awallejr (78.52)

28 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 24, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

C'mon now.  This was news back in '05.  A coordinated distraction that's working.  Do you think China would jeopardize their US investments for this guy?  They are cashing in a mountain of paper and agressively buying US up. Nat'l $ecurity concerns?  Read-

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/meet-your-new-boss-buying-large-employers-will-enable-china-to-dominate-1000s-of-u-s-communities 

I can think of more than a few real issues that sorely need distraction.  You?
Best from the Silver State

H/T SilverDoctors (an ex Fool BTW) for the link.

Report this comment

#2) On June 24, 2013 at 12:34 PM, L0RDZ (79.58) wrote:

WOW AWALL   to  say  that  Snow should just turn himself in  and  stand   on   principles   is  ridiculous.

Kudos  to  Hong  Kong  for standing  up and  mocking the  USA  for  not  having  dotted all  their  I's  and T's  and basically  presenting a  laughable  charge  of   treason  and   subversion  on  Snow  for  basically  speaking some  truth  as  opposed to all the  Bull  you know  what  flipping  lies.

Its messed up  when  China  seems  to have  more  humanity  than  the USA.

I'd  run  as  the  first  rule  of  not  going  to prison  is  not  being  indicted  or  detained  into  those  bs  hearings  of  law.

Just look at  that  Italian  politician  who's  going  to  serve  7 years for  doing  what  many a  politicians  have  done  if  not  worse.

For  sticking his  you know  what  into a   you know  what.

Snow  would  not  receive  a  fair  trial  in fact  it wouldn't  surprise me  to  see  O  issue  a  capture  and or  kill order  on him.

Speaking of  justice   you'll  rarely  ever see  it  in  rigged courts.

Run  SNow run... 

What  Snow  did  was  leak  the  truth  and  if  you  wanna  crucify  him  for  that,  well shame  on  you...

 

Report this comment

#3) On June 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Valyooo (99.30) wrote:

Way out of line. They poison us and dump goods on us? No, we CHOOSE to buy their stuff. If we cut off china we need to find somebody else to finance our spending problems, an somebody else to give us dirt cheap goods. China is the best sector in the US economy 

Report this comment

#4) On June 24, 2013 at 6:44 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

I advise you don't eat Tilapia.  Or give your kids plastic made by Mattel.  We have Uncle Ben buying our Tbills.  Talk of taper is premature though we are seeing the deficit decreasing.  Remember sequester is 10% for TEN years, it is not just a one year thing.

China needs the US, it is not the other way around.  When I see "made in China" I don't consider that a good thing as a consumer.

And Lordz the public doesn't know everything he took and said to others.  I am just focused on the phone records since that is all I know.  Basically Verizon and others are giving information that the phone companies already can view for themselves. 

It is not CONTENT.  To obtain content there is your standard judicial process.  They are not looking at my or your phone calls made.  They would be wasting time and money doing so.

People give more information to Zuckerberg which he has told them he will sell to others. No outcry there just blissful embracing.

Report this comment

#5) On June 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Valyooo (99.30) wrote:

China needs us for what? To consume what they produce? BS

 

i don't like Chinese products but apparently a lot of people do hence the sales. Just like cigarettes are bad but I don't blame PM and day abolish them

Report this comment

#6) On June 24, 2013 at 11:07 PM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

The 4th Ammendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

and the United Nations General Assembly definition of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." What the hell? Wait a second...that's a little broad, don't you think?

and Now take the Patriot Act: "An act to deter and punish terrorist (insert above definition) acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enoforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."

And how about all the recent gun legislation? Basically disregarding the second ammendment. It's very difficult to buy guns, and especially ammo now--it has been for a while. What an interesting coincidence. And the government creates the term "assault weapon" which they essentially contrived to arbitrally group any weapon they choose to prohibit under the new legislation. Note: assault weapon, and assault RIFLE are two entirely different things.

Do you not have children/grandchildren awallejr.? Maybe you're just too selfish to give a damn? The Constitution--does that mean anything to you? The past we have enjoyed is not guaranteed in the future. It is the PEOPLES' responsiblity to ensure the future is brighter than today, not the government. 

