any government. Walmart may even have somewhat more resouces than the MD state
government.
>He means the government of Maryland.
>
>Tim
>
>>
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193945
Archives: http://ww
In early 2003, Lyman Faris sent a message that "the weather is too
hot" - a coded message indicating that the Brooklyn bridge plot was
unlikely to succeed do to added security.
On 1/23/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> What the hell are you talking about now? Do you think terrorists
> didn't know their
one company is treated differently than another all the time ;) But like I told
Sam, carry on, you guys are having a lot of fun with your straw men and I'd
hate to be the one to stop it.
I just prefer to deal in reality, that's all.
Dana
>The point isn't protection from the government, it i
I'm still here. You talk as if I left.
I didn't out the commie flag it was the Kennedy administration. Just
telling you what they used to justify the taps.
At the time Communism was an active threat at overthrowing the
government and was monitored. Turns out that Stanley Levison was long
out of CP
Communists are merely pitiful remnants of a failed system that never
really worked in the first place.
There's nothing quite so pathetic as those desperately hanging on to a
meaningless system since it is so tied up in their definitions of
themselves.
As you might guess I pity them more than anyt
> G Money wrote:
> Exactly. I've not heard one good reason why these warrants should be
> circumvented. Not one. And yet there are still people who seem to support
> the Bush admin's desire to do just that.
>
At the nexus of the wire-tap deal and the Google case I see a
disturbing possibility mayb
I hate me some commie, but last I checked it was still legal.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:18 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer s
'll have to remember that.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:03 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> > longer subsidizing Walmart
ghts: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> What does the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act have to
> do with King?
>
> U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy ordered the wiretap
> because Kings closest advisers was a top-level member of the
What does the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act have to do with King?
U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy ordered the wiretap because
Kings closest advisers was a top-level member of the American
Communist Party.
On 1/23/06, Kevin Graeme wrote:
> From that article suggesting that FISA is
That is the point I'm making. It probably would not be hard at all, if
the person is dedicated enough. But the level of deep planning that
would be required is quite a bit. Establish oneself in the community
for at least 5 years, including supporting yourself, setting up
friendships and commercial
I've not heard one good reason why these warrants should be
circumvented.
Because this court was not allowing all the wire taps Bush wanted, according to
a post here last week.
Oh you wanted a "Good" reason. Sorry, never mind, go back to your regular
programming.
--
Ian Skinne
>From that article suggesting that FISA is unconstitutional:
'It's so much easier to carp for a scandal-happy media about "the
privacy rights of ordinary Americans," as if that were really the
issue.'
So the obvious question is, prior to the FISA did the government abuse
their powers to spy on or
After reading the first few paragraphs, my question is: "When has an official
"WAR" been declared? Relying on the nice sound byte "War on Terror" does not a
War this make. To go with the examples in the beginning of this article, would
require an actual war to be declared, would it not.
The
The Probable Cause of the NSA Controversy
A war is not a criminal investigation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200601231259.asp
On 1/23/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> And electronic surveillance under FISA requires a warrent from the FISA
> courts.
>
~~
Exactly. I've not heard one good reason why these warrants should be
circumvented. Not one. And yet there are still people who seem to support
the Bush admin's desire to do just that.
Makes no sense. Zip. Zero. None.
> And electronic surveillance under FISA requires a warrent from the FISA
>
rry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:49 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> > subsidizing Walmart)
> >
> > It does not apply in this case. There has been no congressi
As they should.
It's not the facts, but the seriousness of the charges :)
> Looks like the legislative branch is asking questions ...
>
> Phone, Cable Executives Queried In Government Surveillance Probe
> By DIONNE SEARCEY
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> January 23, 2006 11:20 a.m.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/20/sitroom.03.html
TODD: Greenpeace and the group People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, or PETA, are under scrutiny by FBI counter-terrorism units,
and have been targeted for surveillance -- that's according to the
American Civil Liberties Union,
But if the person buying the fertilizer is a new customer or unknown in the
area, that does raise some suspicions.
What really helped to do in McVey and McNichols was that they went some
distance to buy their fertilizer. If they went to the nearest farm agency near
McNichols farm, it would neve
Not so sure about that. But I for one am not going to try.
The other way is simply to break into to a construction site etc.
larry
On 1/23/06, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pre-oklahoma city, and pre 9/11, you'd be right. These days, people are much
> more vigilant for this type of stuff.ye
But if the person buying the fertilizer is a new customer or unknown
in the area, that does raise some suspicions.
What really helped to do in McVey and McNichols was that they went
some distance to buy their fertilizer. If they went to the nearest
farm agency near McNichols farm, it would never h
Pre-oklahoma city, and pre 9/11, you'd be right. These days, people are much
more vigilant for this type of stuff.yes, even backwoods Kansans :)
> Or buying mass quantities of fertilizer and fuel oil.
