On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:32:09 GMT, The Wolf >
wrote:

>IF SHE HADN'T BEEN A STUPID **** OVER $250,000 WHEN SHE WAS WORTH $1,000,000
>SHE WOULDN'T BE DODGING PAPERAZZI ON HER WAY UP THE COURTHOUSE STEPS
>EVERYMORNING NOW WOULD SHE?



$250,000? Worth $1,000,00? Hah! You silly boy!

Your crudeness is not the problem, but your incredible stupidity is.
Really...you cannot carry on that way when you don't know your ass
from your elbow.

Bluster all you want, but if you can't get your facts straight, go to
the back of the class with the goof-offs and don't say a word unless
someone calls on you.

Now, behave!

Boron

What possible good would having my opinion do? From what I read, most people
don't even clearly understand the charges against here - which do not include
insider trading.

Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?

Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere.
CatinTX

TheCatinTX > wrote in message
...
> What possible good would having my opinion do?

Nothing good whatsoever will come out of an opinion offered by you...

> Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?

I don't see "recipe" anywhere in the title of rfc... RFC is more than
your personal index for collecting recipes. BTW: Where /is/ your recipe?

> Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere.

Please.

The Ranger

Dog3 <dognospam@adjfkdla;not> suggested in message
4...
> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04.
> Cast your vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html

Quick-n-dirty poll. I understand the need to keep it such but question
3, "Do you think Martha is not guilty and will be found innocent of all
charges?" should have been broken down into two questions. "Do you think
Martha is not guilty?" and "Do you think she will be found innocent of
all charges?"

The Ranger

Dog3 wrote:
> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
> vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>
> Michael
>

Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it
doesn't matter. Because she was a director on the NYSE and once a stock
broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal people. I'm not
sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.

Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.

Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction
overturned on appeal. Eventually, she walks.

Best regards,
Bob

TheCatinTX wrote:

> What possible good would having my opinion do? From what I read, most people
> don't even clearly understand the charges against here - which do not include
> insider trading.
>
> Why is this on a recipe newsgroup?
>
> Pardon me, I'll go grumble elsewhere.
> CatinTX

Obviously you haven't followed along at all before busting in... your
opinion therefore would probably serve no purpose what-so-ever.

This isn't a "recipe" newsgroup. If you want only recipes then head
off to rec.food.recipes where it's nice and moderated and NO
discussion is allowed. It seems as though you may be happier there.

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dog3 wrote:
>
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast
>> your vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>> Michael

Michael,

I know that there are no changes to be made but there should have been
a #4.

Do you think Martha IS guilty and will be found innocent of all charges

--
Steve

Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it.

On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article
, "zxcvbob" >
opined:

> Dog3 wrote:
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
>> vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it
> doesn't matter. Because she was a director on the NYSE and once a stock
> broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal people. I'm not
> sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.
>
> Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.
>
> Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction
> overturned on appeal. Eventually, she walks.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious
charge of lying to prop up her own company stock.

If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge has
no wiggle room.
--
================================================== ======
I'd rather have a German division ahead of me then a
French division behind me," Gen. George S. Patton
================================================== ======

The Wolf wrote:
> On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article
> , "zxcvbob" >
> opined:
>
>
>>Dog3 wrote:
>>
>>>Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
>>>vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>
>>Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it
>>doesn't matter. Because she was a director on the NYSE and once a stock
>>broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal people. I'm not
>>sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.
>>
>>Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.
>>
>>Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction
>>overturned on appeal. Eventually, she walks.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Bob
>
>
> Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious
> charge of lying to prop up her own company stock.
>
> If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge has
> no wiggle room.

She would appeal that one on constitutional grounds. IIRC, the lie that
she told was that she proclaimed her innocence -- part of her right to
due process. It would be like charging people with perjury for pleading
"not guilty" in a trial if they were eventually convicted.

So I'll ammend my prediction a little: *long* prison sentence if she's
convicted, overturned on appeal.