What's right for YOUR COUNTRY, is NOT necessarily right for your GOVERNMENT. Do NOT mistake the two.

 

Report this comment

#7) On June 24, 2013 at 11:16 PM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

"We have Uncle Ben buying our Tbills.  Talk of taper is premature though we are seeing the deficit decreasing.  Remember sequester is 10% for TEN years, it is not just a one year thing."

That's funny. The 10 yr is up from 1.61 to 2.55 in a month and a half. Interest rates tend to have a significant effect on deficits. You might wanna check that out.

"It is not CONTENT.  To obtain content there is your standard judicial process.  They are not looking at my or your phone calls made.  They would be wasting time and money doing so."

Yea, the government runs a very tight ship. It has no history of inefficiency and wastefulness. Plus, wasting your own money and someone else's is entirely different...

Awallejr: serious quesiton: do you let the main stream media do all your thinking for you? 

Report this comment

#8) On June 25, 2013 at 1:48 AM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

China needs us because it is an export based economy.

Report this comment

#9) On June 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Money, I do my own thinking, whether main stream coincides or not.  Checking public information is not an unreasonable search or seizure.  Checking CONTENT, however, requires Judicial Review, which is required by the NSA to obtain. 

I care about my descendants because I don't want them blown up by some fanatical organization or sick individual.  You give more information to FB and you are upset about giving open information ALREADY viewable by the phone companies to law enforcement agencies in order to hunt down terrorist cells?

I am tired of seeing my family endangered by gun enthusiasts who have this paranoid delusion that there will be an invasion and assault weapons are our only defense.  Tell that to all the kids that have been murdered so far by them.

As for Uncle Ben, what he did was to tell you basically he is not returning and so he laid out an exit strategy not wanting to just pass the buck to the new Fed Chairman. He also told you it wasn't imminent. Markets always over react.  Tapering eventually has to happen, just not yet.  The data isn't there.

 

Report this comment

#10) On June 25, 2013 at 8:00 AM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

Why don't you listen to Snowden's interview before speaking so unintelligently on this subject. Then maybe, just maybe you can form YOUR own opinion--not one that has been already created for you.

George Orwell's 1984--read it. And Huxley's "Brave New World", or Huntsman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Warning: this will require you to think deeply...

As for the amount of lives lost annually due to domestic terrorism and the legal ownership of guns--it is miniscule. You are willing to sacrifice some of your freedom due to the chance that you or your family may be struck by lightning. 

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” - Benjamin Franklin

Report this comment

#11) On June 25, 2013 at 8:29 AM, L0RDZ (79.58) wrote:

I'm sorry to say that checking  content does not require judicial review  and  employees  and  governments  abuse  authority all the time  ~   when  I  signed up  for cell phone  service or  home service  I never  authorized  my  data  to be  sold  or  reviewed,  but it  happens.

What  Snow leaked  was how easy it  was  and  how organizations  are  abusing  their  power.  They  basically  can  look  at  your  screen  and  see  your words as  they are  typed  even  before you cliick  send  or  post.

If you think  giving up  your liberties without  any  protest makes you safer... you are  a  fool.

I  don't  have a  face  book  and  I've never  consented to the bs, but  guess  what  my  information  is being  stored  without  any  cause, fully  capable of  being  reviewed,  even  as  I  type  or  rewinded  as  in  phone calls.  SHoot  to  my  disgust  despite  not  have a  face book account,  because  others  do  and  have  decided  to put my  information  on  facebook   I'm  basically recorded  by  that  POS  Hoodie  scum  mother  you know  what  idiot.   Despite me  never  consenting  nor  authorizing my  information.

Back  during  9/11  days  I  became  privy to  the fact that  every phone call was  being  recorded.   Everything  that  you say. 

I  couldn't didn't say  anything  as  I would be labeled  as a  crazy person.

I would  much  rather  have  access to a  gun to keep myself  safe  than say  put  my  safety  into  these scum  politician  and  gov-mental  employees.

