Posted on 09/15/2002 7:36:16 AM PDT by jimbo123
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Hogg Foundation was established by the children of former Texas Governor James Stephen Hogg who instilled the virtues of civic responsibility in his children, Will, Mike, Tom, and Ima.
The Hogg Foundation was established by the children of former Texas Governor James Stephen Hogg who instilled the virtues of civic responsibility in his children, Will, Mike, Tom, and Ima.
Ya made look it up too, lol !! Here's what Snopes.com showed as well.....
Ima Hogg
Ima Hogg was real, but not her rumoured sister, Ura. Ima
Plastered all over TV. If you missed it they were stopped, searched and interviewed because of their remarks.
Or maybe you think Stone just made up the remarks she claims she overheard. Can't help you if that's your opinion.
She could have made them up or been mistaken. If she gets the benefit of he doubt then why don't they?
I was under the distinct impression they did?
Did I miss something. Were they arrested or jailed? Weren't they released after explaining the situation (the alleged remarks and the hit by the drug/explosives dog).
You said they were pulled over for their remarks. If one gives them the benefit of the doubt and accepts their account then their remarks had nothing to do with them being pulled over.
I don't know that any explanation has been offered for the dog hit, but I'd love to hear the police explain it.
I'm confused. How would you have gotten their side of the story without interviewing them?
Please don't offer that you would have: 1) written a letter of inquiry to potential terrorists, allegedly on their way to blow up a city in just a few hours or 2) Watched them until they parked the car next to a hospital and then ordered the evacuation of the hospital and then talked to them, or 3) waited until something blew up in Miami and then interviewed them (this technique was apparenlty already utilized by the CIAFBINSA before 9/11 with regard to several members of the WTC terrorists without great results).
I never said it was inappropriate to interview them.
I saw them interviewed on CNN Friday night. They said they had made no remarks whatsoever about 9/11 or 9/13. Thus if one gives them the benefit of the doubt they were not stopped for their remarks.
Get it? Something they did not do cannot be the reason they were pulled over. Suppose I tell the cops you've just beaten your wife and they pull you over. Were you pulled over for beating your wife? Only if you beat your wife. If we give you the benefit of the doubt when you say that you did not beat her, then the reason you got pulled over is not that you beat your wife but that I falsely said you did.
I'm saying you give her the benefit of the doubt when you say they were pulled over for their remarks, and you're not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.