Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: Keith <krw@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:55:32 -0500
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:33:01 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:10:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:39:38 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>Besides, Congress knew about it.
>>>
>>>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html
>>>
>>[snip]
>>>John
>>
>>John, You done gone and spoilt it for all the weenies that want to act
>>shocked ;-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>
> Turns out the New York Times has known about this for about a year,
> but timed their "discovery" to coincide with James Risen's book
> release. And members of Congress have been briefed all along; hell, W
> should name the names. And they are all shocked, shocked.
....I tell ya!
> Journalism this ain't. The NYT may wind up killing people to sell some
> books... may as well, as they have no integrity left to defend.
Hell, have you seen the circulation numbers? They (and most other rags)
have no readers left either. Figure that?
> Seems to me that staying alive is a civil liberty, too. Privacy isn't
> too important to dead people.
Oh crap, now we're going to hear some out-of-context quote from
B.Franklin.
--
Keith
.
- References:
- Something we can all agree on
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: Dr . Anton T . Squeegee
- Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: Something we can all agree on
- From: John Larkin
- Something we can all agree on
- Prev by Date: Re: Something we can all agree on
- Next by Date: Re: Something we can all agree on
- Previous by thread: Re: Something we can all agree on
- Next by thread: Re: Something we can all agree on
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|