Skip to comments.
Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank
Wall Street Journal Online ^
| September 27, 2001
| DANIEL GOLDEN, JAMES BANDLER and MARCUS WALKER
Posted on 09/28/2001 10:08:18 PM PDT by Beep
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:45:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221 next last
To: SLJP
Classic crap. (Journalism major -- sorry! If I were a journalism major, I'd too would be apologizing for using "classic crap".
41
posted on
09/28/2001 11:24:03 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: Askel5
You're missing the point. (Deliberately, I believe!) If you take the same set of facts and dole them out to different people, you'll get a different end result depending on what they want to lead you to believe. Straight-up, honest reporting is practically non-existent anymore. (If it weren't for FOX News, I think I'd pull out all my hair!) You don't have to be a journalism major to notice that these days!!
42
posted on
09/28/2001 11:26:07 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: SLJP
Are you still in school?
43
posted on
09/28/2001 11:27:05 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: SLJP
Just curious ... mostly it's your spirited replies that make me think you're young.
44
posted on
09/28/2001 11:27:29 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: Askel5
You do like to be coy, don't you?! I was apologizing for ranting. Not for making the observation! ;-}
I graduated loooonnnnggg ago!!
45
posted on
09/28/2001 11:28:58 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: Askel5
Young at heart, dear! Young at heart! ;-}
46
posted on
09/28/2001 11:30:18 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: SLJP
Trust you stay thus always. Regards, SLJP.
47
posted on
09/28/2001 11:32:18 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: Askel5
As for "proof", I think you'd be surprised.I'll be surprised if has any, that's for sure.
Besides, there is the admissible evidence that is the body of sworn testimony he's built.
What sworn testimony has Larry Klayman taken concerning whether or not George Herbert Walker Bush ever met bin Laden?
And I surely do hope you don't think all "sworn testimony" is admissable evidence.
48
posted on
09/28/2001 11:33:58 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: SLJP
As I've said before, attacking the bin Laden Group companies (that have no ties to Osama) would be like taking after Hearst Newspapers because Patty Hearst joined the Symbionese Liberation Army. If these people truly shun Osama, and are doing legit business, leave them alone. But if evidence is found that they support Osama, THEN you'll have reason to seize their assets.
49
posted on
09/28/2001 11:35:41 PM PDT
by
gopgen
To: Askel5
And here I was ready to join Howlin in being proud of the way our Public Servants make an honest buck in the off-season (or beyond our seamless national borders). Since it's hard to tell with you, could you start labeling your "stuff" as "TRUE" or "SARCASM"?
50
posted on
09/28/2001 11:35:44 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Askel5
And you as well! See? We can disagree and be civilized. I like that. Regards in return, Askel5!
51
posted on
09/28/2001 11:36:00 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: Howlin
Of course not! Any attorney worth his billable rate gets the good stuff axed.
As happens to Klayman, I'm sure ... not that you'd cut some Joe who's taking on the Evil Clinton and the corruption of our entire federal government any slack ... =)
52
posted on
09/28/2001 11:36:53 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: gopgen
This is true! Can't argue that at all! The problem is how Klayman twisted and bent the facts to suit his purposes.
53
posted on
09/28/2001 11:40:31 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: Askel5
Am I suppose to excuse lies because he went after Clinton?
Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton.
54
posted on
09/28/2001 11:41:29 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: SLJP
I'm a bit "spirited" myself but generally am attacking an action or an issue ... not the poster or a person.
With the exception of a few fundamental either/or questions, I'm always happy to agree to disagree as long as substantive discourse ensues.
55
posted on
09/28/2001 11:43:22 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: Howlin
It can get hard to tell when it starts getting deep, can't it?! ;-}
56
posted on
09/28/2001 11:43:32 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: Howlin
Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton. AAAAAIIIIIAAAAAHHHH!!
(Askel runs screaming into the night having torn out all of her hair ...)
57
posted on
09/28/2001 11:44:34 PM PDT
by
Askel5
To: Askel5
But you have to admit that there are just certain facts about certain people/newspapers/websites that are known to be true. For example -- the
New York Times has a severe left-ward leaning, and everybody knows it. That's why Democrats like it, and why Republicans don't, as a rule.
Is the NYTimes a Gannett paper? I don't spend a lot of time reading it, so I have no idea anymore. At any rate, they are all liberal, and Gannett admits to it.
(Sorry to take so long; fell off my ISP!)
58
posted on
09/28/2001 11:58:28 PM PDT
by
Beep
To: Howlin, Askel5
Poor Askel!! *G*
59
posted on
09/29/2001 12:00:19 AM PDT
by
Beep
To: Howlin
Am I suppose to excuse lies because he went after Clinton? Actually, what it does is make me question some of that stuff he said about Clinton.
**blink**
Then I think maybe all of us should apologize to the TRIMPOTUS.
We were led astray by the evil Klayman, who lied about him for so long just for the money.
I'll let you compose the corporate letter begging Slick for absolution for our sin of doubting his integrity.
**G**
60
posted on
09/29/2001 12:37:27 AM PDT
by
Mercuria
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson