On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Robert Munn wrote:
> Oh, I think the honeymoon has something to do with it. He gets an easy win
> and avoids the real battle until later.
>
> You are right, of course, that his team is being careful to dot the i's and
> cross the t's, but issuing the order is a q
Oh, I think the honeymoon has something to do with it. He gets an easy win
and avoids the real battle until later.
You are right, of course, that his team is being careful to dot the i's and
cross the t's, but issuing the order is a quick way to demonstrate change
without having to actually make t
He froze prosecutions for 120 days so he would have time to determine
what action to take. Allowing a year to close to the prison ensures
it wil be done in an orderly fashion with all cases reviewed.
He needs the time because he only received access to the files
regarding those being held yesterd
Ah, but Obama is trying to have it both ways, as usual. He is issuing an
order to close the prison ... within a year. That's a long time. I think he
wants the issue to go away for awhile. He doesn't actually have to do
anything, just say we're going to close it. He is avoiding the difficult
argumen
I for one hope they do get to come back here so we can get rid of them
permanently.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Dinowitz"
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
> There's a story about
There's a story about one who was on trial and the trial stopped because of
the closing. I'll have to dig up a link. There are really dangerous people
there and just closing it down without any clear direction as to how we'll
handle these people is a crime. We can send some back to Saudi Arabia whe
OK, what are we going to do with the detainees? Offer them asylum in the US?
- Original Message -
From: "G Money"
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
> His first executive order is to close the priso
There are a lot of them there. I guess they are going to try for speedy
trials? We will see.
- Original Message -
From: "G Money"
To: "cf-community"
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
> Beats the fark outta me...
ion.com
Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
> OK, what are we going to do with the detainees? Offer them asylum in the US?
> - Original Message -
> From: "G Money"
> To: "cf-community"
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Ob
rge wrote:
> OK, what are we going to do with the detainees? Offer them asylum in the
> US?
> - Original Message -
> From: "G Money"
> To: "cf-community"
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
>
>
>
His first executive order is to close the prison at Gitmo..you may
now question away.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Sam wrote:
> Only people that drink hatoraid would question Obama.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dana wrote:
> > who said it wasn't? He's president and fair ga
Only people that drink hatoraid would question Obama.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dana wrote:
> who said it wasn't? He's president and fair game.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic releas
You don't count. You are offended as a career choice.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sam wrote:
> I was.
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>> I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
>>
>> Was anyone really offended by it?
>>
>> Really?
>>
>
>
~~
who said it wasn't? He's president and fair game.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> So, then, it should be OK for people to tell jokes where Obama is the
> target. I mean he is the most powerful man in the country and arguably the
> world.
~~~
Oh I agree completely about mocking Obama. He's the President, that makes it
not only OK but obligatory. You don't get to be President and escape being
made fun of.
I missed the white people references so I can't comment specifically on that
bit.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Scott Str wrote:
I was.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
>
> Was anyone really offended by it?
>
> Really?
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most importan
I for one, am okay with a gentle ribbing. As long as he not just
softening me up to take away more of my money.
-The Man
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Sorry. As a member of a wide variety of ethnic and social groups that
> are subject of frequent ridicule, I find it hard t
> and i read people for a living.
You a poker player too?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
htt
I wasn't personally offended. I just thought it was the wrong thing at the
wrong time.
But then again, my identifying as white is way down on my identity list.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
>
> Was anyone reall
it was funny, it wasnt anything more, in fact, if you REALLY look
at obama while all of those little pieces were being said, he was laughing
at all of them, and then when rev lowery mentioned the white/right part
his mouth and cheeks changed EVER SO SLIGHTLY, to signal dismay.
and i read people for
ubject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
> I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
>
> Was anyone really offended by it?
>
> Really?
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Michael Dinowitz <
> mdino...@houseoffusion.com> wrote:
>
> > "...wh
Me neither I think the quote is from a sixties activist...it's kinda
poigniant
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
>
> Was anyone really offended by it?
>
> Really?
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Michael Dinowitz <
> mdino...@houseoffusion.com>
I personally was not offended, and thought it hillarious.
Was anyone really offended by it?
