Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You just described John Kerry and Ted Kennedy!! LOLOL

Posted By: Ha ha on 2005-09-28
In Reply to: stop defending the rich - gt




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

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


Other related messages found in our database

Kerry and Kennedy rich, for sure - selfish, not.
Kennedy has stayed in public service for these many decades as has Kerry, when they could be doing something else. But instead of spending their time in Congress creating new ways to make themselves richer and thinking up new ways to take over the country and bully all opposition into fascist submission, they actually serve their constituents and take a stand against the rampant Republican pilfering and self-serving crony capitalism. It's that old noblesse oblige thing that old money has, you know? - totally and conspicuously absent in the peon Republican gamebook.
John Kerry...sm
He was coined a flip flopper in the 04 election, but he has been saying the same thing ever since and it is making more and more sense every day.


Do you think these guys would be crying for John Kerry's daughters to go if he had won?
Somehow, I seriously doubt it. 
Form email from John Kerry and my reply

...and my response.  (Warning:  It's lengthy.)


This is our moment of truth. You and I have to make it absolutely clear that we won't stand for Republican Swift Boat style attacks on Jack Murtha.

Yesterday, an extraordinary congressman, former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on the war in Iraq. He didn't come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. No sooner had the words left his lips than the vicious assault on his character and patriotism began.

Today, in a statement on the Senate floor, in interviews with the national media, and in this message to you, I am seeking out every opportunity to defend a brave American hero that the Republican attack machine has set their sights on.

I urge you to do the same. Whether you agree or disagree with Jack Murtha is irrelevant. These despicable attacks on Jack Murtha's patriotism and courage must be met with an enormous public outcry. Call your local talk radio show, write a letter to the editor, phone your members of Congress - join me in acting now to reject these Swift Boat style attacks on Jack Murtha.

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience.
Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha's courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President for once should stop his allies from doing to Jack Murtha what he set them loose to do to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia.

The President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It's time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it's unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

I urge you to join today in a massive public outcry that rejects the attempt to demonize and destroy anyone who dares to disagree with George W. Bush's aimless stay for as long as it takes policy on Iraq.

Please act now. Call and email your elected officials. Flood talk radio with calls rejecting these vicious smear tactics. Send a letter to the editor.

Express your outrage about the tired old Rovian Swift Boat style attacks on Jack Murtha.

Sincerely,
John Kerry

MY REPLY:

Dear Senator Kerry:

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote, and I have been posting my views on political message boards, as well as emailing Duncan Hunter, and I've written a four-page letter to Congressman Murtha himself.

Now I must address YOUR response to the attacks on Congressman Murtha.

I thank you for your defense of him; however, I felt it was very, VERY weak. (By the way, please pass this on to Senators Clinton and Reid so they might get a clue into what makes the majority of Americans tick).

For years now, Democrats, including yourself, have openly expressed their opposition to the Iraq war, but you haven't had one single idea to fix the problem, and when asked WHY you voted for it (before you voted against it), you all give some lame, limp, meaningless excuse.

NOW is the time to aggressively defend Congressman Murtha and his plan for leaving Iraq. Bush HAS NO PLAN. MURTHA DOES. It's really quite a simple concept.

Although I'm beginning to lose patience with you all, let's regroup and start over. Today is the first day of the rest of our lives.

I realize that most of you fell down on the job and didn't really scrutinize the Bush intelligence (this term is found in the dictionary under oxymoron and/or just plain old moron).

You were probably busy and didn't have time to read thousands of pages of documents. That's understandable. What's even more understandable is that as President of the United States, there's a preconceived notion that this person is, in fact, ethical and honorable. We now know that is not the case. We now know that he possibly took America to war on the blood of thousands of 9/11 victims simply to insure a successful Presidency. NOW is the time to admit that you, as well as every intelligent, thinking American and the entire WORLD, were FOOLED by this man because he was so blatant and aggressive in his pursuit of this war, it simply never occurred to any of you that you were dealing with a man who planned on attacking Iraq before he was even (s)elected President. (See
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20...went_to_war.php,)

NOW is the time to expose the true character and motives of this prior alcoholic who never received professional help for his addiction. He comes across as a simple man because he IS a simple man, in every sense of the word. His simplicity extends to the largest deficit in American history, and his tactics remind me of a teenager who recklessly maxes out Daddy's credit card because he has no responsibility for the bill, given that Daddy will pay it.

NOW is the time to embrace Congressman Murtha's plan, since it DOES make sense, reflects an actual THOUGHT PROCESS taking place, and is the thing that most Americans want. This man is not some 5-deferment draft dodger or Air National Guard absentee. He's a decorated Purple Heart recipient, who has devoted his entire life to helping the military and veterans.

