John "the fundamentals of the economy

• Just as I thought- all dems voted against McCain's amendment. - Backwards typist
  • John "the fundamentals of the economy - are strong" McCain?
    • Do you think you would be so - sm
      • That would be great. (nm) - Backwards typist
  • Over a $10 trillion dollar deficit today? That didn't happen on O's watch. - sm
    • The tax break is for everyone, not the top 10% - Backwards typist
      • I realize that.... - sm
        • Yeah. They knew it was going to happen - Backwards typist
          • The pubs were armed and ready, too - sm
            • Of cours they were. Why are you - Backwards typist
              • Because you limited it to Schumer... - sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I tried to email you and don't think I had a problem, but please check your email to see if you received anything from me.  (Hope so.)

Will be leaving the computer for a bit but will be back later this afternoon.

Have a great day! 

American citizens practing their right to free speech.

Remember in the last couple of months when McCain announced, "Today, we are all Georgians"?

I think Putin is taking a "wait and see" approach to the new USA President.  Bush has certainly heated up the "Cold War" during his eight years in office.  While there is not much reason to trust Putin, there's even less reason for Putin to trust the USA.

We can't forget the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and, more importantly, the sequence of events related to that conflict.  I would encourage anyone who has forgotten that Georgia was the aggressor (with our help) to click on the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/31/russia-georgia

to use them, to create even more havoc, wars, etc.

I'll feel much safer after Obama takes his oath of office (assuming he actually has the opportunity to do so).

Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.

O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.

The Audacity of FOCA

BY The Editors

October 19-25, 2008 Issue | Posted 10/14/08 at 10:00 AM

As the election quickly approaches, the U.S. bishops are shining a harsh spotlight on one bill: the Freedom of Choice Act, commonly called FOCA. FOCA is again before Congress; its chief sponsor in the Senate is Barbara Boxer and one of its co-sponsors is presidential candidate Barack Obama.

In July 2007, Obama told a Planned Parenthood audience: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Search YouTube.com for the words “Obama” and “FOCA” to hear it for yourself. Since Obama has said that signing FOCA into law would be his first priority as a new president, summarizing the bill answers the question: For what change does Barack Obama have the audacity to hope?

The U.S. bishops’ summary of FOCA points out:

• It creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against the exercise of this right “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must condone and promote.

• Some states require that women be told about the risks of abortion. FOCA would erase all informed-consent laws states have enacted.

• Many states require that parents be informed and sign off on their daughters’ abortions, just as they are informed and involved in every other surgical procedure. FOCA would override and end all parental-involvement laws.

• Some states have laws promoting maternal health. Obama’s FOCA wouldn’t allow them.

• Regulation on abortion “clinics” helps keep these businesses responding to health and safety concerns. FOCA would end these regulations.

• FOCA would disallow “government programs and facilities that pay for or promote childbirth and other health care without subsidizing abortion,” say the U.S. bishops.

• Conscience-protection laws would end. These currently allow Catholic and other pro-life hospitals, doctors, medical students and health-care workers to opt out of participating in abortion in many places.

• After FOCA, any laws that prohibit a particular abortion procedure, such as partial-birth abortion, will no longer be in force.

• FOCA would also strike laws requiring that abortions only be performed by a licensed physician.

For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel, or a summary fact sheet to distribute, see NCHLA.org.

In a Sept. 19 letter to members of Congress, Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, raised the bishops’ concerns about any possible consideration of FOCA.

“Despite its deceptive title, FOCA would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. It would also “counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country.”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2

Wow, common sense!!

ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

I could feel a little sorry for him if he were not so mean and willing to do anything to win.  For pete sake, he is 72 years old.  he has few years left.  He has a lovely family and many great homes.  Whey does he not enjoy his final years getting to know his children?  He was in Washington and only went home on the weekends.  Sometimes we just have to realize that we are not going to achieve a dream.  I have accepted I will never be a naturally thin person. It took 30 years, but I know it now.  He has been honored for his service and had many years in Washington. he is putting so much wear and tear on his aging body with the physical demands of campaigning.  He is doing damage to his cardiovascular system with the seething anger and contempt.  If my grandfather at age 72 decided to run for mayor, I would say come on grandpa, that is ridiculous.. 

At 72 he still has quite a few years left, God willing.  AND, he has more experience than Obama will ever have.  He knows more about foreign policy, war, economy, everything than Obama will ever know.  Obama with 143 days experience?  He can't even talk without a teleprompter.

   You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
 
    You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of  experience of being a surgeon.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
 
    You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. 

Finally spoke up for the American people.  Only time will tell if it was soon enough.  I hope it was.  You showed us all that you care about us.  You showed us you don't believe in socialism (redistribution of wealth).  You validated our beliefs that you will fight for what is right for all Americans.  You pointed out Obama's unfortunate beliefs and the people he associates with, the health care system he plans to socialize, the increased taxes, the slick lawyer talk.  You reminded us that Biden was wrong in a lot of his votes and that most of the time Obama didn't even vote (called present).  You showed us that despite the many socialist liberals in the country Obama is not the right person for the job. 

I don't care what you look like John.  I don't care that you can't "slick talk" us all.  I don't care that you don't have a full head of hair and that you can't lift your arms above your head.  I don't care that you can't play basketball well and look impeccable in a suit.  What I do care about are your policies and your beliefs and how that will affect my life.  So you may not be the prettiest of the bunch, but I know that a lot of people who say they don't care that Obama is a black man and continue to point out that they are not racists, are the same bunch that will point out that your not nice looking like Obama is.

So knowing that you have the American people's best interest at heart, and you care more about the people than your campaign.  You fight to the end (and so does your running mate) for us because you believe it is the right thing to do.

That is why I am voting for you.