I have  come  across scum of  the earth  pieces of  you know  what types,  cops  as  crooked  as  they come,  it saddens me  that my  taxes  go  to pay  for  this  bs...  taxation without  representation.

Heck, before  Snow leaked   there  was  plausible  deniability  and this  was  all  secret  hush hush  ~  first  rule of  fight club stuff.

Our gov-ment  did  more  damage by  its  response  than  SNow  ever could,  had  anyone with half a  brain ~  would  and  should have  simply  ignored  this  and  handled  it  black ops  style.

Instead  we  get  told yeah  we've been basically lying  to  you people,  but  its  not  as  bad  as  it  seems.

Its like  you  are  pregnant  or  you  are  not...   And  our  governments response  was  like  trying to  say  not  pregnant when  pregnant  and  than  basiically  screwed up.

Eric Holder  screwed up  in  not doing  his  homework  in  allowing  China  to  basically  laugh  at  his  attempt  to  punish  SNow  and  seek  his  arrest  for  a  bs charge.

If  all this spying was  suppose to be  all  secret  double  probation,  well than  it  should  have been  handled  all  secretly,  but  our gov-ment  is  wrong  and  certain powers  that be  were  not  strong enough  in  order  to  do  what they thought was  needed  to keep it hush hush.

Hell  the  fact  that  Snow  was  able  to  attach  a  flash drive  and  take  information   as well  as  the  fact  that  he  leaked  that he  and  anyone  in  the  organization  was  capable of  tracking and spying  on  anyone  including  the  Potus  ~  shows  a  glaring  lack of  internal  controls  and  problems.

Lets face it  our  information  is  not  safe,  and  recording  more information only  makes us  less  not  more  safe.

LQQk  at  the  stealing  of  military  data,  the  f-35  project,  the  stealing  of  nuclear  technology,  and  yet  many  want  to  crucify  Snow  for   sticking  up  for  liberty  not  tyranny.

I  think  laws  need  to be  placed  so  as  to  keep phone  records  safe  and  not  sellable,  I  think  guns  should  be  accessible  by  any  honest  hard  working  tax  payers  who  don't  have  records  of   bad  stuff  (  mental  instability  and  violent criminal records).

An  armed  society  is  often  a  way more  polite society.

Open  carry should  be  the  rule  of  law...   except if  you  have been  convicted of  violent  crimes  and or have  mental issues.

AWAll  if  you  honestly  think  you  are  safer  unarmed  and  at  the mercy of  being  tracked  and  recorded,  well  when  things break  down  ~  trust  me  whether  its  a   crazed  mass killer  or  a  black  bear  ~   you'd  wish  you  were  armed  as  opposed  to  unarmed.

 

Report this comment

#12) On June 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Money when you start to quote people as if what they say are definitive today pay attention to WHEN they made the comment.  When the Bill of Rights passed(your "right to bear arms") and when Franklin made your quote it was a world of wooden boats, MUSKETS, cannon and swords. 

You think changes wouldn't have been made if they knew the US would have a population of 313 million and the world over 7 BILLION and they even have a glimpse of modern day weaponry?

I have no problem with people having guns for hunting for food or self-defense.  But a line simply has to be drawn.  Try telling the families of those kids gunned down in Connecticut and Columbine by weapons initially obtained legally about your "stat."

As for Snowden I want to hear it all and that is what an open trial enables you to hear.  He will be able to get high powered lawyers to defend him, if only for the book/movie rights.  Many HEROIC people were beaten, burned, harassed, and murdered brutally while they had the courage to march for Civil Rights and protesting the Vietnam War.  4 dead in Ohio.  So cry me a river about Snowden.

Report this comment

#13) On June 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

And Lordzs your blog is too much of a rant for me to continue a discussion on everything you typed but your last paragraph seems to be your central thesis.

First I am not saying ban all weapons.  I am saying there is no realistic justification for them.  A shotgun works just fine when confronting an intruder in your home. Since I live in NYC I am not expecting any bears to attack, and if a crazed killer attacks while I am walking in Times Square, I and many others are toast since we won't be carrying weapons on us.