NOW is the time to reveal an administration who would place the lives of a CIA agent in jeopardy and with everyone who ever worked with her, simply because her husband exposed the TRUTH.

NOW is the time to reveal the administration's press secretary's Plamerizing of John Murtha. NOW is the time to acknowledge that you truly have connected the dots, and the picture of a lying, unethical administration has emerged. If you do this NOW, most forward-thinking Americans will probably forgive you for now just catching up with everything they've known for months.

NOW is the time to publicly condemn Friday's histrionics of the House of Representatives. I, as a taxpayer, resent having to pay for that crap.

Sadly, you've pretty much already proven that you don't have many original ideas. NOW is the time to attach yourselves to John Murtha's coattails and hang on for dear life.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, you're up against an administration who will stop at NOTHING to transform this country into a theoracy, who will brag about the impending freedom for all Iraqis, while simultaneously slowly removing the freedoms of Americans, as his narrow-minded base pursues control over every single American regarding when we're born, who we love, which God we're allowed to worship, and when and how we die.

NOW is the time to expose the evangelical recruitment taking place in the Air Force in Colorado and the accompanying ridicule and persecution of soldiers who have different religious beliefs.

NOW is the time (albeit it four years LATE) to prove you care about the safety of Americans and aggressively pursue the security of our borders so that al Qaeda members cannot come into America from Mexico and KILL US.

Above all else, NOW IS THE TIME to reveal this President as the one who is truly aiding and abetting the enemy by providing them free, complimentary OTJ training in Iraq where they can hone their craft while killing our American soldiers.

NOW is the time to STOP being quiet and milquetoasty and to aggressively pursue this Administration's lies (I know they're numerous, ongoing, and difficult to keep track of) and reveal them for what they truly are.

MOST OF ALL, NOW is the time to honestly express what Congressman Murtha REALLY said when he outlined his plan to leave Iraq. It was a very thoughtful, sensible plan, and the fact that administration henchmen are maliciously mischaracterizing it should be revealed and aggressively FOUGHT.

If you truly foresee a future for your party, NOW is the time to embrace and advertise something the Administration doesn't have: A PLAN for Iraq. Although you might be able to win some elections by simply being the least worst party, is that really the future you envision for the Democratic party?

The ball is in your court. Don't let this one get away.... again.

Americans are losing patience.


 


 


Anyone catch John Kerry's speech last night?

Scathing against McCain.  Fabulous speech.  He echoed some of my thoughts on McCain, about how much he has changed to pander to the base and get the nomination.  Here is a snippet:


 


Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.


 


I'm a left-leaning independent who thought I may vote Republican this time around if McCain ran.  Well, he did, and as time went on I could see how much he has changed his positions to pander to the far right and I have lost most of my respect for him.  I'll give him credit for being a veteran and a POW (a point that while it was once a powerful emotional point for him is now abused by him as an excuse for just about everything is sadly becoming a joke of his own making), but candidate McCain is NOT the same as Senator John McCain.  Anyway, great speech by Sen. Kerry.


Bill Clinton believed it, so did Hillary and so did John Kerry.
So did a great many in the congress else they would not have said so! How is it possible that you have such selective memory?  I wish I could do that.
lolol........
at least you two cleaned up your act tonight. Thanks a bunch and thanks for the laugh.
lolol....obviously you think you do....lolol....
I know I'm not ignorant, and I could care less what your opinion is of me.

Such a shame you haven't had sam around enough lately to glom on and try to trample her down, even though you've tried to with Chele the last few days.

You now try to do it to me, when I post very rarely. You simply pick who you interpret is a "pub" person and you spiral down from there.


Have fun...I'm sure you'll think of another clever comeback, but go ahead.....if it floats your boat...go for it.

It only makes you look bad. Not me.


John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly....
improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment." Interesting that 4 of the 5 were Democrats. Still..John McCain has publically said he was sorry for his part in it, that he was wrong in what he did and has apologized for it. Like I said before, I respect that. Everyone makes mistakes. No everyone is man enough to own up to them and not hide behind Nancy Pelosi and the DNC like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are doing. Now THERE is a pair to draw to.
LOLOL!!!! Like this board is a fount of information!

like we would have been better off with Kerry nm
x
No better than Ted Kennedy is getting
.
Kerry would win if election was now
E-MailPrintable

Poll: Kerry Would Top Bush Today

NEW YORK, Nov. 5, 2005










President Bush delivers his speech after being sworn into office for a second term, as Sen. John Kerry looks on, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 22, 2005. (AP)



(CBS) If last year’s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn’t vote at all.




IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters)


John Kerry
41%
George W. Bush
36%
Someone else
13%
Not vote
6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn’t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won’t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn’t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY…
(Registered Voters)


In 2004, voted for: Kerry
John Kerry
81%
George W. Bush
-
Someone else
13%
Not vote
4%

In 2004, voted for: Bush
John Kerry
3%
George W. Bush
84%
Someone else
7%
Not vote
3%

In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote
John Kerry
34%
George W. Bush
11%
Someone else
23%
Not vote
16%



For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.


This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.

Is Ted Kennedy in charge..
of how many evacuees his state takes in?  I guess I didn't realize that!  Could you explain that further?
kennedy does not give?
Does not put his money where his mouth is?  Do you have an inside as to how he spends and donates his money?  I dont but I would suspect coming from the Kennedy family that he donates pretty significantly to situations that need it..If you dont know for sure, then I would suggest you not post derogatory posts about the Kennedy family..if you do know for sure, post the information here, just dont rant and rave without proof..Thanks!
sorry, I meant Gore, not Kerry....(nm)
nm
Try and keep up, gt. Robert Kennedy Jr is saying Bush and the sm
governor of Mississippi caused the hurricaine.  Yes, he actually said that. No surprise here as the liberals have become the party of blame blame blame and take no responsibility. 
I just heard Ted Kennedy's state
took 100 displaced persons today.  Does he have enough room?
Kennedy wasn't treated like this
This adoration is on a whole different level. And he's only human, who wouldn't have their head turned by all this devotion? If he turns into some kind of egomaniac, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

And I agree with the other posters about his snooty wife. I'm sure she'll be right there, telling him he's all that, and more.


Where are your *facts* please. Kerry has more mansions and holdings by himself
than Bush and Cheney have combined.  Cheney hasn't BEEN with Halliburton in years. I know it will probably take a lobotomy to get that connection out of your mind, but it's so.  Please try and get YOUR facts straight.
Your forgetting B. Franks, J. Kerry, N. Pelosi and
all the others in the senate who voted for it. You should listen to that youtube economic expert talking in the post Economics I can understand. He was right on.
You forgot to mention FDR, Kennedy and Eisenhower, to name a few...
....who had their own sleazy affairs to hide.  What is the obsession with Clinton?
Derogatory remarks about the Kennedy family.
Oh you mean like the fact that Joseph Kennedy thought Hitler was a great man.  That fact?  Or that he made much of his money bootlegging.  That fact?  Or maybe that Ted killed a young woman and was never prosecuted. That fact?  Okay.  I got it now. 
Why did the Kennedy's have ties to organized crime?

Why was the Texas Democratic party of Lyndon Johnson horribly corrupt?


Why was Lyndon Johnson's election to the senate in 1948 won by massive voter fraud?


Why did Lyndon Johnson insert language into the IRS code in 1954 that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, this thoroughly corrupt man used the power of the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Why?  His disservice to religious freedom has yet to be undone.  Why?


How did Kennedy defeat Nixon in Illinois? 


Just rhetorical questions.


 


This article explains Sen. Kennedy's Plan

Here's part of the article I was thinking of:


(Page 1) "Senate Democrats, led by Edward M. Kennedy , are developing health care overhaul legislation that would require most Americans to have insurance and most employers to help pay for it (my emphasis) and would also require insurers to provide a basic level of coverage and limit their profits..."


(Page 2) "Kennedy’s bill includes mandates for individuals, requiring them to be insured, and for employers, requiring them to provide insurance to their employees or help pay for it — a policy known as “pay or play.” Both individuals and employers would be subject to penalties if they do not comply, but the exact amounts are blank in the bill text obtained by CQ. The penalties for employers would be tied to inflation...."


Read the whole thing here:


http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003136450


They can't even combined touch Kerry's wealth. Get real.
on your own bad self.
Lol, tell that to the Kennedy's and Bill Gates. Gimme a break. nm

Reality: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy,
Truman, Nixon x2, Ford x2, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton x2, Wx3....all targets of assassination, 4 successful....not to mention RFK, MLK, Medgar Evers, etc.