>
>
> But when the staff of the Feed and Seed store where the fertilizer was
> purchased f
Or buying mass quantities of fertilizer and fuel oil.
But when the staff of the Feed and Seed store where the fertilizer was
purchased for the Oklahoma bombing was asked what they thought of the quantity,
the staff answered, "Yeah, it was rather small, we figured he just had a garden
or someth
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> This was top secret so it couldn't go before the entire
> congress. Now that al Qeada knows about it it's useless.
>
Looks like the legislative branch is asking questions ...
Phone, Cable Executives Queried In Government Surveillance Probe
By DIONNE SEARCEY
Staff Reporte
> Sam wrote:
> Now that al Qeada knows about it it's useless.
>
What the hell are you talking about now? Do you think terrorists
didn't know their calls might be tapped? Bin Laden has been using
couriers for years because he knew his calls might be tapped.
And the NSA has had this power since t
I dunno, but the president can order wiretaps if he wants to :)
> -Original Message-
> From: William Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:59 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> s
> I thought they declared war on terrorism too.
And drugs...
and poverty...
and illiteracy...
:-\
those fights are going well, no?
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
Yes he does. But that will eventually be reviewed so they'd better
have a reason.
In this case the President went to Congress and NSA and got the go
ahead first. Set up a review process and had it re-evaluated every 30
days. This was top secret so it couldn't go before the entire
congress. Now that
Pew is at it again.
The only people that SHOULD be wiretapped are the people that get
calls from al Qaeda. So 25% is a huge number.
On 1/23/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> Interestingly there was Pew poll out that said that 47% of Americans
> felt like the president should be able to continue with these
talking to 2 members of the senate intelligence committee and
enjoining them to keep it absolutely secret from even their cleared
staff is not involving the legislative branch. its not even a figleaf.
On 1/23/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Bush the Legislative Branch was involve
Are you talking about the Patriot Act?
On 1/23/06, Kevin Graeme wrote:
> Ha! And catholic churches, and gay student organizations, and local
> jewish communities. They're all al Qaeda.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lis
Seems a bit cloudy to me. This is the next paragraph:
The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if
any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however,
providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for
electronic surveillance in foreign intell
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As
> Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance
> Program.
For me the question is not DOES the President have the authority (it's
a question we can't answer), but IF he should have the a
theywere done without the consent of the courts as well. The point I
was making is that there is only a small step from using surveillance
of US nationals communitating with suspected foreign threats to US
nationals with anti-administration views. Who is to say that it won't
happen - the Nixon admi
According to Bush the Legislative Branch was involved.
On 1/23/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> No, he's in trouble because with the NSA taps only one branch knew what was
> going on, the executive.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.co
I thought they declared war on terrorism too.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:13 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
>
Because this is how they caught the Brooklyn Bomber.
Here's an interesting take on it:
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601031523.asp
On 1/23/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> Since we are always supposed to find for the individuals civil rights, to
> ensure that we don't trample them, you must a
Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
subsidizing Walmart)
Do you know what a declaration of war is? Have you seen one? I think
the congress granting the President to use force to remove a standing
ruler sounds like a declaration of war.
On 1/23/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> It
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> Do you know what a declaration of war is? Have you seen one? I think
> the congress granting the President to use force to remove a standing
> ruler sounds like a declaration of war.
>
:sighs:
~|
Message
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html
The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As
Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance
Program. AG GONZALES: "I might also add that we also believe the
President has the inherent authority und
Do you know what a declaration of war is? Have you seen one? I think
the congress granting the President to use force to remove a standing
ruler sounds like a declaration of war.
On 1/23/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> It does not apply in this case. There has been no congressional
> declaration of w
You're right, I don't read CQ.com :)
Apples and oranges.
These investigations have nothing to do with international wiretaps.
Do they even say they were tapped without court orders?
On 1/23/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Is that all that different? You don't read much. There has been
> evidence tha
Congressional Leaders "Have Been Briefed More Than A Dozen Times" On
The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. THE PRESIDENT: "Leaders in
Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this
authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence
officials involved in this activity al
>
> Interestingly there was Pew poll out that said that 47% of Americans
> felt like the president should be able to continue with these wire
> taps (48% said he shouldn't).
It's amazing the level of trust that people have afforded this president.
And I think much of it is coming from my neck of
Oh definitely. The FISA court is almost a joke in how it has
historically pretty much approved any request. I remember being pissed
when the whole Echelon thing came out during the Clinton
administration with how NSA surveillance was being given to the FBI to
go after US citizens. The wiretap infor
What's a bit frightening is that the 9/11 Commission recommendations
also leads to breaking down the separation between agencies that
protected US citizens from being surveilled. There was a good reason
that the FBI wasn't supposed to transparently get intel collected by
the CIA or NSA.