Bob

Nancy Young wrote:
> Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at
> Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse my french, but I firmly believe
> that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
> deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees.
> That is a trial I can get behind, seems they are having more fun
> making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an example' type
> of thing.
>
> Just my opinion.
> nancy


Bernie Ebbers (of Worldcom) is the f***** I want to see fried. I've
already paid good money to see it.

Bob

> Dog3 <dognospam@adjfkdla;not> suggested in message
> 4...
> > Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04.
> > Cast your vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>

Quite frankly, I could not possibly care less. I don't ever watch her
incredibly dull television shows, read her magazines, or otherwise
consume ANY output of Martha Stewart Pan-Galactic Inc., so whether
she's still churning this stuff out or crocheting toilet-seat covers for her
cell will make absolutely no difference to me, now or ever.

Bob M.

Naomi Darvell wrote:
>

> Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be
> differences in how serious people think the offense is.


Plus a lot of people, including maybe some jury members, will think
she's been punished enough already.


1. Lost her position heading her own company.

2. Out at least a few hundred million bucks.

3. May lose her signature TV show.

4. The butt of many jokes.

5. Portrayed by Cybill Shepherd in a TV movie.



Brian Rodenborn

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article
> , "zxcvbob"
>
>
>
> Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious
> charge of lying to prop up her own company stock.
>
> If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge
has
> no wiggle room.

I think that is the most troublesome aspect of the case. She may have lied,
and that may have propped up her company's stock. I don't see how they
could prove that she lied with the intent to prop up the stock unless she
explicitly told someone her motivation. In the end, she acted as a private
citizen with respect to her stock transactions, not as the head of her
company. I think this is where the prosecution will fail. I think she will
walk, or there will be a last-minute deal where she pleads guilty to some
minor infraction and pays a large fine. She will say that she admitted
guilt to minimize damage to her company and the prosecutors will be able to
save face.

Dog3 wrote:

> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
> vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>

Should we not hear the evidence first?

On 01/29/2004 1:16 PM, in article
, "zxcvbob" >
opined:

> The Wolf wrote:
>> On 01/29/2004 11:29 AM, in article
>> , "zxcvbob" >
>> opined:
>>
>>
>>> Dog3 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
>>>> vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>> Guilty of insider trading, but she wasn't charged with that so it
>>> doesn't matter. Because she was a director on the NYSE and once a stock
>>> broker, the bar is a little higher for her than normal people. I'm not
>>> sure why the govt didn't bring this charge, I guess their case sucked.
>>>
>>> Not guilty of obstruction of justice, but she might be convicted anyway.
>>>
>>> Short prison sentence plus $10000 fine if she's convicted; conviction
>>> overturned on appeal. Eventually, she walks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> Wall St. Journal reporter was interviewed and said there is one serious
>> charge of lying to prop up her own company stock.
>>
>> If convicted on that she does time, Federal sentencing guidelines judge has
>> no wiggle room.
>
> She would appeal that one on constitutional grounds. IIRC, the lie that
> she told was that she proclaimed her innocence -- part of her right to
> due process. It would be like charging people with perjury for pleading
> "not guilty" in a trial if they were eventually convicted.
>
> So I'll ammend my prediction a little: *long* prison sentence if she's
> convicted, overturned on appeal.
>
> Bob

Her whole defense is a stretch. But it's not as bad for the government as
the OJ jury that was stacked with black women who think it's ok for their
husbands to beat the shit out of them. I know that may sound racist to some
BUT the jury consultant hired by the dream team admitted that's exactly what
they wanted to do. Clark and Darden were too stupid to see it coming.

Stewart is knowledgeable about stocks, that's what she did for a living.

It comes down to how she plays to the jury.

She lied to the feds, that's not a smart thing to do.

