BLOG VIEW  |  HEADLINE VIEW
SUBMIT NEWS  |  RSS FEED  |  SEARCH

On Sunday night, "60 minutes" broadcast a report that could have easily come straight out of Pakistan, instead of the great state of Alabama. The frightening aspect of this story is not that it occurred, but that it was done so brazenly. It is, quite simply, fascism, right here in the good old US of A. The story goes back years, but the most frightening part of the tale occurred on Sunday night, when the program was supposed to air on "60 Minutes". Many in Alabama never saw it because big brother shut it down.

Alabama is obviously a very Republican state. Nearly every big politician is a Republican, except for one very popular Democrat named Don Siegelman. Don used to be governor, but then Republicans targeted him for destruction. Now he sits in prison. Karl Rove started the ball rolling in 2001, when he made a request to Republican lawyer and activist Jill Simpson.


"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" reporter Scott Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley says.

"Yes, if I could," she responds.


Well, it worked on Clinton and the Republicans were never punished, so why would they stop? Simpson could not produce the photos because Siegelman wasn’t fucking his aides. So, the Republicans switched to the courts to take down Siegelman and they succeeded. This is why the Attorney General scandal is so important. The Bush Administration has turned the independent branch of government responsible for justice into a Republican weapon. We no longer live in a country where laws apply equally to everyone.

Siegelman was investigated for bribery during his re-election campaign in 2002. Local prosecutors charged Siegelman and the case went to trial. The trial lasted an hour or so, before the judge tossed it out because there was absolutely no evidence. But the damage was done to Siegelman and he lost the election.

Siegelman decided to run for governor again in 2004 and the Republican machine went back to work. This time the Department of Justice decided to get their hands dirty, or as Karl Rove said to Jill Simpson:


My girls will take care of him.


On of the “girls” Karl spoke of was US Attorney Leura Canary, who just happened to be married to William Canary, a Republican campaign consultant. They built a case out of nothing. First they flipped a “witness.” The guy was a Republican named Nick Bailey, who just happened to have committed a few crimes and was looking at a long time in jail. The Republicans offered him a lot less time in jail and in return, all he had to do was lie in court.

Bailey worked for Siegelman, but the governor was not involved in his crimes and had no knowledge of them. Bailey told US Attorneys what they wanted to hear, or they told him what he would say: That he had seen Siegelman take a check in return for an appointed position on the state hospital oversight board. The Department of Justice claimed this was a crime. It is not. If it were, Karl Rove and George Bush would be in prison for their “Pioneers” and “Rangers” fundraising operation. People who donated $100,000 or more to the Bush campaign received one of those awesome titles and many were appointed to government offices, like an ambassadorship. 146 Bush donors were appointed to government offices after making large donations. There were zero prosecutions in those “cases.”

Okay, so ignore that it was a not even a crime. And ignore the fact that Siegelman didn’t even receive the check because it was made out to the Alabama Education Foundation, a vehicle the governor created to run a campaign for a state education lottery. Ignore that stuff and focus on this: The Republicans actually manufactured the not illegal evidence against Siegelman. They couldn't even decently frame the guy, and yet it worked. Bailey story was that he witnessed the check being handed to Siegelman. Total bullshit. It was actually pathetically false.


JONES: They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no– there was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand.

PELLEY: So, Siegelman could not have had that check–

JONES: No.

PELLEY: –in his hand that Bailey–

JONES: It was–

PELLEY: –testified to seeing?

JONES: Absolutely impossible and they knew that, absolutely impossible.

PELLEY: That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case…

JONES: It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy whose credibility was going to be the linchpin of that case. It was a huge problem.


The check was cut days after the meeting and prosecutors knew it. Maybe that’s why they had to train their witness. According to Bailey, he was getting the story so mixed up during preparation they made him write it down over and over and over, until he got it right. That’s usually how the truth works; you have to get it right using a rudimentary memorization technique. Prosecutors then illegally withheld Bailey’s writings from the defense, because his false testimony it would have been devastated under cross-examination.

