most of the first half of the year. The poll I sited 
was the  
> latest I know of, dated May 11th of this year. The public certainly 
had more  
> time to become informed and is expressed in the Washington Post  
poll.

Ah, yet another excuse when the first one didn't turn
out so well.

What happened in the interim was that the administration
and its Republican supporters had several months to lie
about the issue and bury the "warrantless" part of it,
making it seem as if wiretapping *per se* was what was in
question.

Dutifully, the Washington Post polled as if wiretapping
*per se* was what was in question, without mentioning
wiretapping without a warrant, so of course a majority
approved, having forgotten that there was ever an issue
over warrantlessness.

Back when the issue was fresh, when the warrantless
aspect was being reported prominently, before the
administration and the Republicans had had a chance to
confuse things, a majority was quite clear that they
did not approve of warrantless wiretapping.

There hasn't been an *honest* debate on this, just
Republican lies and a compliant "liberal" media going
along with the lies.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hernia and brahmacarya

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Recently noticed have got a small (abdominal?)
> > > hernia. Oddly enough, it seems to help me
> > > stay uurdhvaretaH!  :0
> > >
> > 
> > Don't gain large amounts of weight or you'll find you have a large 
> hernia also.
> >
> 
> 5ft10/174 (I guess; I normally use metric values: 179/80)
>

5ft10/292.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  A clever poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA 
  tapping > domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from 
  suspected terrorists > coming into the US from foreign countries. 
  But the poll doesn't state that. It > just asks if people would 
  approve of impeachment if Bush approved of wire taps > without a 
  warrant, which could be a call between any two American citizens > 
  within the country and that is not what the NSA is doing. It has been 
  known > and common knowledge since the story broke that the calls being 
  tapped are > calls entering the US and from known terrorist 
  suspects.The point is that if there's no judicial oversight,they 
  can wiretap anyone they want. What this pollsays is that the American 
  people don't trust Bushto limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
  calling into the U.S. from abroad. 
  Messages 
  in this topic (37) Reply (via web post) | Start 
  

 
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Plus,  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased  Liberal.
> 
> Well, usually so is the Washington  Post.

Yeah, that must have been why they didn't ask about
WARRANTLESS wiretapping.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] New file uploaded to FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the FairfieldLife 
group.

  File: /A NON-SECTARIAN SCIENCE OF SALVATION FROM SUFFERING 
  Uploaded by : rasatantra 
  Description :  

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/files/A%20NON-SECTARIAN%20SCIENCE%20OF%20SALVATION%20FROM%20SUFFERING
 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

rasatantra
 








To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] A NON-SECTARIAN SCIENCE OF SALVATION FROM SUFFERING

[rasatantra]

A NON-SECTARIAN SCIENCE OF SALVATION FROM SUFFERING

http://www.salvationscience.com/






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] New Poll

[Bhairitu]

sparaig wrote:

>Should the President of the United States be required to follow laws made by 
>Congress, as 
>long as those laws are Constitutional?
>
>Yes, No, It depends.
>
Yes.  Otherwise the Presidency is just a dictatorship and we don't need 
no stinkin' dictator!





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:21:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Plus, 
  it's a Zogby poll...he's a notorious, biased 
Liberal.

Well, usually so is the Washington 
Post.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:28:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>  
>  
>  
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) 
> ,  "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) ,  MDixon6569@ wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > In a message dated  8/18/06 6:07:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> > > jstein@  writes:
> > > 
> > > --- In _FairfieldLife@ --- In _FairfieldLif
> > (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> (mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) )  
> > > , MDixon6569@, MDi
> > > 
> > > >  No , not at all. Most people want the current NSA program in 
> >  place
> > > > and it is still going on while it is appealed.
> >  > 
> > > Wrong. A majority do NOT want warrantless  wiretapping.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> >  > _Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts_ 
> > > (_http://www.washingthttp://www.htt_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-) 
> >  dyn/content/  dyn/cont  dyn/content  dyn/  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Gee.
> > 
> > I wonder if Judy will say: "I  stand corrected."
> > 
> > Hell, frozen  over...NOT.
> >
> 
> Another poll says:
> 
> _http://www.democrathttp://www.http://www_ 
> (http://www.democrats.com/node/7416/print) 
> 
> 1]For  Release: January 16, 2006
> 
> New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans  Support Impeaching Bush 
for 
> Wiretapping
> 
> By a margin of 52% to 43%,  Americans want Congress to consider 
impeaching 
> President 
> Bush if he  wiretapped American citizens without a judge's 
approval, 
> according to a new  
> poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.poll commissioned by 
> AfterDowningStreet.org [1]
> Congressional investigation of President Bush's  decision to invade 
Iraq in  
> 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A clever poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA 
tapping  
> domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected  
terrorists 
> coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't  
state that. It 
> just asks if people would approve of impeachment if  Bush  approved 
of wire taps 
> without a warrant, which could be a call between any two  American 
citizens 
> within the country and  that is not what the NSA is  doing. It has 
been known 
> and common knowledge since the story broke that the  calls being 
tapped are 
> calls entering the US and from known terrorist  suspects.

