“If you're going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they'll kill you.”  —George Bernard Shaw

PBB is Back!

Ladies and gentlemen (and of course, Todd from Florida), Pete’s Big Blog is back! We hope everyone had a better 4th of July than Pete’s three year old daughter, who sadly learned that fireworks are nothing more than, “a cloud of blue smoke.” Bummer.

Great discussion and points made today from all the listener who called and sent in emails. Pete started off the day letting everyone know of tomorrow’s guest, Vincent Bugliosi, author of the new book The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. Pete cannot wait to get Vincent on due to the lack of coverage the New York Times #12 Best Seller is getting from the media. Should the media give Vincent Bugliosi a medium to let the world know his thoughts on President Bush? Should President Bush be prosecuted for murder? And what questions do you have for Pete to ask Vincent tomorrow?

Also Mark Klein, former AT&T Employee, talked with Pete about the Telecom Companies and NSA joining forces to listen in on our phone calls. This struck a nerve with many of the listeners, who brought up some great points, such as, should the people have to give up their civil liberties or should the government be responsible for keeping tabs on “terrorist activity?” “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” ~ Benjamin Franklin. Do you agree?

Let Pete know your answers. Don’t forget to tune into Indie Talks: Fight For Independents from 1-2pm and stayed tuned for Pete’s Big Mouth from 2-5pm tomorrow to hear his interview with Vincent Bugliosi only on Indie Talk, SIRIUS 110.

Sean Bertollo, Producer

Comments

  1. July 8th, 2008 | 2:09 pm

    White on black is bad enough, but gray on black make it even more difficult. I know it makes it look slick and retro, but makes it difficult to do its intended purpose.

  2. Mama Mary
    July 8th, 2008 | 2:29 pm

    Glad to see the blog back. I found it very interesting and I learned a lot from it before. I certainly hope people use this blog in a respectful manner avoiding namecalling and severe vulgarity. Women like to read and write on this blog also; thus, let’s be considerate of others.

  3. John from Cleveland
    July 8th, 2008 | 8:09 pm

    I still lurk in the shadows.  I wait to strike with witty banter and logical thought.  Fear me… fear me.

  4. B.C. Weasel
    July 9th, 2008 | 12:00 am

    Ha Ha John, good one.  I’ll kick things off by saying that I do think the W. should be held accountable in some way for this whole mess.  To what degree?  I don’t know.  Like the one caller said today, "Clinton got impeached for a blowjob, why is W. still even in office?"  As scary as absolute power is, the next question to me is how much accountability and culpability can you give a president before the whole system begins to collapse??  Perhaps "prosecuting him for murder" is the extreme end of the scale. no?  Glad the blog is back up.  Petes Big Mouth rocks!!!!!!!

  5. Steve from Jasper
    July 9th, 2008 | 10:25 am

    It’s alive, the monster lives! Yippee!
    Bush needs to be held accountable simply because of the precedent he has set.
    If he suffers no consequences then future presidents will take it as a green light to trample on the Constitution also.
    Being president does not make one all powerful with the ability to whatever he/she wants. They are still accountable to the citizens who elected them and Bush needs to understand this along with all future presidents.
    I think he feels we (and Congress) are too gutless to do anything about it. Sadly, he may be right.
    Just remember one law of physics…..things tend to erode very slowly.

    B.C. Weasel Reply:

    Steve, I do think that more accountability and the possibility for prosecution will make politicians think twice about running for office, but do you think that it might just make them work harder to hide the "questionable decisions" they make from us??  I’m really interested in the side effects of increased accountability here.  What other side effects do you think there could be?

    Steve from Jasper Reply:

    B.C., good points but I think they already do a pretty good job of hiding things they don’t want us pee-ons to know about. Look at how long it has taken for all the information on Bush’s lies about Iraq to come out.
    I personally don’t want anyone running for office that is worried about being truthful.
    Finally, do we just throw up our hands and say it’s just politics as usual? If so, why do we even call ourselves a Democracy?
    One of the prime tenants of Democracy is holding our elected official accountable.

    B.C. Weasel Reply:

    understood.  thanks Steve.

  6. July 9th, 2008 | 11:19 am

    Glad the blog is back, but I have to agree with Henry.  It is difficult to read. 

    I heard you say yesterday that Governor Huntsman will be on today.  I hope he did not hear what you said about his daughter when you were at Penn!!

  7. B-Real
    July 9th, 2008 | 1:29 pm

    For all those that praise the work of Zeitgeist did you know they made a movie about reptillian shapeshifters! Yeah, a real creditible source eh?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73RhNZdlNzc

  8. Big Rob
    July 13th, 2008 | 10:19 pm

    I think prosecuting the president after he leaves office is brilliant. If you or i were suspected of similar crimes  we would have to stand trial. Why shouldn’t we show the world that America is a land of equality? That this is not home to elitist billionaires who can murder on a whim? That this is a country of justice, not a country of disenfranchised do nothings.

    B.C. Weasel Reply:

    I agree Big Rob, but I’m still really interested, and hoping someone smarter than I, will bring up some examples of what they think could happen in future with regards to the presidency and the whole system of election if W. was prosecuted and convicted.

    Todd in FL Reply:

    It will never happen, Rob & B.C.

    First, what jurisdiction would he be tried in?

    Second, what specific statutes would he be prosecuted for breaking? 

    Third, the actions of the president in official capacity must be examined in constitutional terms - the executive branch is co-equal with the legislative and judicial (in theory) branches and any action against the office must be viewed in light of subsequent presidents.

    Fourth, don’t you think if there really was hard evidence against Bush, the Democrats in Congress would’ve started impeachment proceedings by now?  That they haven’t either indicates a lack of specific evidence to prove Bush guilty of anything such as mentioned by douche bags like Vincent Bugliosi.

  9. John from Cleveland
    July 13th, 2008 | 11:19 pm

    Why do we waste time even discussing this dribble?  Unless he starts eating puppies, the next president would simply pardon him.

Leave a reply