Really?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Michael Dinowitz <
mdino...@houseoffusion.com> wrote:
> "...white will do what is right..."
> In context and alone, it looks bad.
> It doesn't matter who said it
Actually, that is considered torture - psychological torture. The best and
most effective type around. A professional knows what to do on a per person
basis and knows when they are telling the truth. Think of it as marketing
focus groups on steroids. If advertisers can do it, why can't torturers. I
"...white will do what is right..."
In context and alone, it looks bad.
It doesn't matter who said it, black or white. This was supposed to be an
historical ceremony, one that was supposed to show another step in race
relations and instead it was marred by BS.
What you do in your own bedroom is you
> Larry wrote:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>> Nobody asked, but I am gonna give my opinion on torture anyway.
>>>
>>> If I knew some one had information that harm was going to come to my wife or
>>> kids, I would do some pretty heinous things to them to get the details. How
>>> can I possibly tell someone e
>Canadians!
>
>Thanks, I'll be here all night. Try the veal.
>
No Canadians do a much better job of themselves than Americans can. For that
matter Canadians do a much better job of mocking Americans. Mind you its like
hitting a broad side of a barn when you're two inches away.
>It's now socially acceptable to mock white people in public. It was done in
>front of the world at the inauguration. And Obama smiled at it. But mocking
>blacks is still racism and mocking gays is still homophobia.
Where? I never caught that. I think that you're reading too much into things.
Mor
>> Scott wrote:
>> Nobody asked, but I am gonna give my opinion on torture anyway.
>>
>> If I knew some one had information that harm was going to come to my wife or
>> kids, I would do some pretty heinous things to them to get the details. How
>> can I possibly tell someone else they can't do the
So, then, it should be OK for people to tell jokes where Obama is the
target. I mean he is the most powerful man in the country and arguably the
world.
Also, by this standard, white were being mocked, and it was not funny, it
was cruel. There is at least some perceived power when you are asked t
This is a time and place where reconciliation should be the focus instead of
race baiting. A 'gentle ribbing' or humorous judgment does not belong. It
taints the event. How can Obama say he's the president who will bring the
country together when this is allowed. Thick or thin skinned, it is still
White men, or more specifically, white males of European heritage,
have been oppressing peoples of other races, genders and ethnic groups
for millennium. Electing one man to a high office is not going to
erase that. Some whites haven't done right. Lowery suggested, in a
humorous way, that perha
Its ok because payback is a bitch. It's ok because it's just gentle ribbing.
It's ok because it is sticking it to the man. But its not. It's a direct
insult to white America saying "you're not doing ok". Not the man, whites in
general. Not gentle ribbing but a direct implication that whites are the
> RoMunn wrote:
> come off as "laughing with" the target of the joke, and that comes down to
> power relationships. There is nothing funny about the powerful mocking the
> powerless, it's just cruel.
>
Hey, that's a really good analysis Robert. You're exactly right, it's
about the power in the re
That's not what I said.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> So, its ok to ridicule as long as its not one of those ethnic nd social
> groups you are a member of?
>
> When did this country lose the ability to laugh at itself?
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
Canadians!
Thanks, I'll be here all night. Try the veal.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> It _should_ be socially acceptable to mock any group. If you can't laugh at
> other people, who can you laugh at?
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
>> Exactly,
The difference to me is laughing with someone versus laughing at someone.
Laughing with someone, or "gentle ribbing", as Maureen calls it, is fine,
but it is a hard sell, for instance, for a white man to tell black jokes and
come off as "laughing with" the target of the joke, and that comes down to
So, its ok to ridicule as long as its not one of those ethnic nd social
groups you are a member of?
When did this country lose the ability to laugh at itself?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
> Sorry. As a member of a wide variety of ethnic and social groups that
> are subject
Sorry. As a member of a wide variety of ethnic and social groups that
are subject of frequent ridicule, I find it hard to have any sympathy
for the "man" - especially upper class white men.If a white
president was mocking blacks, it would be racism. The gentle ribbing
of white men today was h
If it was a white president with a mocking of blacks during the
inauguration, we'd all be up in arms over the overt racism.