My prediction, she is found guilty and does some time.
--
================================================== ========================
"When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the
artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner
here, both sides must part with some of their demands," Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790)
================================================== ========================

On 01/29/2004 3:39 PM, in article , "Dave
Smith" > opined:

>
> Dog3 wrote:
>
>> Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
>> vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html
>>
>
> Should we not hear the evidence first?
>
>
Who's *we* canuck?

This is an American circus!
--
================================================== =====================
The principal difference between genius and stupidity is that there are
limits to genius!
================================================== =====================

Default User > wrote in message >...
> Naomi Darvell wrote:
> >
>
> > Another problem-- among people who think she's guilty, there are going to be
> > differences in how serious people think the offense is.
>

> 5. Portrayed by Cybill Shepherd in a TV movie.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Hey! I LIKE Cybill Shepherd . . .
Lynn in Fargo

You are correct, of course. My apologies to everyone on this thread for my
pre-coffee morning rant. It shall not happen again. CatinTX

>I'm thinking, how many of us here, upon getting a call from someone
>who knew that the principals were dumping the stock, would say, no
>I am not going to sell, that wouldn't be right, I'll just lose the
>money. I get out in a heartbeat. And I have a big honest streak.
>
>Now, I know this is wrong thinking, but they threw the big gun at
>Martha, their top lawyer. Excuse my french, but I firmly believe
>that person should be going after those f**** at Enron who
>deliberately stole all those retirement savings from their employees.
>That is a trial I can get behind, seems they are having more fun
>making Martha miserable over some kind of 'making an example' type
>of thing.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>nancy
>

Nancy .. I agree 100%! and then some. In the big pic of things ... what MS did
or didn't do was trivial.
It's like to cops busting a 16 year old for smoking a cigarette and letting the
crack dealers run free.

~Kat


What did my hands do before they held you?
Sylvia Plath (1932 - 1963)

>The only suitable punishment for Ken Lay would be having to live in a
>roach infested tenement building surrounded by his former employees.
>
>Melissa

Or a spider hole
~Kat


What did my hands do before they held you?
Sylvia Plath (1932 - 1963)

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/29/2004 11:48 PM, in article
> , "Melissa Houle"
> > opined:
>
> I am sick and ****ing tired of all you "they're picking on her because
she's
> famous" crybabies. SHE IS IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SHE LIED TO FEDERAL
> PROSCUTORS AND HER STOCK HOLDERS!

I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh. He is under the thumb of the
prosecutor in Palm Beach County because he purchased drugs in a Denny's
parking lot with boxes full of cash. He illegally structured bank
withdrawals to hide the transactions. Then he obtained duplicate
prescriptions from multiple sources simultaneously to feed his addiction.
There are pharmacy and bank records to support this. In addition, his
housekeeper supplied voice recordings and emails to support the claim that
he had her illegally obtain narcotics for him. Now, after bashing the ACLU
and liberal trial attorneys, he hired a liberal trial attorney to defend him
and has not refused the help of the ACLU on his behalf. Any common person
would have been in jail by now, but Rush asserts that he is being unfairly
treated because he is a celebrity. His attorney asserts that there is no
utility in charging him with a crime, however Rush says that more white
people (his term) should be prosecuted and "sent up" for taking illegal
drugs. They claim that there are no victims, but someone had to knock over
a drug store, steal a delivery truck, or break into a warehouse to divert
the "prescription drugs" for sale on the street. The housekeeper was
pressured to do illegal acts. Limbaugh claims to be the highest rated talk
show on radio and is definitely Clear Channel's cash cow. His illegal acts
jeopardize that company's bottom line the same way that Martha's alleged
illegal acts impact her company. The only difference here is that I would
enjoy seeing the Bush puppets, Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh, suffer and
you would like to see liberal Democrat, Martha Stewart, suffer.

"Naomi Darvell" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this-- but
I'm
> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I think
> everyone should. The point will not be lost.

