VABills

Didn't Jesus attack the merchants?

Sanders is about as short but he is a tank. He is probably 210-220.

You're correct, however to say Japan occupied Korea, yet they weren't at war is "twisting" the facts. Korea to this day abhors Japan. Same goes with Manchuria, however I believe the push was for them to start inland and meet with Germany. Again yes the PH attack coinceided with the rest but I think those attcks were pushed forward due to the embargo, hence I agree with you that FDR caused PH. But to negate the other facts of the situation is a little bit of democrat coming out in you.

The Japanese were already at war, in China, Russia, India, Korea. PH was just the push to reach out further into the Pacific and negate the ability of the biggest baddest mo fo to stop them. In the CTM's defense. I just think the PH attack was moved up, and expansion quicker then they planned.

Wasn't it also about the time Butler got fired? I believe he was officially relieved before the end of the season. Not sure of the date.

Nope, I just drink better coffee then you. Besides that's what repelling ropes are for.

Since it's in the SW area, the day Butler was fired? Forget that: I know, the last time the Bills played on MNF.

Who imposed the oil embargo on Japan?

No offense, but special teams play doesn't indicate ability on other portions of the game. Stamer is a good St'er but sucks at LB.

Seattle 24 Denver 13 And if we win this weekend, I will have predicted our # wins. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=418746

I have seen stories on this in the past. I love coffee, but no thanks. I drink my coffee straight, no cream, no sugar, and I sure don't want any dingle berries in it either.

Fag

CTm, why don't you..........

Yeah and he did such a wonderful job. Of course prior to carter, you have to go back to .............................................. ummmmmm............. Washington?

weren't me.

Notice it got better once you stopped posting there?

They are at least unique to the board, all you do is reword them replacing conservative good with Bush bad. yeah real creative. and not unique.

But read the whole ruling. I interpret it as long as they are not in the process of building a criminal case but still gathering intelligence against an agent, a warrant is not required.

Wow, do you ever post anything unique, or do you only twist what everyone else posts. Unique thoughts would be a good thing.

No, I haven't, and too be honest there is a lot of "legal" wording that is not understandable IMHO. That's why I ask for an honest look, and not a one sided hate fest.

And more details about FISA, FISC, changes to the acts, and how everything is authorized under the 1978 law changes and the amendments to that law. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ But the bigger question is, after all you "legal libs" read this would you even admit that you're wrong and state that based on the FISA rulings that admin was authorized? Because as Mickey puts it I do not understand a lot of the "legal wording". I find that to be offensive to the average US citizens that laws have to be so esoteric that they are not understandable by the layman. The statement in there that I see is on page 15.

They were authorized by FISA.

http://www.aclu.org//privacy/spying/15189prs20021118.html http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/FISCR_opinion.pdf Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens. "As of today," she said, "the Attorney General can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices." The FISA court and the Court of Review were created under a law passed by Congress in 1978, which authorizes government wiretap requests in foreign intelligence investigations. Under these procedures, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret.

What?

And what do you not understand about what you !@#$ing wrote: Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces... Congress did enact a specific authorization. Why is that so !@#$ing hard for you to understand. Or do I need to start BOLDING?