The Rove machines also attempted to force another Republican to testify in the case, but he refused. Jefferson County Republican Commissioner Gary White was pressured to back up Bailey’s claim. He refused to do so because,


My testimony would be false.


Wow, a guy going to jail wouldn't back up their bullshit story.

Coincidentally, the federal judge overseeing the case was appointed by a fella named George W. Bush. Judge Mark Fuller was also a former member of the Alabama GOP’s Executive Committee and once claimed that Siegelman had a grudge against him. For some reason he refused to recuse himself from the case. Go figure.

Siegelman was convicted and sentenced to seven years in jail. Usually, when a person is convicted of a crime such as bribery, he is allowed 48 hours to get his affairs in order. Not Siegelman. He had his hands and feet shackled, and was immediately taken to prison. Republican prosecutor Grant Woods said he had never in his career seen someone other than a violent criminal treated in this way.

Woods is co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee and a former Arizona Attorney General. Dude is a hard core Republican and this is what he had to say about Siegelman’s prosecution:


I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.


It’s a big deal when a Republican heavy hitter comes out to attack his own party’s actions. Besides Woods, 52 former attorneys general have called Congress to investigate the case. The Department of Justice, of course, refused to speak to 60 Minutes and refused to allow Bailey to be interviewed on camera. That’s a sign that the government has done something on the up and up. Oh, but it’s worse than that. The Justice Department would only issue a “no comment” to CBS in response to the accusation of false evidence. It was also recently revealed that two career prosecutors refused to move forward with the Siegelman case due to a lack of evidence. Both of their careers stalled.

I feel like this is a good time to remind you that the White House and Karl Rove deleted over 10 million emails. How about that? I'm sure they are all the simple, "What's doing Karl?", "Nothing, LOL!" type of emails. No way are there emails about the Siegelman case. That's why they were deleted.

Now, this is where this story gets really creepy. This entire scandal was detailed Sunday night on "60 Minutes". Most of the nation watched, except in Northern Alabama – where the screen suddenly went black. Residents of Huntsville and Mobile did not see the broadcast.


Just before the segment was to start, people in the northern part of the state who were tuned in to WHNT-TV, Channel 19 in Huntsville, found this on their screen instead:

We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.


Because bloggers are not retarded, one called CBS in New York to find the source of the problem that was blocking transmission in Alabama. Turns out nothing, according to CBS in New York.


There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama “could only have been an editorial call.


Nice. Siegelman is a political prisoner. When evidence of his illegal prosecution was presented to the people of his state, it was blacked out. Feel free to explain to me how that is not a fascist maneuver.

The New York Times points out the similarities to a certain Asian country.


After two broadcasters who had been banned by the Pakistani government appeared on the Aaj TV channel there on Friday night, the channel’s programming was suddenly cut off, and replaced with a message, according to CNN:

Dear Users, Please note Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) temporarily suspended transmission of independent news TV channels till further instructions.


Luckily, during the original broadcast they had the problem worked out in time for the "60 Minutes" segment following the Siegelman story. And the station made good by airing the story at 10 p.m. -- right in the middle of The Oscars, one of the most watched TV programs of the year.

The station that blocked the transmission, WHNT, is owned by Oak Hill Partners, which is owned by the Bass Family. The Bass Family are big, big contributors to the Republican Party and a man named George W. Bush. They are long time friends and the Bass family has bailed out George on more than one occasion.


Back in the 1980s, George W. Bush was put on the board of directors at Harken Oil. In 1988, an oil venture to Bahrain was proposed. With Bush Sr. president at the time, the virtually unknown Texas company had beat out huge oil conglomerate Amoco for exclusive rights to exploration, development, transportation, etc. Even though Harken had no international experience and little capital for such a huge venture, Bahraini oil was theirs for the taking. Many thought that Harken was moribund, and without this contract they more than likely would have sunk. Harken got its big contract but couldn't finance it. The Basses then stepped into the picture by volunteering $25 million.