I'm afraid that it will be lost it the vast right-wing spin cycle.
Example:

" We went to war because of WMD. There are no WMD. The war was justified.
It was the right war for the wrong reasons."

"The ACLU is bad. The ACLU is defending Rush. The defense is the right
thing for the wrong reason."

Don't kid yourself that the neo-cons will soften on this. The ACLU defended
Ollie North, yet neo-con talkers like Limbaugh and Bennett ignored that fact
and continued to bash them while conveniently forgetting to mentioning the
assistance they gave to North. Now rabid conservative Bob Barr works for
the ACLU. That doesn't stop the right-wing attack machine from smearing the
ACLU. I don't see that the Limbaugh case will be any different.

I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some lower profile case
much earlier if they had a problem with this law. I believe it has been on
the books for a decade.

Vox Humana > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some
> lower profile case much earlier if they had a problem with
> this law. I believe it has been on the books for a decade.

Which case do you think has a higher probability of success: The
Celebrity with money to burn and enough media channels to sway the vast
republic or Joe Schlubb that is being taken to task for the exact same
set of circumstances?

Since there have already been many Joe Schlubb cases, that should give
you enough empirical data to make an accurate forecast.

ObTopic: MS did only two things wrong; she got caught and she's not a
Good Ol' Boy. Bill's come due.

The Ranger

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana > wrote in message
> ...
> [snip]
> > I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some
> > lower profile case much earlier if they had a problem with
> > this law. I believe it has been on the books for a decade.
>
> Which case do you think has a higher probability of success: The
> Celebrity with money to burn and enough media channels to sway the vast
> republic or Joe Schlubb that is being taken to task for the exact same
> set of circumstances?
>
> Since there have already been many Joe Schlubb cases, that should give
> you enough empirical data to make an accurate forecast.
>

I think celebrities should spend their own money to do what the ACLU could
do for them. It is like corporate welfare when the ACLU uses contributions
form "the little people" to defend people like Rush who is worth hundreds of
millions of dollars. If Rush made a huge contribution to the ACLU to
compensate them for their services, then I wouldn't have a problem with this
situation. I don't see that as a likely outcome. I see the ACLU as an
organization that levels the playing field to give access for people without
the means to litigate civil rights cases themselves.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > ...
> > [snip]
> > > I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some
> > > lower profile case much earlier if they had a problem with
> > > this law. I believe it has been on the books for a decade.
> >
> > Which case do you think has a higher probability of success: The
> > Celebrity with money to burn and enough media channels to sway the vast
> > republic or Joe Schlubb that is being taken to task for the exact same
> > set of circumstances?
> >
> > Since there have already been many Joe Schlubb cases, that should give
> > you enough empirical data to make an accurate forecast.
> >
>
> I think celebrities should spend their own money to do what the ACLU could
> do for them. It is like corporate welfare when the ACLU uses
contributions
> form "the little people" to defend people like Rush who is worth hundreds
of
> millions of dollars. If Rush made a huge contribution to the ACLU to
> compensate them for their services, then I wouldn't have a problem with
this
> situation. I don't see that as a likely outcome. I see the ACLU as an
> organization that levels the playing field to give access for people
without
> the means to litigate civil rights cases themselves.
>
>