The point is that if there's no judicial oversight,
they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
says is that the American people don't trust Bush
to limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
calling into the U.S. from abroad.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[MDixon6569]

In a message dated 8/19/06 5:16:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED].. wrote:> By the time this poll was 
  taken it was common knowledge that> warrants for wire tapping calls 
  coming in to the US from> suspected terrorists were not asked for by 
  the NSA nor given> by the courts.> Washington Post Poll that the overwhelming 
  majority of Americans > stand by the program that the NSA had in place 
  which included> warrantless wire taps on calls from suspected 
  terrorists coming > into the US. Now if you would like to show me 
  another poll taken > by a major news paper or polling firm that says 
  Americans are > against warrantless wiretaps in the case of 
  intercepting terrorist > phone calls coming into the US, I'll be happy 
  to listen.CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 1/20-22/2006As you may know, 
  the Bush Administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations 
  between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists 
  living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do 
  so. How closely have you been following the news about this: very closely, 
  somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?69% are either 
  following it Very Closely (31%) or Somewhat Closely (38%).Do you 
  think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these 
  conversations without obtaining a court order?" N=506, MoE ± 5 (Form 
  A)46% Right, 51% Wrong, 3% UnsureDo you think a special 
  prosecutor should or should not be appointed to investigate this matter? 
  N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B)58% (Should), 39% (Should Not), 2% 
  (Unsure).http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-01-23-poll.htmAssociated 
  Press, 1/3-5/2006 Should the Bush Administration be required to get a 
  warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications 
  between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, 
  or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications 
  without a warrant?Required to get warrant, 56%Monitor without 
  a warrant, 42%Unsure, 2%http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/Zogby 
  Poll: Americans Support Impeaching Bush for [Warrantless] Wiretapping, 
  January 9-12, 2006If President Bush wiretapped American citizens 
  without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress 
  should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?52% 
  agree, 43% disagree, 6% n/a, moe 2.9%http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12530NBC 
  News/Wall Street Journal, January 26-29, 2006Do you think that the 
  Bush administration should conduct wiretaps of American citizens who are 
  suspected of having ties to terrorists without a court order, or do you 
  think that the Bush administration should be required to get a court order 
  before conducting these wiretaps?Should be able to wiretap without 
  court order, 41%Should be required to get a court order before 
  wiretapping, 53%Depends 4%Not sure 2%http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/poll20060131.pdf 

Judy, did you notice the dates of the polls you sited above? They are all 
in January of this year, most within  an 11 day period. The debate about 
this matter went on most of the first half of the year. The poll I sited was the 
latest I know of, dated May 11th of this year. The public certainly had more 
time to become informed and is expressed in the Washington Post 
poll.
__._,_.___





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








   



  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:33:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> The poll  didn't mention WARRANTLESS wiretapping.
> 
> When people are asked  specifically whether they
> approve of WARRANTLESS wiretapping-approve of WARRAN
> the court case--a majority does NOT approve.
> 
> The scam the  Republicans are trying to perpetrate
> is utterly shameless. And the  "liberal" Washington
> Post went dutifully right along with it.
> 
> So,  unfortunately, did MDixon.
> 
> I Have to stand by the Poll as it is. People have known from the 
get go  that 
> the calls in question, that are tapped with out a warrant, are 
calls coming  
> into the US from suspected terrorists and most people don't care if 
they  are 
> tapped without a warrant.

Yes, they do.  When you ask explicitly about WARRANTLESS
wiretapping, a majority oppose it.

>From my earlier post:

Associated Press, 1/3-5/2006 

Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a 
judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between 
American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or 
should the government be allowed to monitor such communications 
without a warrant?

Required to get warrant, 56%
Monitor without a warrant, 42%
Unsure, 2%

http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/

> Tapping citizens on domestic calls without a  
> warrant is an entirely different situation.

I was pretty sure you'd try to bluff your way
through this one once you'd been called on it.
Very disappointing.







To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Sam Harris: The language of ignorance

[coshlnx]

--- 

http://tinyurl.com/maxjg

--- ---






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Something fishy about alleged Jonbenet murderer

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 3:22:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> Most  Americans obviously don't understand the issue.
> The issue is not between  having wiretaps and not-having
> wiretaps, but between asking for a judges  permission 
> within 48 hours AFTER the start of the wiretap, and simply
> ignoring the law.
> 
> If the poll were correct in its conclusion, the  American
> people would be saying that they want the President to
> ignore the  law for no reason since it is always 
> possible to obtain the judge's  permission.
> 
> Then why hasn't anybody taken a poll asking the question you pose
> in order to "clarify " it.

You mean, why hasn't the so-called liberal media
conducted such a poll?  Gee, I really wonder.

Not.

Some of them have come pretty close (see previous
post), but none so far has had the guts or the
integrity to ask straight out, Do you approve of
President Bush breaking the law by conducting
warrantless wiretapping?

(MDixon, I hope you aren't suggesting that Lawson's
premise is wrong, i.e., that Bush would have any
difficulty getting a warrant to wiretap the
conversations of those there was good reason to
suspect were terrorists.)






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/