The times they are a changing.  We have a world of BILLIONS and growing.  Remaining civilized is the key.  Yes I suppose a World War Z could theoretically happen (hence my saving some gold/silver in case of disruptions to society).  But I assume the trains will run again tomorrow and people will go on to their jobs.

Personally I suspect the homeless care more about where their next meal is coming from than if the Federal Gov't keeps data points.  I doubt they care that Zuckerberg monetizes the hell out of all its millions of users, information given to him freely and without complaint.

Report this comment

#14) On June 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

"Money when you start to quote people as if what they say are definitive today pay attention to WHEN they made the comment.  When the Bill of Rights passed(your "right to bear arms") and when Franklin made your quote it was a world of wooden boats, MUSKETS, cannon and swords."

 What a predictable retort? I couldnt even count the number of times I have heard this ridiculous response.

I mean, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, what relevance could a greater than 200 year old document have to society today?

And since you're so good at omitting important context, here's the 2nd Ammendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Haven't you thought to yourself why they define it as "arms", as opposed to limiting it to the technology that existed during that period? Of course they had the foresight to know weapons would evolve over time. These men were much smarter than you and I. And why is is that "militia" , "right to bear arms", and "security of a free state" are all mentioned within the same sentence? The Founding Fathers greatly understood the malevolence of tyranny, and a government's tendency towards it. They wrote the Constitution in a way to ensure that the power remained with the people. The very same power that people like you can't wait to give away...

And as for the gun legislation, you do not even know how far it has gone. You're a parakeet for the MSM. You haven't done your Homework, and somehow think you know something. Why don't you do some research and learn that even some .223 cal rifles are now illegal, due to magazine size greater than 7. It's insane. Ammunition--all types-- is extremely difficult to buy...

By the way, this post has twice as many comments as it does recs, which tells me you have a LOT more to learn...

Report this comment

#15) On June 25, 2013 at 5:17 PM, L0RDZ (79.58) wrote:

I tell you  what  when  two plus different countries start calling you a  horse !!!  maybe  its  time to  have someone put a  saddle  on  the USA  and  giddy up.

Russia  was  the  second  country to  blatantly albeit professionally  give  the  US   another  stern  eye roll and  on the record  statements  that  they will not  detain nor arrest Edward  Snow  because  he  did  not commit any crimes.

Mister Potus  are  you paying attention ?

Two world powers have basically  blown off the bogus arrest warrants  issued for  espionage ?

Ironically  word of  Snow  being in Moscow  was  first leaked by  the press  which could not  officially comment as they were not  authorized to  confirm and valid  that  Ed  did  travel  to  Moscow  from  Hong Kong.

This almost reminds me of  that  scene  in  300  where Leonidas  tells  that  POS  emissary  that  if  the Athenians had  the courage  to  turn down  Xerxes offer  of  submission.

The  Athenians  are  the  Chinese  and  the  Russians are the Spartans.

Any how...

Rarely will you ever see me  give  credit to Putin,  but  good show man  good show.

 

Report this comment

#16) On June 25, 2013 at 5:54 PM, L0RDZ (79.58) wrote:

     Abraham Lincoln once described the United States as "government of the people, by the people, for the people," but apparently this is no longer true.

     It is now government of the 1% ruling class, for the 1% ruling class, by the 1% ruling class.

     Atrocities such as waging wars under false pretenses,       engaging in torture, spying on U.S. citizens, lying to the American people, and violating the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now standard operating procedure.

    You won't be punished for committing war crimes in America, but you will be punished for exposing them.

Report this comment

#17) On June 25, 2013 at 7:43 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Money you argue from passion, not of knowledge of Constitutional law.  You do realize that Justice Antonin Scalia interprets the Constitution from the circumstances of WHEN it was passed.  In other words he is an "originalist."  So the WHEN, matters to him. Basically he does not believe in "legislating from the Bench."  Since he is an actual Supreme Court Justice rendering real opinions, you will forgive if I ignore your false commentary.

There is, on the hand, a "Constitution is an ever-work in progress" camp who basically view that the Constitution should be interpreted in the present with the Constitution providing general guidelines.