Now they Bass family is shutting down public airwaves, so the people of Alabama won’t hear the truth. And the action just happens to protect Karl Rove.

Time to be afraid. Not because to the act itself, but the brazenness of the undertaking. They know, as do many of us, that they will not be punished. This lack of justice will lead to a heightening of their shamelessness and an increase in their risk taking. The only question is, “When is it too late?”

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 9

Next

SirLoins

SirLoins

Killeen, TX
October 2005

FEB 27, 2008 03:29 AM

Interesting. CBS aired another "controversial" episode of 60 Minutes during last years Oscars as well.

It was a panel of active duty OIF veterans speaking out against the occupation of Iraq. I should know. I was on it.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 27, 2008 03:46 AM

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.

providencia

providencia

Glenview, IL
November 2004

FEB 27, 2008 05:57 AM

The United States has a bicameral parliamentary system.
This system is effective in only two types of countries.

1) Small
2) Military

The United States started off as a one party system with the Federalist party (founded by Alexander Hamilton) wanting to centralize power.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Alexander Hamilton who became de facto commander of a National Army six years after founding the party.
Two years after becoming commander he would defeat the Democratic-Republican party politically.
He was also one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.
It is my opinion that Hamilton's growing belief in centralizing power at the time was reactionary to the immediate threat of many nations to the new and tiny republic. He was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers after all.
[spoiler]
The Democratic-Republican party was founded by Thomas Jefferson
[spoiler]
Thomas Jefferson is quoted for his views on "securing" democracy. He should be remembered for his ideas that would have actually secured democracy such as outlawing corporations and his opposition to political parties in general.


and James Madison.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

He wrote 3/4ths of the Federalist Papers, authored the Bill of Rights and is considered the Father of the Constitution.



No longer a small nation, why is it a surprise that a perfect vehicle for centralizing power under a military regime would go unused?
Despite being listed as a multiple party country, the United States is a two-party system in practice.

The fact that we all, myself included, find it normal to be ruled over by two parties should be the greatest sign of fascism.
One party attacking and devouring another isn't a growing fascist threat. It's just a consolidation of fascist power.

I have to do the dishes before work and try to squeeze a shower in there somehow.
I should have just said, "I liked the commentary. Good work!".
Then I would be on time with clean dishes and smelling better.
[stops typing before the babble continues]

(I don't have time for fact-checking...I hope I have things right. I'm working on memory at the moment. Corrections welcomed.)

mattacme

mattacme

Calistoga, CA
February 2006

FEB 27, 2008 06:14 AM

providencia said:
The United States has a bicameral parliamentary system.
This system is effective in only two types of countries.

1) Small
2) Military

The United States started off as a one party system with the Federalist party (founded by Alexander Hamilton) wanting to centralize power.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Alexander Hamilton who became de facto commander of a National Army six years after founding the party.
Two years after becoming commander he would defeat the Democratic-Republican party politically.
He was also one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.
It is my opinion that Hamilton's growing belief in centralizing power at the time was reactionary to the immediate threat of many nations to the new and tiny republic. He was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers after all.
[spoiler]
The Democratic-Republican party was founded by Thomas Jefferson
[spoiler]
Thomas Jefferson is quoted for his views on "securing" democracy. He should be remembered for his ideas that would have actually secured democracy such as outlawing corporations and his opposition to political parties in general.


and James Madison.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

He wrote 3/4ths of the Federalist Papers, authored the Bill of Rights and is considered the Father of the Constitution.



No longer a small nation, why is it a surprise that a perfect vehicle for centralizing power under a military regime would go unused?
Despite being listed as a multiple party country, the United States is a two-party system in practice.

The fact that we all, myself included, find it normal to be ruled over by two parties should be the greatest sign of fascism.
One party attacking and devouring another isn't a growing fascist threat. It's just a consolidation of fascist power.