It's a mistake to think that the ACLU spends a lot of money "defending"
wealthy people like Limbaugh. In such cases the defendant is spending his
own money on his own lawyers - all the ACLU does is file a brief with the
court explaining why they think the case should be decided one way or the
other.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Vox Humana > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > [snip]
> > > > I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some
> > > > lower profile case much earlier if they had a problem with
> > > > this law. I believe it has been on the books for a decade.
> > >
> > > Which case do you think has a higher probability of success: The
> > > Celebrity with money to burn and enough media channels to sway the
vast
> > > republic or Joe Schlubb that is being taken to task for the exact same
> > > set of circumstances?
> > >
> > > Since there have already been many Joe Schlubb cases, that should give
> > > you enough empirical data to make an accurate forecast.
> > >
> >
> > I think celebrities should spend their own money to do what the ACLU
could
> > do for them. It is like corporate welfare when the ACLU uses
> contributions
> > form "the little people" to defend people like Rush who is worth
hundreds
> of
> > millions of dollars. If Rush made a huge contribution to the ACLU to
> > compensate them for their services, then I wouldn't have a problem with
> this
> > situation. I don't see that as a likely outcome. I see the ACLU as an
> > organization that levels the playing field to give access for people
> without
> > the means to litigate civil rights cases themselves.
> >
> >
>
> It's a mistake to think that the ACLU spends a lot of money "defending"
> wealthy people like Limbaugh. In such cases the defendant is spending his
> own money on his own lawyers - all the ACLU does is file a brief with the
> court explaining why they think the case should be decided one way or the
> other.
>

In that case I guess I don't have a big problem with this.

On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article ,
"Vox Humana" > opined:

>
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 01/29/2004 11:48 PM, in article
>> , "Melissa Houle"
>> > opined:
>>
>> I am sick and ****ing tired of all you "they're picking on her because
> she's
>> famous" crybabies. SHE IS IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SHE LIED TO FEDERAL
>> PROSCUTORS AND HER STOCK HOLDERS!
>
> I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh. He is under the thumb of the
> prosecutor in Palm Beach County because he purchased drugs in a Denny's
> parking lot with boxes full of cash. He illegally structured bank
> withdrawals to hide the transactions. Then he obtained duplicate
> prescriptions from multiple sources simultaneously to feed his addiction.
> There are pharmacy and bank records to support this. In addition, his
> housekeeper supplied voice recordings and emails to support the claim that
> he had her illegally obtain narcotics for him. Now, after bashing the ACLU
> and liberal trial attorneys, he hired a liberal trial attorney to defend him
> and has not refused the help of the ACLU on his behalf. Any common person
> would have been in jail by now, but Rush asserts that he is being unfairly
> treated because he is a celebrity. His attorney asserts that there is no
> utility in charging him with a crime, however Rush says that more white
> people (his term) should be prosecuted and "sent up" for taking illegal
> drugs. They claim that there are no victims, but someone had to knock over
> a drug store, steal a delivery truck, or break into a warehouse to divert
> the "prescription drugs" for sale on the street. The housekeeper was
> pressured to do illegal acts. Limbaugh claims to be the highest rated talk
> show on radio and is definitely Clear Channel's cash cow. His illegal acts
> jeopardize that company's bottom line the same way that Martha's alleged
> illegal acts impact her company. The only difference here is that I would
> enjoy seeing the Bush puppets, Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh, suffer and
> you would like to see liberal Democrat, Martha Stewart, suffer.
>
>

State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.

If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
--
================================================== =========================
³If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we
hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The
conquest of space is worth the risk of life,² Gus Grissom.
================================================== =========================

On 01/30/2004 8:34 AM, in article
, "Naomi Darvell"
> opined:

>
>
>
> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this-- but I'm
> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I think
> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
>
>
> Naomi D.
>
The ACLU Never takes the high road dumbass. They are representing NAMBLA.
--
=======================================
"Democrats **** me off," Eric Cartman.
=======================================

On 01/30/2004 9:23 AM, in article ,
"Vox Humana" > opined:

>
> "Naomi Darvell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this-- but
> I'm
>> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I think
>> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
>
> I'm afraid that it will be lost it the vast right-wing spin cycle.
> Example:
>
> " We went to war because of WMD. There are no WMD.

What did he use on the Kurds Einstein?


The war was justified.
> It was the right war for the wrong reasons."

The war is over, we won, **** you, the UN and the rest of the world.

The majority of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling the
war on terror.