Neither camp, however, would agree that the Bill of Rights are ABSOLUTES which you are trying argue.  You are just wrong.  Nothing more to debate.  Congress has the power to ban many weapons and both Supreme Court camps would uphold.  

The "Ever Changing camp" would say present circumstances control, not what happened 200 years ago.  And "the WHEN" camp would argue that NO ONE back during Colonial times could ever possibly have imagine the horrific weapons mankind has created today.

Actually I don't care that it is becoming hard to get the bullets.  I do care, however, that we allow people to own these massively destructive assault weapons mainly out of ridiculous paranoia by a small minority. This is my opinion and my opinion only.  Great if the majority agrees with me, but one thing you have no right to accuse me of is "parroting"  (well you said "parakeeting", I never had success in teaching parakeets I owned to talk), one thing I do here is speak my mind, love me or hate me.

As for recs oh please this site has died long ago.  I try to spice it up but might be a lost cause. If you consider that an important metric in a discussion that is your misfortune.

Report this comment

#18) On June 25, 2013 at 7:48 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Lordz as for #15 I say also notice which countries he is suppose to go through?  China, Russia, Cuba and then Ecuador.  Impressive ("rolls yes").  And I do agree with your first 2 sentences in comment #16.

Report this comment

#19) On June 26, 2013 at 12:10 AM, MoneyWorksforMe (< 20) wrote:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

I'm done with you. Good luck--you're gonna need it. 

Report this comment

#20) On June 26, 2013 at 1:19 AM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

That is a cop out Money.  You are clueless about Constitutional Law so you hide behind links.  Shoo then, waste someone else's time.

Report this comment

#21) On June 26, 2013 at 1:33 AM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

And to reply further.  You had the audacity to suggest recs dictated credibility yet your Caps score hmm sucks. I had this issue with Alstry.  He used to mock my negative score until I told him I will turn positive and he will turn negative.  Both happened and he then said score doesn't matter. 

You want to discuss fine, but since you truly don't understand Constitutional law it really is a waste of time. You didn't once acknowledge what Supreme court Justice Scalia believes because guess what, he believes in what I was arguing.

Report this comment

#22) On June 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Valyooo (99.30) wrote:

"China needs us because it is an export based economy."

 So if you worked very hard to produce a bunch of stuff, and you kept lending money to your neighbor to buy that stuff from you, would you say you needed your neighbor?

 

Remove money from the equation for a second....if one person is making a bunch of stuff, and the other person is consuming all that stuff, who needs who?  They dont NEED us to consume their crap...they can do it themselves 

Report this comment

#23) On June 26, 2013 at 5:35 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

1)  So if you worked very hard to produce a bunch of stuff, and you kept lending money to your neighbor to buy that stuff from you, would you say you needed your neighbor?

Of course you do.  You would lose if that neighbor stopped buying and didn't repay.

2)  if one person is making a bunch of stuff, and the other person is consuming all that stuff, who needs who?

Sellers need buyers.  Buyers don't necessarily need those sellers, unless there was a critical monopoly.

3) They don't NEED us to consume their crap...they can do it themselves

Except China is in no position right now to replace the lost business by internal consumption. A kid sold a kidney just to get an Iphone and Ipad there.  The average worker in China probably earns about $7,000-$8,000 a year so they aren't buying anything expensive or even cheap from a US point of view like a shirt for $20 or shoes for $50. Until their wages rise substantially they are in no position to replace the lost business of the US or of even Europe.

The US, on the other can simply buy from elsewhere.  I buy Van Heusen shirts and they are made all over the world besides from China.  I tend to buy the ones made in Vietnam since I feel we "owe" them.

Any business owner will tell you that if they lost their biggest customer and unable to replace that customer they would probably be in a world of hurt. A lost sale is a lost sale. The bigger the loss the harder the hurt.

Report this comment

#24) On June 26, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Valyooo (99.30) wrote:

Since when do we repay China?

 

Sellers need buyers when they're giving them something of value.

 

Example: awallejr produces a bunch of stuff.  Valyooo cant pay for it, so he gives him a v-bill as an IOU.  Then Valyooo realizes he cant pay back the IOU, so he just prints some valyooo reserve notes out of nothing and uses them to pay off the IOU.

Would you accept this arrangement?  You work hard to make stuff, I give you an IOU, and then I pay off the IOU with another IOU?  Doesn't seem to make sense.

 

The reason china cant consume their own stuff is because their central bank is screwing them with the dollar peg....let it go and they can afford to consume their own stuff.

 

thats like me planting a garden full of tomatos, and then giving them all away to somebody else for scraps of paper and starving to death and saying "man, I wish I could afford tomatos!".  I could....all I have to do is eat the damn tomatos I am growing 

Report this comment

#25) On June 26, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Valyooo (99.30) wrote:

Also, just because YOU like Van Heussen does not mean that other people do.  I dont drink soda or smoke cigarettes, and I think nobody should, but I would never protest to shut down KO or PM

Report this comment

#26) On June 26, 2013 at 8:00 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Since when do we repay China?

TBills are self-amortizing bonds.  Each bond they own gets paid back over time depending on which duration bond they are holding.

Your IOU example doesn't apply.  American consumers are giving China dollars not IOUs.  What China does with those dollars is a different ballgame.  If China were to unpeg their currency it's value would skyrocket killing their export business dramatically and probably throwing them into a deep recession.

As for my shirt example, you missed the point completely.  I was telling you that for the SAME product I can buy it from another country than China.  THAT is why the seller needs the buyer, the buyer can always go elsewhere (well again not counting monopolies of needed items). 

China is a long way from changing from export centric to consumption centric.  They built up their export chain because of cheap labor.  In order to turn consumption centric you need to raise wages which would then make their factories less appealing.  Labor is THE BIGGEST cost of most businesses.  Raise that too much then China's neighbors are looking better for moving factories to.

Report this comment

#27) On June 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

@ #24-  "Since when do we repay China?".  You didn't ck link in comment #1 or you would have the answer. Hint: in more ways than you know.

  Awall,  really?  Understanding of the Constition?  Just think how safe you and your fam would feel locked in a cell- no worries about job security, bill paying, freezing in the winter, feeding your family, medical, dental, your future, etc.  Step away from the scotch for a moment.  If this whole thing is on the "up and up" (big if- reeks of distraction to me), here is your answer to why he ran-

Why Didn’t Snowden Go through “Proper Channels” to Blow the Whistle?

Coward?  Patriot? Tool?  This is a guy who said that whistleblowers should be "shot in the balls".

Report this comment

#28) On June 28, 2013 at 7:18 PM, awallejr (78.52) wrote:

Star that link tells me a story of 3 people who had the courage to go through proper channels.  We don't know all the information Snowden disclosed.  All I have heard about was NSA creating data points on calls made by phone numbers.  No one has a realistic expectation of privacy with respect to what numbers you called.  It is readily viewable by a 3rd party (the phone company). 

Content, on the other hand, is not readily viewable by a 3rd party unless they actually listen in.  People have a reasonable expectation of privacy there hence why Enforcement agencies still need to apply to court for a wiretap.

His disclosure probably hurt more than helped because terrorists are now on notice.  I see no benefit to what Snowden did.  As I said several times people give more information to Zuckerberg to sell.

To me Gandhi was a hero. He stood on his principles and took whatever was thrown at him.  He never ran.

The only chance we have of discovering the real story is for a public trial.  Now if Obama shipped Snowden off to Gitmo that would tick me off.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2014

July (2) June (2) May (3) April (5) March (5) February (2) January (5)

2013

December (3) November (3) October (6) September (6) August (3) July (7) June (5) May (2) April (9) March (4) February (5) January (3)

2012

December (4) November (3) October (5) September (8) August (4) July (6) June (2) April (3) February (6) January (4)

2011

December (3) November (2) October (3) September (1) August (3) July (4) May (1) April (3) March (1) February (1) January (3)

2010

December (2) November (2) October (1) September (2) August (2) May (2) April (1) March (2)

2009

December (1) November (2) September (5) August (5) July (1) June (3) May (8) April (3) March (2) February (1) January (3)

2008

November (2) October (10) September (5) August (2) July (1) May (1)