Please let Bartcop know that the letter to the
editor and his writing on
bookstores having to turn over purchasing records and not tell you is not correct.
Not that it's not totally believable, given this Appointistration.
Note: He's talking about illegaltospeak.htm
My source is the Washington office of Rep. Tom
Udall (D-NM). I emailed Tom's office, linking the letter.
[I got] a voicemail from his office saying he had checked it out and that was definitely not in the Patriot Act.
Even though Bartcop is wrong on this, he is still
way ahead of Pigboy's alleged correctness percentage.
Keep up the good fight.
Excuse me, but what we have here is conflicting accounts.
We don't necessarily have Udall is right and BartCop is wrong.
I admit the letter I quoted was clumsily worded, "the
anti-terrorism law our president signed in late October."
It's my opinion Bush has signed as many as 30 bills into law since Sept 11th, some of them secretly.
Every time he freezes some Islamic bank account, he's free to tack on any damn rider he wants
since the Demos have demonstrated their reluctance to slow the Bush runaway stagecoach.
Maybe the initial report is in error.
Maybe an innocent mistake was make by email@example.com
Maybe the fella at Udall's office got the wrong impression of the question.
Maybe Udall answered a different question than the question asked.
Maybe the voice mail person misspoke.
I suggest a follow up, and I wish I had time to do it.(I sent a note
to the paper.) If the initial report is
just horseshit, the Contra Costa Times should be shamed for letting a crazy person state "facts" that aren't true.
Knowing what I know about greedy Bush and the insane Ashcroft,
I'm going to stick with my opinion until I see good, hard evidence that it's not true.
After all, we've lost the right to vote,
we're no longer allowed to see presidential papers,
suspect-attorney privilege has been overturned,
a right to a trial by a jury of peers no longer exists,
the laws of evidence have gone to hell,
people are now imprisoned without charges being filed,
warrants for searches and wiretaps are just a faded memory,
we must now "watch what we say,"
and anyone who criticizes the insane takeover is "helping the terrorists,"
...so I think don't "full bookstore disclosure" is out of line with this bunch at all.
Subject: rebuttal on GOP presidents' recessions
You say GOP presidents have recessions.
Although that's true, you think that means something. Doesn't mean much except
the business cycle is almost always down at least one time during any presidential term.
Consider that every Democratic president since
FDR has also had times in their presidencies of recession.
('Cept Clinton, of course, the first president of any party since WW II not to have a recession.) All others
but Clinton did, including every Democratic one. It isn't fair to leave out 5 Democratic presidents during
that time who also had recessions.
Although your point is wrong as you state it,
you're almost close to something true.
Democratic presidencies do show stronger economic growth than Republican presidents,
mainly by having milder recessions than Republicans do.
Carter had the very mildest possible recession,
the shortest to barely qualify as one.
They called it a mini-recession. Just two down quarters of gdp and then back to an economic
expansion that continued for a year and a half well after his term. Put his 4 years with Clinton's 8,
and 46 of those 48 quarters the economy was expanding under the last two Democratic presidents.
Your great fan,
You know me, not one to argue, but please inform me about the recessions
caused by the economic policies of FDR, JFK and LBJ - I'm not familiar with them.