I have to do the dishes before work and try to squeeze a shower in there somehow.
I should have just said, "I liked the commentary. Good work!".
Then I would be on time with clean dishes and smelling better.
[stops typing before the babble continues]

(I don't have time for fact-checking...I hope I have things right. I'm working on memory at the moment. Corrections welcomed.)



Interesting points, thanks.

defaultx

defaultx

I'm lost
February 2006

FEB 27, 2008 08:11 AM

one of your better efforts FTR.






nothing surprises me anymore , its a sweet cesspool aye?

DhD_No_Pants

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX
May 2006

FEB 27, 2008 08:16 AM

martinj_b52 said:

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.



Well then why don't you enlighten us, with facts from reputable sources, about the bad things you think the Democrats are doing. If you feel so passionately about it, open our eyes.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

FEB 27, 2008 09:05 AM

martinj_b52 said:

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.



Do you seriously believe that Clinton's replacement of the US attorneys at the beginning of his term somehow equates to Bush's mid-term, political-retribution firings? Is that seriously the best you can do when prodded for proper citations? Can you back up that "just another false accusation" claim there with something more substantial than your half-assed diatribes?

slayn001

slayn001

United Kingdom
February 2005

FEB 27, 2008 11:36 AM

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.



Do you seriously believe that Clinton's replacement of the US attorneys at the beginning of his term somehow equates to Bush's mid-term, political-retribution firings? Is that seriously the best you can do when prodded for proper citations? Can you back up that "just another false accusation" claim there with something more substantial than your half-assed diatribes?



of course he does.

Nessuno

Nessuno

Washington, DC
May 2006

FEB 27, 2008 11:59 AM

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 27, 2008 12:30 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:

martinj_b52 said:

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.



Well then why don't you enlighten us, with facts from reputable sources, about the bad things you think the Democrats are doing. If you feel so passionately about it, open our eyes.



Because the chasm widens at that point. Things you are willing to call "reputable"(such as 60 minutes) are not things that *I* AM willing to call "reputable", and vice versa. And, having a day job and a few evening hobbies (one of which includes the maintenance of a long-running fraternal order), there are time constraints.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 27, 2008 12:33 PM

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:

BlastProcessing said:

martinj_b52 said:
This whole thread is hype. Why? Because there are just as many, if not more, Democrat instigated police-state type activities being run by avowed democrats. And I doubt that "60 minutes" would be a very profitable show if they stopped "ginning up" news "Rathergate, anyone?" That would be like going to the National Review website and trying to find a news article that is pro-abortion.



Could you go ahead and maybe tell us how your uncited allegations make the actions taken against Siegelman somehow okay?



Thats pretty much it. "okay"? how about "factually accurate"? for eight years, all I keep hearing is "George Bush this" or "Dick Cheney this" or "Karl Rove that". Bill Clinton fires ALL of the US attornies, and it almost didnt even make the paper. Bush fires 8, and his Democrat opponents in congress spend the remainder of his administration trying to gin up a scandal in it. In fact, BOTH actions by both Clinton AND Bush were legal, and not unprecedented, and yet, somehow Bush is bad for firing 8 but Clinton was good for firing ALL of them. The problem is, it's called "scandal fatigue". So many people have cried "wolf" for so long, that it has become "just another false accusation".

Sad thing is, THIS one MAY have some merit. But people have been accusing Bush for anything they can come up with for so long, unfortunately, most people no longer care, een if it turns out to be true and warranted.



Do you seriously believe that Clinton's replacement of the US attorneys at the beginning of his term somehow equates to Bush's mid-term, political-retribution firings? Is that seriously the best you can do when prodded for proper citations? Can you back up that "just another false accusation" claim there with something more substantial than your half-assed diatribes?