Assassinations happen. I have seen 17 of them in my own lifetime. Of the 17, at least 8 of them were directly related to hate speech. What is REALLY frustrating is to witness the same tired cycle play itself out over and over and over again and have people attempt to extract the hate speech out of the equation. Intentional or not, it was there during this campaign out of the mouths of McCain and Palin, their campaign staff and their followers. To deny this is insane and indicates to me that the value of human life for some is very tenuous and equivocal.
and "the polls" said Kerry was winning on election night
but you probably still think those polls were correct, so I just wasted my breath.
geez. Teddy Kennedy left a woman to drown....
walked off from the scene of an accident where a death occurred....and we all know he has had his problems over the years while drunk. His son had substance abuse problems. If you Google senators and reps who have had DWIs no telling what you would find. The man is probably going to release everything up to and including the last time their dog burped to keep you vultures from digging it up and feasting on it. Sheesh. Why not heed your candidate's statement and stop already? lol
Really..John Roberts?
Roberts Disparaged States' Sex-Bias Fight



By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 27 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts disparaged state efforts to combat discrimination against women in Reagan-era documents made public Thursday, and wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts


John Edwards as VP?
thoughts?
not even john's first choice

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.

So the man McSame thought would make the best vice president was vetoed by his fundie base. And he caved.

But he's very Mavericky!




I was always one that said if John McCain ran...sm
I could definitely vote for him.  He has so disappointed me during this presidential election.  He seemed to have abandoned all his maverickness and has been pandering to the right wing republicans when he is really a moderate.  Today, for the first time in a long time, I see that he is being a maverick again and saying, wait, not so fast, it should not be so easy with no oversight, CEOs should not be making millions when their companies are going under. A very confusing time.
John McCain
nm
Go John McCain!!!!
I heard some other stuff that went down in that room, but since the source would be bashed on this board, I'm not saying until it shows up in the media somewhere else.

I doubt it will, though, as McCain and the republicans are too much the gentlmen, to say what actually went on, and what was said by whom at times.



John McCain

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.. 


 


John McCain

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. 




 



But



'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.  




 



After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be



Commander In Chief, Leader of the  Free World .... 143 days.

We all have to start somewhere. The Senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a  start.

AND, strangely, a large sector of the American  public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the President of the United States of America?  




 



Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!


It's like John Q. Public. Another way of saying...
average American.
John McCain was a
.
Way to go John - Good job!

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.


Just a little about John McCain

*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. 


To John McCain:
Hey Johnny, where was Joe today?  Pretty funny thing when you're holding a rally and call your little campaign mascot up there with you, and he's not even there!  Sucks to be stood up in front of all those people!!  I guess his newfound fame is more important!  LOL  Now that's loyalty.
And you believe John McCain?
Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions but I would hope that we would all base our opinions on FACTS without preconceived prejudices.
John McCain

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.


 


Where does John Mccain Fit In

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?


John Stossel-What do you think about him?

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.


More on Sen. John Ensign ....(sm)

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.


 


Exactly!. What about someone like gool ole John
nm
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
    By John W. Dean
    FindLaw.com

    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?




    John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Add John Edwards to the list...
he voted to send the troops too. But let's be honest about this...Bush in and of himself did not send troops. Congress did. Did Clinton have blood on his hands for the American soldiers who died in Kosovo or died in Somalia? How about the one they dragged bhind a jeep in Somalia? Is his blood on Clinton's hands? Clinton was in office when my husband was sent to Somalia. What was that blood for? Where were you when that was happening? Were you on this board panning Clinton? Or do you have to have a certain number of bodies before you get angry? When I saw that man being dragged behind a Jeep while people cheered, you bet your life I got angry!! I got mad as he**. But I didn't get mad at Bill Clinton...I got mad at the AL Qaeda funded terrorists who were doing it. I was not then and am not now a fan of Bill Clinton's, but I did have the objectivity to see that Bill Clinton was not directly responsible for what was happening. However, his decision to pull out of Somalia pre-emptively is one of the reasons we are having to fight Al Qaeda yet again in Iraq...we should have crushed them there when we had the chance. Just like he should have taken bin Laden when the Sudan offered him...before 9-11. But, we cannot turn back time. Although the ability of liberals to erase/ignore certain things from one person and highlight them in another boggles my mind!

And...where may I ask is all that oil that we went to war for? Sorry, but that is a goofy statement. If we had gone after oil we would be protecting the oil fields and trying to get them producing oil again...RIGHT? I don't see how anyone, no matter how much they hate George Bush...can buy that theory. I mean no offense by that. I do not agree with a lot of things George Bush is for; however, I do agree with taking the fight to them to discourage them from bringing the fight to us. I would prefer not to see a car bombing or suicide bombing on the evening news somewhere in the US every day. I would prefer not to see school bombings. I would prefer not to see a dirty bomb exploded in NY or LA. And taking the fight to them, I believe, is what is helping keep them from doing those very things. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that there are people out there who hate us and our way of life and have made it their goal in life to turn us to their way or destroy us. Either or. No in between. And even 9-11 cannot convince some of you. What will take..? I shudder to think.