> "The ACLU is bad. The ACLU is defending Rush. The defense is the right
> thing for the wrong reason."
>
> Don't kid yourself that the neo-cons will soften on this. The ACLU defended
> Ollie North, yet neo-con talkers like Limbaugh and Bennett ignored that fact
> and continued to bash them while conveniently forgetting to mentioning the
> assistance they gave to North. Now rabid conservative Bob Barr works for
> the ACLU. That doesn't stop the right-wing attack machine from smearing the
> ACLU. I don't see that the Limbaugh case will be any different.
>
> I think the ACLU should have stepped in to defend some lower profile case
> much earlier if they had a problem with this law. I believe it has been on
> the books for a decade.
>
>

--
================================================== =========
"Grand pappy told my pappy back in my time son, a man had
To answer For the wicked that he'd done."
================================================== =========

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
,
>
> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
>
> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.

This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and the
religious right. Logic doesn't always prevail.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/30/2004 8:34 AM, in article
> , "Naomi Darvell"
> > opined:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this--
but I'm
> > enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I
think
> > everyone should. The point will not be lost.
> >
> >
> > Naomi D.
> >
> The ACLU Never takes the high road dumbass. They are representing NAMBLA.

and Ollie North, and Rush Limbaugh. They say that the Constitution is their
client.

On 01/29/2004 8:00 AM, in article
, "Boron Elgar"
> opined:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:32:09 GMT, The Wolf >
> wrote:
>
>> IF SHE HADN'T BEEN A STUPID **** OVER $250,000 WHEN SHE WAS WORTH $1,000,000
>> SHE WOULDN'T BE DODGING PAPERAZZI ON HER WAY UP THE COURTHOUSE STEPS
>> EVERYMORNING NOW WOULD SHE?
>
>
>
> $250,000? Worth $1,000,00? Hah! You silly boy!
>
> Your crudeness is not the problem, but your incredible stupidity is.
> Really...you cannot carry on that way when you don't know your ass
> from your elbow.
>
> Bluster all you want, but if you can't get your facts straight, go to
> the back of the class with the goof-offs and don't say a word unless
> someone calls on you.
>
> Now, behave!
>
> Boron

Dear Boron The Moron,

Please accept my sincerest apologies, apparently I left out three zeros.

From now on I will spell out such so it doesn't happen again, ok?

Martha Stewart Inc. was, emphasis on *was* worth one billion American
dollars. I don't know where you are from, nor do I care, but one billion
American dollars is some serious coin, comprende?

She put it all at risk and may end up doing some time with the bull dykes
over two hundred fifty thousand American dollars. I don't think she is the
sharpest knife in the drawer!

You behave!
The Wolf
--
================================================== ==
"Fast Eddie, let's play some pool," Minnesota Fats.
================================================== ==

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/30/2004 9:23 AM, in article
,
> "Vox Humana" > opined:
>
> >
> > "Naomi Darvell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this--
but
> > I'm
> >> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I
think
> >> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
> >
> > I'm afraid that it will be lost it the vast right-wing spin cycle.
> > Example:
> >
> > " We went to war because of WMD. There are no WMD.
>
> What did he use on the Kurds Einstein?

He used WMD, probably supplied by the Reagan and Bush administrations. He
used them at a time when Rumsfield was touting him as a nice guy.

The key word here is HAD. That's past tense. HAD does not mean HAVE. See
the difference? Had we invaded the country in 1988 because he had WMD then
we would have been right. Unfortunately,in 1988 we were supporting Iraq
because they were the enemy of our enemy, Iran, assuming that meant Iraq was
our friend. We also supported the Taliban because they were the enemy of
our enemy, the Soviet Union.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:06:58 -0000, Dog3 <dognospam@adjfkdla;not>
wrote:

>Let your opinion be heard. Results posted on Sunday, 2/1/04. Cast your
>vote he http://www.misterpoll.com/1666990844.html

Martha is guilty of many things.