Even if it WAS a "political-retribution firing", it was STILL LEGAL and within the scope of the power of his office. I, for one, am not willing to submit to the concept that the firings were political in nature. Likewise, I am not terribly passionate about caring, even if they WERE. Politics are still legal in this country (which is probably a bigger concern to the freedom loving people of this country).

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

FEB 27, 2008 12:41 PM

^^^ Way to sidestep both questions. Quite skillful.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 27, 2008 02:17 PM

coyotemike said:
^^^ Way to sidestep both questions. Quite skillful.

Its worse than that. After all the over-zealous, Bush-bashing, investigate-everything actions of the congress (who should have something BETTER to do with their time) and the media (who are SUPPOSED to be indifferent, but with 92% of them voting Democrat in the last Presidential election, its kind of hard to believe that they would be-Dan Rather's journalistic indifference is a primary indicator that keeps coming to mind, among others) I just cant seem to force myself to even CARE anymore if Bush DID do something wrong. Its not like He's hiding a bunch of FBI files on his political enemies, or billing records from his past business dealings before he became President. Its not like He couldnt find a reason to take Bin Laden into custody when he had the chance after one of his terrorist backed killings of Americans. Its not like anyone found the dead body of a Deputy White House Council (or any other Executive Branch bureaucrat) in Ft. Marcy Park (or any other public facility) under suspicious circumstances. Its not like He turned an unbelievable profit at cattle futures or any other investment scheme, on his own or with outside help. Hell, President Bush's vice president is wealthier (still) than the President is.
(income tax return comparisons)
And no one can seem to locate an intern with whom the President has shared a cigar.
Face it. I'm all "scandaled out". At this point, were He to shoot Ahmadinajad or Hillary or Obama or McCain in the oval office, I figure it would be either stress related or out and out deserved. I cant figure out why President Bush hasnt gone on with a maniacal, raging outburst at the sillyness, childishness, do-anything-but-what's-important congress, one-sided-reporting-of-the-majority-of-the-media antics. Its mind-numbing when you consider the sheer size and daily assault of it. I guess when the Bush administration is gone, a lot of so-called journalists will die of boredom.

martinj_b52

martinj_b52

I'm lost
December 2006

FEB 27, 2008 02:24 PM

coyotemike said:
^^^ Way to sidestep both questions. Quite skillful.



Okay. I'll bite. question one from Blast Processing (on Clintons firing vs. Bush's firings) Yes. They are entirely legal from the standpoint of the authority of Presidential powers alone. Question two (about substantiation for false accusation claims) as the media is extremely lazy and rarely ever acts to get BOTH sides of a story, anything opposite the groupthink media line would be difficult without personally investigating it myself for years. And *I* dont have the time, much less the interest. Why should I do the job that the media is too lazy to do, even when they are paid to do it?

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

FEB 27, 2008 02:29 PM

martinj_b52 said:
(one of which includes the maintenance of a long-running fraternal order)



Rarely is so much explained so succinctly.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 9

Next

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR by orbro

Now Hear This

Last Comment 4 HR

There's like a half-hour of video here. You should do a vlog. More ...

Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74

Last Comment 5 HR

Parents who are accustomed to carrying guns around may not think anything of going into child-related... More ...

An Encounter With Jonathan Shaw's Narcisa

Last Comment 5 HR

thanx gurlz... u rrrrrule!! xx jonathan shaw and narcisa More ...

SuicideGirl: Bob

Bob

Terrible Woman's MySpace Alias Leads to Teen's Suicide.

Last Comment 20 HR

But, it's delivered poorly...really poorly. Unless, it's not a joke, in which case, it's a good place... More ...

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08 by Shalome

Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit

Last Comment 11/30/08

Oh my fucking god. More ...

Filtering the Truth: Religion - Friend or Foe?

Last Comment 11/30/08

I'm just going to skip over the mass orgy that's going on and say my piece: I don't think religion is... More ...

SuicideGirls Interview: Frank Black
SuicideGirls Interview: Bootsy Collins
SuicideGirls Interview: Perry Farrell