But I guess the new America, where racism is a thing of the past, is really
just the same old America with a changing of the race on top. The more
people talk about racial eq
> Mo wrote:
> It just hasn't always been safe for a black man to mock a white man.
> That has changed. Payback's a bitch.
>
Nope, Dino's right - there's a double standard.
If a black guy says to a white guy, "dude, you're SO white" it's
pretty socially acceptable. I could even see hearing some
It has always been socially acceptable to mock white men. Just watch
anything from Hollywood in, oh, the last 100 years. Ralph Kramden,
Archie Bucker, Al Bundy, Homer Simpson. There are an infinite number
of jokes about the overwhelming incompetency of white men. Can't
dance, can't jump, shor
>I don't think the hat actually qualifies as Sodomy.
>
>But there were Supreme Court Justices in attendance, so lets see how
>they rule vis-a-vis Mills vs. State of California
Hard to say given what they like to wear in public. Those long dress like
robes...
You never know.
~~~
It's now socially acceptable to mock white people in public. It was done in
front of the world at the inauguration. And Obama smiled at it. But mocking
blacks is still racism and mocking gays is still homophobia.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> It _should_ be socially accep
just my interpretation... but i didn't take it as mocking gay people.
aretha franklin's hat... *that* was mocking gay people.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> It _should_ be socially acceptable to mock any group. If you can't laugh
> at
> other people, who can you laugh at?
It _should_ be socially acceptable to mock any group. If you can't laugh at
other people, who can you laugh at?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> Exactly, because gay people are one of the last groups that are socially
> acceptable to mock.
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:19 P
Exactly, because gay people are one of the last groups that are socially
acceptable to mock.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Charlie Griefer
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Charlie Griefer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I really think he
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Charlie Griefer
> wrote:
>
> > I really think he was just making a funny.
> >
> >
> and failed
>
funny's subjective. but my point was that i don't believe there was any
malice in his intent.
--
I have faile
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Charlie Griefer
wrote:
> I really think he was just making a funny.
>
>
and failed
--
Scott Stroz
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson
~
I really think he was just making a funny.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> The issue is respect. Gruss apparently believed I might be embarrassed or
> offended by a reference to gay sex, so he dropped it in there as a
> schoolyard taunt. The effectiveness of the taunt is ti
I don't think the hat actually qualifies as Sodomy.
But there were Supreme Court Justices in attendance, so lets see how
they rule vis-a-vis Mills vs. State of California
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> So, how about that hat Aretha was wearing today?
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 20
The issue is respect. Gruss apparently believed I might be embarrassed or
offended by a reference to gay sex, so he dropped it in there as a
schoolyard taunt. The effectiveness of the taunt is tied to the traditional
concept of male virility and the notion that someone who engages in gay sex
is les
So, how about that hat Aretha was wearing today?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Sodomy is a lot of fun so long as it is consensual.
>
> Just one of the many places that Antonin Scalia and I differ.
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Michael Grant [Modus IS]
> wrote:
>
Sodomy is a lot of fun so long as it is consensual.
Just one of the many places that Antonin Scalia and I differ.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Michael Grant [Modus IS]
wrote:
>> Gruss used the idea of sodomy as an insult.
>
> So we have to add sodomy to the list of political correctness? Gay
> Gruss used the idea of sodomy as an insult.
So we have to add sodomy to the list of political correctness? Gay and
lesbian rights is one thing, but c'mon...
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic
> RoMunn wrote:
> Gruss used the idea of sodomy as an insult. He's used everything else as an
> insult, so he can add insulting lgbt people to his list now.
>
Towel off, bro, I'm just sassin' you.
If it makes you feel better I'll let you have one quick slap. BUT THAT'S IT!
~
Whatever, just don't pinch me to make me move, I'm kind of tired.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Charlie Griefer
wrote:
> so... Sam's a catcher.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release t
so... Sam's a catcher.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Sam wrote:
> I didn't say I'd throw a leg over you either
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sam wrote:
> >> I didn't denigrade it.
> >
> > Excellent, thank you Sam. Glad to ha
I didn't say I'd throw a leg over you either
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sam wrote:
>> I didn't denigrade it.
