Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus case...sm

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

The thought of a man who is supposedly an activist for the black community and here he is calling an African American man the N-word.......just shows how big of a detriment he is to the black community. Good thing he supports Obama. I'd hate to see what he would say about him if he wasn't supporting him....Sheesh. What a load of crap! I don't want Obama for pres, but I still think the comments Jackson has made are highly offensive. If I were Obama, I wouldn't want Jackson's backing. In fact, I would denounce him and state that I could not accept the backing of a man who finds it acceptable to call any African American the N-word. If any white person had called Jackson the N-word......oh my gosh.....would the poop hit the fan then.

I'm white and I find the N-word offensive. I don't like to hear white people saying it and I don't like to hear black people saying it either. I've never understood why black people find this word so offensive unless another black person is the one saying it. It is offensive whoever says it.

I find the behavior of Jesse Jackson apalling yet predictable; he has time and time again put his foot in his mouth, more than enough to cause his son to state that his father's comments were inappropriate. He is not the first nor I am sure he will be the last individual to make remarks such as this recent one - whether the mike was 'hot' or not did not merit such a statement.

As for the statements made regarding Obama's view regarding black fathers not stepping up to the plate and taking care of their children, I almost find that as apalling as the statement Mr. Jackson made about him. There are many black men who are active in their children's lives whether they are with the child's mother or not; I know of many men (black or otherwise) who are single parents and take care of their families. It is a constant insult to the black community as being the only community who have 'problems', because they tend to 'hide' from them is bull. The media is so fixated on portraying the black community negatively that many outside of it have bought into the stereotype and hold on to it for various reasons.

Bill Cosby? Pleeze!! How can he comment on anyone's morals when it is a well-known fact that he had a very long-term relationship with another woman who was not his wife, provided for a daughter who he says was not 'his' yet can wag his finger at anyone?...Jesse Jackson is no better, he also was involved with another woman who had his daughter to the embarassment and hurt of his wife and children??

I won't even speak on the self-serving comment that "understand I am not prejudiced against black people" that the original poster stated...that kinda speaks for itself...

Thank you for your comment...everyone here is entitled to their opinion and I definitely respect this; however as I stated before and will again - it is my belief that the media continually portrays black people in a negative manner and yes, many outside of the black community if not overtly; subconsciously hold onto that because it makes them feel better ('I'm glad I'm not like THAT'), and it saddens me. PEOPLE are PEOPLE period - this is the way I was brought up and I am glad I had parents who taught me this.

Check thsi out..I hope it works, if not check out Crooks and Liars website and watch it there. People are asked which country we should bomb next and they actually name other countries!! And their knowledge of geography is frightening. If I was asked..what country should be bomb and invade next I would say NONE, LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! Amazing.

A true American hero, a former SEAL who underwent controlled waterboarding as part of his training, OWNED Fox and Friends. Well done, Governor, but I doubt you will be invited back on Fox in the immediate future.

... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.

Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.

Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough.

we get? I mean really. Do you think that this was the only threat that we have ever had and we ignored it? As for what Bush did after 9/11....I think he was 100% right bombing Afghanistan. However, I don't totally agree with going into Iraq.

I just think that if we were attacked that McCain would be the one to hit them back instead of Obama....now now....don't do that Osama Bin Laden....that isn't nice....can't we talk about this.

I realize I'll get bomb-throwers, but I could care less. I will probably just ignore it. These people are literally drunk on Kool-Aid!There are other forums for overall conservative thinkers. If you go to activitypit.com, it's for RedEye fans (like me). The show itself is very funny in my opinion. Of course, they do have some libs on there, but they don't behave anywhere near like these people. I've become very good friends with a couple people from there. I found out one of them lives in the same city as me. Talk about a small world! Here are a couple links from RedEye's Activity Pit:

Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,

The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.

Here are some others: breitbart.com, http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/, townhall.com,

The other friend, who lives in a very liberal state, was thrilled that she and her husband met ONE conservative couple.

WASHINGTON � Threats against a new president historically spike right after an election, but from Maine to Idaho law enforcement officials are seeing more against Barack Obama than ever before. The Secret Service would not comment or provide the number of cases they are investigating. But since the Nov. 4 election, law enforcement officials have seen more potentially threatening writings, Internet postings and other activity directed at Obama than has been seen with any past president-elect, said officials aware of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the issue of a president's security is so sensitive.

Earlier this week, the Secret Service looked into the case of a sign posted on a tree in Vay, Idaho, with Obama's name and the offer of a "free public hanging." In North Carolina, civil rights officials complained of threatening racist graffiti targeting Obama found in a tunnel near the North Carolina State University campus.

And in a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin. The sign solicited $1 entries into "The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool," saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. "Let's hope we have a winner," said the sign, since taken down.

In the security world, anything "new" can trigger hostility, said Joseph Funk, a former Secret Service agent-turned security consultant who oversaw a private protection detail for Obama before the Secret Service began guarding the candidate in early 2007.

Obama, of course, will be the country's first black president, and Funk said that new element, not just race itself, is probably responsible for a spike in anti-Obama postings and activity. "Anytime you're going to have something that's new, you're going to have increased chatter," he said.

The Secret Service also has cautioned the public not to assume that any threats against Obama are due to racism.

