Active Users:352 Time:17/06/2025 12:03:53 PM
I read what you said & understood it as you restate here, hence I referenced local police (twice) Joel Send a noteboard - 20/01/2011 02:15:17 AM
I've no idea why you keep thinking something in what I said translated as "Secret Service ignores threats to congressmen". They are law enforcement, they certainly can and presumably do alert the proper authorities to any major possible crime they expect, they do not protect congressmen, same as they don't protect SCOTUS, governors, or anyone else unless they qualify for one of the following.

I have no idea why you think
Congressmens safety is very much under their jurisdiction; who else would be responsible, the local police.... Congressmens safety is very much under their jurisdiction; are you seriously saying that if they knew of a credible threat to a member of the federal government they'd just call the local police and leave it to them? Can you imagine the political firestorm and bureaucratic scandal if Sheriff Lobo wasn't up to the task, either screwed it up or couldn't get there before an professional assassin?

means I thought you said the Secret Service ignores threats to Congressmen. Who's reading whom to mean what they please...?
Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:
The President, the Vice President, the President-elect and Vice President-elect
The immediate families of the above individuals
Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office
Children of former Presidents until age 16 or 5 years after the presidency
Former Vice Presidents until 6 months after their term ends: (the Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the protection time.)
Families of former Vice Presidents until 6 months after term ends
Visiting heads of states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad whom the president deems important enough for protection outside the Diplomatic Security Service
Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
Other individuals as designated per executive order of the President
National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security