>
> Excellent, thank you Sam. Glad to have you on board on this one.
>
~
Gruss used the idea of sodomy as an insult. He's used everything else as an
insult, so he can add insulting lgbt people to his list now.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sam wrote:
> I didn't denigrade it.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Sam wrote:
> I didn't denigrade it.
Excellent, thank you Sam. Glad to have you on board on this one.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the
I didn't denigrade it.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like it.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam wrote:
>> So you're saying bitch slap has a totally different meaning in
>> Minnesota?
Both. And play second base. Sometimes shortstop.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Do you pitch or catch?
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>> Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like
>> it.
>>
>>
> --
> Scott Stroz
>
That's way TMI. E!
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like it.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic
mental note to remain seated if ever drinking with Judah.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like
> it.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam wrote:
> > So you're saying bitch slap has a tota
Do you pitch or catch?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like
> it.
>
>
--
Scott Stroz
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would
Could we please stop denigrating forced anal sex? I happen to rather like it.
Thanks
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Sam wrote:
> So you're saying bitch slap has a totally different meaning in
> Minnesota? GG does spend a lot of time in airports.
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jerry John
So you're saying bitch slap has a totally different meaning in
Minnesota? GG does spend a lot of time in airports.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Gruss, it is not his fault, you are sending mixed signals.
>
> That is an _awfully_ wide stance.
>
~
Gruss, it is not his fault, you are sending mixed signals.
That is an _awfully_ wide stance.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > apparently you don't understand the English language either.
> >
>
> I understand when a dude wants to come after my ass like yo
And so you have proved that you don't understand the English language.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > apparently you don't understand the English language either.
> >
>
> I understand when a dude wants to come after my ass like you just said
> you wanted to!
> RoMunn wrote:
> apparently you don't understand the English language either.
>
I understand when a dude wants to come after my ass like you just said
you wanted to!
NO!
No, Robert. I'm just saying no. Bad touch. I'm married.
~
apparently you don't understand the English language either.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Go and ahead and try it and i'll bitch-slap your ass into next week.
> >
>
> Awww, that's flattering, but I don't swing that way.
>
> Although I'm sure there's plenty
> RoMunn wrote:
> Go and ahead and try it and i'll bitch-slap your ass into next week.
>
Awww, that's flattering, but I don't swing that way.
Although I'm sure there's plenty of guys that would happy to ...
relate with you.
~|
A
Go and ahead and try it and i'll bitch-slap your ass into next week.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Gruss G wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > Obama dosn't have to do anything and has already indicated that he isn't
> > interested in doing anything. Get over it.
> >
>
> Shut up or I'll legally water
>Since when?
>
>You need to prove, the prosecution, that torture occurred, and that the
>person tortured would have been afforded Geneva protections, good luck.
>
>Oh and if a foreign police force comes to this country to arrest an American
>citizen and they let that float, I'm done with this count
no, we don't recognize your court, so you can all go f...@ck yourselves. more
like that.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't have to. And what's the win with that defense, btw? Hey we
> don't recognize your court so we can torture people?
>
> RoMunn wrote:
> Obama dosn't have to do anything and has already indicated that he isn't
> interested in doing anything. Get over it.
>
Shut up or I'll legally waterboard you.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most impo
> RoMunn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>> > GG wrote:
>> > that still wouldn't protect him because the
>> > crimes were perpetrated on his watch AND you don't have to signatory
>> > to be tried.
>> >
>>
>> On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court
>
>
> which the
Obama dosn't have to do anything and has already indicated that he isn't
interested in doing anything. Get over it.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Grusswrote:
>
> But that's the stand-off right now IMO. There are probably numerous
> countries telling us to handle it ourselves or they'll handle
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Gruss wrote:
> > GG wrote:
> > that still wouldn't protect him because the
> > crimes were perpetrated on his watch AND you don't have to signatory
> > to be tried.
> >
>
> On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court
which the US does not recognize
~~
> Scott wrote:
> Nobody asked, but I am gonna give my opinion on torture anyway.
>
> If I knew some one had information that harm was going to come to my wife or
> kids, I would do some pretty heinous things to them to get the details. How
> can I possibly tell someone else they can't do the same
>yay for two wrongs making a right :)
>
I was asking if that was any better.
Anyhow I've always thought that although two wrongs don't make a right, three
lefts do.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
Nobody asked, but I am gonna give my opinion on torture anyway.
If I knew some one had information that harm was going to come to my wife or
kids, I would do some pretty heinous things to them to get the details. How
can I possibly tell someone else they can't do the same to protect their
family?
> gg wrote:
> waterboarding is a war crime and subject to prosecution. It's hard to
> find someone who ISN'T talking about this seriously.
>
> Both Bush and Cheney went on national television and said they authorized it.
>
The democrats, near as I can tell, are working overtime to shut this
whole
>It was a good inauguration ceremony. I sincerely hope Obama is at least
>half as good as many of his supporters believe he'll be.
>That being said, there's only one thing that would have been the icing on
>the proverbial cake.
>
>If at the start of his inaugural speech, he let loose a little bit
> tBone wrote:
> Source?
>
> You're the only person I hear talking about this as something serious.
>
Dude, General Barry McCaffery said about 1 hour ago on NBC that
waterboarding is a war crime and subject to prosecution. It's hard to
find someone who ISN'T talking about this seriously.
Both Bu
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Larry Lyons wrote:
> >Is that the spirit of bi-partisanship speaking?
> >
>
> As much as what someone else said,
>
> "Eating all three meals today was an exercise in not vomiting all over the
> table. Man I can't wait until this day is over. Glad I only see the TV
>heh whatever that has to do with anything :)
>
>Just saying it was just them putting singers and poems etc etc in between
>all the official events. Swear biden in...swear obama in lets get the speech
>and done.
> :)
>
So you also disagreed with the extra fluff that Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan 40
>Is that the spirit of bi-partisanship speaking?
>
As much as what someone else said,
"Eating all three meals today was an exercise in not vomiting all over the
table. Man I can't wait until this day is over. Glad I only see the TV in 20
minute increments when I eat."
Now is that any better?
wrote:
> Well I don't drink, but I'm always down to hang out, think you're on the
> wrong coast though :)
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:44 PM
>> To: cf-commun
Source?
You're the only person I hear talking about this as something serious.
You don't get it, this is some civil war shit.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: cf-communit
Well I don't drink, but I'm always down to hang out, think you're on the
wrong coast though :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:44 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Obama Inaugu
> JJ wrote:
> Actually, he became president on the stroke of 12:00, even without the oath
> (by law)
>
WILD! The Presidential Inauguration Parade review box is full of Kenyans!
Obama's relatives flown in from Kenya.
Kinda interesting to hear about the seating chart in there:
Pritzkers, Daleys,
> tBone wrote:
> Since when?
>
> You need to prove, the prosecution, that torture occurred, and that the
> person tortured would have been afforded Geneva protections, good luck.
>
I ain't no lawyer, but I can tell you that I've heard from both
nationally recognized constitutional scholars and int
re
> not only expected but REQUIRED to not follow those orders.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:27 PM
>> To: cf-community
>> Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
>>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Maureen wrote:
> For my part, they can have Kissinger too. We can even dig up Tricky
> Dicky and ship his body over.
I wouldn't mind just giving Kissinger to Cambodia. Or Chile. I'm sure
they'd treat him as fairly as he treated them.
Actually we are told specifically when and under what circumstances we are
not only expected but REQUIRED to not follow those orders.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:27 PM
> To: cf-community
> Sub
untry.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:grussg...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:20 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Obama Inauguration Thread
>
> > tBone wrote:
> > Illegal combatants are just that and aren't afforded th
> tBone wrote:
> Wow you couldn't be more wrong.
>
Interestingly Gen. Barry McCaffery just said on NBC that waterboarding
detainees at GitMo is a war crime subject to prosecution.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most im
For my part, they can have Kissinger too. We can even dig up Tricky
Dicky and ship his body over.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
> Eh, if we won't turn over Kissinger, then we won't turn over Bush.
> Though I do believe in the need for international law, I think that
> the
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