The service investigates threats in a wide range. There are "stated threats" and equally dangerous or lesser incidents considered of "unusual interest" � such as people motivated by obsessions or infatuations or lower-level gestures such as effigies of a candidate or an elected president. The service has said it does not have the luxury of discounting anything until agents have investigated the potential danger.

Racially tinged graffiti � not necessarily directed at Obama � also has emerged in numerous reports across the nation since Election Day, prompting at least one news conference by a local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Georgia.

A law enforcement official who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly said that during the campaign there was a spike in anti-Obama rhetoric on the Internet � "a lot of ranting and raving with no capability, credibility or specificity to it."

� In Denver, a group of men with guns and bulletproof vests made racist threats against Obama and sparked fears of an assassination plot during the Democratic National Convention in August.

� Just before the election, two skinheads in Tennessee were charged with plotting to behead blacks across the country and assassinate Obama while wearing white top hats and tuxedos.

In both cases, authorities determined the men were not capable of carrying out their plots.

In Milwaukee, police officials found a poster of Obama with a bullet going toward his head � discovered on a table in a police station.

Chatter among white supremacists on the Internet has increased throughout the campaign and since Election Day.

One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed."

It is not surprising that a black president would galvanize the white supremacist movement, said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who studies the white supremacy movement.

"The overwhelming flavor of the white supremacist world is a mix of desperation, confusion and hoping that this will somehow turn into a good thing for them," Potok said. He said hate groups have been on the rise in the past seven years because of a common concern about immigration.

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington and Jerry Harkavy in Standish, Maine contributed to this report.

Bush only needs one more appointment to basically stack the Supreme Court in his favor for decades to come, long after he is gone. Wouldn't surprise me if good ol' Pat Robertson starts *praying* for another vacancy on the Court (like he did before Rehnquist died), followed by the *mysterious* death of one of the more liberal judges. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Today, I read this. The entire article can be found at http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060315163009990004), but here is a paragraph from it:

According to Ginsburg, someone in a Web site chat room wrote: Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.

I'm saddened but not at all surprised. This just illustrates how deranged and dangerous these people truly are. Pat Robertson must be praying really REALLY hard.

(Almost five years after 9/11, just how committed is Bush to keeping Americans safe?)

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press WriterFri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course, Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security, the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using, Sabo said.

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

I don't have any criticisms of anyone, said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength.

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans-Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years, he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors � already in most American airports � to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

A 2002 Homeland report recommended immediate deployment of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions.

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

It is not that expensive, said Fainberg, who retired recently. There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it.

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by bureaucratic games, a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy, he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats, he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.

___

Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to this story.

If you are looking at the primary turnouts, record numbers are turning out on the Democrat side, and on the Republican side fewer are turning out than did in 2004 and 2000, and if that trend continues it bodes well for whatever Democratic candidate ultimately gets the nomination. Also, should that candidate be Hillary Clinton, what candidate on the Republican side is, for lack of a better word, sweeping the voters off their feet, whether with agenda or personality? McCain? Huckabee? Romney?, which one?

Actually, the only two candidates that I think have the qualities of real zeal and enthusiasm are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, Obama may or may not, and if not, if the Democrat turnouts remain high, and in general the country truly wanting a different direction, they are going to elect a Democrat this time, and if it is Clinton she will be elected, even if she has no more zeal or charisma than Huckabee, McCain or Romney.

then wouldn't the same be true for alcohol? Most people who drink don't make their own alcohol. As far as addiction goes, we'll just have to disagree on that one. There are studies on both sides, and they are a dime a dozen. However, I have tried it, and as Obama said -- yes I inhaled because that was the point. Did I form an addiction? No. As for new people trying it, well, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone between the ages of 12 and 65 who could honestly say they haven't already tried it.

My daughter is now 24 -- about the age when they start telling you about things they did as teenagers....LOL. I don't know if you have kids or what age they might be, but when they get to that age and if they can openly communicate with you, you might be surprised at what you will find out. No, I'm not saying that your kids would automatically fall into that category, but most do.

One case scenario that happens regarding employed people getting health insurance through their employers is this. Unfortunately recessions happen. A covered person is laid off. Yes, they can continue coverage through COBRA. Some recessions are long lasting, the laid off person cannot find employment for months or longer. The bills meanwhile are racking up, if there are any savings it not so slowly gets eaten up, and the COBRA coverage is not cheap, to the tune of $600.00 a month or more. That person may very well want to hold onto their coverage but simply cannot. They have to drop the coverage. Hopefully this person eventually is able to get another job that also has health insurance benefits. They then have to go through another pre-existing condition waiting period as they had to drop their insurance and therefore lost their continuous coverage provision. Maybe that person falls seriously ill during that period with some pre-existing condition, and ...financially ruined for the rest of their life as a result..through no fault of their own.

Yes, there are people who are able to afford health insurance but have a devil may care attitude...until they become ill, but there are many other scenarios that are occurring as well, and occurring more frequently.

Another problem is due to the high cost of health insurance fewer and fewer employers are even offering benefits, which leaves working people to attempt to secure individual policies, and in that market anyone can be denied coverage. It does not even have to be a "major" health condition. Heath insurance companies can, and do, deny people coverage due to "run of the mill" problems such as a little hypothyroidism, or that they broke a few bones as a kid while growing up.