FLAME WARS, BANISHMENTS, ANTI-FREEPERS. YOUR CALLS, YOUR OPINIONS THIS WEEK ON RADIO FREE REPUBLIC

Radio FreeRepublic and the Free Republic Network ^ | August 13, 2002 | Luis Gonzalez

[Luis Gonzalez]

Radio Free Republic Presents

Click on the radio to listen live!

The Banana Republican Radio Hour

With your host Luis Gonzalez

This week's topic:

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES EAT THEIR OWN?

Thursday, August 15th., 9 PM, EST.

Are we our own worst enemies?

Are the divisions so evident in FreeRepublic indicative of the future of the conservative movement?

Can we stand united, or will be fall divided?

Call in and tell us what's on your mind!!!

Brought to you by FreeRepublic.com and The Free Republic Network.

RadioFR Every Thursday at 9PM EST/6PM PST
Free Republic Radio is only heard on the internet at this url http://www.theotherradionetwork.com/pgs/schedule.htm

RadioFR Archives, Hear the shows you missed

[betty boop]

Sorry for the misattribution, CJ. It is sufficient clear to me, however, from your series of statements in various places that you and OPH are on the same wavelength with respect to your opinion of me.

[Poohbah]

The question you asked me, Poohbah -- if I've gotten it right -- was what did I know about the matter from Don?

I didn't mention Don. I asked if you'd commented on them at all. I'm rather astonished that you've somehow completely missed all the discussion of this topic on FR.

Your friend told the world that anyone serving a warrant he disagreed with did so at their peril. And he did this in 1998.

[betty boop]

I didn't mention Don. I asked if you'd commented on them at all. I'm rather astonished that you've somehow completely missed all the discussion of this topic on FR.

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I haven't seen much discussion of this issue, for I haven't read through all the threads yet. But had I seen it, I don't think I'd have much to add for, as I said, Don never discussed this with me. And, since I'd have had no information beyond what was stated in media reports, and since you guys were already taking care of that so well, I'd just figure to leave it all to you.

[tpaine]

But what about Don Matthews? What can you say about Don Matthews' actions? Was he justified in his actions when he took off from the cops at the traffic stop or not? Was he justified in pulling a weapon on police officers or not?
________________________________

How many times do you need to be answered, before it sinks in?

"Was he justified in his actions when he took off from the cops at the traffic stop or not? "

To my present knowledge, - NO.

"Was he justified in pulling a weapon on police officers or not?"

To my present knowledge, - NO.

Now, please. -- Get yourself some rest.

[betty boop]

P.S.: Was that discussion on the same thread wherein it was reported that a sitting state judge three times in a for-attribution interview with the press, stated that Matthews had militia ties?

Well isn't that special! Don't you think it's a little unprofessional for a sitting judge to be making statements like that before the Grand Jury is convened -- or at any time after, for that matter? One might think such remarks might be intended to prejudice the jury.

[wimpycat]

To your present knowledge, I am not the one who was sent to the corner for being 'out of control', so you're not in a position to counsel others in that regard.

But if "to my present knowledge-NO" is the best you can do, then that's all I wanted, anyway. You don't think he was justified in his actions that evening. Therefore, he was unjustified. Glad we agree on that, at least.

"To our present knowledge" is always assumed, so the phrase isn't necessary, BTW.

[Poohbah]

Was that discussion on the same thread wherein it was reported that a sitting state judge three times in a for-attribution interview with the press, stated that Matthews had militia ties?

No.

Well isn't that special! Don't you think it's a little unprofessional for a sitting judge to be making statements like that before the Grand Jury is convened -- or at any time after, for that matter? One might think such remarks might be intended to prejudice the jury.

It was probably the judge who had to hear Don's case in 1998. And he can damn well say what he wants, because he will NOT be hearing anything coming out of the Grand Jury, as he will have a prejudiced view of the case from having dealt with Don.

[wimpycat]

Do you believe he said those remarks? After all, it's only hearsay, remember? And you wouldn't want to comment on hearsay, now would you?

[betty boop]

The judge was "on the record," as they say.

[wimpycat]

How do you know?

[tpaine]

To your present knowledge, I am not the one who was sent to the corner for being 'out of control', so you're not in a position to counsel others in that regard.

Yep, the old 'unclean hands' retort. [if you get an answer you don't like, attack on another front]

But if "to my present knowledge-NO" is the best you can do, then that's all I wanted, anyway. You don't think he was justified in his actions that evening. Therefore, he was unjustified. Glad we agree on that, at least.

Yes, what a relief that you finally understood a point I've been making since Sat morning.

"To our present knowledge" is always assumed, so the phrase isn't necessary, BTW.

Really? - If that's so, only a pedant would find it necessary to lecture on it, imo.

[oldvike]

Should be alot of fun. Will have my popcorn and rootbeer ready.

[Luis Gonzalez]

pssst!
Over here!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pssst!

Over here!!!

[wimpycat]

If anybody looked up "pedant" in the dictionary, there your picture would be, right next to the definition.

I was being didactic.

[betty boop]

If the judge -- who gave permission to use his name -- thought the newspaper had misquoted him, he would presumably have demanded a retraction/correction. Since apparently he hasn't, I gather he's prepared to stand by his words. This is a major difference between public-record statements and "hearsay."

[AnnaZ]

Nope. I have NO idea what the phone number is.

Do YOU know it ? I bet that most FREEPERS don't.

Now why would you say that? (And so emphatically...)

[uglybiker]

If you are getting into town on Thursday, send me some FReepmail with the time.

The 'plan' is to leave Thur. morning. It usually takes me about 4 hours to get to Vegas (depending on how long it takes to get through the security checks at Hoover Dam). I'll throw a FReepmail at you before I leave the house.

This is my first 'real' vacation this year and I'm psyched!