On 1/23/06
> GG wrote:
> I'm not sure about that. I've heard from some smart folks that FISA
> was really just a "feel good" law that was never legally necessary.
Interestingly there was Pew poll out that said that 47% of Americans
felt like the president should be able to continue with these wire
taps (48%
x27;s always been up to a court, an open court, to decide.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:20 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> > l
11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> You sure congressional leadership didn't know?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent
Ha! And catholic churches, and gay student organizations, and local
jewish communities. They're all al Qaeda.
On 1/22/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been going on for four years and they claim it only targets
> al Qaeda.
~~
You sure congressional leadership didn't know?
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:07 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
&g
> Nick wrote:
> Right, it was FISA that was passed in 1978 that gave the president that
> authority.
>
I'm not sure about that. I've heard from some smart folks that FISA
was really just a "feel good" law that was never legally necessary.
It was meant, in part, to quell concerns Nixon raised.
S
Monday, January 23, 2006 9:03 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
>
> I don't think that the 4th is really clear on who grants warrants is it?
>
> It's a
The courts have worked out a fairly good definition. Findlaw.com gives
a very good summary of the issues regarding electronic surveillance:
http://www.antiwrap.com/?858, going all the way back to the 1920's.
--
Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz
v. United States,
No, he's in trouble because with the NSA taps only one branch knew what was
going on, the executive.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:56 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [si
Where is the declaration of war Sam?
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:48 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> The War
are you so dead set against following existing
law?
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:32 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
&g
Right, it was FISA that was passed in 1978 that gave the president that
authority.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:49 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanit
t: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> I was saying the Constitution gives the president the power
> to order the wiretaps. The amendment would be to remove that right.
>
> On 1/22/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> > It is bl
It does not apply in this case. There has been no congressional
declaration of war. Moreover the powers granted to the president
following 9/11 did not authorize the president to engage in
warrentless wiretapping of american citizens.
On 1/23/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The War Powers Act
But reasonable vs unreasonable is something that is subjective.
_
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:31 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
subsidizing Walmart)
Where? The courts
Is that all that different? You don't read much. There has been
evidence that the government has been conducting illegal surveillance
against various anti war groups,
http://www.cq.com/public/20051223_homeland.html. Given the so called
removal of the "wall" separating the intelligence services with
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> This has been going on for four years and they claim it only targets
> al Qaeda. No such abuses with reviews every 30 days.
1.) But who's doing the review? Those that have authorized the
tappers in the first place. Isn't this like saying Castro reviews his
human rights
On 1/22/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> What if I'm on a business trip in Dubai and call my wife? Can the NSA
> wiretap me? What if a UAE citizen calls me with a business question?
> Can they tap me?
Are you al Qaeda?
> I say unless 2 branches of gov't look over the reason to be suspicious
> of me and
The War Powers Act.
On 1/22/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Where? The courts right up to the SOCTUS seem to disagree with you.
> The fourth amendment specifically forbids unreasonable searches.
>
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusio
That's a Patriot Act issue and needs to be dealt with separately.
On 1/22/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Who is to say that it will stop with so called terrorists. Why not go
> a bit further and go for those who disagree with the ruling regime.
>
> The point is that without the judicial oversight the
That's targeting Americans they thought were terrorist. Totally
different then targeting known terrorist calls that ends in the US.
On 1/22/06, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> in 1972, in a case before the supreme court, John Mitchell, the
> attorney general at the time argued that the government didn't
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> They claim all the taps originate overseas so we're good.
What if I'm on a business trip in Dubai and call my wife? Can the NSA
wiretap me? What if a UAE citizen calls me with a business question?
Can they tap me?
I say unless 2 branches of gov't look over the reason
Who is to say that it will stop with so called terrorists. Why not go
a bit further and go for those who disagree with the ruling regime.
The point is that without the judicial oversight there are no controls
or an independent party to say that wiretapping person X is
unconstitutional. It falls in
Where? The courts right up to the SOCTUS seem to disagree with you.
The fourth amendment specifically forbids unreasonable searches.
On 1/22/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was saying the Constitution gives the president the power to order
> the wiretaps. The amendment would be to remove th
in 1972, in a case before the supreme court, John Mitchell, the
attorney general at the time argued that the government didn't need a
warrant to tap the phone of any political dissenter it thought was a
threat to national security. Sound familiar, the Shubbery are making
the same arguments. Unfort
I was saying the Constitution gives the president the power to order
the wiretaps. The amendment would be to remove that right.
On 1/22/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> It is black an white, oh and red. Black and white in the constitution, and
> red of the blood of those who have defended said document.
>
would, doesn't that mean what this administration, and many others,
have essentially broken the law?
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of san
They claim all the taps originate overseas so we're good.
If we have a court order to tap Bin laden and you call him it's
covered, so why should they hang up?
It's actually not oversimplification. It's the case at hand and you
seem to agree with it. If we complicate it by saying we're taping
Ameri
ty
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> If Bin Laden calls your neighbor the NSA has to hang up? WTF.
> That's just stupid.
>
> On 1/22/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> > Dude seriously, get your head out of your ass.
e taxpayer, in some cases. However,
this isn't something that only affects large companies, it affects them
all.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: w
If Bin Laden calls your neighbor the NSA has to hang up? WTF. That's
just stupid.
On 1/22/06, Tim Heald wrote:
> Dude seriously, get your head out of your ass.
>
> The Bush administration has had more warrants denied than any other
> administration. The Bush administration has repeatedly been cal
> Nick wrote:
> The point isn't protection from the government, it is equal protection
> under the law. Meaning that one company can't be treated differently
> than another.
>
> Just like one person can't be treated differently than another.
>
If I'm understanding Dana, she's saying that:
1.) So
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
>
> see this is probably where we differ. Acorporation needing protection
from
> the government? *this*
> T-Bone wrote:
> Dude seriously, get your head out of your ass.
> NO ONE should have this ability.
> You should not be able to spy against American Citizens without a
> warrant. Period. I don't care who they are and what they did.
>
We're of the exact same mind here. An analogy to Sam's point
ither.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:11 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> Your process is a judge and you've prove
Your process is a judge and you've proven to me you have blind faith
in anyone with a black rob. It's kind of scary how all your trust will
go in to one or three people when I'm trusting dozens. These wiretaps
are supervised and constantly reviewed. The President himself reviews
the program every 3
He means the government of Maryland.
Tim
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:19 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
&
So let the State take care of them in the first place. They'll end up
paying less in the long run.
Clearly, leaving them to die doesn't work. *wry smile*
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193665
Archives
as an illustration
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/04/MN165298.DTL
SQUALOR IN THE STREETS
Public health Toll
One man's medical costs show how city is burdened by bills
Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, November 4, 2001
Printable Version
Email This Artic
I don't think the self-pay issue is caused by illegal aliens. But carry on,
don't let me confuse you with the facts ;)
> http://www.washingtonpost.
> com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801873.html
> Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance
>
> I think the ER thi
well I am sure the hospital is happy if they do. But this is not the rule, you
know ;)
>Unless they pay with cash, or on a payment plan.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193659
Archives: http://www.ho
see this is probably where we differ. Acorporation needing protection from the
government? *this* government? That's hysterical.
>Equal Protection from the government
>
>>
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=
> Nick wrote:
> It isn't that I fear or really distrust the government. It is the people
> that want to be elected to it that sometimes scare me.
>
Well that's just it since all government is people. I wish I could
share Sam's blind faith in people, but I'm more of the Reagan mindset:
"trust but
: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no longer
> subsidizing Walmart)
>
> Any person who loves freedom and has a decent political history
> education knows there's only one thing to fear: government. Were
> there no historic precedent of government enslavin
> Autocratic Sam wrote:
> Actually what comes to mind is your google post about privacy. Scare
> tactics to make us think Bush is watching us type.
>
Any person who loves freedom and has a decent political history
education knows there's only one thing to fear: government. Were
there no historic
You're reading too much into it.
When you read op-ed's or listen to commentators and find a couple that
you agree with you tend to stick with them. Not because they're
brainwashing you but because of like opinions and you learn over time
who's right more often than not. They have the time and resou
> Sam wrote:
> Flip it and you'll see what I see.
>
Exactly! There are demagogues of both the Republican and Democratic
flavor. They're both grifters! Don't you get it? That's Rush's gig!
He's a snake oil salesman. He's there to convince you that you need
to listen to him to protect yourself
Damn, and that's the post.
Layeth the smacketh down.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:35 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: medical costs and self-pay at the ER, was Re:
> [signs of sanity] MD no lon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801873.html
Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart employees have health insurance
I think the ER thing has to do with illegal aliens that have to be
treated but don't pay their bills. Why would they care if they get bad
credit.
I'm
L PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:39 PM
> > > To: CF-Community
> > > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD
> no longer
> > > subsidizing Walmart)
> > >
> > > they were in place during the civil rights move
criminal courts to deal with that.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:39 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> > longer
Swing your hips to and fro.
On 1/20/06, Ray Champagne wrote:
> how does one drive a sausage?
>
> Sam wrote:
> > I drive a banger, what's your point :)
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193596
Archives: h
m to me.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 2:46 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no
> longer subsidizing Walmart)
>
> Flip it and you'll see what I s
1 - 100 of 480 matches
Mail list logo