*Voted to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million American workers

*Voted to allow companies to cut and eliminate pensions for their long-term employees.

*Voted to weaken OSHA and workplace regulations designed to prevent injuries on the job.

* Voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R.800) 6/26/07.

*Voted for a National-Right-To-Work (for less) Act (S.1788) 7/10/96

*Voted to allow employers to hire permanent replacements during a strike (S.55) 7/13/94.

*Voted against granting collective bargaining rights for state and local police andfirefighters (H.R. 3061) 11/6/01.

*Voted against granting collective b argaining rights for TSA screeners (S.4) 3/7/07.

*Keating-5:  Federal regulators wanted to seize control of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan Association but McCain intervented to try to prevent that from happening.

*McCain claims he paid for the Keating for the flights to his private home in the Bahamas, but he conveniently could not produce the receipts.  Keating donated $112,000 to McCain's campaigns for the House and then the Senate.

*His current campaign for president is essentially run by lobbyists with close ties to big oil companies, Fannie Mae, UBS and Blackwater.  FedEx Corp, founder and CEO, Fred Smith is a close friend who Mccain views as a perfect candidate for U.S. Secretary of Defense.

*McCain voted to give tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas.  He voted against overtime pay, against Davis-Bacon protections and against extending unemployment insurance.

* "I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed," McCain said on Meet the Press onJune 15, 2005. "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement nad support of President Bush."

*McCain mirrors Bush in another important way:  his indifference to the plight of Americans who fall victim to disaster.  He voted twice against creating a commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina--and later he said he voted for every investigation into Katrina's aftermath.

*McCain is the staunchest advocate fo free trade in the U.S. Senate.  He voted for every disastrous free-trade agreement since NAFTA.  He strongly supports a trade deal with Colombia.  He's a leader in the effort to open the border to dangerous trucks from Mexico.

Just a note about Palin's Wasilla Police Department.  Their employees voted 29-9 to join the Teamsters Local 959 by a vote of 29-9.  The election was recently certified.

....................

How any serious middle class American worker can vote for this man is beyond me. 

I am referring to the following "post." 

McCain's body language just is not right.
McCain always comes across as poisonous, ready to explode. His eyes were almost popping out of his head.

His body language just is not right!

I guess your body language would not be right either if you had every bone broken in your body in a concentration camp as he has had every bone broken in his body.  I guess if his facial features and eyes are not to your liking, maybe you should be shut in a chamber and tortured and have every bone in your body broken.  Not only that, but pulled up on a rope and have your legs tied behind you and around your arms so that your ribs start cracking, and you are hung suspended like that.    I guess maybe your obama boy, smooth talking, prancing candidate could come and save you.... Maybe he could have a rally for you so Bruce can be there screeching "born in the USA, but love communism.  Yeh, maybe they could do that for you.

An American hero and you say things like that.  How sad for you.  How very sad.

Just something else to ponder. Is there a place for him in the admin? What is his special area of expertise?

I'm not thinking the cabinet, but just any position where he could do a good job?

He has a special tonight. It will be on too late for me to watch it, but he was on The View today and they questioned him on his views for MediCare and SS.

Now, for those young 'uns, I can see where he is coming from, but he made me furious. He thinks the elderly should fend for themselves because there won't be anything left by the time he's ready to retire. If they don't have savings, that's their problem, then they need to go to charities.

What he doesn't understand is that a lot of people of my generation and before did not have the money to save up like everyone can do now. We had families to raise on piddlin' little income and the same bills everyone has today...taxes, insurances, mortgages, car payments, etc. 

There were no IRAs. Sure, there were pensions, but if the company went belly up, so did the pension. All we had were savings accounts. There were a lot of other reasons we could not save a lot of money, but now he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to get MediCare and SS even though we paid into it for over 40-45 years?

This is where our country is headed? Where is the respect for hard workers? Just because we were told we could rely on SS by the government growing up, now what? That nitwit!

He's going to get a letter from me, that's for sure.

Interestingly, not only did this guy have an affair, but he had an affair with an employee of his.  During the time of the affair her salary doubled, and her 19-year-old son also managed to get on the payroll.  When the affair ended, her salary went back to the normal rate.  That little increase was paid for by you and me via tax dollars.

So, how do you guys feel about paying for his affair?  Isn't there a word for it when sexual favors are bought?  LOL. 

It has now been reported that he's coming clean about the affair because the girl he was having an affair with and her husband (also an employee) threatened blackmail.  But that was yesterday.  Now there is a new little twist.  See link.

    Friday 26 August 2005

Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.

    On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

    More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

    We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

    Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

    By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

    No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

    From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?

    For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.

    The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders

    Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

    The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.

    Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?

    It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.

    And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:

Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.

    Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.

    The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure

    It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)

    The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.

    But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?

    First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

    Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.

    As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

    Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does

    If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?

    Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.

    Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.

    This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.

    In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

    In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.

    Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.

    For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?

    If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.

    Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?

The Clintonites are now saying that John Edwards nomination is not that important.  (what???)

If that is true then why did she campaign so hard to try to get him to endorse her?  Why did she immediately after he dropped out of the race change her tone and try to mimick him.  You know for a fact if he endorsed her she would be making this out to be the greatest victory in America.

The fact is this IS an important endorsement.  As important as AL Gore's will be and as important as Bush's endorsement to the republicans.

She's just upset that it took away the limelight of her win in W.Virginia, which I believe was not as big as a win in Iowa, Washington State, Maine and other bigger states.  Now they said that because Obama didn't win WV there is no way he'll win the election in November?....yeah right.  Funny how they are completely missing all his big wins.  Of course they are trying to spin it as if all of his wins are not important...only the ones she won.  Brother give me a break!

The sooner she is out of the race the more I can breath a sigh of relief!