I find it difficult to believe the Secret Service would respond to a credible public threat against a US Congressman with "Sorry, we're only legally authorized to protect the President, VP, candidates for those offices and their families, so we can't help you--but we'll request an executive order on your behalf and call your local police to let them know an Al Qaeda hit squad is on the way! :)" Perhaps I'm wrong about that; the meaning of of "legally authorized" makes all the difference here, and if that makes it ILLEGAL for them to provide anyone else protection (as bizarre as that sounds) I'll eat my words. ONLY mine though; I read and fully understood your statement, as my response at the time indicates, yet you incorrectly stated I misread you because YOU misread ME. Yeah, I understand your frustration QUITE well; hopefully you're beginning to grasp mine....
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 16/01/2011 12:18:22 PM 2093 Views
Why are they calling it "blood libel"? - 16/01/2011 12:23:47 PM 942 Views
Because if the facts were as they represent them those words would be applicable. - 16/01/2011 12:49:22 PM 1122 Views
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're aware of this or not, but... - 16/01/2011 01:12:22 PM 1167 Views
That's why I said, "popularized". - 16/01/2011 01:46:52 PM 1111 Views
I think Alan Dershowitz dealt with this nonsense already - 16/01/2011 02:34:10 PM 1477 Views
Interesting. I didn't realize it was so wide-spread. - 16/01/2011 03:10:28 PM 1020 Views
She wasn't even the first to use the term that week either - 16/01/2011 10:10:35 PM 1049 Views
I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 10:18:54 PM 1041 Views
Re: I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 11:30:38 PM 950 Views
Oh please don't you start to - 17/01/2011 02:34:43 PM 893 Views
I for one hadn't noticed it before. - 17/01/2011 10:25:57 PM 1077 Views
it was used here and nobody commented - 17/01/2011 10:37:07 PM 958 Views
LOL, I totally forgot that got posted here - 17/01/2011 10:54:26 PM 1005 Views
It's funny you should say that... - 18/01/2011 10:32:59 PM 1048 Views
Re: It's funny you should say that... - 19/01/2011 03:29:52 PM 1027 Views
It was permissible to ignore until it became a rallying cry. - 20/01/2011 04:27:23 PM 1071 Views
A rallying cry is hardly illegal - 20/01/2011 05:32:45 PM 1111 Views
I never said it was. - 20/01/2011 06:59:39 PM 1211 Views
Oh, I noticed that one alright. - 18/01/2011 10:25:23 PM 889 Views
compared to the way similar terms are used? - 19/01/2011 06:58:02 PM 1032 Views
I meant I hadn't seen it used in different contexts before. - 19/01/2011 07:35:00 PM 1010 Views
Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 10:24:09 PM 1095 Views
Re: Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 11:09:21 PM 1129 Views
Again, Giffords specifically made the connection between Palins imagery and an attack on her. - 17/01/2011 12:53:08 AM 1275 Views
That means precisely nothing - 17/01/2011 03:59:07 PM 963 Views
It means everything. - 18/01/2011 08:34:55 PM 1224 Views
I'm trying to understand your logic - 19/01/2011 12:50:28 AM 830 Views
There are two points: - 19/01/2011 02:47:48 AM 1036 Views
Re: It means everything. - 19/01/2011 05:55:02 PM 861 Views
That's simply illogical. - 20/01/2011 01:08:51 AM 1246 Views
the old step one steal underwear step three profit argument - 19/01/2011 06:01:14 PM 1118 Views
that is some twisted and bizarre logic - 17/01/2011 02:38:41 PM 1065 Views
So I am a little confused on something... - 16/01/2011 02:38:59 PM 1109 Views
Palin putting Giffords district in the crosshairs and Giffords implying at the time she feared this - 16/01/2011 11:21:36 PM 1248 Views
If I understand what you are saying correctly... - 17/01/2011 07:07:56 AM 988 Views
I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 08:33:47 AM 1004 Views
Re: I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 04:24:01 PM 1060 Views
The Secret Service does guard Congressmen, just not all of them automatically. - 18/01/2011 09:13:39 PM 877 Views
No, they don't - 18/01/2011 10:19:34 PM 1074 Views
Really? Cannoli says differently, and I believe he's right on that one. - 18/01/2011 10:50:51 PM 1155 Views
You seem to be reading what you want to from what I said - 19/01/2011 01:27:32 PM 1010 Views
I read what you said & understood it as you restate here, hence I referenced local police (twice) - 20/01/2011 02:15:17 AM 1046 Views
The problem here is your ignoring normal policing powers to concoct an absurdity - 20/01/2011 04:20:25 PM 1104 Views
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice? - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM 1127 Views
Your shifting your original premise, *again* - 20/01/2011 08:24:18 PM 973 Views
No, you're simply missing the point of it. - 20/01/2011 11:09:57 PM 989 Views
There is no point - 21/01/2011 12:22:30 AM 1021 Views
If I had no point I wouldn't bother, but fair enough. - 21/01/2011 01:20:32 AM 1269 Views
Uh...Last I checked conservatives didn't list the Communist Manifesto as a favourite book. - 16/01/2011 03:05:07 PM 1287 Views
You're awesome at missing points, aren't you? - 16/01/2011 07:26:30 PM 1030 Views
where is the accountability for those committing slander? - 17/01/2011 02:52:40 PM 954 Views
Libs hate Mein Kampf and We the Living; conservatives hate the Communist Manifesto: He's neither. - 16/01/2011 10:06:02 PM 981 Views
conseartives hate Mein Kampf and liberals stil read the Communist Manifesto - 17/01/2011 02:57:22 PM 970 Views
That first line is says it all. - 18/01/2011 09:34:06 PM 1051 Views
Nazis had more in common with communist then capitalist - 19/01/2011 04:10:09 PM 1160 Views
The founder of fascism called it "the merger of corporate and national power". - 20/01/2011 02:51:09 AM 1045 Views
and that is supposed to mean something? - 20/01/2011 06:06:18 PM 1046 Views
YOU are cherry picking. - 20/01/2011 07:50:21 PM 983 Views
It is to be expected that this site would be libtard central... - 16/01/2011 05:23:53 PM 1265 Views
See my reply to Dragonsoul above. - 16/01/2011 07:30:40 PM 1094 Views
Yeah, your first was better - 16/01/2011 09:48:58 PM 910 Views
Palin didn't really have anything to do with this, but it makes sense she's blamed. - 16/01/2011 10:19:51 PM 992 Views
Pretty much. - 16/01/2011 11:44:35 PM 1054 Views
Did they ever catch the person(s) that vandalized Gifford's office? *NM* - 17/01/2011 03:30:36 AM 485 Views
politcal offices are vandalized on a regular basis *NM* - 17/01/2011 02:41:29 PM 454 Views
She only asked if they caught the guy, she didn't accuse anyone, Sarah. - 18/01/2011 11:27:18 PM 940 Views
OK Olberman when did I imply otherwise? *NM* - 19/01/2011 02:48:41 PM 493 Views
"Political offices are vandalized on a regular basis". - 20/01/2011 03:16:39 AM 1132 Views
Took you this long, huh? - 17/01/2011 01:53:31 PM 889 Views
I am sick of the desperate attempts of liberals to find a way to use a tragedy - 17/01/2011 02:31:18 PM 919 Views
I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:23:47 PM 880 Views
Re: I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:28:04 PM 1028 Views
I always said I'd do that after Bush was re-elected. - 18/01/2011 11:52:45 PM 903 Views
like I said a matter of faith - 17/01/2011 04:27:51 PM 894 Views
I find it interesting... - 17/01/2011 05:31:54 PM 1044 Views
I mention her looks solely because... - 20/01/2011 02:30:42 PM 931 Views
If slander, not mine, Giffords' (at least you don't err like Palin and say, "libel" ). - 18/01/2011 11:14:23 PM 1102 Views
mark you calendar today is the day Joel offically went around the bend into insanity - 19/01/2011 05:28:06 PM 915 Views
A mirror will show me who's to blame? On whom have I put a crosshairs? - 20/01/2011 03:23:43 AM 972 Views
so it is all a matter of faith for you - 20/01/2011 05:48:44 AM 904 Views
No, it's fairly straight forward logic. - 20/01/2011 03:25:56 PM 1017 Views
sorry Joel but you haven't - 20/01/2011 03:29:49 PM 818 Views
It's there; in this thread alone people from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that. - 20/01/2011 05:51:21 PM 905 Views
only in your does the connection exisit - 20/01/2011 06:39:35 PM 947 Views
No. - 20/01/2011 07:35:09 PM 1028 Views
dude wake up - 20/01/2011 08:54:33 PM 1160 Views
So in your opinion... - 17/01/2011 05:27:58 PM 900 Views
How 'bout simply color coding them? - 18/01/2011 11:21:03 PM 944 Views
Why not just blame Giffords? - 17/01/2011 06:07:14 PM 1238 Views
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. - 18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM 1074 Views
The irony of this thread is not lost on me. - 19/01/2011 04:09:01 PM 1082 Views
Exactly. *NM* - 19/01/2011 04:51:40 PM 536 Views
Bizarre thread for that Soapbox - 19/01/2011 05:17:58 PM 826 Views
You missed the point, obviously. - 19/01/2011 06:04:23 PM 933 Views
so you are saying it is the same old RAFO - 19/01/2011 06:47:24 PM 1006 Views
The thread has admittedly degenerated - 19/01/2011 07:02:12 PM 857 Views
Check your NB. Noted you a response. *NM* - 19/01/2011 07:04:58 PM 519 Views
That I knew it would go this way is why I avoided looking closely for so long. - 19/01/2011 11:20:44 PM 1086 Views
Hey, now. I have to step in. - 20/01/2011 04:44:49 PM 1113 Views
I'm just saying a significant link can be demonstrated. - 20/01/2011 07:07:27 PM 1160 Views
Re: OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 22/01/2011 05:49:44 PM 1099 Views

Reply to Message