-sw

So Martha practices a little bitchcraft. So What!. She may have stolen a
mere 40K. There are fat *******s on Wall Street that stole trillions. This
is just a big diversion to keep the attention of the masses away from the
major f***ery that is really going on. Same with the Whacko Jacko farce.

Farmer John

On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article
, "Vox Humana"
> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
> ,
>>
>> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
>>
>> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
>
> This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and the
> religious right. Logic doesn't always prevail.
>
>
Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?
--

On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article
, "Vox Humana"
> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 01/30/2004 8:34 AM, in article
>> , "Naomi Darvell"
>> > opined:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this--
> but I'm
>>> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I
> think
>>> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
>>>
>>>
>>> Naomi D.
>>>
>> The ACLU Never takes the high road dumbass. They are representing NAMBLA.
>
> and Ollie North, and Rush Limbaugh. They say that the Constitution is their
> client.
>
>

Come on, NAMBLA I guess we know what you are all about now.

Rush doesn't need their help, Roy Black is about as good as they get.
--
================================================== ========================
"If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered,
Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats," Ann Coulter.
================================================== ========================

On 01/30/2004 12:56 PM, in article
, "Vox Humana"
> opined:

>
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 01/30/2004 9:23 AM, in article
> ,
>> "Vox Humana" > opined:
>>
>>>
>>> "Naomi Darvell" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this--
> but
>>> I'm
>>>> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I
> think
>>>> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that it will be lost it the vast right-wing spin cycle.
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> " We went to war because of WMD. There are no WMD.
>>
>> What did he use on the Kurds Einstein?
>
> He used WMD, probably supplied by the Reagan and Bush administrations. He
> used them at a time when Rumsfield was touting him as a nice guy.
>
> The key word here is HAD.


Where'd they go Einstein? Did they just vanish into thin air?



That's past tense. HAD does not mean HAVE. See
> the difference? Had we invaded the country in 1988 because he had WMD then
> we would have been right. Unfortunately,in 1988 we were supporting Iraq
> because they were the enemy of our enemy, Iran, assuming that meant Iraq was
> our friend. We also supported the Taliban because they were the enemy of
> our enemy, the Soviet Union.
>
>

--
================================================== ========================
"If George W. Bush announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered,
Democrats would complain about unemployed laboratory rats," Ann Coulter.
================================================== ========================

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article
> , "Vox Humana"
> > opined:
>
> >
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 01/30/2004 7:29 AM, in article
> > ,
> >>
> >> State and Feds is Apples & Oranges.
> >>
> >> If Rush did indeed break Florida law you will see him in court.
> >
> > This IS Florida, after all. The state run by the Bush crime family and
the
> > religious right. Logic doesn't always prevail.
> >
> >
> Oh I see, what state does the Clinton crime family run?

Hint: Clinton is the opposite of Bush.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> On 01/30/2004 12:47 PM, in article
> , "Vox Humana"
> > opined:
>
> >
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 01/30/2004 8:34 AM, in article
> >> , "Naomi Darvell"
> >> > opined:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm enjoying the fact that Rush appears to be a hypocrite about this--
> > but I'm
> >>> enjoying it all the more because the ACLU is taking the high road. I
> > think
> >>> everyone should. The point will not be lost.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Naomi D.
> >>>
> >> The ACLU Never takes the high road dumbass. They are representing
NAMBLA.
> >
> > and Ollie North, and Rush Limbaugh. They say that the Constitution is
their
> > client.
> >
> >
>
> Come on, NAMBLA I guess we know what you are all about now.
>
> Rush doesn't need their help, Roy Black is about as good as they get.

Many people think that Rush is a danger to our nation. That doesn't mean
that he doesn't deserve equal and fair treatment under the law. While I
don't agree with the agenda of Rush, NAMBLA, Ollie North, the KKK, or many
of the other groups that the ACLU assists, I do believe that if you can deny
one person or group their rights, then you can deny them to everyone. Are
you asserting that the law should apply differently to people you don't
like?